Avatar Superthread

Evolute · 04-01-2010 10:56AM

I think it was superb only two times I found it to be predictable.
Just everything

Only thing I found to be a negative was the first 10 15 mins where my eyes had not adjusted to the 3d. But after that I was just blown away.
Was really quite impressed that from such a mediocre storyline came such a great movie everyone should go see it.

johnny_ultimate · 04-01-2010 11:32AM

Draupnir wrote: »

Everyone I've seen it and myself have loved it, I've seen it twice and enjoyed it even more second time around, so basically I think the problem is that there are an awful lot of tossers out there who like to pretend they know a lot about films by hating anything mainstream.

Sigh. Don't like bringing it down to this level, but for the record I consider Star Trek, Up, Drag Me to Hell, Coraline, The Hurt Locker, Where the Wild Things Are and others vastly superior ahem mainstream films released in the last twelve months.

BlitzKrieg · 04-01-2010 12:20PM

Draupnir wrote: »

Everyone I've seen it and myself have loved it, I've seen it twice and enjoyed it even more second time around, so basically I think the problem is that there are an awful lot of tossers out there who like to pretend they know a lot about films by hating anything mainstream.

God this is like the Godwin's law of film debates.

Stop being stupid and accept that people have different tastes.

Draupnir · 04-01-2010 12:51PM

basquille wrote: »

Are you serious? Christ, I enjoyed the film but I can see why people didn't - the characters were wafer-thin, performances uninspired and script largely quite woeful.

Referring to other people as tossers isn't going to change their minds.... here's a shocker for you.. people have different taste in films!

I don't have a problem with people not liking the film (or any film for that matter) but I do have a problem with a lot of the reasoning for people not liking this particular movie.

I hugely disagree with you that the characters were wafer thin, they are no less developed (probably more) than say the characters in the first Matrix movie. Explain to me how they are wafer thin.

Uninspired performances? I thought there were excellent performances from Worthington (both human and Navi), Weaver, Saldana, actor who plays Tsu'tey [sic], female leader of the Navi, Norm was a character I could really identify with and I thought he was very well played by Joel Moore and finally, while he had some cheesy lines I don't think you could fault the performance of Lang as the Colonel.

What do you consider an inspired performance? I would be very happy to say I think Worthington and Saldana would be worthy Oscar nominations.

Script largely quite woeful. Feel free to flesh this out for me, it sounds like a throwaway remark to me.

Draupnir · 04-01-2010 12:56PM

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

God this is like the Godwin's law of film debates.

Stop being stupid and accept that people have different tastes.

I'm not saying people don't have different tastes, I just can't abide people who waffle on about "the strength of the screenplay" or "wafer thin characters". It smacks of movie snobbery and bothers the hell out of me.

BlitzKrieg · 04-01-2010 01:04PM

Draupnir wrote: »

I'm not saying people don't have different tastes, I just can't abide people who waffle on about "the strength of the screenplay" or "wafer thin characters". It smacks of movie snobbery and bothers the hell out of me.

Thats why its the godwin's law of the film forum. If you cant argue the point you just paint all the posters with the same brush and pushed the discussion to a stage where its impossible to discuss it anymore. Because no matter what we say now its just going to be *Oh your all just acting like film snobs* to every point.

Why should we bother discussing our views at all now?

i gave my 2 reviews already, i explained my views, I see no need to write out again just so you can brush it off as film snobbery.

Karl Hungus · 04-01-2010 01:07PM

Draupnir wrote: »

I hugely disagree with you that the characters were wafer thin, they are no less developed (probably more) than say the characters in the first Matrix movie.

The characters in The Matrix were extremely shallow too.

Draupnir · 04-01-2010 01:09PM

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Thats why its the godwin's law of the film forum. If you cant argue the point you just paint all the posters with the same brush and pushed the discussion to a stage where its impossible to discuss it anymore. Because no matter what we say now its just going to be *Oh your all just acting like film snobs* to every point.

Why should we bother discussing our views at all now?

i gave my 2 reviews already, i explained my views, I see no need to write out again just so you can brush it off as film snobbery.

Whoa whoa whoa, hold the phones. I didn't mean it to appear as though I was suggesting that all posters here were acting like film snobs (some are, not all). I've read most if not all of this thread and the reviews/points of view are pretty well laid out and explained.

