Avatar Superthread

vinylbomb

Deleted User wrote: »

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

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

That means quite a bit to me.

Deleted User wrote: »

He was certainly far more memorable than Luke Skywalker.

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

vinylbomb

opinion guy wrote: »

THats your opinoin vinylbomb - i've given mine above in spoiler tags. If you thought the characters were all that one dimensional maybe you weren't paying enough attention

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

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

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

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

vinylbomb

vinylbomb wrote: »

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

That means quite a bit to me.

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

vinylbomb

Deleted User wrote: »

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

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

Driver 8

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

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

vinylbomb

vinylbomb wrote: »

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

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

nix

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

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

vinylbomb

Deleted User wrote: »

The story was fine for what it is.

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

It is fit for this purpose.

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

nyarlothothep

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

opinion guy

vinylbomb wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Driver 8 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

nix wrote: »

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

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

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

ScumLord

vinylbomb wrote: »

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

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

Really?

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

irish_bob

vinylbomb wrote: »

Actually, the comparison with Star Wars (Episode 4-6 is what I mean here, 1-3 are godawful) is interesting. The characters are clunky as you say, but they exist and you care for them.
In Avatar they didnt even establish defined characters, theres a male and female lead, and a bad guy. The rest of the cast are various multi-3d illuminous shades of nothing in the background(/foreground/mid-field).

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

Handsome Bob

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

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

Basq

LZ5by5 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

vinylbomb

vinylbomb wrote: »

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

It is fit for this purpose.

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

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

LZ5by5 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

basquille

basquille wrote: »

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

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

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

Handsome Bob

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

LZ5by5

LZ5by5 wrote: »

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

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

Mackman

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

I might even go see it again

vinylbomb

Deleted User wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

nix

opinion guy wrote: »

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

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

vinylbomb

opinion guy wrote: »

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

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


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

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


Or - to quote yourself

opinion guy wrote: »

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

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

Avatar aint. And didnt have a budget.


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

L31mr0d

Deleted User wrote: »

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

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

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

qwertplaywert

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

faceman

qwertplaywert wrote: »

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

Yeah i agree

spank_inferno

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

opinion guy

nix wrote: »

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

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

vinylbomb wrote: »

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


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

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

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

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

Avatar aint. And didnt have a budget.


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

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

bluto63

spank_inferno wrote: »

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

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

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

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

spank_inferno wrote: »

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

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

spank_inferno

bluto63 wrote: »

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

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

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

vinylbomb

vinylbomb wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

L31mr0d wrote: »

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

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

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

MayoForSam

Went to see Avatar this afternoon with the missus and 2 kids and it got the thumbs up across the board.

The story is pretty basic and has certainly been done before in a similar vein, but as a visual spectacle and for pure entertainment value, I couldn't find too many faults.

The CGI is amazing, its hard to believe that Cameron has managed to create an entire world. The Na'vi facial expressions are very realistic and showed true emotion at times. Especially liked the dust and ash motes flying around, the sun's rays moving over the vegetation and the

Tree of Souls flying seeds

that fitted in perfectly for the Christmas season.

The 3-D was more subtle than I thought it would be but definitely enhanced the viewing experience.

Music by James Horner was haunting, evocative and matched the film's mood very well.

One fly in the ointment at the end:

What were they doing letting the humans just leave? I can imagine that nasty little company man hitting the nuke button as soon as they reached orbit.

Saw it in the Eye cinema in Galway in case anyone is wondering, also myself and the wife both wear specs and the 3-D glasses worked fine.

PS Cameron loves his mechs doesn't he ?

hick

went to see it yesterday too
was it good, yes, was it great, I'm afraid not
the graphics were very impressive and the na'vi were better than I thought they'd be, but the story was a poor second here. there was 30 mins in the middle that could of been removed. one thing about the 3d was that it was tiring on the eyes and there was a good few blurry patches in the background or off to the sides. I did find it amazing that one lady in front of me with 3 young teenagers, realized at the start of the movie she needed the glasses, and ran out to get them, she came back a few mins later and said the queue was too long and the 4 of them watched the movie without them! madness!!!!
Anyway for me I have to say it was 6 out of 10, and the majority of that was for the CGI. But if you compare it to something like the Matrix which was a real groundbreaking movie, I went back to see that again in the cinema and couldn't wait to either, nothing like that here.

the my €0.02 anyway

gandalf

OK saw this in French yesterday so I will have to wait until I am back in Ireland to see it in English before I can comment on it fully.

The one thing that screamed at me looking at the visuals was this was "Dances with Wolves" set on another planet. I'd expect way more for a film that Cameron has been working on for over 20 years?

Running Bing

Went to see this yesterday in 3D. Part of me liked it, it was entertaining, at times charming, visually impressive and solidly made.

At the same time when I sit down and actually think about it it was quite a poor show.

First off the story is pretty bad. We've seen it all a million times before and at times it just felt the plot was nothing but a half hearted tacked on excuse to show lots of pretty images. It all just felt so soulless and by the numbers.

