Avatar Superthread

BlitzKrieg

mdwexford wrote: »

Serious??

Hmm guess i was the only genius to figure out Batman would save the day and all would be hunky dory in Gotham in the end.

ughhh...

I take it you havnt seen the film.

Anyone who would think the ending was "all hunky dory in gotham* must have fallen asleep in the last 10 minutes.

just to remind you

it ends with batman taking the fall for the murders by two face and becoming a fugitive, thus changing the entire dynamic that had been established in the film already

That is not a cliched and predictable ending. It didnt end with batman saving the day and the world cheering and having a happily ever after, its actually quite a tragic ending

with the death of harvey dent

It is possible for Avatar to have a common plot (show me a film that isn't influenced by any archetypes) weak ancillary characters and still be a 10/10 film purely on the back of the technical and visual achievement alone.

Now let me make one thing clear on my position, I have no problem with a common plot, I've said that many times already, my problem is with the very weak characters. not sort of weak but insanely paper thin weak characters.

To steal a test from another thread/review there is a 70 minute review of the phantom menace posted up 2 nights ago and early into it the reviewer does a test about the characters. He asked people to describe characters in phantom menace without describing what they do or the title of their job.

THAT IS AVATAR IN A NUTSHELL. It is very difficult to squeeze anymore detail out of the majority of the cast aside from that. As I already stated I have very few issues with Sully as a character...he worked but because there is such an extensive supporting cast their weaknessess become the film's weakness. The difference between AVATAR and DUEL is because one had a large cast and the other had a very small cast. Duel can and was be carried on one detailed character. Avatar cannot, to balance out the film's narrative you needed more from the cast around the leads. As much as people b*tch about Titanic, that it got right, despite Rose and Jack being the leads, the extended cast around them had enough development to them that it held up the extended cast.


I watched a review of it by the spoony one earlier today and he hated much more then me that I felt was unfair, but it did remind me why I think the lack of character development on a large cast is so damaging. The film is getting alot of grief in the media for its preachy enviromentalist message but the thing is Cameron always has preachy messages in his films (see extended edition of The Abyss) but he has for the most part covered that preachyness by having decent characters, the abyss the preachiness is not that big of an issue because we liked the characters and was wrapped up in their problems within a closed enviroment, when it opened up to include the whole world in this *repent or die* moment it irked people but it was looked over because we had alot of emotion invested in the characters in the previous 2 hours and we want them to turn out fine.

Sleazus

L31mr0d wrote: »

In what way? I guarantee you whatever aspect you think is not archetypal about the Dark Knight I will be able to find it's mirror in an equivalent hero story from the past decade or so. Hero stories are all the same, they have to be for the audience to believe them.

That is the difference, find me a dramatic deconstruction of the superhero genre in blockbuster cinema that predates The Dark Knight - so Watchmen and Kick-Ass don't count.

Otacon wrote: »

What about Avatar's story is not well told?

At the risk of going over old ground, I was less-than-impressed with the (lack of) characterisation and the awful dialogue, but I was more than a little uncomfortable at the implicit racial aspect of the movie. A white man

leads a tribe of "noble savages" to salvation

, while experiencing their life (though don't worry, he can still return to his privileged life at any point - making the lifestyle his choice).

It just gives the impression that nothing but superficial thought went into the story - but it also seems disconcertingly like a white man's fantasy or historical revisionism. By

fighting with the Na'vi

, Jake is implicitly washed clean of the history of oppression and genocide that founded the character's home of America (and other states) - but he also gets to be a hero to these otherwise victims, rather than an implicit (rather than active) oppressor. The film would have been much more fascinating without Jake, Cameron has had primitive aliens trump advanced humans before (in Aliens) - so why not here?

johnny_ultimate

Just back from this, and as a technical achievement it was astonishing - constantly impressive for the first hour or so, in particular the nighttime sequences (with every touch causing wonderful illumination). Every cent of that 300 million is on screen.

But as a film, I'm not so sure. I think the characters annoyed me most. I disliked Sam Worthington for most of the film, just not a likable lead. The army general and his minions (i.e. the guy who says "Get Some") were ridiculous - bad guys without an ounce of credibility. The ideology behind the action made it hard to agree on occasion with the Na'vi (in particular the religious element) and even the valid points (environmental mostly) are damaged by heavy handed delivery.

