Avatar Superthread

L31mr0d

The Sparrow wrote: »

for a movie that was hyped as a 3D revolution, all of the characters were horribly one dimensional.

The Sparrow

KerranJast wrote: »

I found most of the characters very engaging, especially the main ones and there weren't any glaring plot holes sticking out as far as I could tell. Want to list some in spoiler form?

Sure

How could he possibly exist in the tribe if he kept collapsing everytime he came back to the base? When they first travelled into the mountains it was during the day. How did nobody notice that he was comatose? And even if you accept that he came back at night, how did he know when to come back so nobody would notice he was comatose instead of asleep?

And the tribe basically blamed him for destroying their home and killing loads of them. Yet he rides in on a dragon and they suddenly accept him as a hero and follow him? I don't buy it.

Plus there was no good reason why the dude that hated him suddenly changed his mind. He hated him for the whole film and he had stolen his missus, yet he suddenly sees him as a hero.

And that is just off the top of my head. I'm sure there were more.

uncleoswald

Paul1979 wrote: »

irish times
Well, by the most conservative estimates, it took Cameron $250 million to create a world composed of glow-sticks, pick’n’mix cola cubes and wadded potassium permanganate.

The Na’vi planet is so nauseatingly day-glo – imagine the cover of a Pan Pipes album reimagined by a sugar-rushing eight-year-old girl – that you end up savouring Jake’s periodic returns to the grey, anaesthetic space station.

I have to agree, whatever about the technology, I hate the art design. It looks like Halo:The Movie.

mdwexford

You werent following the story closely enough if you think they are plotholes.

Its an amazing cinema experience and anyone who doesnt think Pandora looked awesome is retarded, its that simple.

KerranJast

The Sparrow wrote: »

Sure

How could he possibly exist in the tribe if he kept collapsing everytime he came back to the base? When they first travelled into the mountains it was during the day. How did nobody notice that he was comatose? And even if you accept that he came back at night, how did he know when to come back so nobody would notice he was comatose instead of asleep?

And the tribe basically blamed him for destroying their home and killing loads of them. Yet he rides in on a dragon and they suddenly accept him as a hero and follow him? I don't buy it.

Plus there was no good reason why the dude that hated him suddenly changed his mind. He hated him for the whole film and he had stolen his missus, yet he suddenly sees him as a hero.

And that is just off the top of my head. I'm sure there were more.

The transition between human and Avatar didn't bug me at all. I was more interested in his interactions as an Avatar.

The fact that he risked his life to prove his worth by capturing the "dragon" shows his commitment to the People and he did warn them that the Mercs were coming to destroy them. Plus since he was human he would have an insight on how to defeat the Mercs.

As for the main Warrior, once it was clear Neytiri chose Sully freely theres not much he could do about it. Sully had proved himself as a warrior and was initiated into the Tribe. Plus Sully convinced him to help him save the Tribe. Grudgingly mind you.

TBH faulting the logic of something as fantastical as Avatar is a losing battle. You're meant to suspend your disbelief from the getgo and just believe.

Paul1979 wrote: »

for me both the irish times and the guardian hit the nail on the head

irish times
"Yet, for all the cacophonous fun in Avatar, there’s no escaping the fact that large sections look utterly horrid. Dolly Parton famously remarked that “it takes a lot of money to look this cheap”. Well, by the most conservative estimates, it took Cameron $250 million to create a world composed of glow-sticks, pick’n’mix cola cubes and wadded potassium permanganate.

The Na’vi planet is so nauseatingly day-glo – imagine the cover of a Pan Pipes album reimagined by a sugar-rushing eight-year-old girl – that you end up savouring Jake’s periodic returns to the grey, anaesthetic space station.

Despite all the research and development that has gone into creating Avatar , Cameron has failed to produce something that looks any more real than the briefly sketched battlefields of his first Terminator film."

I couldn't disagree more. Pandora was beautiful and bizarre in equal measure. Savouring Jake's return to the station? Number one it was a military base so the reviewer obviously wasn't paying much attention there and second I wish they'd spent even more time out in the Pandora forests. The vista, flora and fauna were majestic and captivating.

