Avatar Superthread

Sleazus

L31mr0d wrote: »

Didn't find it unsettling at all.

It is no different to how a Native American might break a mustang and make it its own to ride. Cameron has created a world where instead of the rider and animal moving symbolically as one, on this world, where literal interconnections between the species has evolved out of necessity, the rider and beast literally move as one.

I accept that and I can see where Cameron is coming from.

It just seems to become an act of sexual violence rather than Na'vi/Nature bonding because it isn't a whip you use, it's what's effectively your penis ("don't play with that, you'll go blind").

Takes "loving nature" to a whole other level.

Sleazus

krudler wrote: »

How is that racist? the fact he's white is irrelevant

The film is obviously a metaphor for colonialism (both modern and classical), with the "bad guys" all being white (the only members of the ensemble which are not white - the beardy scientist and the fighter pilot with a conscience - get to fight with "the good guys"). I think race is something Cameron should have been more careful with.

Anyway, the basic point is that, despite the fact that Sam speaks about 'having the homefield advantage', the locals are too primitive (a.) to realise this themselves, (b.) formulate a defensive strategy without the blow-in who allowed the slaughter to happen in the first place, (c.) come up this the straight-forward idea of unifying the tribes in the face of this menace. It takes an outsider to come up with the idea of fighting back. If it wasn't for the interference of Sam - a human - they'd all be dead, because they are clearly too primitive to save their own culture.

I don't think the fact that he's white is irrelevent, just as I don't think the fact that the most prominent African characters in District 9 are cannibalistic Nigerian mobsters. I don't think that there was a conscious intent to make the above implication, but it was very careless. And if you're going to make a film about an issue that sensitive, you need to be more careful.

L31mr0d

Sleazus wrote: »

It just seems to become an act of sexual violence rather than Na'vi/Nature bonding because it isn't a whip you use, it's what's effectively your penis ("don't play with that, you'll go blind").

Takes "loving nature" to a whole other level.

eh... that's quite a leap...

it's not supposed to be a sexual organ, it's supposed to be a direct connection between the beast and the riders consciousness. What Cameron was symbolizing was the supposed bond a Native American believes it makes with their horse over time, but instead of this process taking time and experience to externally learn the traits of each other, with the Na'vi the syncing of consciousness is instantaneous.

krudler

Sleazus wrote: »

The film is obviously a metaphor for colonialism (both modern and classical), with the "bad guys" all being white (the only members of the ensemble which are not white - the beardy scientist and the fighter pilot with a conscience - get to fight with "the good guys"). I think race is something Cameron should have been more careful with.

Anyway, the basic point is that, despite the fact that Sam speaks about 'having the homefield advantage', the locals are too primitive (a.) to realise this themselves, (b.) formulate a defensive strategy without the blow-in who allowed the slaughter to happen in the first place, (c.) come up this the straight-forward idea of unifying the tribes in the face of this menace. It takes an outsider to come up with the idea of fighting back. If it wasn't for the interference of Sam - a human - they'd all be dead, because they are clearly too primitive to save their own culture.

I don't think the fact that he's white is irrelevent, just as I don't think the fact that the most prominent African characters in District 9 are cannibalistic Nigerian mobsters. I don't think that there was a conscious intent to make the above implication, but it was very careless. And if you're going to make a film about an issue that sensitive, you need to be more careful.

Jake has a working knowledge of the military, you think if America decided to invade a tiny village in the middle of the Amazon who had never seen a military craft the locals would formulate a battle plan? from what? The Na'vi tribes unite against a common enemy use their surroundings to their advantage, the entire thing is a Vietnam allegory, like Aliens before it, if anything the movie is very anti-American, from its foreign policies to pillaging another nations natural resources, military being used for commerce etc etc

Tusky

Ive asked this question a couple of times but havent got an answer so I'll try again!

Is Savoy 1 or Cineworld 17 the best screen to see this on ? Ive seen it on Cineworld 17 but want to see it again, and want it to be the best possible screen.

Can someone who has seen it on Savoy 1 (or both) comment please ? Cheers.

Sleazus

L31mr0d wrote: »

eh... that's quite a leap...

it's not supposed to be a sexual organ, it's supposed to be a direct connection between the beast and the riders consciousness. What Cameron was symbolizing was the supposed bond a Native American believes it makes with their horse over time, but instead of this process taking time and experience to externally learn the traits of each other, with the Na'vi the syncing of consciousness is instantaneous.

