Avatar Superthread

vinylbomb · 28-12-2009 11:55AM

Deleted User wrote: »

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

The original Star Wars was produced 32 years ago on a low budget, and stole a few ideas from an obscure Japanese movie.
Avatar was produced recently, with a virtually limitless budget, and stole wantonly from every film of the last 3 decades.

That means quite a bit to me.

Deleted User wrote: »

He was certainly far more memorable than Luke Skywalker.

I think time will tell a different tale, I doubt Worthingtons character will live on in the popular psyche for too long. However thats IMO obviously

vinylbomb · 28-12-2009 11:58AM

opinion guy wrote: »

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

I'd love to see an element of depth to any of them pointed out, if you please.

Edit : I've read your reasoning for wanting things to happen within the movie, and thats fine, but there as no sense of any character doing anything except simply as a plot turn -

my big one is why did Jake turn sides?Why change from a hardass marine into some sort of cross-species warrior?Years of military training overturned in a few months?

The film gives no feeling as to WHY anyones does anything, stuff just happens.

28-12-2009 12:03PM

vinylbomb wrote: »

The original Star Wars was produced 32 years ago on a low budget, and stole a few ideas from an obscure Japanese movie.
Avatar was produced recently, with a virtually limitless budget, and stole wantonly from every film of the last 3 decades.

That means quite a bit to me.

Come off it Avatar took some commonly used ideas and implemented them in Cameron's own way. I don't see why people are expecting some amazingly original story. Cameron's past work has paved the way for cinema as we know it today but to expect every film he makes to have a fantastic story is being a bit naive. I would much prefer an adequate story with stunning visuals instead of an amazing script with piss poor visuals that constantly took me out of the story and reminded me that I was in fact watch a film.

vinylbomb · 28-12-2009 12:07PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I would much prefer an adequate story with stunning visuals instead of an amazing script with piss poor visuals that constantly took me out of the story and reminded me that I was in fact watch a film.

My argument is simply this : With a budget that enormous it must surely have been possible to get someone to write a cohesive story, even tying in the themes addressed. To be honest something vastly original was not what I was expecting, but I was hoping for something that was slightly more than vastly generic too.

Driver 8 · 28-12-2009 12:12PM

I don't think people are expecting anything "amazingly" original, just sufficently so that it doesn't render the film a shallow, join the dots, "white man assimilates into another culture, and defeats big bad military-industrial complex". I mean I saw that film, done much better, 4 months ago, and it was called District 9. Same basic theme, but done infinitely better. You only have to compare Sharlto Copey's character and performance to Sam Worthington's to see the gulf. I thought Worthington was far and away the best thing in Terminator Salvation, but felt he was bland beyond belief here.

But as I said, I didn't expect the plot to be mind-blowingly original, but you only have to look at District 9 to see how that theme can be handled in a much more interesting, better realised film, in my opinion.

28-12-2009 12:14PM

vinylbomb wrote: »

My argument is simply this : With a budget that enormous it must surely have been possible to get someone to write a cohesive story, even tying in the themes addressed. To be honest something vastly original was not what I was expecting, but I was hoping for something that was slightly more than vastly generic too.

The story was fine for what it is. I found myself swept up in the the film, going along for the ride. I wasn't sitting there tutting my head and complaining that it wasn't Shakespeare, no I was engrossed in the spectacle which is exactly what Cameron wanted. If I want a visually striking film, with a fantastic story I'll dig out my copy of Solaris. If I want 2 and a half hours to fly by as my jaw bounces of the floor in disbelief of what's occurring onscreen I'll watch Avatar.

nix · 28-12-2009 12:19PM

lol alot of the previous block buster movies have been "stolen" from someones previous work/ideas, the Matrix and Lord of the rings come to mind, even Star wars :rolleyes:

The only thing unique is the world they are set in :P

vinylbomb · 28-12-2009 12:37PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The story was fine for what it is.

And I believe the story simply acts as a delivery method for one of the most astounding displays of CGI/Motion capture fusion yet seen.

It is fit for this purpose.