Goodshape

While the story was some distance from perfect, a few of these points can be contested...

The Sparrow wrote: »

How could he possibly exist in the tribe if he kept collapsing everytime he came back to the base? When they first travelled into the mountains it was during the day. How did nobody notice that he was comatose? And even if you accept that he came back at night, how did he know when to come back so nobody would notice he was comatose instead of asleep?

For one,

He wasn't the first Avatar the tribe had encounterd. Some of them spoke English and Weaver's character had previously set up a school. The fact he travels back and forth from his Avatar body to his real one never seemed to be a secret they kept from the Na'vi.

There was also the instance where he didn't wake up on time (when the bulldozers approached) and at other times they used their knowledge of Na'vi culture ("the day starts early in the tribe") to guesstimate when to return after a nights sleep.

And the tribe basically blamed him for destroying their home and killing loads of them. Yet he rides in on a dragon and they suddenly accept him as a hero and follow him? I don't buy it.

I did think that Jake so easily capturing the dragon was a bit of a stretch -- but putting that aside, only five others in history had managed to do that. It made sense to me they would see him as a bit of a hero for being the sixth.

Plus there was no good reason why the dude that hated him suddenly changed his mind. He hated him for the whole film and he had stolen his missus, yet he suddenly sees him as a hero.

Same as above. He had proven himself.

I'm sure there were more.

Indeed. Some things which didn't sit right with me are

the speed with which Jake adapted. No training, 3 months controlling his Avatar, and all of a sudden he's capturing the fabled shadow dragon. Riiiiggght.

And being this "chosen one", with all sacred tree seeds floating all around him... that made fairly little sense and was the only thing that stopped them killing him, or expelling him, on the spot. Very convenient.

And the animals showing up at the end to save the day. Jesus but if they only arrived 5 minutes earlier...

So yeah, holes in that for sure. Would have been nice to have a perfect story but as it is, I think we got one that was just "good". Fair enough.

For me at least, the visuals and the overall experience (story+visuals/cgi/3d/wow-factor) was a 5 star job.

mdwexford

lol the "plot hole" nit picking people do in sci-fi movies is so ridiculous, its not a documentary.

KerranJast

mdwexford wrote: »

lol the "plot hole" nit picking people do in sci-fi movies is so ridiculous, its not a documentary.

This. Plus people seem to have been expecting some kind of Oscar worthy plot from it, forgetting that James Cameron has always been the king of cheesy, spectacular films with fast paced action and black & white characters. That's why his films are so entertaining and successful.

Paul1979

did the navi know that ur man was an avatar? if they did why did they bother teaching him all the stuff, what was in it for them, surely if they mistrusted humans they wouldnt have taught him all their secrets?

also what happened when he was unplugged was he just in a coma like state untill he was plugged back in again? and then when he was back human he never seemed to sleep, so was he just awake all the time?

BlitzKrieg

Paul1979 wrote: »

did the navi know that ur man was an avatar? if they did why did they bother teaching him all the stuff, what was in it for them, surely if they mistrusted humans they wouldnt have taught him all their secrets?

this was passed over briefly in the first meeting with the chief.

he's the first *dreamwalker* that was a warrior and not a scientist that they met, so they decided to try and teach them their way, they had tried with prior avatars but they were all scientists and could not understand the hunter culture at the centre of the tribe

its drummed over fairly quickly with a joke about empty cups etc.

also what happened when he was unplugged was he just in a coma like state untill he was plugged back in again? and then when he was back human he never seemed to sleep, so was he just awake all the time?

Yeah they went over this far too quickly, I think he is meant to be in a sleep like state when he is in control of the avatar

he says a line late in the film about the dream feeling real and the real world feeling like a dream

he did need to sleep (just not as much as we would as he was only needing his REM rather then rest his body as a whole) and eat in the real world but again they went over it far too quickly we had to mostly go by visual notes with how skinny he was becoming and him being forced to get some sleep and eat etc. I did feel there was a lost oppurtunity to show more of the contrast, instead we got a montage like jump through the changes back and forth.