I get that,

but there's a huge difference between a mutual bond which develops over time and simply forcing something to the ground while you kneel on top of it (to hold it down) and insert something that the movie considers to be a sexual organ into it. And I think it definitely is a sexual organ. Lines like "don't play with that, you'll go blind" don't make it into the movie by accident - yes, it was a joke, but it's only funny because it's at least a little bit true (for example, if he'd been playing with the equivalent of his fingernail and she'd said that it wouldn't be a joke, it would just be stupid).

I'm willing to accept that I'm in a minority (probably tiny) on this, but that scene made me more than a little bit uncomfortable.

krudler wrote: »

Jake has a working knowledge of the military, you think if America decided to invade a tiny village in the middle of the Amazon who had never seen a military craft the locals would formulate a battle plan? from what?

Yes, but you give the example of Vietnam. The Vietnamese didn't need a blow-in in order to tell them how to expel the American army from the Northern half of their country. They certainly didn't have anything resembling the technology of the Americans, but they did it themselves.

Cameron has constructed a racial fantasy where

a white man gets to be the hero in a colonial setting - somehow exonerating the legacy of colonial destruction and violence which the movie alludes to

. I just find that a little patronising and disconcerting - Sam can live the life of an oppressed native but can return to his privileged life at any time by "waking up" and not only doesn't participate in the colonisation of these people

but pretty much single-handedly prevents it

. The end notion being that

- in the face of advanced technology - these people can't take care of themselves

. That's a justification, not an apology. That's what disturbs me.

krudler wrote: »

The Na'vi tribes unite against a common enemy use their surroundings to their advantage, the entire thing is a Vietnam allegory, like Aliens before it, if anything the movie is very anti-American, from its foreign policies to pillaging another nations natural resources, military being used for commerce etc etc

I get that it's an allegory and I don't have a problem with that. The problem is how it presents itself.

You point to Aliens as a film that has pretty much the same theory at its core - I think it's a much better example. The aliens singlehandedly eject the invaders, despite their advanced technology.

I just think it would have been a much better film without the patronising Jake Sully character. You can make an argument that he serves a narrative purpose - how could we relate to the blue-skinned people without a recognisable lead? gasp -but he ends up just undermining the movie's core point and seems like an attempt to live out a fantasy where the colonists are not entirely guilty of wiping out indigineous cultures - they aren't culpable for their actions.

speedboatchase

Tusky wrote: »

Ive asked this question a couple of times but havent got an answer so I'll try again!

Is Savoy 1 or Cineworld 17 the best screen to see this on ? Ive seen it on Cineworld 17 but want to see it again, and want it to be the best possible screen.

Can someone who has seen it on Savoy 1 (or both) comment please ? Cheers.

I can't really help but I seen it on Screen 1 in Vue Liffey Valley and no problems whatsoever. I would imagine Cineworld is better though

krudler

Yes, but you give the example of Vietnam. The Vietnamese didn't need a blow-in in order to tell them how to expel the American army from the Northern half of their country. They certainly didn't have anything resembling the technology of the Americans, but they did it themselves.

Well really all Jake does is unite the tribes, the Na'vi themselves and the planets indigenous life is what really destroys the invaders, he uses a few guns and grenades but its the flying creatures who do the most damage to the army, its all a bit Dances With Wolves which had pretty much the same theme

Jako8

Those of you who'd like to know how Avatar was made;

Click Here

Xavi6

Expected big things but came home let down. Decent, but not amazing.

I lolled at

the Na'vi's giant version of 'Rock The Boat' around the sacred tree

Sleazus

krudler wrote: »

Well really all Jake does is unite the tribes, the Na'vi themselves and the planets indigenous life is what really destroys the invaders, he uses a few guns and grenades but its the flying creatures who do the most damage to the army, its all a bit Dances With Wolves which had pretty much the same theme

I honestly don't think the audience is meant

to believe that the Na'vi could have won without Jake

- that itself has unfortunate implications. Sure it was Jake - who despite only spending months in a Na'vi body -

was able to come up with the idea of fusing with the planet to get it on board with the whole "saving the Na'vi" plan

. These people have had their bodies for years and have been fusing with nature for centuries at least, but it takes the American (yes, the actor is Australian, but the character is apparently American) to come up with the idea

of asking the planet for help

.

Yes, I admit it's been done before, but that doesn't really excuse it. Particularly when Cameron sidestepped that problem in an earlier film with the same core message (and a few of the stock characters for good measure).