As I've clearly stated, if someone backs up there point with explanation that's cool. Both your reviews are in that category. My problem is with people like this:

http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20091224-ENTERTAIN-912240308

He makes a bundle of points about how bad the movie is in storyline/character wise but for me, just doesn't explain the points.

Draupnir · 04-01-2010 01:15PM

Karl Hungus wrote: »

The characters in The Matrix were extremely shallow too.

Agreed. I don't really think it takes away from the first movie much, I think it takes away from the sequels a lot.

In the case of Avatar, we get a fair bit of background on Jake and we get a sense of a huge universe with Earth being basically a huge capitalist world etc. I also felt it was a realistic storyline fundamentally. For these reasons, I feel it does all that it needs to in terms of character development and it reminds me a lot of Alien and how it developed it's characters/universe.

BlitzKrieg · 04-01-2010 01:19PM

Karl Hungus wrote: »

The characters in The Matrix were extremely shallow too.

in defence of the matrix at least they interacted beyond the simple plot progression. While its not a great scene, the mess hall scene in the matrix goes a small bit of the way to establishing character relationships (food, sexual perversions are discussed, they interact beyond the necessary plot points.) And at least a few of the characters established motives. Cyrus (is that right?) at least established reasons for betraying the human race and there was a progression in his narrative.

in contrast in Avatar the mess hall scenes are used solely to progress the plot (pandora is a sh*tty place, Jake sully has got in with the navi, norm is annoyed) the colonel comes into the film on one note and never changes throughout the film, no progression. Not to mention twice in the film character resolutions are skipped over in favour of a voice over saying they were resolved with no content. Norm warms back up to Jake Sully *offscreen* Sully convinces the Navi to let Grace visit again *offscreen*

these were points that were brought up earlier in the film and then with a click of the fingers are resolved.

Which is why I look forward to special edition because i am expecting to find alot of cut content.

Basq · 04-01-2010 01:22PM

Draupnir wrote: »

I hugely disagree with you that the characters were wafer thin, they are no less developed (probably more) than say the characters in the first Matrix movie. Explain to me how they are wafer thin.

They are "cardboard-cutout" stereotypical characters:

- we have a hard-as-nails marine that slowly grows a heart of gold when embraced by the wonderful people and surroundings of Pandora. CHECK!
- we have the Colonel who couldn't have been any more stereotypical if you tried. Cut him biting a cigar and gritting his teeth. CHECK!
- we have a sassy but tough female fighter pilot. CHECK!
- we have the comic relief in the partnership of slightly wussy Norm. CHECK!
- we have the bad-guy who appears to be decent at first.. but reveals himself to be a bit of a bastard. CHECK!
(etc. etc)

These are present in a large majority of action films. Avatar doesn't feel necessary to branch these characters out or make them in any way unique.

Draupnir wrote: »

Uninspired performances? I thought there were excellent performances from Worthington (both human and Navi), Weaver, Saldana, actor who plays Tsu'tey [sic], female leader of the Navi, Norm was a character I could really identify with and I thought he was very well played by Joel Moore and finally, while he had some cheesy lines I don't think you could fault the performance of Lang as the Colonel.

What do you consider an inspired performance? I would be very happy to say I think Worthington and Saldana would be worthy Oscar nominations.

The film deserves an Oscar for it's visuals.. nothing else!

But would you not attribute the performances when Navi to the CGI artists and such.. and the performances when Navi were never dialogue-driven. It was more about the visuals on Pandora, and a bit of shouting and a bit of throwaway dialogue. But I couldn't praise the performances of anyone when they were Navi.

But one of the performances who I could focus on was Lang as The Colonel - and that was essentially a tougher less-sweary version of R Lee Ermey. It wasn't special. But you were right, I cant fault it because he played a generic Colonel.. nothing more, nothing less. But his performance was not in anyways special.. just generic!

I outlined my problems with the characters above.. and none of the performances really did it for me either (maybe because I had a problem with the characters they were playing).

Draupnir wrote: »

Script largely quite woeful. Feel free to flesh this out for me, it sounds like a throwaway remark to me.

The script was chock-full of cheesy unoriginal lines.. there was absolutely nothing original about it!

And some of the comedic punchlines / throw-aways you see coming a mile off. One such example:

"Just relax and let your mind go blank. That shouldn't be too hard for you. "

Every second sitcom has just this exact line. Or:

"Everything is backwards now, like out there is the true world and in here is the dream."

And it was the way it was delivered. Inspired..!