This. Plus people seem to have been expecting some kind of Oscar worthy plot from it, forgetting that James Cameron has always been the king of cheesy, spectacular films with fast paced action and black & white characters. That's why his films are so entertaining and successful.

excuse me as I go and watch that fast paced black & white character based cheesy film called the abyss.

Also Aliens was so fast paced...it only took them the best part of 40 minutes to actually encounter the aliens.

And Sarah Connor was such a simple and basic character.


Yeah you are completely right....where did i put that rolleyes smiley.

Otacon

Goodshape wrote: »

While the story was some distance from perfect, a few of these points can be contested...

Quite right, and I will attempt to do the same for you.

Goodshape wrote: »

the speed with which Jake adapted. No training, 3 months controlling his Avatar, and all of a sudden he's capturing the fabled shadow dragon. Riiiiggght.

This was down to the fact that Jake was the first Avatar to be truly accepted by the Na'vi, and more importantly, Eywa. While Grace and her team were seen as diplomats, Jake was seen as one of their own, based on Eywa's 'decision', translated by Neytiri's mother.

As he was accepted, he had a lot more access to the Na'vi than the others. He was also quite determined and focused, as demonstrated by his independence and need to prove himself.

Goodshape wrote: »

And being this "chosen one", with all sacred tree seeds floating all around him... that made fairly little sense and was the only thing that stopped them killing him, or expelling him, on the spot. Very convenient.

Eywa is meant to be the god of the Na'vi. They were obviously going to abide by her ruling. As for why he was chosen, it could be Eywa knew his importance or simply liked his spirit. In either case, it is not really relevant as I'm an atheist

Goodshape wrote: »

And the animals showing up at the end to save the day. Jesus but if they only arrived 5 minutes earlier...

Dramatic licence. How many other movies have 'nick-of-time' elements. Are you going to hold that over them too?

Goodshape

Fair enough on the first point, Otacon, but I'm going to stick with "far too convenient" on the other two.

"I'm going to kill.. oh no, wait, look.. you're chosen!" "what? why? what are these things? can they tell the future?" "nevermind all that! Come! Lead our tribe and have sex with our daughters! Hurray!"

That sort of stuff

and the nick-of-time save the day ending

usually annoys me in any film. I'm not going to pretend they weren't there just because the rest of it was outstandingly awesome

L31mr0d

Otacon wrote: »

Eywa is meant to be the god of the Na'vi. They were obviously going to abide by her ruling. As for why he was chosen, it could be Eywa knew his importance or simply liked his spirit. In either case, it is not really relevant as I'm an atheist

Eywa was real though. I could see what Cameron was doing, taking the spiritual beliefs of the American Indians and turning them into a "what if?" scenario of if they were reality. She may not of been a Deity, but she was an evolved being. What they alluded to was that Eywa was the consciousness of the planet, sentient via the electrical pulses through the plant root network covering the planet and that a lot of the creatures on the planet had evolved to connect to, or interconnect with each other because of this. I'd of been ripped of myself if they'd left Eywa as some spurious God, but it is explained, if loosely, that the planet itself is a being.

Tusky

People who pick the tiniest of plotholes in Science Fiction movies make my brain cry.

Reginald P. DuM

Tusky wrote: »

People who pick the tiniest of plotholes in Science Fiction movies make my brain cry.

Why did the Na'vi have to be blue? Could they not have been green like the traditional typecast aliens we have become used to? I gotta tell ya this threw me!! :rolleyes:

KerranJast

Reginald P. DuM wrote: »

Why did the Na'vi have to be blue? Could they not have been green like the traditional typecast aliens we have become used to? I gotta tell ya this threw me!! :rolleyes:

Haha. [nerd hat on] I suspect the Na'vi colour and the Pandora design was chosen to maximise the colour content of the film to negate the ~ 30% colour/light loss you get with 3D.

