Avatar Superthread

lucianot

FUNKY LOVER wrote: »

god i have to wonder about people sometimes,i mean complaining about floating mountains and how the body is transformed etc.....

JESUS!!!!!!!!its A sci-fi movie these things arent meant to make sense in the real world,god if that was the case then half of movies ever made are plain stupid:mad::mad::mad:

Not complaining, just asking the explanation. This director also presents documentaries on the planet he created, his scientific team explains the physiology and anatomy of the animals, etc, etc why not to ask the reason for the floating mountains???!!!
Exactly it is SCI_FI, not fantasy, is not magic, is not being presented as the same as The Lord of the Rings where you have to suspend your disbelief, sure, agree with that, but this movie is something else. And I did not say the movie was bad, come one, one ask one single question and then everybody goes bananas.
Read back what I said about the stupid 'falling in love while practicing archery", that would be a complain and I stand my ground on that, there are some silly dialogues and cheesy moments that detract from the overall excellent quality of the movie.

Anakin.S

People Sci-Fi is short for Science Fiction.

Science - The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena

Fiction - A literary work whose content is produced by the imagination and is not necessarily based on fact

If you want to watch a documentary go watch one

Maximilian

Dances with Smurfs 3D.

Bloody awesome movie.

hick

Anakin.S wrote: »

If you want to watch a documentary go watch one

And if you want to comment about how you didn't think this sci-fi movie didn't live up to your expectations, feel free to

lucianot

Anakin.S wrote: »

If you want to watch a documentary go watch one

Self satisfied and rude reply, completely unnecessary.
My question is as valid as any other question about the non answered aspects of the story, not a criticism on the quality of the movie.
Nobody actually took the time to express any informed theory and discuss the movie in deeper detail.
Just in case if anybody else with a curious and inquisitve imagination needs it here is an Avatar encyclopedia:

http://james-camerons-avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Avatar_Wiki

paulieeye

How did he know the tree sap was highly flammable??

Dempsey

paulieeye wrote: »

How did he know the tree sap was highly flammable??

From the minimal training he did?

Kipperhell

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Cameron responds to smoking criticism

Not really a good enough reason or allows for how the other people working around her might feel. It just seems nonsensical


The name unoptanium bothered me becasue its either the material used in "The Core" to make the drilling vessel (an awful scifi film) or the stuff that made the monsters real in the 2nd life action Scooby Doo film (cant remember which). Either way its just a weak McGuffin.[/QUOTE]

It bothers you that some other lazy writer used the same stupid name rather than the name is just stupid and childish. I forgive Scooby Doo but having so much time to write the script you think it would be better. Really don't get why so many people are defending this film when essentially a film is about telling a story. Why bother with complex explanations of the whole thing is you are then going to just smash out a well trodden story.

Anakin.S

lucianot wrote: »

Self satisfied and rude reply, completely unnecessary.

Sorry I wasn't intending to be rude to you.

I wanted to make a general point that Sci-Fi movies are generally based on fantasy not reality. To base an argument against a movie on the fact that things are not possible or unlikely ‘in real life’ is in my stupid and/or ignorant.

beans

vinylbomb

Hopefully, whatever your views on the film itself, can we agree these people are 'tards:

http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2010/01/avatar-forums-are-hilariously-pathetic

lucianot

Anakin.S wrote: »

Sorry I wasn't intending to be rude to you.

I wanted to make a general point that Sci-Fi movies are generally based on fantasy not reality. To base an argument against a movie on the fact that things are not possible or unlikely ‘in real life’ is in my stupid and/or ignorant.

Fair play, thanks.

I did not create an argument against the movie, I asked a simple question to something I did not catch during the movie. The rest o the comments lead to the discussion about what is fantasy, Sci-Fi, etc.

lucianot

vinylbomb wrote: »

Hopefully, whatever your views on the film itself, can we agree these people are 'tards:

http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2010/01/avatar-forums-are-hilariously-pathetic

There are some very unhappy people out there.

Coriolanus

Only just got around to seeing it last night. Was surprised by how full the showing was in Cineworld, especially given the weather.

I thought the story was a little cliched and far too shallow. I'd have liked to have seen a bit more introspection from Worthingtons character about being a double agent, and then betraying the humans. I really thought the sides were too one-dimensional, very black and white.
The plot was predictable enough, but enjoyable anyway, very much one of those "great stories" that's going to be repeated again and again.
It was 12A though, which forgives it it's sins, I'd have preferred a 16/18 rating worthy film, with darker, more muddled morality and bit more philosophical depth to it but at the end of the day it is a kids movie and complaining about it being so is a little stupid.
Technically, I loved it. Went for the 3d screening obv, and was glad to see that it wasn't just a way to justify extra cost on the ticket and for glasses. Really did open up the film a lot, though I don't see major utility in the method for anything outside of action/fantasy/scifi/kids pieces. It really wouldn't add much to most films imo.

