Jump to content

Avatar - Have you seen it? What do you think?


TypeO

Recommended Posts

Just got back from seeing it, and I can honestly say that's the best $15 I've spent in a very long time.

Number one, you absolutely HAVE to see it in the IMAX 3D.

This movie is the paradigm shift that Star Wars was in '77 taken to the 10th power.

Some will say it's too long - I say I didn't want it to end.

The CG and live action is integrated flawlessly.

My only nitpick is it would have benefited from at least a couple first-person views in some of the aerial scenes.

And even though I'm firmly conservative, I wasn't bothered in the least by the blatant political ideologies and undertones.

This is one of the greatest movies I've ever seen from the perspective of being immersed in the story.

This is the treatment I'd like to see given to a serious re-making of Dune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt the 3D effects and CGI are flawless but the story concept is nothing new. Battle for Terra did it with conventional CGI.

First: Just how many story concepts are truly "new"? Please.

Second: Battle For Terra? Really? Have you actually seen Avatar, or are you basing your comments on what you've read/heard/etc.? Because I saw Battle For Terra about 2 or 3 weeks ago on PPV, and the story line of Avatar is significantly richer and deeper than Battle For Terra, graphics and effects aside.

So is Avatar selling only on the graphics and effects ?

Third: I think that was the point of the thread to begin with.

As far as I know, nobody (and certainly not me) is claiming Avatar is the next Casablanca, Citizen Kane or Gone With The Wind.

The point of the thread is Avatar is a seminal event in movies that is on par with the imapact Star Wars made back in '77.

(Yeah, I know I said "to the 10th power" - I was still in the throes of the afterglow last night. You can't discount the huge leap that Star Wars made, and the state of technology at the time.)

Still, the improved 3D in concert with IMAX have created a whole new canvas on which movies will be "painted", and I think it's safe to say Avatar will be recognized as the game-changer, the movie that raised the bar to this new level. And it is upon this new canvas that the next Casablanca or Citizen Kane will occur.

So poo-pooing "graphics and effects" is a rather dated and probably fast-disappearing viewpoint, as it's obvious that will be increasingly significant influences in future movies, as writers and directors will have the tools to more realistically express the most fantastic imaginings or the most subtle, highly-complicated concepts that were previously out of the question and therefore a compromise in the final production.

Simple case in point: The Shining starring Jack Nicholson was a pretty awesome movie, yet anyone who read the book (as I did, finishing the book on a Saturday afternoon and seeing the movie the same Saturday night) knows and was probably disappointed by the hedge maze in the movie that in the book was actually a hedge topiary of wild animals such as lions that came to life and chased and attacked Danny and Jack at various points throughout the story. The stop-motion used in the first Terminator would have been a truly sad attempt to re-create this, and the hedge maze was used instead.

This is a perfect example where current technology would enhance the movie experience and allow it to remain more faithful to the novel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First: Just how many story concepts are truly "new"? Please.

Quite a lot can give new renditions to existing story concepts. Lots of good movies were released within the last couple of years that showcases that.

Batman Begins, Dark Knight can start that list.

Second: Battle For Terra? Really? Have you actually seen Avatar, or are you basing your comments on what you've read/heard/etc.? Because I saw Battle For Terra about 2 or 3 weeks ago on PPV, and the story line of Avatar is significantly richer and deeper than Battle For Terra, graphics and effects aside.

But not by much.

Third: I think that was the point of the thread to begin with.

As far as I know, nobody (and certainly not me) is claiming Avatar is the next Casablanca, Citizen Kane or Gone With The Wind.

The point of the thread is Avatar is a seminal event in movies that is on par with the imapact Star Wars made back in '77.

(Yeah, I know I said "to the 10th power" - I was still in the throes of the afterglow last night. You can't discount the huge leap that Star Wars made, and the state of technology at the time.)

Still, the improved 3D in concert with IMAX have created a whole new canvas on which movies will be "painted", and I think it's safe to say Avatar will be recognized as the game-changer, the movie that raised the bar to this new level. And it is upon this new canvas that the next Casablanca or Citizen Kane will occur.

So poo-pooing "graphics and effects" is a rather dated and probably fast-disappearing viewpoint, as it's obvious that will be increasingly significant influences in future movies, as writers and directors will have the tools to more realistically express the most fantastic imaginings or the most subtle, highly-complicated concepts that were previously out of the question and therefore a compromise in the final production.

Simple case in point: The Shining starring Jack Nicholson was a pretty awesome movie, yet anyone who read the book (as I did, finishing the book on a Saturday afternoon and seeing the movie the same Saturday night) knows and was probably disappointed by the hedge maze in the movie that in the book was actually a hedge topiary of wild animals such as lions that came to life and chased and attacked Danny and Jack at various points throughout the story. The stop-motion used in the first Terminator would have been a truly sad attempt to re-create this, and the hedge maze was used instead.

This is a perfect example where current technology would enhance the movie experience and allow it to remain more faithful to the novel.

All of which comes down to what I asked earlier. Is the CGI and the technology that would enhance the movie experience the only selling points of Avatar ?