Ole Rodrigo

Went to see it last night in the savoy one - have to say its a really good cinema experience in 3D. There are parts that are a bit cheesy, and you'd wonder how a budget that size could overlook the script, but I'm sure that was the intention with a 12a rating. The performances are pretty good, Zoe Zaldana especially managing to be both alluring and bizarre. Hats off to them for keeping a straight face with some of the lines TBF.
The visuals are mostly spectacular and unlike anything seen before. At times they can be like a video game, especially in some of the animal scenes. The Na'Vi are appear very real when the camera is close, but seen in the distance they seem artificial..but like the other visual inconsistencies it contributes to the experience of another world. I think the best is definitely yet to come with these new tools and Avatar may well have started the ball rolling.

If you dont mind a poor script and a cartoonish story its well worth seeing

uncleoswald

Tusky wrote: »

People who pick the tiniest of plotholes in Science Fiction movies make my brain cry.

Why is it okay for sci-fi to have plot holes more then other genres?

Its a defence that really bugs me.

KerranJast

uncleoswald wrote: »

Why is it okay for sci-fi to have plot holes more then other genres?

Its a defence that really bugs me.

It's not based in reality so you have to suspend your disbelief. Pointing out small omissions when there are 12 foot tall blue aliens on pterodactyls fighting giant mechs is kind of pointless

kieran75

Where in Ireland is the best cinema to watch avatar in 3D. I'm sure some r better than others..any opinions??

razorblunt

Saw this last night, I had no really urge to see this so went in with an open mind, I was very impressed with the 3D, yes it was colourful but then why shouldn't it be if you're going balls out and making it in 3D.

As a film it was ok, totally predictable but still enjoyable. Would lose points for Michelle "sit with legs open and gun in hand" Rodriguez though

L31mr0d

Tusky wrote: »

People who pick the tiniest of plotholes in Science Fiction movies make my brain cry.

It's called the Engineer Paradox

maestro2009

Just saw the movie... Wow.. What a cinematic experienence.. The last hour was spectacular to say the least.. I think its like every sci fi film you have to be a little open minded or imaginative i would say.. But I actually thought the plot was good, Its the sort of film that has so much detail within it, ya might want to look at a second time.. All I can say was i loved every minute of it..Revolutionary

L31mr0d

maestro2009 wrote: »

Just saw the movie... Wow.. What a cinematic experienence.. The last hour was spectacular to say the least..

The more I think about it, this movie is the E.T. or Jurassic Park of this generation. It's so rare that a film comes along that will sit in the hearts of people for decades. Kids growing up right now will speak of this film fondly when remembering their childhood.

m83

L31mr0d wrote: »

The more I think about it, this movie is the E.T. or Jurassic Park of this generation. It's so rare that a film comes along that will sit in the hearts of people for decades. Kids growing up right now will speak of this film fondly when remembering their childhood.

Fact. Felt the same thing as I came out of it. It comepletely overwhelmed me.

Richard Dower

I got more of the OMG!!/buzz factor from watching that "Panic Attack" Youtube short that's gonna be made into a movie, Avatar left me very middle-of-the-road. The thing is, Pandora as realistic and vivid as it is....it's grounded in places you'll see on Earth, aka a rain forest. It's not alien....if he had created a world NOT seen in any movie to date, a world that was completely new and "alien" to us humans i would have felt different.

As it is Pandora was 100% beliveable BECAUSE it looked like something you'd see on Earth, you had a frame of refrence to compare it to!

The CGI, it's amazing....but it's NOT revolutionary....why?, because on thing eludes, 100% photo realistic CGI representation of a human being, with all of it's facial flaws, muscles and the endless emotions a human face can convey.

The closest i have seen to this Zenith of CGI to date is Beowolf, we're still not there. And this is the reason Cameron created the Pandora tribe, he can't replicate a human being....now IF he was able to replicate the human characters in 100% CGI...aka, a CGI of Sigourney Weaver, and using her as a frame of refrence and then compare her CGI counterpart and it was 100% bang on accurate.....i'd applaud and laud the film.

But he can't, as such Avatar employed some new motion capture and facial scanning software...cool, but that does not make it revolutionary, evolution yes.....but many films are part of the CGI evolution.

I left Avatar having seen it all before in other movies, it's a leap forward but NOT to the point i want to see in movies.

I want to see a movie that renders and creates a world, or scenes NOT seen before, totally unique and different, CGI characters able to replace human actors altogether, and there would be NO way to tell the diifference unless you were told they were CGI.