Of course, this is primarily popcorn stuff, and I did very much enjoy the film for the most part - the basic coming of age story was simple, light and enjoyable, and I liked the dual personality ideas suggested by Avatars. However, I also thought the love story was very weak, especially when coupled with weak characterisation. Even the action climax was dull IMO - by the end I was spotting physics mistakes

(surely the bombs would have fallen out of the dropship as it spiralled out of control?)

. And the mech suit business was another irritating action cliche - same problem I found with District 9. There is an appeal on occassion to cheesy lines and explosions, but it didn't always work here I thought.

I think it is a film certainly worth seeing - in terms of visuals and audio, this is perhaps the game changer James Cameron heralded. As a film, it is merely a heavy-handed action/romance movie that misses as much as it hits.

MisterAnarchy

basquille wrote: »

but on a visual scale, it's unrivalled!

Oddly enough ,I saw a making of feature on Avatar today on tv and the visuals looked far richer,clearer and brighter than what I saw in the 3D version.
The 3D effect while impressive ,looked washed out and blurry.
Perhaps it was just the cinema I saw it in but I've found the quality of picture in alot of cinemas to be poor.
A film like this needs a digital projector .I saw Transformers 2 on a digital screen and while the film was poor ,the picture quality was superb.
Imax is the acid test though,everything else is substandard.

Basq

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

The 3D effect while impressive ,looked washed out and blurry.
Perhaps it was just the cinema I saw it in but I've found the quality of picture in alot of cinemas to be poor.

You sure you had the 3D glasses on?

I'm thinking it was the cinema or your eyesight.. it looked crystal clear and extremely effective in the cinema I watched it in last night.

Tea_Bag

Epic film 10/10

Id recommend to anyone and everyone willing to listen.

BlitzKrieg

Oddly enough ,I saw a making of feature on Avatar today on tv and the visuals looked far richer,clearer and brighter than what I saw in the 3D version.

I've seen both the 2d and 3d version and I can confirm it does look much more colourful without 3D. The issue is the film was designed to be 3D so some colours (particulary on the alien panther) tend to be too shiny in 2D. Others though like the banshee's look alot better in 2D as the much stronger colours make them seem more unique.

Little Acorn

Wow!
Went to see it last night,it was my first 3d film and I was amazed.
One of the scariest(and best) parts for me was,

when he got separated from the others,and the following chase scene with the "Thanator" that ensued.

I was literally pushed back in my seat,clenching the arm rests and only noticed after it had finished that my mouth was gaping open!:D

I was mesmerized by

all the exquisite colours of the plants,and also by the creativity involved in all the creatures.

(not sure if that needs to be in a spoiler,but just in case!:-) )

On reflection it is not the best storyline ever created,but due to the amazing visual effects I really got sucked into the story whilst watching,and had tears in my eyes

when their home got destroyed and their futile attempts to defend such a superpower. Was really happy,when they regrouped and got some strategy going,as I was sure it was going to end sadly.

.

All in all-definitely worth going to see. After first laughing at how silly we all looked in our glasses,we were frozen to the screen for the entire film,and left with big smiles on our faces,each discussing our "best bits".
Most fun I've had at the cinema.:)

tunguska

Saw it last night and its pretty good. Very much Dances with wolves but not even in the same universe as that film. Clunky dialogue, Cameron really shouldve hired somebody who can actually write to create the screenplay.
Dances with smurfs indeed..........although maybe it should be A man called Smurf.

Handsome Bob

mdwexford wrote: »

Hmm guess i was the only genius to figure out Batman would save the day and all would be hunky dory in Gotham in the end.

Batman comes out of TDK as a villain with Gotham facing an unsure future over the death of Harvey Dent. It's not at all hunky dory.

I enjoyed Avatar, I preferred it over Dances With Wolves because Jake was such a grassroots and ordinary character, he was easier to relate to than Costner's character.

I found the story dragging at times but for the most part it was a great spectacle. Interesting to hear Cameron has two sequels planned, anyone have any ideas where they could go with the story from here?

Sleazus

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Interesting to hear Cameron has two sequels planned, anyone have any ideas where they could go with the story from here?

I kinda expected a little bit of text at the end to explain that in about five years the humans came back and destroyed the Na'vi from space.