They're just two unoriginal lines.. but I remember coming out of the film thinking of a number of clangers that I couldn't help but roll my eyes at.

Feel free to differ with my opinion.. but I'm not gonna suggest you're a wanker for doing so!

Karl Hungus · 04-01-2010 01:41PM

Draupnir wrote: »

My problem is with people like this:

http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20091224-ENTERTAIN-912240308

Looks like a fine review to me, certainly not snobbish.

Hell, I loved Avatar, but for crying out loud, the characters were weak and the performances absolutely bland. That's fine, it's not The Lives of Others, it's not meant to be and I enjoyed it immensely for what it was. But you're taking umbrage at the opinions of people who criticize the film justly and making statements about "Tossers" disliking it, that's just ridiculous and comes off extremely defensive.

Galvasean · 04-01-2010 02:02PM

It's the internet. If you like action blockbuster movies you're obviously dumb and don't 'get' better movies. If you don't like them you are a film snob.
We are a damned bunch.

opinion guy · 04-01-2010 02:59PM

I saw Avatar for the second time a few day ago and much to my surprise it totally engorssed me once a gain. i didnd't expect it command my attention as much the second time around, but it did. Once again I felt totally immersed in an alien world. And as regards the characters, I was actually more impressed the second time round. The female lead was just quite simply outstanding (as was the female lead's mum. I do think Saldana should be in the running for an oscar. To people who ar esaying its CGI - its NOT its motion capture - the facial expressions are the actors facial expressions. Also the passion and vocalisation of her performance had a primal quality to it that was just outstanding for the role. The biggest change for me second time around was Worthingtons performance. First time I thought ...meh, second time I thought he was outstanding. The way his character changes throughout the film is brilliant, the effect his experiences change him is very well put across but in the language he uses and the intonation of him. he is SUPPOSED to be morose and deadpan at the start. He is grieving his brother, he is grieving his legs, he is just drifting in a souless existence. Thru the Navi he rediscovers lust for life and it changes him. Later in the film he begins speaking with passion, his language use becomes more developed and animated. All of this is intentional and I think brilliantly done by Worthington.

As regards the Matrix comparisons - I love the Matrix, but I think Worthington\'s delivery is far better than Reeves. Its Keanu Reeves for heavens sake - its essentially Point Break/Bill & Ted inside computers (recall the scene where Neo is trying to convince myself he can jump from one building too the other in the training scenario. Oh MY God - its almost like "Ted dude, you can totallllyyyy like make an awesome jump from one building to the other"). Both films involve a transition story of the main character thru otherwordly experiences - Worthington's delivery of that however, is far FAR superior the Reeves wooden delivery of the same.

To be honest, I do think there are some jaundiced opinions towards this film for whatever the reason. Particularly with regard to Worthington's performance I think it well WELL worth a reviewing. Frankly those who are saying he was flat and wooden and being fairly critical and not seeing the development of the character - well, to be honest, I just think you didn't get it. I highly recommend you watch it again

pinksoir · 04-01-2010 03:13PM

As an experience it was second to none. When the film ended I felt sad that I was leaving that world, along with all the other humans apart from the 'select few' that were permitted to stay.

Saldana was fantastic. From the first moment she appeared on screen to the last.

Sure it's a simple story, essentially Dances with Wolves, but it's all in the retelling...

Overheal · 04-01-2010 04:02PM

So I mean, its no Titanic in terms of a story but I think if you put a really complicated plotline on this huge 3D galapalooza, you'd just lose it. Its a simple and familiar story arc but when you think about it, are you Ever bored? And its no transformers 2 either: after 3 hours of that crap you just want it to end. Its a bunch of metal blurring around the screen intermixed with terrible acting. In comparison Avatar is crisp and very easy on the eyes. Just an eye popping world that introduces some very interesting ideas about alien biology and whatnot. I might go watch it twice.

humanji · 04-01-2010 05:39PM

There's little I can add that hasn't already been said. Of course, that's not going to stop me. I think that apart than the visuals every other aspect of the film is simply "Meh". The characters are one-dimensional and offer up absolutely no surprises. They're not bad characters as they are so clichéd that I must of enjoyed them in at least one other film at some point in time.

The plot has been done over and over. It's an oversimplification of something that the writers seem to not have a grasp on. Within the first 30 minutes you can pretty much dictate exactly what is going to happen throughout the rest of the film, so there's absolutely no surprises to look forward to. You just have to sit back and enjoy how pretty the world looks.