*THAT* to me is revolutionary technology, what Avatar gave me was an evolution of tech that started off with Westworld-Star Wars-The Black Hole-Alien--Tron-The Last Starfighter-Young Indiana Jones-Flight Of The Navigator-Predator-The Abyss-Terminator 2-Jurrasic Park-Independence Day-Lost In Space-Buffalo 66-Blade-Wing Commander-The Matrix...and up to Avatar.
That list shows an evolution of CGI tech, in no way can Avatar be deemed revolutionary for the me.

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

Hugh_C

really well crafted movie, loved it, will prob see go to again, loved the fact the suspension of disbelief kicked in early and the technology and techniques didn't overpower the experience.

BlitzKrieg

Ok back from the 3D screening of it (was meant to be working late but the work stopped early so I decided to pop in on my way home)


Final verdict...It's still a 7/10


The 3D effects strengthened some aspects but weakened others. I held off commenting earlier on some aspects of the film because I assumed this was the case, but I must admit to being pleasantly surprised how much the 3D improved some parts of the film. Pretty much 2 areas get boosted by 3D

The action scenes and the scenes in the base.

I'll talk about the action scenes first. Seeing the film in 2D the action scenes are a bit off because they feel very crowded visually and the slow motion bits look a bit daft, this is *really* noticeable in the first chase scene with

the alien panther

but when its in 3D the extra depth really helps to space out the objects on screen and you get a much more dynamic and tidier shot then with the 2D version. The slow motion bits look a bit better aswell (though I think they were still daft). And this runs through out every action scene, in the 2D version it always feels alot more cramped and the shots seem too tight, when in 3D though it opens up alot more. This was very helpful in the final battle because

in the 2D version you'd swear the bomber was on top of the tree of souls in one shot, but in the 3D version you can actually see the distance. Equally the scene with the collapse of the home tree the 3D helps alot to convey the scale of the attack

The second area 3D helped alot was with the scenes in the complex, they overplayed their hand at the start a bit I thought with every shot being down long corridors of some description to convey the 3D depth, but I must admit the zero gravity one looked great. But thats the complex, it looks good in 3D, I commented that in my first viewing it felt like literally 3 rooms and a hanger, the 3D compensates that a bit by making the rooms a bit more dynamic. I think its the rigid form and design that lends itself alot to 3D that helps.

In contrast though, the 3D did not help with the scenes in the jungle, in fact there were a number of points where we get *floating plants* syndrome with 3D leaves sticking out but not being attached to any trees or something, this is most noticeable in the scene

when deux ex machina stops Sully from being shot with an arrow, the pan up to the Na'vi about to shoot has alot of random 3D leaves just floating in the air.

The biggest crux of the 3D though is its usual ability to suck the colour out of the film, the biggest thing I remember about avatar 2D is how shiny and colourful the jungle and animals looked, in the 3D version alot of that is missing.

Which makes me think of Cameron's comment that the film must be seen in 3D. It makes sense seeing as the battle are a bit off in 2D visually that the colour palette intended for the film was the diminished 3D colour and not the bright and shiny 2D jungle.

problem is personnally I perferred bright and shiny 2D jungle, some of the animals were helped with their colours diminished in 3d

alien panther and jackels look better in 3d

others looked better in 2D

banshee's and alien big bird

and the scenery in general looked nicer in 2D.


Aside from that the film survived a 2nd viewing rather comfortable, the same problems that bugged me the first time around still bug me, the villian is very one note and the second viewing really brings that home, he comes in on one tone and he never changes. The supporting cast is mostly forgetable. Though Sam Worthington gets major props for actually becoming more likeable in the 2nd viewing and is probably who made the film an easy watch the 2nd time.

The CGI works because the main thing they got right in it was the movement, and 2nd time through you really notice how much it relies on movement to make the animals and navi alive.

The Dragon gunship is seriously awesome and probably benfited the most from 3D, it actually looks a bit compressed in 2D but in 3D its damn impressive.


on nitpicks and so on.

