Avatar Superthread

26-12-2009 11:48PM

irish_bob wrote: »

saw the movie today , 1st time to ever watch a 3D movie and it will most certainly be the last , dont like the concept , gave me a headache which i still have , warning to anyone who is prone to headaches , if you take off the glasses at a 3D movie , its even worse , blurrey , you simply have to put the glasses back on

I suffer from dreadful migraines which often leave me in a corner wishing for death but I've never had a problem with 3D films. In fact you are the first person I have came across who has gotten a headache from the film.

irish_bob · 27-12-2009 12:02AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I suffer from dreadful migraines which often leave me in a corner wishing for death but I've never had a problem with 3D films. In fact you are the first person I have came across who has gotten a headache from the film.

im a strange duck i am

gorgerous movie to look at but overall , no classic , that said , will probabley go to see it again in the next week , in 2D

Kiith · 27-12-2009 12:28AM

Hang on...people are criticizing the 3d in the film?

Greyfox · 27-12-2009 01:12AM

I thought it was absolutely amazing and it definitely lived up to the hype, I firmly believed it was no longer possible for me to be walking out of a cinema saying WOW, I'm going to see this again tomorrow!

I think if people weren't impressed with the special effects and how beautifull Pandora was then it's no longer possible to impresses these people

What Cameron does brilliantly is he REALLY makes you care about the Navi as their home is getting destroyed by a far superior force, and as usual Cameron proves theirs one thing he does absolutely superbly, and that's action!

The 2d/3d debate is pointless, it's a little better in 3d but the whole 3d thing is just a gimmick anyway. Check out the reviews for this film, it's the best film I've seen in 5 or 6 years, and I've seen a lot of films in that time!

irish_bob · 27-12-2009 09:17PM

Greyfox wrote: »

I thought it was absolutely amazing and it definitely lived up to the hype, I firmly believed it was no longer possible for me to be walking out of a cinema saying WOW, I'm going to see this again tomorrow!

I think if people weren't impressed with the special effects and how beautifull Pandora was then it's no longer possible to impresses these people

What Cameron does brilliantly is he REALLY makes you care about the Navi as their home is getting destroyed by a far superior force, and as usual Cameron proves theirs one thing he does absolutely superbly, and that's action!

The 2d/3d debate is pointless, it's a little better in 3d but the whole 3d thing is just a gimmick anyway. Check out the reviews for this film, it's the best film I've seen in 5 or 6 years, and I've seen a lot of films in that time!

i watch plently of movies but dont go to the cinema very often , theese are the list of movies ive watched since 2005 at the cinema

king kong
casino royale
the dark knight

i perfer all theese movies to avatar

qwertplaywert · 27-12-2009 10:18PM

I don't get the hate for the storytelling; It ain't by any means Kaufman standard writing, but I felt, even without the outstanding visuals etc, it still would have stood up on its own merits as a good movie.

On an unrelated note, 600 million plus worldwide after 10 days! Gotta admit, didn't expect it to do this well.

KerranJast · 27-12-2009 11:43PM

qwertplaywert wrote: »

I don't get the hate for the storytelling; It ain't by any means Kaufman standard writing, but I felt, even without the outstanding visuals etc, it still would have stood up on its own merits as a good movie.

On an unrelated note, 600 million plus worldwide after 10 days! Gotta admit, didn't expect it to do this well.

There's massive backlogs for IMAX and 3D showings in the States by all account. It could edge towards the $1B mark even without DVD and other media sales which usually account for ~ 60% of a films margin.

Fysh · 28-12-2009 01:05AM

qwertplaywert wrote: »

I don't get the hate for the storytelling; It ain't by any means Kaufman standard writing, but I felt, even without the outstanding visuals etc, it still would have stood up on its own merits as a good movie.

Visuals aside it may as well be a cut'n'paste job of a half a dozen other films. So far so good. But unlike even other James Cameron films, it lacked the flair necessary to let viewers overlook that. The lack of anything even remotely like decent dialogue or nuanced characterisation just compounded this issue. It may as well have had its script labelled "Hollywood Template", that's how closely it followed the conventions for big-budget blockbusters.

Valmont · 28-12-2009 01:37AM

I got Avatar in a game of charades last night. Where do you even start?

28-12-2009 01:57AM

Valmont wrote: »

I got Avatar in a game of charades last night. Where do you even start?

Hold your breath till you turn blue perhaps.

Theta · 28-12-2009 02:44AM

I enjoyed it....... Until I saw they had put war paint on the ship Michelle Rodriguez was in then I was like I'm off.

Saw both 2D and 3D and I have to say the 3D did nothing for the movie.

28-12-2009 02:45AM

Theta wrote: »

I enjoyed it....... Until I saw they had put war paint on the ship Michelle Rodriguez was in then I was like I'm off.

Saw both 2D and 3D and I have to say the 3D did nothing for the movie.