The acting is fairly wooden, but that's more a problem with the actors having so little to do with their characters.

The only thing that I found to be sub-par was the dialogue but again, that's most likely because of how clichéd it was. I'd heard it all before, but with better delivery.

None of these parts of the film are particularly bad. They're just...well..."meh".

I still think people should see this for the visuals alone as they're just incredible and probably as near to the change from B&W to colour film that I'll get to see in my lifetime. So if you haven't seen it, then go. Just don't expect to be blown away by anything other than the visuals. Oh, and bring a book.

Does anyone know if Cameron's next film, Battle Angel is using the same technology? I think it's based on an established manga graphic novel series, so I'm kind of hoping for something with the visuals of Avatar, but with a good plot. Although I half expected that from Avatar, so we'll see.

Optimus Prime · 04-01-2010 05:44PM

Went to see it over christmas, the 3D version, i though it was amazing as a spectacle but i dont think i would enjoy it that much if it wasnt in 3D i just dont think the story would hold up. I wrote up a quick review of it for my website, there is a link in my sig if anyone is interested. I enjoyed the film alright, was never bored or anything but i definitley think it has to be seen in the cinema. I hear its making a ton of money though, doesnt look like its going to be the flop some people where thinking it would be.

opinion guy · 04-01-2010 06:13PM

Overheal wrote: »

So I mean, its no Titanic in terms of a story but I think if you put a really complicated plotline on this huge 3D galapalooza, you'd just lose it. Its a simple and familiar story arc but when you think about it, are you Ever bored? And its no transformers 2 either: after 3 hours of that crap you just want it to end. Its a bunch of metal blurring around the screen intermixed with terrible acting. In comparison Avatar is crisp and very easy on the eyes. Just an eye popping world that introduces some very interesting ideas about alien biology and whatnot. I might go watch it twice.

Um I didn't really think Titanic had a good story tbh. Can't watch it on the small screen.
COMPLETELY agree with you on transformers 2 (&1). It was just visually irritating - it was all just blurring metal and i had no clue waht was going on. Nor did I care nor did I have any empathy for the robot "characters"

Agricola · 04-01-2010 06:53PM

Never got a chance to go to this over christmas so I'll probably head to it this week. Dont know how long more it will run in the cinema.

Driver 8 · 04-01-2010 06:59PM

I'd say it'll be in cinemas for the next few weeks at the very least.

vinylbomb · 04-01-2010 08:34PM

Draupnir wrote: »

Script largely quite woeful. Feel free to flesh this out for me, it sounds like a throwaway remark to me.

The script as a whole was dire.

One point in case - the protagonist managed to rally all the warriors/peoples/tribes/whatever in a montage for about 3 minutes where he simply shouted what sounded like "Toruc'mactor".......or whatever the Navi for Dragon Rider or whatever it means.

Now, leaving out other questions as to why they simply don't use their shared consciousness to communicate distress and a call to arms (after all they are at one with the planet etc etc) this was no William Wallace-esque rousing speech.
It wasnt Forrest Gump-esque.
It wasnt even Chunk-esque.

Lowest common denominator stuff altogether.

Edit: In retrospect it sounds more like a new model of hard disk than battle cry

Galvasean · 04-01-2010 08:57PM

It's official. 1 billion +
http://www.imdb.com/news/ni1363632/

BlitzKrieg · 04-01-2010 09:04PM

So its Cameron has a winning formula...seeing as this is the exact same pattern that Titanic went through. Though like titanic I doubt it will be replicated much, it requires far too much confidence in its production to risk success by sleeper numbers (before anyone jumps at me...sleeper numbers is where a film sticks in the cinema over a long term making money rather then opening night, termed a sleeper hit because normally they are films that are unexpected to make so much [most recent being the hangover] Avatar cant be called a sleeper hit, but its income and success is very much the same model...could be compared to the classics models before television. Films stuck around longer and made consistent money.)

opinion guy · 04-01-2010 09:12PM

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

So its Cameron has a winning formula...seeing as this is the exact same pattern that Titanic went through. Though like titanic I doubt it will be replicated much, it requires far too much confidence in its production to risk success by sleeper numbers (before anyone jumps at me...sleeper numbers is where a film sticks in the cinema over a long term making money rather then opening night, termed a sleeper hit because normally they are films that are unexpected to make so much [most recent being the hangover] Avatar cant be called a sleeper hit, but its income and success is very much the same model...could be compared to the classics models before television. Films stuck around longer and made consistent money.)