Now as for those pretty images, they were without a doubt gorgeous but I just could'nt get over the nagging feeling I was watching a 2 and a half hour videogame cutscene.

The 3D seemed to be a big selling point for the film but tbh it left me a bit flat. Sure it was impressive at times but overall it just felt gimmicky rather than revolutionary and in the end I felt I missed out on the best part of the film, the outstanding colours. I imagine it would've been more impressive in 2d tbh.

I think the bottom line is Avatar was sold as something completely revolutionary that would blow you away.....it didnt. Now that wouldnt be such a big deal if there was still a really good film there to back it up but there is'nt.

Bottom line is I enjoyed it, Id recommend it but it all just felt a bit meh for something that was supposed to be special.

PS: Forgot to say I loved Giovanni Ribisi in this. Thought he worked really well in the role.

fluke

I saw this yesterday. Enjoyed it! Yes the story was pretty basic but it was for me a spectacle movie that worked more often than it didn't.

hick

Running Bing wrote: »

.....

I think the bottom line is Avatar was sold as something completely revolutionary that would blow you away.....it didnt. Now that wouldnt be such a big deal if there was still a really good film there to back it up but there is'nt.

.......

+1 pretty much echo's my thoughts above, the problem was it was sold, it never got to stand on it's own 2 feet! Had it not been for the marketing machine the numbers would not be that hot. Other movies that really revolutionised the movie expieriance did it on their own mostly and were sleeper hits. Hopefully it will send a message back that might be taken a bit more seriously because of the recession...just cos you promote it as revolutionary doesn't mean it is, hollywood needs to get it writing to catch up with it's technology!

opinion guy

You know what I don't agree it was sold. I didn't see that much advertising - certainly nothing like the New Moon bollocks that was plastered everywehere. i thought the avatar advertising ws fairly low key. I didn't evn know it was in 3d until a couple of days before I saw it. I also don't think the 3d is a gimmick. I think its awesome and really adds to the experience. And I can't see it going away in a hurry.

L31mr0d

opinion guy wrote: »

You know what I don't agree it was sold.

+1

Half the office where I work had heard nothing about this film. My OH only heard of it when I explained that my desktop wallpaper was actually a screen capture from Camerons new film, she then confirmed that no one where she worked knew anything about it. Before going to see it I hadn't seen 1 TV advert and I didn't see 1 ad placement on the internet. Compared to Titanic this film had a very low key opening. In fact I only started seeing TV adverts after it had premièred.

The majority of people I know that have since gone to see it have done so on word of mouth. I'll be going to see it again with a few friends who are seeing it for the first time this weekend who likewise had not heard of it until I told them about it.

hick

sorry I have to disagree the marketing machine was well and truly kicked into gear on this one, from bush shelters to Tv spots, banner adverts on sites, viral marketing 2 years in advance and Comic Con was run over by it last year. I even saw an episode of "Bones" where the sub plot on the show was them talking about it, watching the trailer (!!!) and queuing in line to see the premier. They launched the game before the movie to get people into it. They had major hook ups with Coke and McDonalds which are the 2 of the largest consumer brands in the world That and if they could of had launch on Christmas day I think the would have to make sure no other movie was out so it could post the biggest figures. They rolled out the red carpet for this one!!!! Frankly if you missed it I'm not sure how???

jaykhunter

vinylbomb wrote: »

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

I couldn't agree more. I think perhaps I was expecting too much from one of the great visionaries of our age with a track record of making a lot of my favourite movies, with an unlimited budget and 12 years to do it. I'm quite ignorant about "figuring out" storylines but the story arc of Jake (and the whole movie in general) was apparent in 15 minutes. Why was every character so black and white?

All that kept going around in my head during the rest of the film was "Humans are bad and are bad for the earth.
The native Americans love the earth and were raped by the Americans.
We should all love the earth."

I wish I loved this film but for the life of me, stunning 3D special effects aren't enough to make a crap film decent. Maybe I'm overly-sensitive to the simplistic message that's beaten into us over and over in the film. If this was a stage-play it'd be a crap play. But maybe this is a flaw with every big budget film.

Bottom line is that I felt cheated, hollow after the film, and spiteful because everyone else I watched it with seemingly overlooked all of the character/storyline/originality flaws for some reason. I didn't feel the characters, CGI tribe or landscapes were anything remotely original (although I did like the use of bioluminescence) but for whatever cause, I didn't like this film much.

Cheers for reading

vinylbomb

opinion guy wrote: »

You know what I don't agree it was sold.

Really? Even though Cameron took over many IMAx's and cinemas with 3d capability for the day (21 Aug 2009), to screen 15 minutes of teaser footage, in a worldwide event called Avatar Day?

vinylbomb

jaykhunter wrote: »

I couldn't agree more. I think perhaps I was expecting too much from one of the great visionaries of our age with a track record of making a lot of my favourite movies, with an unlimited budget and 12 years to do it. I'm quite ignorant about "figuring out" storylines but the story arc of Jake (and the whole movie in general) was apparent in 15 minutes. Why was every character so black and white?