Seriously, I imagine one of two avenues:

• Jake's life on Pandora, when the humans return. Not sure you could call it Avatar if he's spending his whole life in a Na'vi body (unless it's people in Avatars looking for Jake or something as hackneyed); or
• A similar story on a different (possibly more "out there" planet - I heard a rumour of 'starfish aliens' abandoned for the film, or creatures covered in hair), with Avatars

The former offers more storytelling opportunities (as repeating on another planet would drive those of us unhappy with the story up the wall, but there would be a "been there, done that" aspect to a second Pandora movie). Though, in fairness, I wouldn't mind a return trip for the visuals. Just hire a half-decent writer next time.

faceman

Where do I begin.. Its taken me a couple of days to compile my thoughts on this...

Avatar is a poor film. In fact its pretty mediocre. The story is awful and cliche, the characters are dire (Bar Sigourney Weaver's character) and the dialogue is poor. Not to mention the fact it runs about 45 minutes longer than it needed. In fact maybe even an hour.

But, i enjoyed it a great deal. It was a engulving experience. Im not a fan of 3D. I come from a purist film background, but this is definitely the best, mature use of 3D yet. Now some of the 3D was unnecessary. I mean, a 3D image of people having a conversation offers nothing that 2D image doesnt already do. However fight scenes in the air, glorious deep and colourful scenery does look pretty good in 3D.

The Na'vi were too cartoony at times for me. But i have to say, Cameron put more life into Pandora as a planet then George Lucas ever managed with Star Wars. Full credit on that count. You could make nature documentaries about the place!

So the aftermath, would i watch it again? Probably not. Will i watch it in 2D. Never.

johnny_ultimate

faceman wrote: »

The Na'vi were too cartoony at times for me. But i have to say, Cameron put more life into Pandora as a planet then George Lucas ever managed with Star Wars. Full credit on that count. You could make nature documentaries about the place!

Definitely agree with this. While their facial expressions did occasionally show real emotion (if, of course, you boil humans emotions down to happy / sad / scared / love / anger) the actual physical presence of the characters felt off, somewhat beyond real. Of course it is meant to be an alien species, but the only time I truly felt these were believable creatures was in medium close up.

Pandora, on the other hand, was the only 'character' in the film that surpassed mere plot forwarding archetype IMO. What a wonderful place, and I think the first half of the film was by far the stronger element as you got to know this place. At its best, it felt like you were right there with Jake traversing this wonderful, mysterious planet. When they just started to blow **** up (and tbh, that is all the last hour or so was to me) it seemed like a waste of this epic creation. A triumph of art design (I can't remember many films with such an effective grasp of colour) over storytelling. It is a strange experience, because as much as I was impressed on a sensory level, I just couldn't get past the simplistic conflicts at the core.

Ri_Nollaig

faceman wrote: »

Where do I begin.. Its taken me a couple of days to compile my thoughts on this...

Avatar is a poor film. In fact its pretty mediocre. The story is awful and cliche, the characters are dire (Bar Sigourney Weaver's character) and the dialogue is poor. Not to mention the fact it runs about 45 minutes longer than it needed. In fact maybe even an hour.

But, i enjoyed it a great deal. It was a engulving experience. Im not a fan of 3D. I come from a purist film background, but this is definitely the best, mature use of 3D yet. Now some of the 3D was unnecessary. I mean, a 3D image of people having a conversation offers nothing that 2D image doesnt already do. However fight scenes in the air, glorious deep and colourful scenery does look pretty good in 3D.

The Na'vi were too cartoony at times for me. But i have to say, Cameron put more life into Pandora as a planet then George Lucas ever managed with Star Wars. Full credit on that count. You could make nature documentaries about the place!

So the aftermath, would i watch it again? Probably not. Will i watch it in 2D. Never.

This sums up my opinion exactly. The film itself is awful rubbish, even ignoring the copy of a very familiar storyline, the "dances with wolves", its not even a good re-telling of it. It was comically predictable... And for anyone who says this is sci-fi what do you expect? watch 'moon'

The sfx and 3D was without a doubt brilliant. But that will not make a bad movie good.
Was very enjoyable to watch but people ranking this as the best movie in years/groundbreaking is starting to annoy me.

lostexpectation

creatures with six legs, that stand up straight, nope, nowhere in this universe or alternative dmiensions, floating rocks, nah

ScumLord

Just watched it on download, the quality wasn't great but overall I enjoyed the film. I was all geared up to dislike the film but Cameron won out fairly quickly, there was times in the film where my critical mind wanted to say this or that couldn't work or happen but the storey won out in the end.