How else were they to tell the difference between her copter and the dozens of others which were involved in the attack?

vinylbomb · 28-12-2009 02:55AM

Deleted User wrote: »

How else were they to tell the difference between her copter and the dozens of others which were involved in the attack?

Cos she wasnt shooting at them?

I cannot believe the amount of people saying its the best storyline they have seen in X amount of years. Like, honestly?
This thing will win Oscars for sure - and not one of them will be in the acting or scripting departments

28-12-2009 03:03AM

vinylbomb wrote: »

Cos she wasnt shooting at them?

I cannot believe the amount of people saying its the best storyline they have seen in X amount of years. Like, honestly?
This thing will win Oscars for sure - and not one of them will be in the acting or scripting departments

There were instances in the film in which attack copters were attacked before they opened fire meaning that had he copter look exactly the same as every other one there's a good chance she would have been taken out by friendly fire.

No one is saying it's a great story but at the same time when watching the film it's hard not to be sucked in by it and ignore any complaints. Enjoy the film for what it is and don't go looking for something that isn't there and you'll enjoy the film immensely.

L31mr0d · 28-12-2009 03:11AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Hold your breath till you turn blue perhaps.

Well I know that is meant to change your skin blue like the Na'vi but holding your breath would of been my first guess but for a different reason, mainly to imitate the colonel when he

took a deep breath, kicked in the door and ran out and started shooting at the heli.

Anyone whos seen the film should recognise that.

Gonzales · 28-12-2009 04:10AM

I hav'nt read any posts above for fear of spoiling, but I'm going to see this tonight in 3D & looking forward to it.

vinylbomb · 28-12-2009 06:20AM

Deleted User wrote: »

There were instances in the film in which attack copters were attacked before they opened fire meaning that had he copter look exactly the same as every other one there's a good chance she would have been taken out by friendly fire.

I also cant believe I am debating the authenticity of scenes in one of the silliest movies of all time

28-12-2009 07:25AM

vinylbomb wrote: »

I also cant believe I am debating the authenticity of scenes in one of the silliest movies of all time

I think even the most blatant detractors of the movie in this thread will agree that that last part of your post deserves a :rolleyes:

opinion guy · 28-12-2009 11:21AM

KerranJast wrote: »

There's massive backlogs for IMAX and 3D showings in the States by all account. It could edge towards the $1B mark even without DVD and other media sales which usually account for ~ 60% of a films margin.

I don't think the DVD will do as well thou. I mean its one of those ones you jus thave to see on the big screen. I plan on seeing it again at the cinema - but doubt i would watch it on TV (at least I wouldn't buy the dvd). Now before anyonse says it - don't go assuming this means its not a good film and all special effect. Truth is I rarely watch any film more than once so if i see them in the cinema would not watch them on tv in general - good or bad.

Fysh wrote: »

Visuals aside it may as well be a cut'n'paste job of a half a dozen other films. So far so good. But unlike even other James Cameron films, it lacked the flair necessary to let viewers overlook that. The lack of anything even remotely like decent dialogue or nuanced characterisation just compounded this issue. It may as well have had its script labelled "Hollywood Template", that's how closely it followed the conventions for big-budget blockbusters.

Clearly, you have not seen Titanic!

vinylbomb wrote: »

Cos she wasnt shooting at them?

I cannot believe the amount of people saying its the best storyline they have seen in X amount of years. Like, honestly?
This thing will win Oscars for sure - and not one of them will be in the acting or scripting departments

Well I have to say I thought the main blue chick's acting was great - and given that its all motion capture then Zoe Saldana did a fantastic job.

nix · 28-12-2009 11:28AM

opinion guy wrote: »

I don't think the DVD will do as well thou. I mean its one of those ones you jus thave to see on the big screen. I plan on seeing it again at the cinema - but doubt i would watch it on TV (at least I wouldn't buy the dvd).

I wont be getting it on DvD either, ill be getting it on blu-ray and it will be amazing.

I went over to london to see this movie on an imax screen and it was thee best cinema experience ever. i loved everything about it. Sure the story might not be the best, but you fail to understand its a film for all ages. You cant put a mind boggling/intricate story in as then not everybody could follow.

Fook transformers, fook T4, this is the **** and I can't wait to see it again!

Driver 8 · 28-12-2009 11:33AM

Personally, the pervasive attitude I keep seeing of "who cares if the story's sub-standard/derivative/poorly written-look at the visuals!" baffles me. I mean, should we apply that to the Star Wars prequels too?

Maybe I'm crazy, but I thought story was a pretty big component in how good a film is. I'm fully aware of how good Avatar looks, especially in 3D, but that doesn't outweigh or even balance out how shallow, unoriginal or predictable the story was, how two dimensional the characters were, or how clunky the script was.

vinylbomb · 28-12-2009 11:36AM

opinion guy wrote: »

Clearly, you have not seen Titanic!