Dont forget that while Star Wars bought new technology to the industry,raised the bar,etc,etc, it also told a damn good story as well. And star wars again did the same with episodes 1 to 3 where an even better story was told while using new technology at the same time.

I wast dissing the technology this movie used. All I asked was is that all it offered ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw Avatar but not at the IMAX.

I agree the visuals were stunning. I almost flinched when the debris rained down from the explosions.

The Good.

The orange/red and blue flying dragon knocked my sock off. I am severly red/green color blind.

I really liked how the Na`vi princess, Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) hissed like a pissed-off tigress to protect her mate.

The Ending when Neytiri was in full war paint, hunkered down behind a tree and shot her arrows clean through.

The Bad.

Relied too much on Aliens and Sigourney Weaver.

It was a bit long.

The Ugly.

Sam Worthington. After stinking up Terminator Salvation, he almost stunk up Avatar with his mono-toned dialogue.

The sex scene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite a lot can give new renditions to existing story concepts. Lots of good movies were released within the last couple of years that showcases that.

Batman Begins, Dark Knight can start that list.

meh - it's still pigeonholed under "Superhero theme"

But not by much.

I say "significantly", you reply "not by much"? :blink:

All of which comes down to what I asked earlier. Is the CGI and the technology that would enhance the movie experience the only selling points of Avatar ?

This is beginning to feel like one of those parallel planes discussions - you keep asking "where's the light switch?" and I keep telling you it's daylight out.

Dont forget that while Star Wars bought new technology to the industry,raised the bar,etc,etc, it also told a damn good story as well. And star wars again did the same with episodes 1 to 3 where an even better story was told while using new technology at the same time.

Actually, Star Wars was a pretty well-worn theme - nothing ground-breaking in the basic story, just the technology employed in telling it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Ugly.

Sam Worthington. After stinking up Terminator Salvation, he almost stunk up Avatar with his mono-toned dialogue.

The sex scene.

Didnt really have a problem with him in either film, in Terminator it was strangley Christian Bale that let things down a bit(not helped by the writting and McG being an inferior director admitidly) for me. He isnt exactly mr personality but in Avatar espeically I thought thats what the role needed, a bitter ex solder rendered numb by his injury.

Far from the greatest film I'v ever seen BUT I did think it suceeded on its own terms as a not espeically deep FX blockbuster just as Titanic did. The FX were obviously amazing but the film did also have heart which the vast majority of recent blockbusters seem to lack. I cared about the characters I was sposed to and there cause, arguebley moreso the CGI ones which is probabley the first time thats happened since Gollum in LOTR.

The main criticism's I'd have is that...

1.It could have shown more imagination in terms of the pandora enviroment and the human technology. All the alien creatures/plants were merely slight reworkings(add a set of legs and some armour/tenticles) of existing ones, nothing as strange as say the dune sandworms. The humans tech was either just larger versions of existing machies or revisites of the dropship from Aliens. The only area that I thought was really original as reguards the look of the film was the geography with the floating mountains and "magnetic flux" rocks.

2.It felt like too total a rejection of human values to me, not only were the humans obviousy the badguys but Navi society was presented without any real negatives and the hero accepting it was really all he needed to do to suceed. It would have made for a more balanced story if bringing the Navi clans together had been someone harder IMHO and was only achieved by human expereince.

And star wars again did the same with episodes 1 to 3 where an even better story was told while using new technology at the same time

It really didnt, the prequals story maybe more complex but it horribley told(both in overall concept and actual dialog) revealing why Lucas needed so much help with the scripts for the original films. Pretty much all the attraction in those films for me was that they were set in the Starwars universe and had some nice FX, Avatat's universe maybe wasnt quite as interesting but Cameron clearly still has a much better grasp of the basic of story telling than Lucas does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally thought it was a good film, not great, but a good solid effort. I give it 4/5 stars as a whole. Out of all the special effects, what most impressed me was that the smaller transport aircraft and the gunships looked excellent. I felt more like I was actually seeing them more so than the the Na'vi (I think that's how you spell it) or anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best CGI I've ever seen but the plot is so embarrassingly simple and predictable it all seemed wasted. If you liked Dances

With Wolves, this is Dances With Wolves In Space. I found the anti-American sentiment very off-putting and characters actually used lines like "we'll fight terror with terror" and "shock and awe". Most people go to the movies to escape and it's hard enough trying to identify with oversized blue creatures without such overt USA-bashing. About half-way thru I

just didn't care for the Hollywood cookie-cutter story anymore and just wanted it to end. 2 1/2 out of 5 stars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dead on with the Dances with Wolves comparison.

Yeah, the best part of the storyline is the first 30min of the film, than once the chick pops out to defend him, than basically your just watching to hopefully see some nudes.

The Movie itself was awesome, storyline, not so much. Nice premise tho.

Any one who ever played World of Warcraft, saw a whole bunch of comparisons in there too. Especially the landscape.

In fact take out the whole out of body thing and most of the technology, you basically have the Horde Vs. the Draenei on Teledrasil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found the anti-American sentiment very off-putting and characters actually used lines like "we'll fight terror with terror" and "shock and awe". Most people go to the movies to escape and it's hard enough trying to identify with oversized blue creatures without such overt USA-bashing.