It's very relevant and nice to see the human race as the bad guy, we could easily end up like that if technology wins out over balanced ecosystems, that'#s not will ever happen but it's a good message.

I wan't too impressed with the magical quality of the natives but I guess that's how Americans need their critical information processed.

I was impressed with the lead Sam Worthington, I was actually expecting him to be a disabled actor, he did actually look like a disabled person, did he not use his legs for months, was it special effects? It's little details like that, that can lead into me believing the fantastic.

If I get the chance I will certainly be watching this in 3D in a cinema. Overall a great film. It had a good message and it was carried off well.

madma

what cinemas in dublin are still showing this in 3D?

krudler

ScumLord wrote: »

Just watched it on download, the quality wasn't great but overall I enjoyed the film. I was all geared up to dislike the film but Cameron won out fairly quickly, there was times in the film where my critical mind wanted to say this or that couldn't work or happen but the storey won out in the end.
.

Whyyyyyyyy Its something that HAS to be seen on the biggest screen and in 3D

ScumLord

krudler wrote: »

Whyyyyyyyy Its something that HAS to be seen on the biggest screen and in 3D

Because I don't believe the hype, I'm not giving money to some advertising machine. I saw the film on it's own merits and would now pay to watch it in all it's glory. It shouldn't matter weather I see it in 3D or poor quality cam, the storey should shine through and it did in this case.

KerranJast

ScumLord wrote: »

Because I don't believe the hype, I'm not giving money to some advertising machine. I saw the film on it's own merits and would now pay to watch it in all it's glory. It shouldn't matter weather I see it in 3D or poor quality cam, the storey should shine through and it did in this case.

So you supported a criminal enterprise rather than paying to watch something that took thousands of people years of hard work to produce and even then refused to watch it in the state they intended it to be seen? Classy.

PeakOutput

ScumLord wrote: »

Because I don't believe the hype, I'm not giving money to some advertising machine. I saw the film on it's own merits and would now pay to watch it in all it's glory. It shouldn't matter weather I see it in 3D or poor quality cam, the storey should shine through and it did in this case.

wow if you were that impressed with the story(which is rubbish) this is probably going to be the greatest film you have ever seen when you see it on a big screen in 3d

it is films like this that have the potential to seriously dent the illegal download culture

it really is a great film despite its lame story went with 3 friends who are not sci fi people at all and they all loved it

Stercus Accidit

May as well eat out of the rubbish bin to spite paying to eat in a restaurant.


The only reason to watch this film is the spectacle and the use of 3d, quite well used and impressive. The story is a bit cheesy and unoriginal.

If cinema tends towards newer and more impressive technology, as in this film, I'll be watching less dvd's at home.

Cupcake_Crisis

Going to see it again tomorrow with big group. Will be interesting to see if its as good second time round

krudler

ScumLord wrote: »

Because I don't believe the hype, I'm not giving money to some advertising machine. I saw the film on it's own merits and would now pay to watch it in all it's glory. It shouldn't matter weather I see it in 3D or poor quality cam, the storey should shine through and it did in this case.

Course it matters, its a movie about spectacle first, the story is pretty basic, tbh, its the technology that makes it an event movie, how watching a crappy quality cam with crap sound made by some scumbag recording it in a cinema can compare to seeing it in its intended 3D is beyond me

ScumLord

KerranJast wrote: »

So you supported a criminal enterprise rather than paying to watch something that took thousands of people years of hard work to produce and even then refused to watch it in the state they intended it to be seen? Classy.

Watch it in a state they chose? :rolleyes: Criminal enterprise? Which criminal enterprise are you talking about? Hollywood, the distributors or the the one person it took to take a camera into the cinema and then upload it?

krudler wrote: »

its the technology that makes it an event movie, how watching a crappy quality cam with crap sound made by some scumbag recording it in a cinema can compare to seeing it in its intended 3D is beyond me

In fairness it was a pretty good quality cam job.

baaaa

Was a very good quality cam all things considered.
Don't know would I bother seeing it in cinema though,don't fall for the hype anymore.