All that kept going around in my head during the rest of the film was "Humans are bad and are bad for the earth.
The native Americans love the earth and were raped by the Americans.
We should all love the earth."

I wish I loved this film but for the life of me, stunning 3D special effects aren't enough to make a crap film decent. Maybe I'm overly-sensitive to the simplistic message that's beaten into us over and over in the film. If this was a stage-play it'd be a crap play. But maybe this is a flaw with every big budget film.

Bottom line is that I felt cheated, hollow after the film, and spiteful because everyone else I watched it with seemingly overlooked all of the character/storyline/originality flaws for some reason. I didn't feel the characters, CGI tribe or landscapes were anything remotely original (although I did like the use of bioluminescence) but for whatever cause, I didn't like this film much.

Cheers for reading

+1


This is 100% exactly how I feel about it. Honestly couldn't have described my own feelings on it better

Seen it a second time last night, class... Really really like it.

To people who complain about storyline, how about not going to a 12's movie that is set on a far away planet with giant blue people.. What do ye expect?
It's as valid an argument as complaining about storyline in a porno. It's a piece of entertainment that kids through adults can enjoy.. Avatar I mean, not the porn.

There's going to be a point in cinema where no movie is original. Can anyone on here give me "Avatar" with a different original storyline?

Driver 8

I think you're confusing the desire for a decent storyline with a desire for realism. Saying it's a 12s movie or aimed at kids doesn't excuse it either- I've seen plenty of childrens film with great storylines and three dimensional characters.

Also, as well as the argument not being for realism but for a decent storyline, the argument isn't that every film has to be astoundingly original, but Avatar is so transparently a re-thread of a story we've seen told so very many times before, in everything from Dances with Wolves, to Pocahontas, to Ferngully. If people like Avatar as an action/sci-fi bit of escapism that's one thing, but to see it as one of the Oscar frontrunners baffles me. If this movie had been made ten years ago, with practical effects, people would probably have dwelt more on the plot, and found it wanting. I'll be the first to admit the effects on show are fantastic, and they should win as many technical oscars as it's nominated for, but I can't see how this can beat a film like The Hurt Locker to best picture.

faceman

Deleted User wrote: »

Seen it a second time last night, class... Really really like it.

To people who complain about storyline, how about not going to a 12's movie that is set on a far away planet with giant blue people.. What do ye expect?
It's as valid an argument as complaining about storyline in a porno. It's a piece of entertainment that kids through adults can enjoy.. Avatar I mean, not the porn.

There's going to be a point in cinema where no movie is original. Can anyone on here give me "Avatar" with a different original storyline?

The Princess Bride is a kids film yet has an excellent story and script. As does the Incredibles, Never Ending Story, Star Wars 4-6.

Regarding originality, There are only really 7 main story types anyway but its not what you tell its how you tell it.

Ok, well what I'm trying to say is that like music, there's different genres of movies that I like to watch at different times. Avatar fills the "mindless entertainment" gap perfectly.. The last movie I seen and loved was The Motorcycle Diaries. I'd say the latter is a better movie but the former still lives up to most people's expectations because most cinema goers don't care if it reminds them of Dances with Wolves. It doesn't take away from the movie itself imo.

Anyways, I love movies but don't look into them enough to get dragged into a discussion..

hick

Deleted User wrote: »

Anyways, I love movies but don't look into them enough to get dragged into a discussion..

Damn and here was I just after saddling up my high horse and start debating that 12a is merely a guide from the regulator (Star wars was PG!) but one which they aimed at to open up the audience as wide as possible and ensure that merchandising is maximized. yeda yeda

Oh well

opinion guy

vinylbomb wrote: »

Really? Even though Cameron took over many IMAx's and cinemas with 3d capability for the day (21 Aug 2009), to screen 15 minutes of teaser footage, in a worldwide event called Avatar Day?

That may have happened, but its news to me. Look New Moon I literally could not look at a flat surface without seeing some pasty anaemic brooding teenager glaring back at me. THats advertising. I don't see that many blue people about the place.

faceman wrote: »

The Princess Bride is a kids film yet has an excellent story and script. As does the Incredibles, Never Ending Story, Star Wars 4-6.

Regarding originality, There are only really 7 main story types anyway but its not what you tell its how you tell it.

Fixed your post....

BlitzKrieg

opinion guy wrote: »

That may have happened, but its news to me. Look New Moon I literally could not look at a flat surface without seeing some pasty anaemic brooding teenager glaring back at me. THats advertising. I don't see that many blue people about the place.

so its not that it wasnt advertised...just not advertised to you? Thats like the hermit complaining nobody visits him.

I dont know about anyone else, but its a bit hard to miss the 20 foot poster hanging outside cineworld on parnell street these days

senordingdong

This movie was one of the worst cinema experiences I've had this year.

It's only redeeming feature is it's visuals and even then, they started to grate before long.

The plot was so weak and the dialogue so cliched I am truely amazed he got three hours out of it.
It just goes to show how over inflated this movie was.