But I personally like more than just my eyes to be stimulated in a movie, hence my disappointment with Avatar.

nyarlothothep · 28-12-2009 03:59PM

I rewatched it, the story holds up remarkably well in that I didn't get bored which I normally do with cgi fests, I Robot, Hancock, Spiderman, LOTR etc.
The story isn't original but its a good tale retold in an interesting universe. I also liked the characters and could empathize with them, this imo equates to good characterization, it wasn't Shakespearean in its depth but I thought the characters were much better developed than in some other films, like LOTR, quick we have to sacrifice character development to cram the plot in. Or maybe I just preferred the characters in this movie. I also liked the sarge, there is nothing better than an old school villain, who is one dimensional but also scary in this respect.

opinion guy · 28-12-2009 07:05PM

vinylbomb wrote: »

I'd love to see an element of depth to any of them pointed out, if you please.

Edit : I've read your reasoning for wanting things to happen within the movie, and thats fine, but there as no sense of any character doing anything except simply as a plot turn -
my big one is why did Jake turn sides?Why change from a hardass marine into some sort of cross-species warrior?Years of military training overturned in a few months?
The film gives no feeling as to WHY anyones does anything, stuff just happens.

I thought the Jake changing sides thing was pretty well done. It showed how he was drawn into the alien world, he even commented in his diary on how he was mixed up between which world was the dream world. Throw into that the joy of being in his avatar body, being accepted into their culture after months of effort, and the simulatneously backstabbing that was going on in the human world. and he fell in love with hot smurf girl. i mean this was half the film setting thats story arc up no ? Now if you do want to pull apart a plot point what I found completely beyond explanation was when hot smurf chic forgave him for destroying his home, killing her people and generally being a spy just like that. That was the only emotional aspect of the story i had a problem with

Driver 8 wrote: »

I don't think people are expecting anything "amazingly" original, just sufficently so that it doesn't render the film a shallow, join the dots, "white man assimilates into another culture, and defeats big bad military-industrial complex". I mean I saw that film, done much better, 4 months ago, and it was called District 9. Same basic theme, but done infinitely better. You only have to compare Sharlto Copey's character and performance to Sam Worthington's to see the gulf. I thought Worthington was far and away the best thing in Terminator Salvation, but felt he was bland beyond belief here.

But as I said, I didn't expect the plot to be mind-blowingly original, but you only have to look at District 9 to see how that theme can be handled in a much more interesting, better realised film, in my opinion.

District 9 rocked. Excellent, excellent film. But also very different. Hmmm incidentally on an aisde - the guy who made this short film has been given 30million dollars to make a hollywood movie - the next district 9 perhaps ??? (too similar maybe!!!):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyhtK-BimWk

But anyhow - I think Worthington's flatness in this was deliberate.

It was part of the character setting as talked about above. They were trying to put across how dull his human world was in comparison tot he avatar world. in the avatar world he was laughing and wise-cracking constantly, in the human he was morose looking. that was the point. that was also part of trying to convey why he changed sides. They also complemented this with his physical changes during the film - the beard, the wasting away etc. You could aslso see this with the Grace character. In the human world she was cold bitch - in avatar world warm and friendly. again deliberate. again to distinguish the two worlds and explain why these two charaters fell in love with the alien world. Hmmm you know what I think you guys need to wath this movie again! maybe you got too distracted by the special effects and missed some subtleties

nix wrote: »

lol alot of the previous block buster movies have been "stolen" from someones previous work/ideas, the Matrix and Lord of the rings come to mind, even Star wars :rolleyes:

The only thing unique is the world they are set in :P

What movie was Lord of Rings ripped off from ? It came from the book. Whilst we're on Lord of the Rings. How can I put it ? It sucked from a story/character perspective. During the third one I could not wait for it to finish from half way thru. No it truly was a special effects bonanza - the character developement was childish - and so it should have been - it was a kids book after all. Avatar has far more subtlety in it from the point of view of character development as i discussed above.
Matrix - whats the ripped off from ? Genuinely asking ?
Star Wars. Meh. Was great 30 years ago when I was a child. Now I don't think I could watch the whole thing thru.

ScumLord · 28-12-2009 10:03PM

vinylbomb wrote: »

my big one is why did Jake turn sides?Why change from a hardass marine into some sort of cross-species warrior?Years of military training overturned in a few months?
The film gives no feeling as to WHY anyones does anything, stuff just happens.

Really?