Intrinsic to Titanic's success was human empathy to the core characters. The script may have been off, but the pacing and characterization were solid.
It may have some elements of blockbuster in there, but it had strength in other areas (decent enough acting as well as the two mentioned above)

Avatar feels like the plot is there to facilitate the visual immersion, not complement it. It takes all the most generic elements of "blockbuster" to tie in as many potential viewer hooks as possible.

28-12-2009 11:38AM

Driver 8 wrote: »

Maybe I'm crazy, but I thought story was a pretty big component in how good a film is. I'm fully aware of how good Avatar looks, especially in 3D, but that doesn't outweigh or even balance out how shallow, unoriginal or predictable the story was, how two dimensional the characters were, or how clunky the script was.

You mean like how the original Star Wars had a shallow, unoriginal and predictable story. How it also had two dimensional characters and a clunky the script. Lucas has admited that he based Star Wars on Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress.

The story in Avatar may not be the greatest ever written but it's more than sufficient to capture the viewers imagination for the duration of the film. Sure it's doesn't hold upon when thought about but you can say the same thing about most films.

nix · 28-12-2009 11:39AM

Driver 8 wrote: »

Personally, the pervasive attitude I keep seeing of "who cares if the story's sub-standard/derivative/poorly written-look at the visuals!" baffles me. I mean, should we apply that to the Star Wars prequels too?

Maybe I'm crazy, but I thought story was a pretty big component in how good a film is. I'm fully aware of how good Avatar looks, especially in 3D, but that doesn't outweigh or even balance out how shallow, unoriginal or predictable the story was, how two dimensional the characters were, or how clunky the script was.

I liked the story, others didnt and presented reasonable points to support their dislike, to each his own.

vinylbomb · 28-12-2009 11:45AM

Deleted User wrote: »

You mean like how the original Star Wars had a shallow, unoriginal and predictable story. How it also had two dimensional characters and a clunky the script. Lucas has admited that he based Star Wars on Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress.

Star Wars - 1977

Avatar - 2009

And I'd still argue the quality of the writing has gone backwards in he intervening 32 years - you get humour and a feel for the characters in Star Wars. The lead character in Avatar is the most forgettable lead character committed to screen in a long time.

opinion guy · 28-12-2009 11:48AM

vinylbomb wrote: »

Intrinsic to Titanic's success was human empathy to the core characters. The script may have been off, but the pacing and characterization were solid.
It may have some elements of blockbuster in there, but it had strength in other areas (decent enough acting as well as the two mentioned above)

Avatar feels like the plot is there to facilitate the visual immersion, not complement it. It takes all the most generic elements of "blockbuster" to tie in as many potential viewer hooks as possible.

Hmmmm.....clearly you have not seen Titanic!!!!:D

But seriously - for me Titanic was all about the immersive experience. I saw it twice at cinema because of that - when u sat at the front of the big screen it was almost lie you actualyl were on the ship. The story was crap, I didn't give a toss about the characters - they were annoying. Which is why when it was on tv the other day i couldn't watch more than 10 mins of it.

As to Avatar - I'm sorry the story was not as bad as you are all making it out to be. The characters were appealing.

I did care that the hot smurf chick was upset about stuff:D i did want Jake Sully to get the girl. i did want him to get to keep a smurf body at the end. And weirdly enough I found the sigourney weaver human character unlikeable but the smurf version appealing - thou i think they deliberately did that. Also! Something I wonder if people picked up on - did anyone else notice Jake Sully's human body deteriorated thru the film. I mean his legs for example were shockingly skinny near the end. I thought that was a great subtle little touch

28-12-2009 11:49AM

vinylbomb wrote: »

Star Wars - 1977

Avatar - 2009

And I'd still argue the quality of the writing has gone backwards in he intervening 32 years - you get humour and a feel for the characters in Star Wars. The lead character in Avatar is the most forgettable lead character committed to screen in a long time.

What does the year they were written in have to do with anything?

I thought that the characters, well the main ones were well done and Sam Worthington was fantastic in creating a character whom I cared for and left an impression. He was certainly far more memorable than Luke Skywalker.

Driver 8 · 28-12-2009 11:50AM

I'm fully aware of where Lucas drew "inspiration" for the original Star Wars.

I was simply making the point that a lot of people are de-emphasising the importance of Avatar's story/script/characters etc and telling us how amazing the visuals are, when, for instance, the Star Wars prequels were castigated for being overly concerned with their visuals at the expense of the script/acting etc.

vinylbomb · 28-12-2009 11:50AM

Actually, the comparison with Star Wars (Episode 4-6 is what I mean here, 1-3 are godawful) is interesting. The characters are clunky as you say, but they exist and you care for them.
In Avatar they didnt even establish defined characters, theres a male and female lead, and a bad guy. The rest of the cast are various multi-3d illuminous shades of nothing in the background(/foreground/mid-field).

opinion guy · 28-12-2009 11:54AM

THats your opinoin vinylbomb - i've given mine above in spoiler tags. If you thought the characters were all that one dimensional maybe you weren't paying enough attention

Avatar Superthread

Comments