Rabies

Great effects.
Fully alive and interactive world.
Beautiful creatures.
Interesting world
Nice animation and facial expressions

Predictable
Poor script.



Average movie.

faceman

Any further discussion or comments on piracy or illegal downloads will result in a lengthy ban. illegally downloading films is a criminal offense and is not supported or promoted here.

There will be no further warnings.

seclachi

I found it a brilliant movie, the 3D was very good, and plot really stuck with me for some reason, I guess im a sucker for the whole rebirth mechanic.

I agree with some of the points, none of the characters were particularly outstanding, but they didnt ruin the story either. I`ll probably go see this one again.

Handsome Bob

Perez Hilton has declared that new movie Avatar is a failure in the US.


The online blogger, who regularly hits headlines for his controversial celebrity gossip, said that despite the film claiming huge box office figures in other countries, it has wasted money in the States.


Hilton wrote on his website: "There's $500 million (£311 million) shot to hell! The most expensive movie ever made has FAILED at the box office.


"James Cameron's Avatar raked in a mere $73 million (£45 million) in its opening weekend here in the states. To put that into perspective for you - New Moon earned $73 million (£45 million) in it's FIRST DAY of release, pulling in $125 million (£78 million) domestically over it's opening weekend."


Avatar has achieved a worldwide debut of $260 million (£162 million).


Hilton has previously been described by New York Magazine as "Hollywood's leading box-office prognosticator".

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a192389/hilton-avatar-is-a-flop-in-the-us.html

Meh, that's really not a big deal. I think it's a bit ridiculous of Hilton to expect Avatar to justify its price tag in its opening weekend. For that to happen it not only would have had to beat opening weekend box office records, but it would have had to absolutely blow the records out of the water to "justify" the price tag. So IMO it's a bit of a non-runner from Hilton I'm afraid.

L31mr0d

Ri_Nollaig wrote: »

Was very enjoyable to watch but people ranking this as the best movie in years/groundbreaking is starting to annoy me.

The bolded part is probably why I, and myriads of others like me will annoy you. The rest of us aren't so anal retentive so as to require a film to tick a set list of boxes before we can give it the label of being a great film.

I'm really somewhat of a utilitarian and, as such, I judge this movie by how enjoyable an experience it was and how it made me feel as I left my seat and existed the cinema. You will find a lot of people are like this also.

This movie made my jaw gape in awe, smile with amazement and overall left me elated and feeling like I'd just watched something special. That's all that matters to me, the experience and the resulting happiness. You say you found it enjoyable to watch? Why can't that be enough?

BlitzKrieg

LZ5by5 wrote: »

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a192389/hilton-avatar-is-a-flop-in-the-us.html

Meh, that's really not a big deal. I think it's a bit ridiculous of Hilton to expect Avatar to justify its price tag in its opening weekend. For that to happen it not only would have had to beat opening weekend box office records, but it would have had to absolutely blow the records out of the water to "justify" the price tag. So IMO it's a bit of a non-runner from Hilton I'm afraid.

Perez hilton has a very short memory doesnt he?

Titanic didnt break any records on its release, it came #1 in the box office (like Avatar) but it didnt make any amazing overnight numbers. What made titanic a success is it stuck in the cinema for almost 8 months consistently raking in money. Titanic's biggest day was valentines day and it was released the previous december

I dont think Avatar will have the same effect, but it will stick in the 3D and imax cinemas for a fair few months and continue to pull in a steady stream of income. I say Avatar will get a resurgence of popularity post christmas with families going for the 3D experiance while the holidays are still going.

EDIT:

And oh god he shoots he scores!

Exactly as I said

http://www.imdb.com/news/ni1325935/

James Cameron’s Avatar opened this weekend and narrowly missed setting the record for largest December debut of all time. The groundbreaking CGI epic made $77 million once the actual numbers were posted Monday afternoon, just $185,840 shy of the Will Smith starrer I Am Legend ($585M worldwide total).

Avatar also managed $232 million worldwide, the biggest global opening for a non-sequel in the history of cinema.

Not bad for a failure. Seeking new ways to grab attention, Perez Hilton blogged, “The most expensive movie ever made has Failed at the box office,” citing an erroneous claim that the movie was made for $500 million.