Injured soldier turns against the military system is a pretty common storey.

irish_bob · 29-12-2009 12:36AM

vinylbomb wrote: »

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).

i thought the lead female ( navi ) charechter was well defined , you really cared for her and felt her passion and strength , worthington was what you would expect a real life soldier to be , unfortunatley that doesnt work well in the movies

Handsome Bob · 29-12-2009 12:43AM

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/showbiz/news/a192961/cameron-argues-with-autograph-seeker.html

Would have loved to hear Cameron's response to that. I'm not saying Cameron had to give him an autograph, but I don't care who you are, what that guy said would shame anyone into giving an autograph. Maybe excluding the last part though.

Basq · 29-12-2009 12:49AM

LZ5by5 wrote: »

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/showbiz/news/a192961/cameron-argues-with-autograph-seeker.html

Would have loved to hear Cameron's response to that. I'm not saying Cameron had to give him an autograph, but I don't care who you are, what that guy said would shame anyone into giving an autograph. Maybe excluding the last part though.

I got as far as "According to TMZ"..

.. to put it crudely, my hole is a more reputable source!

29-12-2009 12:56AM

vinylbomb wrote: »

And I believe the story simply acts as a delivery method for one of the most astounding displays of CGI/Motion capture fusion yet seen.

It is fit for this purpose.

But I personally like more than just my eyes to be stimulated in a movie, hence my disappointment with Avatar.

We would all have loved a truly great story but at the end of the day what we got was serviceable and managed to keep the attention of the viewer.

LZ5by5 wrote: »

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/showbiz/news/a192961/cameron-argues-with-autograph-seeker.html

Would have loved to hear Cameron's response to that. I'm not saying Cameron had to give him an autograph, but I don't care who you are, what that guy said would shame anyone into giving an autograph. Maybe excluding the last part though.

The source for the story is TMZ so I wouldn't really put much faith in it being true. If it is true then Cameron could certainly have handle things differently. He should have taken the 10 seconds to sign the poster but perhaps the fan was one of those autograph collectors whom goes straight home to sell in on ebay. And come on it's Cameron for god sake, the man's reputation as a complete and utter bastard is well documented.

I have a lot of respect for people like Tom Cruise who will ensure that any fan who comes out to meet him gets some of his time. Say what you want about him for his beliefs or his films but he's a thoroughly decent guy.

29-12-2009 12:59AM

basquille wrote: »

I got as far as "According to TMZ"..

.. to put it crudely, my hole is a more reputable source!

Isn't it TMZ and that other tit Hilton whom have repeatedly slated the film and refereed to Cameron as a talentless ass in recent weeks? I think Cameorn refused to answer questions from Hilton whom thought it was appropriate to interview him as he was running for an elevator.

Handsome Bob · 29-12-2009 01:01AM

In fairness weren't TMZ the ones that first broke Heath Ledger's, Brittany Murphy's and Michael Jackson's deaths? They are no doubt trash but they do seem to have a knack for getting info before others do.

29-12-2009 01:05AM

LZ5by5 wrote: »

In fairness weren't TMZ the ones that first broke Heath Ledger's, Brittany Murphy's and Michael Jackson's deaths? They are no doubt trash but they do seem to have a knack for getting info before others do.

They also has a knack for having to repeatedly apologies for wrongly announcing that someone has died.

Mackman · 29-12-2009 08:26AM

I enjoyed it immensly, Ok the story was a bit thin, and the script could have been better, but i dont think its as bad as some people here are making out. The visuals were spectacular, like nothing ive ever seen, and i thought that Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana did a great job, and i enjoyed seeing Sigourney Weaver in a Sci-Fi movie again.
Cameron was very successful in creating a whole new world. I dont get why some people here got the feeling there was something sexual about the way the Na'vi connected with the animals, i thought it was a very good way of showing that the entire eco-system of the planet was combined and could communicate with eachother.
I thought the pacing was perfect, not once in the 2 and a half hours or so did i get bored, or want the movie to press on, i was glued to the screen the whole time.

I might even go see it again

vinylbomb · 29-12-2009 11:27AM

Deleted User wrote: »

We would all have loved a truly great story but at the end of the day what we got was serviceable and managed to keep the attention of the viewer.

I'm not sure where you're coming from here. Your earlier posts in this thread were defending the CGI (while saying the rest of it wasnt great), and now you have slightly shifted stance to defend the story/script.

My position throughout has been that the most expensive movie ever made should be more than just "servicable and managed to keep the attention of the viewer"

The visuals managed to keep me viewing. When it finished I did not feel more satisfied (as a good movie leaves me), if anything I felt more empty - such a giant step forward in the leap (visually) to somewhere new, but at the same time leaving so much behind in the tale of story telling.