Few nitpicks that I had from the first screening that the 2nd one reminded me off.

the last fight between Sully and the mech...seriously? THis is the mech that killed the alien panther that you had the run away from and you start a knife fight with it? The scale might be off a bit there, did it shrink for the sully fight or did the panther shrink???

that is really a nitpick, I dont think its a plothole, it didnt take away from the scene, it just something that briefly raised an eyebrow.

But since people are getting annoyed about plotholes and so on, here are 2 minor continuity errors I spotted and one minor possible plothole.

continuity error 1:

really small but in the bomber, they pushed the explosives up to the ramp when they first open it after the colonel announces they are 2 clicks away from the target, the battle then commences and they arm them and there is a load of hoopla and then when they are on top of the target practically there is another shot again of them pushing the explosives up to the ramp.

continuity error 2

2nd last scene when they are escourting the humans off world, there is a shot of the 2 nerds staying on the planet watching the others march off and then there is a shot of a close up of sully and in the background out of focus is the nerd's avatar. You know its his because its wearing clothes and holding a machine gun (and none of the nav'i where clothes or carry machine guns. Its also wearing the same clothes (brown shirt and shorts).

and a minor plothole possibly

Why are they in the brig? earlier in the film he attacks company equipment and gets arrested but is then seen walking around without issue (they are packing away the equipment), then they convince the company man to let them try again to convince the nav'i and they fail and when they are brought back out the nerd throws a punch and gets handcuffed and weaver is bit p*ssed...but then they are in the brig. Ok I understand why the nerd is there, he struck an officer...but why is Sully there or Weaver? Is it because of them trying to save the nav'i? No they had permission to go from the boss? Is it from earlier when he smashed up the bulldozer...well no cause he was going around fine after that despite the arresting scene and weaver was able to go to the boss and ask for a chance to convince them again...I didnt notice it the first time around, but the 2nd time it stuck out for me

And while I expect a few roll eyes at this (and honestly who is stupid enough to think only documentarys should have plotholes pointed out...wait how can a documentary a recount of factual event have a plothole?) its just a bit banther, I did not mark the film down because of any of the above because they didnt take away from the initial viewing and if you cant use an internet forum to discuss all aspects of a film then what good is it?


Oh and one last thing, I really hope there is an extended cut because it does feel at points that cameron cut big meaty chunks out...the question is will it ever reach the cinema for a 3D viewing or will the extended cut be 2D only?

Duggy747

Richard Dower wrote: »

The CGI, it's amazing....but it's NOT revolutionary....why?, because on thing eludes, 100% photo realistic CGI representation of a human being, with all of it's facial flaws, muscles and the endless emotions a human face can convey.

The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button was pretty damn impressive with what they did recreating a full CGI head of an old Brad Pitt. Despite that film being naff and Forest Gump 2: This Time It's Personal

...now IF he was able to replicate the human characters in 100% CGI...aka, a CGI of Sigourney Weaver, and using her as a frame of refrence and then compare her CGI counterpart and it was 100% bang on accurate.....i'd applaud and laud the film.

:pac: Why would you have a CGI version of an actor / actress that's still working in movies? Naturally that line will be crossed and we'll all be treated with the gimmick of dead famous people on the 1st few movies to break the CGI mould (Remember the hub-bub with Forest Gump and all the famous people who just had mouths composited onto their faces?). Then there'll be the whole "we don't need prosthetics or make-up anymore" and will be subdued to directors trying to convince us that it's better this way. Something I ain't looking forward to. Anywho, no matter how much of the best technology you have at your disposal you can never recreate a human and their unique quirks. Scaled models and prosthetics FTW!!

As for AVATAR, I got my tickets booked for tomorrow night in 3D. It'll be my first 3D film so I'll finally be able to make a decision to it's place in cinema. We all knew the story has been done to death but I'll just be pleased with Cameron's visionary flair.

Can't fùckin' wait!!!!!!!!

Flamed Diving

Just got back from this. How could I sum it up? Trite, cliched crap. The plot was so predictable I wanted to cry. Haven't we seen this all before? In addition, the graphics were average and the 3D was non-existent, for the most part. A Christmas Carol walks all over this movie, in terms of these last two points, not to mention storyline, but since the latter is a timeless classic, we can forgive Avatar for not winning that race. But there are no excuses for how average this movie looked, when you consider the hype they generated for themselves.

