no, but who is saying it could not be a bit more diverse?Public said:
Avatar
- Thread starter maximaz
- Start date
maximaz
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Public said:
I know right? What did everyone expect, the beginning of Team America stretched into a 3 hour movie?
UniversalWolf
eaten by a grue.
Well, I just saw it, and you're wrong and Crni Vuk is right.Public said:
The story goes like this: military-industrial Americans = pure evil; blue nature-loving aliens = pure good. It's so over the top it's a joke. Also, it has some of the worst one-liners I've ever heard in a movie. My favorite was, "It's not over as long as I'm bringin' it!" I burst out laughing at that one. I've seen the plot in a dozen other movies, too. Remember Dances with Wolves? Here it is with a sci-fi setting.
Now, does that mean I think you should not go see it? No.
In fact, if you can see it in 3D, I would say you should not miss it. It was clearly made to be seen in 3D, and on that level I thought it was A+, 10-out-of-10. I'm generally a huge critic of CGI, but it works here, big time. Frankly, the first half is awesome (even though I knew exactly how it was going to end after the first 15 minutes). It's not until the second half that Cameron starts ranting like a lunatic - and a truly hateful lunatic at that. Too bad, because if you cut all crap out it would be amazing. It should've been a story about a small human research and mining colony on an alien planet.
UniversalWolf said:
Oh, so its one of those movies. How is 3D handled today? Same as it was in the 50s/60s, things being shoved in the audiences' face to show that its 3D, or is it done tastefully? I really don't see the point to it, other than for sheer novelty.
Surf Solar
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
The film industry invested a crapton of $$$ into those 3d things, so I think it will become more popular in future. They even think about 3d TV. 
UniversalWolf
eaten by a grue.
Your skepticism is very understandable. I was skeptical too, but I was pleasantly surprised. I didn't think Avatar used the 3D in a gimmicky way at all. It seemed perfectly natural, in fact. Same with the CGI; this movie is chock-full of CGI, yet it didn't bother me at all. The full, as-intended experience depends on the 3D, which is an integral part of the visuals. It's worth coughing up the extra money to see it in that format, I think.verevoof said:
Its worth seeing for the CGI Alone, something which words really well with 3D. With that said, the story is pretty much typical American stuff, ie.
Guy meets girl - Guy loves girl - Kissing Scene - Girls family dies - Guy saves the day.
In the middle of all that there's a fallout with the family and they get back together again, etc etc. Most of it is fairly predictable and you begin to roll your eyes at the inspirational moments.
Edit:
This ^
CGI is bloody fantastic though. Makes transformers look like a flash animation i'd do for college.
Guy meets girl - Guy loves girl - Kissing Scene - Girls family dies - Guy saves the day.
In the middle of all that there's a fallout with the family and they get back together again, etc etc. Most of it is fairly predictable and you begin to roll your eyes at the inspirational moments.
Edit:
Universalwolf said:
This ^
CGI is bloody fantastic though. Makes transformers look like a flash animation i'd do for college.
Aphyosis said:
I probably will NOT go to see this movie well at least not in the cinema. Not cause I think its "bad" but cause it probably isnt my interest. It seems that the movie is only worth what you see on the screen from effects namely CGI. Seems from the comments here anyway. And actualy CGI, 3D effects and such do leave me most of the time not very impressed since that is just not my focus in movies.
I always see CGI and "special effects" of all kind as the icing on the cake in a "good" movie (anything else is in my book "mediocre", doesnt mean its less entertaining. Yeah I know I am someome who loves complaining
!).What I find more interesting though is Cameron as director and movie maker here. The attitude as I remember him saying a few years back while making Alien and Terminator that he doesnt like the overuse of computer animated effects and would only choose them if he cant do it with real effects. Seems either we arrived in a part of the digital age where you really cant tell a difference anymore (and in District 9 it was really hard to tell a difference! At least for me), or Cameron just wanted to do something different. Sad is just that it seems he didnt attempt to go for something different in the content and story as well. Cause how did one described it here? Dancing with the Wolfes in space. Just that Costner did a good in acting if you ask me.
I think I might be complaining to much, but if I pay for a 3 ours movie just to see special effects that could be shown in a 20min game trailer ... I dont know. Reminds me to Aliens vs Predator where you seen the whole movie after watching 2-3 trailers. Since it seems the gore and effects are the only things worth to be watched.
I hope though that they will not replace real actors with CGI made ones before I die. Cause its hard to describe, but really good actors give you some "magic" on the screen that you just cant create with the CGI or computer effects. Could a programmer ever deliver the "style" of a Christopher Walken? Not for me!
UniversalWolf
eaten by a grue.
I think there's not much point in seeing it at all then. No more than any other movie, anyway.Crni Vuk said:
It's too bad, really. Avatar is the best-looking movie he's ever made and also has the dumbest, most predictable story. Rewrite that second half and it could have been great.Aphyosis said:
The more I think about the story the more I hate it. It's almost like some sort of demented neo-Calvinism based on New Age spiritualist claptrap mixed with "noble savage" clichés fro Rousseau. Really despicable. It's the most anti-humanist movie I've ever seen.
Starseeker
Vault Senior Citizen
lol, but was it entertaining? If it was, then did he do his job?
Depends where you get your "entertaiment" from.Starseeker said:
If someome knows about the movie enough that its only worth to be seen for the effects (which most probably do), theny yes he probably did its job well.
To say it that way. Only cause avatar leaves me so damn cold while many others seem to be "hyped" doesnt mean I think the movie is "less entertaining" or even "bad" to speak so its all a matter of taste anyway and your personal oppinion. Its just not my taste cause the first thing I am looking in a movie isnt the effects otherwise I would think Michael Bay is the god of movie making and 2012 the epidome of directing (and yes I did liked Pearl Harbor and Transformers, but they been always "mediocre" in my eyes).