He neglected to inform his readers of the record 3D and IMAX sales, which explains why some audiences may be waiting for a show that isn’t sold out with this premium technology. Not even a hint of its strong word of mouth that will easily carry the movie through January. …

seclachi

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Perez hilton has a very short memory doesnt he?

Titanic didnt break any records on its release, it came #1 in the box office (like Avatar) but it didnt make any amazing overnight numbers. What made titanic a success is it stuck in the cinema for almost 8 months consistently raking in money. Titanic's biggest day was valentines day and it was released the previous december

I dont think Avatar will have the same effect, but it will stick in the 3D and imax cinemas for a fair few months and continue to pull in a steady stream of income. I say Avatar will get a resurgence of popularity post christmas with families going for the 3D experiance while the holidays are still going.

I think its fair to say it wasn`t the best of times to release it too, we are right in the middle of the holiday shopping zerg, followed by the rush to get back home, I would imagine in this period many people just dont have time to go to the cinema (for a 3 hour movie no less). I would imagine it will rocket after christmas day and new years, especially around blue monday when people are after a bit of escapism.

BlitzKrieg

seclachi wrote: »

I think its fair to say it wasn`t the best of times to release it too, we are right in the middle of the holiday shopping zerg, followed by the rush to get back home, I would imagine in this period many people just dont have time to go to the cinema (for a 3 hour movie no less). I would imagine it will rocket after christmas day and new years, especially around blue monday when people are after a bit of escapism.

We are in agreement, I expect the same. According to IMDB and a friend of mine in LA, the Imax 3D version of the film is booked out into mid january there abouts...


Despite thinking its only an above average film, I probably end up seeing it a third time when I am in London just for the IMAX viewing of it. God bless the cineworld card (cause I didnt pay for my last two screenings of it).

smcelhinney

One reason that this film will have staying power is that the technology doesnt yet exist to do this film justice in a home cinema surrounding. With the announcement only the day before release of the impending standard for BD-3D, it'll be a while before this film makes it to an acceptable form of home viewing media.

People will still be going in to see this in its full technicolor 3D glory for months to come.

johnny_ultimate

L31mr0d wrote: »

This movie made my jaw gape in awe, smile with amazement and overall left me elated and feeling like I'd just watched something special. That's all that matters to me, the experience and the resulting happiness. You say you found it enjoyable to watch? Why can't that be enough?

I don't think any of us complaining our bitter, overly critical viewers tbh (I see where you are coming from - I felt the same thing with other films such as Star Trek or Drag Me to Hell this year, which I would consider superior films to Avatar). I just think for a lot of film fans visuals aren't quite enough. I have watched films this year that have felt extremely emotionally profound without anywhere near $300 million (Synecdoche New York, Wendy & Lucy to name two). The story of Avatar just left me cold.

Hollywood is extremely capable of producing well told, effective stories. The beginning of Up this year was as emotionally involving as anything I've ever seen. Avatar was just a fantastic looking action film in my eyes. If a film is enjoyable and has a well told story, I often completely invest entirely in the world. This wasn't the case with Avatar (especially for the last 60 minutes or so), and for that reason I thought it was lacking despite its extraordinary production values. At the end of the day visuals are just one element of a good film.

L31mr0d

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

At the end of the day visuals are just one element of a good film.

Who says so? Again with these invisible lists with check boxes that need to be marked before you can call a film good. It's arbitrary nonsense.

It just doesn't make sense... all these people saying "it's only average, can't say I liked the characters or plot, I'm going to see it again because I really enjoyed it" If a film is good enough to warrant multiple viewings then it is a great film, if only for the aspects that people found amazing enough to go back and view more than once.

monkeyfudge

I think the problem is it's over inflated price tag.

They just couldn't afford to challenge the audience. So the result is this horribly predictable cliched dull piece of dross.

I watched the Dark Crystal on BluRay last night. Hadn't seen it in a good many years... and there was several hundred times more imagination in there than in Avatar. You had genuinely original alien cultures and creature designs and guess what, you also had a great story with a hell of a lot of heart in it too.

L31mr0d

monkeyfudge wrote: »

I watched the Dark Crystal on BluRay last night. Hadn't seen it in a good many years...

Let me guess, you watched it first in your childhood? Tell you what, 10 years from now ask a person that seen Avatar first when they were a kid how much heart they feel this film has and how good the story is and see what they say.