All in all, quite happy with the experience. It was almost exactly what I was expecting.

Edit: The comments are pretty damn funny at filmdrunk.

I can relate. I’m still pissed at my parents that they’re not Thundercats.

charlie_says

The projector broke down about 10 mins from the end, it was a late night showing so I left. Probably as satisfied as if sat through till the end.

It was better than I expected, with any such film with the amount of hype that Avatar generated I usually go in (well actually I only did go to the cinema for the 3d wow factor) expecting it to be ****e. Maybe one day I will be pleasantly surprised..... 5/10

If I was a kid I would have loved it no doubt.

vinylbomb

Just watching Watchmen again, and am struck by how many million, million light years (to keep with the SciFi theme) apart they are.

Watchmen aint perfect by a long shot but it is infinitely better than Avatar.

KerranJast

vinylbomb wrote: »

Just watching Watchmen again, and am struck by how many million, million light years (to keep with the SciFi theme) apart they are.

Watchmen aint perfect by a long shot but it is infinitely better than Avatar.

Watchmen is a completely different film tbf and it follows the graphic novel page for page so they didn't exactly have to stretch themselves with plotting either.

opinion guy

vinylbomb wrote: »

Just watching Watchmen again, and am struck by how many million, million light years (to keep with the SciFi theme) apart they are.

Watchmen aint perfect by a long shot but it is infinitely better than Avatar.

ok
a ) relevance of watchmen to avatar apart from one character being blue
b ) you have GOT to be kidding me - Watchmen sucked ass - awful awful awful film

Coriolanus

As much as I loved the comic Watchmen I have to agree with Opinion Guy, the film blowed hard.

KerranJast

Nevore wrote: »

As much as I loved the comic Watchmen I have to agree with Opinion Guy, the film blowed hard.

Haha what? It was nearly frame for frame from the graphic novel. You can argue that they changed the ending (to a better one IMO) and left some stuff out (they left out the right parts IMO) but if you thought the film "blowed hard" then you must not have like the comic that much to begin with.

mailblaney

I really loved this movie. I'm not a big sci-fi fan as such but this really appealled to me. I thought the story was excellent. I thought that the 'magic' of Pandora was perfectly captured. Can't wait for the sequels.

Sleazus

opinion guy wrote: »

ok
a ) relevance of watchmen to avatar apart from one character being blue

I think that 2009 was the year of blue creatures walking amongst us with their junk blowing in the breeze.

Hank_Jones

vinylbomb wrote: »

Hopefully, whatever your views on the film itself, can we agree these people are 'tards:

http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2010/01/avatar-forums-are-hilariously-pathetic

I really like this one:

“My urge to be a Na’vi is probably the strongest thing I have ever felt, and also the reality that it will likely never happen. Of course being able to link up with nature, or fly on your own personal dragon-bird is cool, but I want to be a Na’vi for more than that. I’ve pretty much given up all hope in the human race…”

What is wrong with these people?

Given up all hope in the human race....going to live with goats in the mountains maybe....

Coriolanus

KerranJast wrote: »

Haha what? It was nearly frame for frame from the graphic novel. You can argue that they changed the ending (to a better one IMO) and left some stuff out (they left out the right parts IMO) but if you thought the film "blowed hard" then you must not have like the comic that much to begin with.

Eh no, it's not that difficult to understand that some aspects that worked quite well in the comic book don't work in live action. Now I realise I've offended your fanboi sensibilities but it quite possible to like one iteration of a franchise and not like another.
Especially with so verbose and protracted a comic as Watchmen, a panel by panel recreation was not appropriate for the film.
The pacing of the film was absolutely terrible, again, what works for a comic isn't necessarily going to work on the screen. Imo the makers were altogether too afraid of the fanbois to wield their knives appropriately, leaving in far too much fluff and not shuffling aspects around to make the film a cogent whole.

Imitation may be the most sincere form of flattery but it's my now means the most aesthetically pleasing or elegant.

KerranJast

Nevore wrote: »

Now I realise I've offended your fanboi sensibilities but it quite possible to like one iteration of a franchise and not like another.

Classy :rolleyes:

vinylbomb

opinion guy wrote: »

ok
a ) relevance of watchmen to avatar apart from one character being blue
b ) you have GOT to be kidding me - Watchmen sucked ass - awful awful awful film

Relevance - they are both big budget Sci Fi, released to much fanfare in 2009.

You're entitled to your opinion, OpinionGuy.
You think Watchmen sucked - fine. I disagree. Its not a masterpiece, but to me its a far more engaging and thought provoking film that Avatar.

I think Avatar is the most over-hyped, underwritten piece of dog crap (white dog crap) to ever reach the screen. You've simply had a very shiny spangly 3d piece of wool pulled over your eyes.