I personaly just dont see how Camerons flick now is that much different from either the stuff Bay or Emerich are doing for which they receive a lot of flack here only cause Cameron cared to throw in animated blue-elfen-smurf-cats with sexy ass in his flick that you can see dancing around in cats all the time (interesting though how many here have a "love" for Avatar while on the other side there seems to be a lot of "hate" in the "furry thread" on this forum
).To give another example. I know it are different technologies but if you think about it it isnt even that far away since both use a good part of CGI and for its time it was pretty impressive too. I am talking about Ghost in the Shell and Akira for example. Those movies had (again for THAT time! dont forget there are somewhat 15 years difference ok?) quite great effects but didnt a that predicteble and cliche story.
But here again. Does it mean Avatar is "bad" ? Probably not. But ask your self what you have when you talk about the movie without using words like special effects and CGI in your sentences.
Starseeker
Vault Senior Citizen
Crni Vuk said:
Huh? Is that a typo? I don't understand this sentence. Are you saying Akira and GIS (the original movie?) had a predictable/cliche' story?
Khan FurSainty
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
Starseeker said:
I think he forgot to type some words. The point is, amazing effects are relative just to a point in time. The amazing story, on the other hand, is immortal and touches the human heart in a unique and special way.
Edit: Watched Avatar today in 3D. It sucks. Big time. Just a big bowl of "I have seen this so many times, it's not even funny anymore." There where only 2 good things about this movie. The Colonel and the air battle. Seriously, i love this guy. He was the only one i wanted to survive. He is such a unbelievable badass. I don't know if anyone will regret seeing this movie. Probably, but i didn't. It's not horrible, but it's pretty bad. I wouldn't recommend seeing it.
hmm yeah I am sorry it was kinda late and I was somewhat pretty tired. I mean both animes had a quite deep story and stuning visual effects.Starseeker said:
What I am surprised is that there seems not be much talk about the marines while I remember those from Aliens where Cameron really managed to give almost anyone of them a personality and realistic feeling as characters. Did the soldiers in Avatar really serve nothing more then generic grunts? I havnt seen the movie thus just asking out of curiousity.
Starseeker
Vault Senior Citizen
Well, in my opinion, most technology used in films/tv/theaters and all the other media associated with it usually fall into 2 broad categories. The first one is a gimmick. They use the technology only for effects and for that first wow factor. There are plenty of shows that fall into this category. The second one is to give the director/producer/etc a way for them to tell the story/create the world they wanted to tell/show. And most of the time, memorable shows/timeless pieces fall into the second category.
I could go on about historic examples of successes and failures. 2001, Star Wars, Sindbad's adventurers, blah, blah. But my point would be that (and according to the wired article going into the chronicle of how Cameroon created this film and its technology) I think he started with good intentions. He didn't create the world because the technology existed. He created the technology to show this world he already had in his head to others.
Anyway, personally I don't care either way. I am still trying to get a ticket for an Imax 3D screening to see it.
I could go on about historic examples of successes and failures. 2001, Star Wars, Sindbad's adventurers, blah, blah. But my point would be that (and according to the wired article going into the chronicle of how Cameroon created this film and its technology) I think he started with good intentions. He didn't create the world because the technology existed. He created the technology to show this world he already had in his head to others.
Anyway, personally I don't care either way. I am still trying to get a ticket for an Imax 3D screening to see it.
UniversalWolf
eaten by a grue.
I thought the first half was very entertaining. I really liked the idea of the avatars, and the complete alien biosphere of Pandorum. There's a sense of wonder as the protagonist explores the environment for the first time.Starseeker said:
The second half is terrible. Since the movie is almost three hours long, and I thought I knew exactly how it was going to end after the first fifteen minutes (this is not an exaggeration, BTW - after 15 minutes I could have told you almost exactly what the ending was), I spent the next 2:45 hoping I was wrong or that I would be surprised, and being disappointed. Right away I could see the decisions the characters were going to be forced to make, and they all ended up following the stupidest, most obvious, most unreasonable path because Cameron feels compelled to cram his goofy message down the viewer's throat. The compulsion is so strong he's willing to ruin the movie over it. By the end I was anxious for it to be over.
I found the battle at the end incredibly tedious and predictable. The amazing CGI and 3D fail there, or they simply don't matter, because it's just typical blam-blam-blam action you can get from any crappy Bay movie.
But, like I said, I really liked the first half. Avatar reminds me of a Kevin Costner movie: great concept and setup with garbage for the payoff. On the whole, I would say Avatar is a bad movie, although parts of it are exceptionally good.
Except for the one who betrayed the evil humans (Michelle Rodriguez), yes. That's one of the things that surprised me the most. There isn't even a sense of "common man" sympathy with the marines. They're all just as bloodthirsty and evil as the psychopathic leaders. In Aliens the marines were tools of the evil corporation. In Avatar the marines start out working for the evil corporation, but they quickly decide it would be more fun to exterminate the subhuman blue elves.Crni Vuk said:
Idea for sequel: Aliens vs. Avatar!
I'm trying to decide whether I'm willing to go see it again and walkout halfway through. There's no way I'd sit through the whole thing a second time, but I might be willing to watch the first half again.
Starseeker
Vault Senior Citizen
Well, iirc, he wanted to out star wars, star wars.., so maybe a trilogy is in order to see the different sides of the story?
I have seen the an brief intro for the game, and it supposedly let you choose which side to take. Who knows?
I have seen the an brief intro for the game, and it supposedly let you choose which side to take. Who knows?