BlitzKrieg

Who says so? Again with these invisible lists with check boxes that need to be marked before you can call a film good. It's arbitrary nonsense.

Can you not consider these things people enjoy in films?

You enjoy visual eyecandy. Personnally I enjoy great characterisation. Alot of the films you named as contrast to Avatar, Jurassic Park, ET, Star Wars. THey had likeable interesting and entertaining characters. What I like best about the Indiana Jones films...IS INDIANA JONES, he is a very likeable character, they could have done an Indy film following a day of him teaching at the university and I would have loved it because I know even without the tombs or nazi plots I would find him an entertaining and likeable characters.

Equally there are people who enjoy a good plot.

There is no invisible checklist, its just different priorities on what people like foremost in their films.

It just doesn't make sense... all these people saying "it's only average, can't say I liked the characters or plot, I'm going to see it again because I really enjoyed it" If a film is good enough to warrant multiple viewings then it is a great film, if only for the aspects that people found amazing enough to go back and view more than once.

I think I'm the only one who has said the film is only average and have gone to multiple viewings. And while I admit yes it doesnt make sense that I would slate the film as average but I have seen it more times then films that I have enjoyed more, I refuse to have you assume for me that I am going because its good enough. Both occasions were free viewings because I have been to the cinema enough times already this month to give me a free pass on my cineworld card, I had the time to waste (a cancelled meeting) and yes I was (thanks in part to your response to my original review) encoruged to see the film in 3D because the film is expected to be the make it or break it film for 3D cinema.

The imax screening will be because I am moving to london in the near year and my mum wants to see the film, she knows both my sister and I felt it was average but its the sort of film she enjoys (she's a big star wars geek) so I am taking her to the imax screening in london when we are over there, I think you'd agree I should at least keep it somewhat interesting for myself and also give her an oppurtunity to see the film at its best?

I think you misunderstand above average, there are many films I consider above average but have easily been able to sit through multiple screenings of. Just because something is watchable doesnt make it great.

monkeyfudge

L31mr0d wrote: »

Let me guess, you watched it first in your childhood? Tell you what, 10 years from now ask a person that seen Avatar first when they were a kid how much heart they feel this film has and how good the story is and see what they say.

But it isn't a good story.

There are plenty of blockbusters I would have seen as a kid that I would have considered to be terrible, and would consider to be even worse now.

Neverending Story for instance holds up horribly these days... although in fairness it still shows more imagination and creativity than Avatar... a lot of that would be down to what remnants of the source material are still in the film.

Oh and can I just say that 'Unobtainium' is easily the most lazy McGuffin in the history of cinema.

faceman

L31mr0d wrote: »

Let me guess, you watched it first in your childhood? Tell you what, 10 years from now ask a person that seen Avatar first when they were a kid how much heart they feel this film has and how good the story is and see what they say.

I think alot of people who are critical of it do agree that some of the scenes are jaw dropping, no one can deny that. I also enjoyed it but think it was an awful movie and it certainly has no re-watch factor to me, especially in 2D.

With regard to a child watching it, of course they will be blown away. Children usually are. That doesnt change the fact its a poor film.

To quote Dogma (God Im a nerd! ) when they discuss faith, the same analogy can be used to explain why kids are easily entertained:

"....like a glass of water. When you're young, the glass is full, and it's easy to fill up. But the older you get, the bigger the glass gets, and the same amount of water doesn't fill the glass anymore. Periodically, the glass has to be refilled."

uncleoswald

L31mr0d wrote: »

Let me guess, you watched it first in your childhood? Tell you what, 10 years from now ask a person that seen Avatar first when they were a kid how much heart they feel this film has and how good the story is and see what they say.

Possibly, but I doubt it. It might stay with some people in the same way as a trip to an amusement park etc.... but not the way I felt about Indy and Chewie or people from later generations thought of Buzz Lightyear and Sully and now whoever the hell is in Twilight. I remember when the Phantom Menace came out (Avatar is clearly a miles better movie) and whenever it was criticised you'd just hear how it wasn't made for the fans but the children and how they would fall for it the same way we fell for the older movies but I see no evidence of that today beyond the merchandise juggernaught.

I just think when the main thing that a movie has going for it is its technology then its doomed to age badly. How will Avatar look in 5-10 years?