I'm just gonna state my point on this flick: I dont see how so many people can say it was "The best movie of the last however many years etc".
Visually stunning, yes - but even Darko agrees that the story was "serviceable and managed to keep the attention of the viewer"

That doesnt make a classic.....groundbreaking in respect of the visual thing - yes, I agree completely, but.............not anything else.

nix · 29-12-2009 11:28AM

opinion guy wrote: »

What movie was Lord of Rings ripped off from ? It came from the book. Whilst we're on Lord of the Rings. How can I put it ? It sucked from a story/character perspective. During the third one I could not wait for it to finish from half way thru. No it truly was a special effects bonanza - the character developement was childish - and so it should have been - it was a kids book after all. Avatar has far more subtlety in it from the point of view of character development as i discussed above.
Matrix - whats the ripped off from ? Genuinely asking ?
Star Wars. Meh. Was great 30 years ago when I was a child. Now I don't think I could watch the whole thing thru.

I didnt state movie, I said "story/idea" and it was taken from a story by Plato from his book "The Republic, II".

vinylbomb · 29-12-2009 11:47AM

opinion guy wrote: »

What movie was Lord of Rings ripped off from ? It came from the book. Whilst we're on Lord of the Rings. How can I put it ? It sucked from a story/character perspective.

Just picked up on your earlier posts re :Lord Of The Rings

Oh dear oh dear.
Now, I know its a Wiki, but don't trash me for that, just check it out, and if you need I shall find you some real disseminations of the storylines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Themes_of_The_Lord_of_the_Rings

Or - to quote yourself

opinion guy wrote: »

maybe you got too distracted by the special effects and missed some subtleties

The LOTR was first published in 1954, and the movie closely follows the book.
Please forgive the charactarization, its a half century old. And the most complete fantasy universe which has yet been imagined- in which the story exists - was concieved by one man.
On a limited budget.

Avatar aint. And didnt have a budget.

I expect better from Hollywoods finest these days, not less.

L31mr0d · 29-12-2009 12:44PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The source for the story is TMZ so I wouldn't really put much faith in it being true.

Well there is a video of the incident on youtube. The guy in the video is probably not just an average fan, in his hand is more than likely more than just 1 poster rolled up. Frequently, actors and directors will get stopped by someone posing to be a fan looking for an autograph, and they will then proceed to flick through the posters or images getting each one signed. They will then sell these on ebay for an inflated cost. This is how these people make a living. I wouldn't be surprised if Cameron recognized the guy from a time before as he called the guy an a**hole almost immediately when he saw him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6j4EbMcFZU

qwertplaywert · 29-12-2009 01:35PM

Tbh, a 'fan' that chased me around, and there is conviently a camera crew around? Stinks of paperazzi stunt!

faceman · 29-12-2009 02:37PM

qwertplaywert wrote: »

Tbh, a 'fan' that chased me around, and there is conviently a camera crew around? Stinks of paperazzi stunt!

Yeah i agree

spank_inferno · 29-12-2009 05:18PM

Well I saw it doday in dundrum and it was a bit of a mixed bag.

Visually I missed out.
The 3D just didnt work for me.

All it did was make what any movie would look like in the dark with sun-glasses on: Darker and less colourfull.
This film didnt need 3D to make it a visual spectacle.

On another technical note, I did like the sound & score which I thought was excellent.

However I just thought the film was too long.
The first hour drags on for some time and it feels like they are trying to get the audience to get to grips with the Avatars as much as the characters themselves were.
The last hour was very enjoyable though and hit home emotionally.

Overall the film is great, not without fault but cameron has made something worthy here. I would be happy to see a sequel and hopefully a slightly tighter DVD/Blu-ray cut.

ps: I was impressed by Zoe Saldana playing Neytiri, I thought she was excellent.

opinion guy · 29-12-2009 05:50PM

nix wrote: »

I didnt state movie, I said "story/idea" and it was taken from a story by Plato from his book "The Republic, II".