I have long-since given up on the political under- and overtones in films anymore.

I've come to accept that I'd never be able to watch practically ANYthing if I let it get to me much.

But it is off-putting - severely.

Especially that it's so blatant and undisguised.

I might actually have a little more respect for them if they used a little finesse and subtlety to make their points, but it's often just a bare step above characters wearing sandwich boards emblazoned with "Death to Bush!"

I'm now required to not only "suspend my disbelief" but to "suspend my ideology" in order to attempt to enjoy most movies these days.

Sad.

Actually, the whole planet-wide consciousness and interdependence angle of the movie is pretty much Wiccan philosophy and belief.

Not surprising to make that out as the "good guys" side.

Still, I'm most excited about what this movie means as far as setting the bar for the movies we'll be seeing in the coming years.

I see the ability to remain much more faithful to the original novel in adaptations.

I'm praying for a Lord Of The Rings -type trilogy for the first three Dune novels.

And then the truly epic vision of God Emperor of Dune - that would be a mind-blower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm most excited about what this movie means as far as setting the bar for the movies we'll be seeing in the coming years. I see the ability to remain much more faithful to the original novel in adaptations. I'm praying for a Lord Of The Rings -type trilogy for the first three Dune novels. And then the truly epic vision of God Emperor of Dune - that would be a mind-blower.

Ok fine, but what I'm looking for are great NEW stories brought to life on the big screen, and that's where this film let me down. These typical formula-driven, cookie-cutter plots with underdeveloped characters are becoming so tedious. I bitch a lot, I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to see it last night with my wife and we both thought it was amazing!! But she thought it made americans look like people who will take whatever they want whenever they want. Just her opinion I guess. Oh yea, shes American! the effects were brilliant and the 3D was outstanding. One of the best movies (visually) I have ever seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if we go see it, it will be for the graphics and the animation, not the story, I take it?

It's one on my boyfriends "want-to-see-list."

I know about the political messages already, but it still looks a little interesting. I was thinking about suggesting that we use our reduced fee movie passes to go see it today. I think we've got it playing IMAX, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen it yesterday in 3D, of course with my friends... Before watching it, I was told that one should admire it for it's graphics not for it's storyline. Indeed the latter has much to be desired. But I can't agree that animation was perfect...There are a lot of mistakes, such as wrong proportions, strange gravity etc... Some moments are pretty marvellous, no doubt... And in fact it was rather long...2.5 hours. It's worth seeing once, but I really cannot understand people that watch it for 4-5 times, sorry...(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And star wars again did the same with episodes 1 to 3 where an even better story was told while using new technology at the same time.

My advice to you is whatever you're taking, STOP.

While Jedi is the weakest of the original 3, they are far superior to the pieces of utter dogshit Lucas put out with the new 3. Technology is not a worthy substitute for excellent creativity. While the original 3 did have ground breaking special effects, it was what they couldn't do that forced lasting creativity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw it Saturday at 9am....and there wasn't a seat to be had. My jaw was down for an hour or so....and that 3 hit trick weed I was saving certainly did it's job. The effects are great....bar-raising great. The story is so-so, and the people are ugly as sin. The movie itself was one battle too long, but well worth the money. Seeing this without the 3-d IMAX would be a waste of time.

Saw Sherlock Holmes too. Great flick....loved the ambience of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the best part of the storyline is the first 30min of the film, than once the chick pops out to defend him, than basically your just watching to hopefully see some nudes.

Animated nudes of Na'vi people ? I'd stick with Nat'l Geographic. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just got back from seeing it, and I can honestly say that's the best $15 I've spent in a very long time.

Number one, you absolutely HAVE to see it in the IMAX 3D.

This movie is the paradigm shift that Star Wars was in '77 taken to the 10th power.

This is one of the greatest movies I've ever seen from the perspective of being immersed in the story.

I was wondering what your opinion of Star Wars Episode II is concerning the CGI use and character development, particularly the Jar-Jar character.

I was put off by the Jar-Jar character. It's looks, it's actions, etc.

If Avatar is anywhere in the same vein as Episode II, I would have to say no deal.

But really, I'm not much on Fantasy Films, nor Fantasy/RPG/Adventure Video Games either.

You either like that stuff, or you don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was wondering what your opinion of Star Wars Episode II is concerning the CGI use and character development, particularly the Jar-Jar character.

I was put off by the Jar-Jar character. It's looks, it's actions, etc.

If Avatar is anywhere in the same vein as Episode II, I would have to say no deal.

But really, I'm not much on Fantasy Films, nor Fantasy/RPG/Adventure Video Games either.

You either like that stuff, or you don't.

Every time I see Episode I Jar-Jar makes me laugh. What was George Lucas smoking when he came up with the idea for that character?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amazing movie. I've seen it few days ago and it's great. Awesome CGI and special effects, but I don't like the movie just because of it. The story is great and very interesting as is the theme of the movie. The movie is already one of my favorite movies and one of the greatest movies I've ever seen so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...