If you haven't seen this yet, don't bother. If you want a good 3D experience and a classic story told, try catch A Christmas Carol before its run ends.

Reginald P. DuM

I'm amazed at how many people give out about the story line, and how it has been seen before in some other movie. Can we move on from this please. People making out like they are a serious film reviewer by saying they recognized the theme from such and such. All story lines are as old as time itself. The trick is to make ya forget about this in while your watching, and Cameron has accomplished this without question. I loved Avatar, can't wait for the sequel. :P

Richard Dower

I am gonna see it again during the week, maybe i'll have a different opinion second time round, maybe i'll "see" more.

mdwexford

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Few nitpicks that I had from the first screening that the 2nd one reminded me off.

the last fight between Sully and the mech...seriously? THis is the mech that killed the alien panther that you had the run away from and you start a knife fight with it? The scale might be off a bit there, did it shrink for the sully fight or did the panther shrink???

that is really a nitpick, I dont think its a plothole, it didnt take away from the scene, it just something that briefly raised an eyebrow.

You are comparing him when he was out in the jungle for the first time ever to when he was a trained warrior 3 months later.

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

And while I expect a few roll eyes at this (and honestly who is stupid enough to think only documentarys should have plotholes pointed out...wait how can a documentary a recount of factual event have a plothole?)

Thats my whole point above, its as ridiculous to complain about plotholes in a Sci-Fi movie like some of the ones mentioned above as it would be in a documentary.

Almost every "plothole" mentioned by people above is complete rubbish.

mdwexford

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Just got back from this. How could I sum it up? Trite, cliched crap. The plot was so predictable I wanted to cry. Haven't we seen this all before? In addition, the graphics were average and the 3D was non-existent, for the most part. A Christmas Carol walks all over this movie, in terms of these last two points, not to mention storyline, but since the latter is a timeless classic, we can forgive Avatar for not winning that race. But there are no excuses for how average this movie looked, when you consider the hype they generated for themselves.

If you haven't seen this yet, don't bother. If you want a good 3D experience and a classic story told, try catch A Christmas Carol before its run ends.

If i was 7 i might agree with you.

Richard Dower

mdwexford wrote: »

If i was 7 i might agree with you.

Oi!...i'm 36 and *will* see Toy Story 3D :mad:

mdwexford

Richard Dower wrote: »

Oi!...i'm 36 and *will* see Toy Story 3D :mad:

Its cool, me too, age barriers dont apply to Pixar movies.

Tar.Aldarion

What a film, filrst time I have seen a film in 3D, only experience before was a ride at a adventure park place. I don't know how I will be able to watch normal films again, they look so **** coompared to it. I would take the glasses off to see the difference and it was so huge. It felt like you were much more immersed in it or more like you were there.

BlitzKrieg

mdwexford wrote: »

You are comparing him when he was out in the jungle for the first time ever to when he was a trained warrior 3 months later, stupid point.

a) I wasnt referring to his dramatic increase of strength, I was referring to the scale between them.

The size of the panther seemed to have gotten smaller by the end of the film. seeing as it was pretty beefy at the start of the film, just about under half the size of those big rhino things, those same rhino things that *stepped* on a mech earlier in the film. And it has to scrabble and jump around the mech and in the end gets held up in one hand and stabbed in the gut and thrown away.

Thats my whole point above, its as ridiculous to complain about plotholes in a Sci-Fi movie like some of the ones mentioned above as it would be in a documentary.

Ok let me try and ring some sense into using the term plothole when talking about a documentary.

plot: A constructed narrative used in dramatic works tying characters settings and events into a single consistent series of events leading to a conclusion.

Documentary: A visual expression to *document* reality, usually around a key figure or event.

YOU CANNOT HAVE A PLOTHOLE IN A DOCUMENTARY!

You point factual mistakes in a documentary or maybe bias, but they are not plotholes.