Fysh

Having watched Avatar in 3d yesterday afternoon, I think I've now safely settled on my opinion of it:

Exceptional 3d work, CGI that's pretty good but not as good as James Cameron's promotional machine would like to believe, and a storyline & dialogue that were so simplistic as to render the whole thing more like watching cutscenes from the best-looking videogame in history rather than a proper and cohesive narrative in its own right.

Future of cinema? I bloody hope not.

KerranJast

uncleoswald wrote: »

I just think when the main thing that a movie has going for it is its technology then its doomed to age badly. How will Avatar look in 5-10 years?

Terminator 2, Jurassic Park & The Matrix have all held up well tbf and I expect Avatar to stand up fairly well too. I expect it to be remembered in the same light as JP. Hokey plot with few memorable characters (all people really remember are a few lines "clever girl", "spared no expense") but with groundbreaking, awe inspiring visuals. I'd go further though and say at least Avatar has a memorable character in Neytiri.

monkeyfudge

The only character that sticks out in my head is the military general.

I admired his tenacity. Made the final action sequences worthwhile.

Dr. Greenthumb

Saw avatar last night and have to say i thought it was avarage at best. None of the characters are that likeable (apart from the girl alien maybe Lol) the lead male is very weak, the story is crap and unbelievably predictable and they could have cut a good half hour off it and it would've only improved it. What has happened to the skill of character development, these "amazing" films spend too much on graphics and not enough on the actors.

The CGI / graphics were good but in my own opinion if i want to sit down for over 2 hours watching something with amazing scenery etc i'd watch a David Attenborough boxset which would be a lot more entertaining.

uncleoswald

KerranJast wrote: »

Terminator 2, Jurassic Park & The Matrix have all held up well tbf and I expect Avatar to stand up fairly well too. I expect it to be remembered in the same light as JP. Hokey plot with few memorable characters (all people really remember are a few lines "clever girl", "spared no expense") but with groundbreaking, awe inspiring visuals. I'd go further though and say at least Avatar has a memorable character in Neytiri.

Interesting that you name those movies. Terminator 2 was more then just another sequel, it was one of the greatest action movies ever made and had two of the most loved film characters of all time in iconic scene after iconic scene. Thats why it has held up. However the JP & Matrix sequels will be forgotton in history books despite huge budgets and state of the art technology and yet people still watch the original two which suggests there are a lot more to those movies then its visuals. In fact I'd say it was becauseof some very charasmatic performances from Sam Neill, Jeff Goldblum and Laura Dern that people still like Jurrasic Park and no way in hell will Neytiri ever be as memorable as Agent Smith.

jarvisob

Great film... 3d is unreal!! Didn't blow me away as much as lord of the rings but it came close... i understand peoples issues maybe with the story but i thought it was well told. I feel sorry for those people who watched those long trailers before going to see it-they give away so much!

L31mr0d

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Can you not consider these things people enjoy in films?

I can, certainly. But what I was replying to was phrased as a general statement rather than a opinion only held personally.

The problem further is that I also found the 2 main characters interesting. I felt Sullys motivations, adaptation and final acceptance of being a Na'vi interesting to watch. I also found Neytiri to be extremely well developed as a character. I never imagined that any of the other characters where more than just needed to add context and motivation. The story is about Jake and Neytiri, and the events that are happening around their relationship.

Aside from the visual spectacle I liked the story, and regardless of how predictable people found it, I never expected

the humans to be deported from the planet. To end with my loyalties being tied to an Alien species other than my own was an original experience for me

.

That being said, I can see where people are coming from. I personally hated UP, I found the whole

"growing old/death/unaccomplished dreams"

montage at the start to be a cheap ploy to pull at the audiences heart strings and it actually repulsed me more than evoking an emotional response. That opening actually impacted how well I enjoyed the rest of the film, which was another by-the-numbers friendship/adventure film churned out of the Pixar mill. It's not a popular opinion but I hold it due to my own personal experience with that film.

I just think with Avatar, people are shining too bright a light on the flaws and not lauding enough the technical achievement and visual spectacle of it. It is, without a doubt, the most visually impressive film to date. That achievement alone is enough to make it a great film, imo.

Can I ask you, if you seen a film with great characterization, and little in the way of visuals would you consider that film to be great on that 1 quality alone?