You may be right. But as with any new special effects. Its easier and cheaper to do it second time around. Take Bullet time in the Matrix. For the next couple of years everyone was doing it for better or worser

Ninja Edit: in uncanny timing I've literally just watched an ad for cheese or something with bullet time type effects in it

BlitzKrieg · 04-01-2010 09:15PM

opinion guy wrote: »

You may be right. But as with any new special effects. Its easier and cheaper to do it second time around. Take Bullet time in the Matrix. For the next couple of years everyone was doing it for better or worser

Except they didnt use the same techniques in most of them as was used in the first film.

Even the sequels shirked away from the same technique and opted for a cheaper way of doing it.

Same result (sorta) just different method.

The matrix was a sleeper hit too funnily enough...

04-01-2010 09:33PM

opinion guy wrote: »

You may be right. But as with any new special effects. Its easier and cheaper to do it second time around. Take Bullet time in the Matrix. For the next couple of years everyone was doing it for better or worser

Ninja Edit: in uncanny timing I've literally just watched an ad for cheese or something with bullet time type effects in it

The Matrix wasn't the first film to use bullet time it was in fact Blade. At this stage bullet time is a cliche which is way too overused, but like all good cliches when done well it really can impress.

don ramo · 04-01-2010 09:36PM

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

The matrix was a sleeper hit too funnily enough...

i doubth very much it was a sleeper, it was promoted hughly and got a lot of acclaim for it next generation style of special effects, its actually very similar to avatar, it introduced a new leap in effects (or style, which ever you prefer), but avatars leap in effects technology make to matrix effects seem like they were done by a secondary school student,

as for the story in avatar, this film is being touted as probably the favourite for best picture at the oscars, with its suppoed rival up in the air, with george clooney, which is ridiculus as i personaly dont think avatars story would merit mention in this category, star trek had a better story, and i would barely even think that worthy of what is supposed to be the biggest award any film made could possibly achieve,

TBH if avatar wins best pic ill probably loose what little faith i have left in these muppets who supply my entertainment, the film is a major leap in film making, and has made 1 billion dollars in under 3 weeks, which is amazing, but it cartainly isnt up there story wise, and that would be my only gripe with it,

04-01-2010 09:44PM

don ramo wrote: »

i doubth very much it was a sleeper, it was promoted hughly and got a lot of acclaim for it next generation style of special effects, its actually very similar to avatar, it introduced a new leap in effects (or style, which ever you prefer), but avatars leap in effects technology make to matrix effects seem like they were done by a secondary school student,

The matrix was very much a sleeper hit, it only made 27 million in it's opening weekend on nearly 3,000 screens. It then spent a number of months doing solid business in theaters. The was some marketing for the film but nothign on the level of that for films such as Avatar or any of the other big blockbusters in recent years.

Draupnir · 04-01-2010 09:57PM

vinylbomb wrote: »

The script as a whole was dire.

One point in case - the protagonist managed to rally all the warriors/peoples/tribes/whatever in a montage for about 3 minutes where he simply shouted what sounded like "Toruc'mactor".......or whatever the Navi for Dragon Rider or whatever it means.

Now, leaving out other questions as to why they simply don't use their shared consciousness to communicate distress and a call to arms (after all they are at one with the planet etc etc) this was no William Wallace-esque rousing speech.
It wasnt Forrest Gump-esque.
It wasnt even Chunk-esque.

Lowest common denominator stuff altogether.

Edit: In retrospect it sounds more like a new model of hard disk than battle cry

This quite frankly is the worst argument I have ever read about anything, ever.

There is actually a fair bit of storyline behind the concept of uniting the clans, the montage is perfect for what it does as it avoids a Return of the King style borefest as they travel from tribe to tribe.

Furthermore, the montage opens up the concept of the planet as some huge world with multiple eco systems (hinted at in the opening space scenes) and shows that it isn't an entirely forest world which makes the universe seem even more epic.

Your point re: the shared consciousness is wrong, when they are studying the plants at the start they get readings that there is a limited connection between the root they test and the next one, not that the singles relay entirely throughout the planet. There is never a hint that there is a shared conciousness between the Navi tribes or people.

Finally, how could you have an issue with the storyline based on the Navi language sounding a bit like something that excepts in reality?

Avatar Superthread

Comments