Plotholes is where a film makes an unexplainable leap of logic to get from event a to event b. *there is a hole in the plot*

Thats why of my 3 points I said only one of them was a plothole

Almost every "plothole" mentioned by people above is complete rubbish.

I would agree most pointed out are not plotholes, I just think someone thinking that a documentary is somewhere to go when you want to find plotholes is equally complete rubbish.

CyberGhost

Tusky wrote: »

People who pick the tiniest of plotholes in Science Fiction movies make my brain cry.

Agreed, unless a plot hole just jumps out and bites you, why look for it deliberately?

Just watch it, ignorance is bliss.

mdwexford

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

a) I wasnt referring to his dramatic increase of strength, I was referring to the scale between them.

The size of the panther seemed to have gotten smaller by the end of the film. seeing as it was pretty beefy at the start of the film, just about under half the size of those big rhino things, those same rhino things that *stepped* on a mech earlier in the film. And it has to scrabble and jump around the mech and in the end gets held up in one hand and stabbed in the gut and thrown away.

Ok let me try and ring some sense into using the term plothole when talking about a documentary.

plot: A constructed narrative used in dramatic works tying characters settings and events into a single consistent series of events leading to a conclusion.

Documentary: A visual expression to *document* reality, usually around a key figure or event.

YOU CANNOT HAVE A PLOTHOLE IN A DOCUMENTARY!

You point factual mistakes in a documentary or maybe bias, but they are not plotholes.

Plotholes is where a film makes an unexplainable leap of logic to get from event a to event b. *there is a hole in the plot*

Thats why of my 3 points I said only one of them was a plothole





I would agree most pointed out are not plotholes, I just think someone thinking that a documentary is somewhere to go when you want to find plotholes is equally complete rubbish.

You're not understanding what im saying Sir.

I realise documentaries cannot have plotholes. :rolleyes:

What i am saying is Sci-Fi movies to a degree are exempt from plotholes, as in unimaginable things can happen and its fine, i just hate when people complain about said things like some people have above.

Tar.Aldarion

Exactly. 'A wizard did it'

Who says it was the same creature and that it changed size, maybe it changes sizes hourly? Who gives a ****!

barry181091

Hey Guys,

Thinking of seeing this in 3D in Galway Omniplex on Sunday.

I have only ever seen one stereo 3d movie and that was Ice Age 3, also in Galway. TBH, Was not impressed with the 3D 'experience'.

Is this movie any differant with the 3D ? As I heard there are different ways to implement the 3D effect.

BlitzKrieg

*hits head against wall*

You are all complaining about people nitpicking over factual errors, not plotholes. WILL EVERYBODY STOP USING THE WORD PLOTHOLE!

plothole: character A says *There's no oxygen on the moon* cut to next scene Character A is going for a stroll along the sea of tranquility without a space suit.

factual error: Character A is going for a stroll along the sea of tranquility without a space suit, nothing has been mentioned about oxygen on the moon or not.

One is a mistake in the narrative the other is not.


Yes people pointing out factual errors can be annoying, its even more so when they call them plotholes. And its even more annoying when another level on top of that start complaining that they shouldnt point out plot holes because Sci Fi shouldnt be subject to the laws of narrative as strictly...

God its lucky I never got to mod films everyone who used the word plothole incorrectly on this thread would have had a week's ban by now.

mdwexford

I disagree.

*trots off to troll the Facial Hair & Hats forum and Sega forum till hes blue in the face*

BlitzKrieg

dont forget film production and xbox

Tar.Aldarion

Onlyy plothole I didn't like was that the colonol dude was so one dimensional

Tar.Aldarion

Blitz doesn't like my plot hole?

sent me a message about it!

BlitzKrieg

its not a plothole to have a bad character (I didnt like him either, I thought he was the weakest aspect of the film) but its not a plothole!!!!!!!

he started off as a one dimensional character, everyone treated him as such and he never changed from that.

if he started off as a hippie and then turned into a war mongering maniac halfway through without explanation.

thats a plothole.

I know you tar. You're just trying to p*ss me off now

barry181091

So guys is the 3d much good with this movie ??

Tar.Aldarion

I looked it up!! It is plothole!!