Dempsey

vinylbomb wrote: »

Relevance - they are both big budget Sci Fi, released to much fanfare in 2009.

You're entitled to your opinion, OpinionGuy.
You think Watchmen sucked - fine. I disagree. Its not a masterpiece, but to me its a far more engaging and thought provoking film that Avatar.

I think Avatar is the most over-hyped, underwritten piece of dog crap (white dog crap) to ever reach the screen. You've simply had a very shiny spangly 3d piece of wool pulled over your eyes.

What kind of story were you expecting for a film that was geared for getting a 12's rating in most countries around the world?

MikeC101

Dempsey wrote: »

What kind of story were you expecting for a film that was geared for getting a 12's rating in most countries around the world?

A 12 age rating shouldn't automatically mean a plotline conceived for 12 years old and younger though - it's a rating based on sexual content, violence and bad language, not the complexity of the storyline.

(Still waiting for the country to defrost enough to get to a cinema and see it unfortunately, so don't know if the above is true for Avatar!)

Dempsey

MikeC101 wrote: »

A 12 age rating shouldn't automatically mean a plotline conceived for 12 years old and younger though - it's a rating based on sexual content, violence and bad language, not the complexity of the storyline.

(Still waiting for the country to defrost enough to get to a cinema and see it unfortunately, so don't know if the above is true for Avatar!)

But a 12 year should be able to understand whats happening and if you create story thats too complex for your target audience then thats bad writing too.

The story was simple because of the audience was looking to attract and its success because of entire families being able to go see it and enjoy it.

If parents were spreading the word that the story would be lost on kids, then they probably wouldnt take them.

If Cameron want to complicate the story if he was going for a higher cerification, they he would have no doubt

Coriolanus

MikeC101 wrote: »

A 12 age rating shouldn't automatically mean a plotline conceived for 12 years old and younger though - it's a rating based on sexual content, violence and bad language, not the complexity of the storyline.

(Still waiting for the country to defrost enough to get to a cinema and see it unfortunately, so don't know if the above is true for Avatar!)

It's not a film that they made, then after they made it discovered it only warranted a 12's rating.
You're right, some very complex and rewarding films only warrant a 12's rating because they feature little or no nudity, violence etc.
Avatar on the other hand was designed as a blockbuster, to be accessible from 12 and up, something a bit like Star Wars tbh.
A lot of adults have jumped head first into their respective fandoms but that doesn't change that both directors meant the films to specifically appeal to a younger audience, as well as an older.

vinylbomb

ET, Toy Story, Who Framed Roger Rabbit - All movies aimed at kids but are great in some respect beyond simply effects (Roger Rabbit might be questionable here but I think the humour in the writing holds up well).



The problem I have (as I have repeatedly said) is that Cameron himself himself touted this movie as a "changing the face of cinema". While it may have changed the face of cinema, it did little else.

And as for Cameron himself, I let this quote sum it up

On his target audience: “When you’re making a movie that costs $200 million… your target audience is people with a pulse and $15 — or even just $15.”

Coriolanus

vinylbomb wrote: »

ET, Toy Story, Who Framed Roger Rabbit - All movies aimed at kids but are great in some respect beyond simply effects (Roger Rabbit might be questionable here but I think the humour in the writing holds up well).



The problem I have (as I have repeatedly said) is that Cameron himself himself touted this movie as a "changing the face of cinema". While it may have changed the face of cinema, it did little else.

And as for Cameron himself, I let this quote sum it up

On his target audience: “When you’re making a movie that costs $200 million… your target audience is people with a pulse and $15 — or even just $15.”

Well, it's an honest appraisal of what it is. That's probably why I was happy with the experience. I was expecting a lowest common denominator effects orgasm. And it's what I got.
I'd agree it didn't push any boundaries beyond the visual, but blockbusters generally aren't avant garde, nor can they really be, by definition.

madrab

I thought it was amazing, looked class, story wasnt rocket surgery, (or brain science!) but it was done really well

Really enjoyed it

opinion guy

vinylbomb wrote: »

Relevance - they are both big budget Sci Fi, released to much fanfare in 2009.

You're entitled to your opinion, OpinionGuy.
You think Watchmen sucked - fine. I disagree. Its not a masterpiece, but to me its a far more engaging and thought provoking film that Avatar.

I think Avatar is the most over-hyped, underwritten piece of dog crap (white dog crap) to ever reach the screen. You've simply had a very shiny spangly 3d piece of wool pulled over your eyes.

Watchmen is not a SciFi movie. Its a superhero movie. Totally different genre

vinylbomb

opinion guy wrote: »

Watchmen is not a SciFi movie. Its a superhero movie. Totally different genre

I think this is almost the definition of pedantry.

ultain

What ever about the new flashy 'avatar' flick..my self and a few groups of people here and in Britney are trying to get a film of 'Saline' (the character from 200ad) together, been at it for the past three years and hope to start shooting in late April, already have used the snow and ice by shooting his birth in the Connemara mountains..cost, two cracked lens's and one very sore arse.