??? We were CLEARLY talking in the context of Avatar being ripped off from othetr movies according to sum. Stop straw-manning me.

vinylbomb wrote: »

Just picked up on your earlier posts re :Lord Of The Rings

Oh dear oh dear.
Now, I know its a Wiki, but don't trash me for that, just check it out, and if you need I shall find you some real disseminations of the storylines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Themes_of_The_Lord_of_the_Rings

Lol - no problem with wiki links for this type of discussion.
ok had a quick look at that. Bull. LOTR - I've seen the movies and I've read the book and I've read the Hobbit - so no I wasn't distracted by the special effects. Its a kids book. Tolkien wrote it to entertain his kid. All of that stuff is over interpretation. You could equally say that Star Wars conatined important messages and themes regarding the spirituality and the afterlife. But no its just a kids film.

The LOTR was first published in 1954, and the movie closely follows the book.
Please forgive the charactarization, its a half century old. And the most complete fantasy universe which has yet been imagined- in which the story exists - was concieved by one man.
On a limited budget.

Avatar aint. And didnt have a budget.

I expect better from Hollywoods finest these days, not less.

You got more. You just don't want ot see it that way

bluto63 · 29-12-2009 06:10PM

spank_inferno wrote: »

Well I saw it doday in dundrum and it was a bit of a mixed bag.

Visually I missed out.
The 3D just didnt work for me.

All it did was make what any movie would look like in the dark with sun-glasses on: Darker and less colourfull.
This film didnt need 3D to make it a visual spectacle.

Completely agree here. After about 20mins, the whole 3d thing is no longer noticeable and just a necessity in order to see the film properly. Personally I can't wait for this 3d gimmick to pass.

spank_inferno wrote: »

However I just thought the film was too long.
The first hour drags on for some time and it feels like they are trying to get the audience to get to grips with the Avatars as much as the characters themselves were.

Isn't that needed? If they just jumped into the story in the deep end no one would have a clue what was going on. I knew nothing of the story going in, if they assumed I already knew I would have been screwed.

spank_inferno · 29-12-2009 06:23PM

bluto63 wrote: »

Isn't that needed? If they just jumped into the story in the deep end no one would have a clue what was going on. I knew nothing of the story going in, if they assumed I already knew I would have been screwed.

Exposition and character development are of course necessary & this film did them all quite well (if the dialogue was a bit corny).
I just felt it could have been a bit 'tighter', lose a few mins here or there etc.

I wasnt bored at all, but I was conscious of the time taken to get to the meat of the plot.

29-12-2009 07:18PM

vinylbomb wrote: »

I'm not sure where you're coming from here. Your earlier posts in this thread were defending the CGI (while saying the rest of it wasnt great), and now you have slightly shifted stance to defend the story/script.

My position throughout has been that the most expensive movie ever made should be more than just "servicable and managed to keep the attention of the viewer"

The visuals managed to keep me viewing. When it finished I did not feel more satisfied (as a good movie leaves me), if anything I felt more empty - such a giant step forward in the leap (visually) to somewhere new, but at the same time leaving so much behind in the tale of story telling.

I'm just gonna state my point on this flick: I dont see how so many people can say it was "The best movie of the last however many years etc".
Visually stunning, yes - but even Darko agrees that the story was "serviceable and managed to keep the attention of the viewer"

That doesnt make a classic.....groundbreaking in respect of the visual thing - yes, I agree completely, but.............not anything else.

I wasn't ever defending the CGI, no one needs to defend it as it's more than stands up for it's self. As I said earlier in the thread I had no problem with the script, perhaps it wasn't the most original in the world but I never once felt like it was a drawback nor did it take me out of the experience. I don't see why simply because the film is expensive we should expect some ground breathtakingly original script.

GI Joe had a perfectly serviceable story but the action more than made up for it, I could easily attack the film over and over again for it's poor story but at the end of the day the film much like Avatar perfectly captured what it set out to do, entertain the viewer. Once a film entertains you from start to finish what more can you ask for?

L31mr0d wrote: »

Well there is a video of the incident on youtube. The guy in the video is probably not just an average fan, in his hand is more than likely more than just 1 poster rolled up. Frequently, actors and directors will get stopped by someone posing to be a fan looking for an autograph, and they will then proceed to flick through the posters or images getting each one signed. They will then sell these on ebay for an inflated cost. This is how these people make a living. I wouldn't be surprised if Cameron recognized the guy from a time before as he called the guy an a**hole almost immediately when he saw him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6j4EbMcFZU

I mentioned that in my post and assumed that perhaps the fan was a seller. Cameron while known as a bastard has always treated his fans well. Look at Avatar, after the disdain shown the first trailer Cameron specifically made a more action orientated second trailer simply because it's what his fans wanted/

Avatar Superthread

Comments