Avatar has overtaken the Lord of the Rings to be the second highest grossing film of all time and is now set to overtake the reigning champ Titanic.

opinion guy

So does anyone else wonder if maybe a Rhododendron was in the theatre for a showing of avatar, uploaded to Gaia, gave him/her/it ideas inspired by Eywa fighting back and now he/she/it is trying to smite us with frozen freezyness ???

Dempsey

Deleted User wrote: »

Avatar has overtaken the Lord of the Rings to be the second highest grossing film of all time and is now set to overtake the reigning champ Titanic.

He wont make another film for 20 years now! :pac:

Anakin.S

Deleted User wrote: »

Avatar has overtaken the Lord of the Rings to be the second highest grossing film of all time and is now set to overtake the reigning champ Titanic.

Highest grossing of all time, doesn't mean anything. It should be on tickets sold not the money it makes for the studio.

hick

time will tell what everyone really thinks of avatar, lots of folk think it's exciting a new and everyone is talking about it right now one way or another, lets see if that lasts

ndubz

hick wrote: »

time will tell what everyone really thinks of avatar, lots of folk think it's exciting a new and everyone is talking about it right now one way or another, lets see if that lasts

I have to be honest that this movie is truly amazing and entertaining. I wouldn't be going over and over to see it ( I saw it in 3d first time), I went to rathmines new swan cinema, excellent cinema. I don't reckon that every movie will be made like this in the future though. I would get bored of it.

Anakin.S

Anakin.S wrote: »

Highest grossing of all time, doesn't mean anything. It should be on tickets sold not the money it makes for the studio.

Money made is based on ticket sales, the higher the takings the more tickets are sold. If you were to go on ticket sales then it would still be one of the biggest films of all time.

Coriolanus

Well, ticket sales for Avatar are between 2 and 3 times the cost of Titanic. It was about $5 for Titanic, it's $8, $12 and $16 for 2d, 3d and IMAX Avatar.
Not sure it'll beat Titanic on ticket sales, purely because there's going to be another division of Fox looking to get it out on DVD sale.

On the flipside, Avatar has been highly, highly pirated which conceivably has an impact on ticket sales. It was the fastest online pirated film of the year and Chinese street vendors have been flogging bootleg copies for weeks.

Galvasean

Nevore wrote: »

Well, ticket sales for Avatar are between 2 and 3 times the cost of Titanic. It was about $5 for Titanic, it's $8, $12 and $16 for 2d, 3d and IMAX Avatar.
Not sure it'll beat Titanic on ticket sales, purely because there's going to be another division of Fox looking to get it out on DVD sale.

On the flipside, Avatar has been highly, highly pirated which conceivably has an impact on ticket sales. It was the fastest online pirated film of the year and Chinese street vendors have been flogging bootleg copies for weeks.

Interesting point. I wonder would it be fair to say inflation and piracy more or less balance each other out in terms of comparing gross.

Galvasean

Galvasean wrote: »

Interesting point. I wonder would it be fair to say inflation and piracy more or less balance each other out in terms of comparing gross.

Avatar is one of the fast and most downloaded films ever so I would say that it's fair to assume that taking that into account it's gross suffered considerably. Back when Titanic came out it would take you weeks to download the film and then watch it on a screen the size of a stamp, which is how someone I know enjoyed it.

Coriolanus

Galvasean wrote: »

Interesting point. I wonder would it be fair to say inflation and piracy more or less balance each other out in terms of comparing gross.

I think it would be at least!

Anakin.S

Deleted User wrote: »

Money made is based on ticket sales, the higher the takings the more tickets are sold. If you were to go on ticket sales then it would still be one of the biggest films of all time.

There is a big difference in price between tickets now and tickets when 'ET', 'Starwars', 'The sound of music' or even 'Gone with the wind' were in the cinema.

Anakin.S

Anakin.S wrote: »

There is a big difference in price between tickets now and tickets when 'ET', 'Starwars', 'The sound of music' or even 'Gone with the wind' were in the cinema.

That there is but when people compare the takings of Star Wars, etc with modern films inflation is taking into account.

cashback

Deleted User wrote: »

Avatar is one of the fast and most downloaded films ever so I would say that it's fair to assume that taking that into account it's gross suffered considerably. Back when Titanic came out it would take you weeks to download the film and then watch it on a screen the size of a stamp, which is how someone I know enjoyed it.

I find it hard to understand why anyone would want to watch this on their computer. This is one film that's all about the visuals and the 3D experience. It really should be seen in the cinema.

That said, I got stuck in a rubbish seat near the front so I might go back again to see it properly.