L31mr0d

Sleazus wrote: »

I get that,

but there's a huge difference between a mutual bond which develops over time and simply forcing something to the ground while you kneel on top of it (to hold it down) and insert something that the movie considers to be a sexual organ into it. And I think it definitely is a sexual organ. Lines like "don't play with that, you'll go blind" don't make it into the movie by accident - yes, it was a joke, but it's only funny because it's at least a little bit true (for example, if he'd been playing with the equivalent of his fingernail and she'd said that it wouldn't be a joke, it would just be stupid).

Yes, because that's a human joke...

if they where put into the bodies of Elephants and Jake was playing with his trunk and that joke was made it would be equally funny and relevant, due to the phallic similarities. The Na'vis appendage is a communication device and it is never insinuated that this is used for sexual activity.

CyberGhost

Just came back from Vue in Clondalkin,

I'm immensely disappointed!

First, I watched it in 3D, this was my first 3D movie, I don't know if this is normal or not but I could not catch a proper focus, everything was confusing, moving too fast and blurry, when scenes slowed down only then I could see the effect, the human base scenes are the ones I enjoyed the most cause I could see them.


Then the story, I never considered myself to be a big critic of movies, I usually just watch them and take them for what they are.... but man this story was CHEESE! I feel like I came out 5Kg heavier from the cinema. The story itself is done many many times before, I knew that and I was OK with it, but the delivery in this movie, it was just cheese worthy of a guiness record. The beginning also felt super rushed.


The movie was boring, 75% of it I found to be totally boring, in fact I'm usually anal about sounds in the cinema because they take me out of the experience, yet there was a child crying, people coughing and I found that more interesting than the movie, only the last battle was good, and even then there were better battles done in movies, I was constantly left with an unfinished, unsatisfyed feeling from scirimishes, everything was cut too fast too soon, the chases too.


The world, pandora, I didn't like it at all, first the creatures looked really idiotic, they all looked like plastic and a mix of different animals we have mixed with bugs and Leonardo Davinchi's flying machine. The sounds were used from other movies, there was a T-Rex sound from Jurassic park that I recognized, King Kong sound. If you like fantasy creatures that look like they'd fall over constantly in a real world, you'll like these.

The night scenes were horrible, it was boy racer's heaven, neons everywhere, Cameron threw up neons all over you, I dreaded the nights and was constantly waiting for a day scene again. Especially in 3D I found it annoying.

And I think one of the biggest failures of Cameron with Pandora was that he IMO failed to grab the sense of scale of things, we never got a good look at Pandona, first they show a planet from the orbit... it looks like a ball(duh) then we are suddenly in some forrest who knows where, also they never displayed how far the base was from the natives, it was never shown properly for you to get an idea. There were no fly over scenes done to truly give you a perspective of how big this planet is. They showed some big rocks but I never truly got that breath taking feeling of scale, like "wow, that world is HUGE!" every nature scene was just "packed" too much with too many things.
You never got that look of a seemingly endless horizon, there were also oceans it looks like but all they show you are the shores of it. When they are flying those "birds" they could've used that moment to zoom out a bit and display some scale, yet they focused strictly on the smurfs.

They never showed the earth either.



Characters, the acting was pretty good from all actors.

The movie was supposed to make me hate the evil, greedy, colonizing humans but I didn't at all, I liked the Colonel the most, he was a cool guy.

Sully's girlfriend pissed me off at times with her sudden emotional outbursts and screaming.

The CGI looked good and actually believable for the most part.



Still....James, son, I'm disapoint.


I enjoyed District 9 much more.

seraphimvc

absolutely brilliant movie - we have always forgetten CGI(or fusion technology whatever they call it they are still CG) is made to bring more entertainment/joy/dreams to us audiences. and the man made it. goodjob Cameron!!

Outkast_IRE

Went to 3d version in mahon point last night .
Was very impressed with visual aspect it was a magnificent film to watch.
Story wise it was solid and enjoyable , its honestly the most entertaining film iv watched this year .

Anyone else feel that it wont translate to the small screen as good ?

Cupcake_Crisis

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Went to 3d version in mahon point last night .
Was very impressed with visual aspect it was a magnificent film to watch.
Story wise it was solid and enjoyable , its honestly the most entertaining film iv watched this year .

Anyone else feel that it wont translate to the small screen as good ?

I was just discussing that with a friend. We both think that what made the movie so good was the sheer scale of everything, and the detail you could see. It will still look pretty on a smaller screen id say, but nowhere near as good as in the cinema

Tar.Aldarion

I can barely watch it in 2d! it was all about teh awesomeness of the 3d and prettiness

Duggy747

Hell, I was impressed visually. I'm a fierce critic but the production on this was A+.

D- for the naff plot and dialogue, though it wasn't the worst telling.

BlitzKrieg

i say they'll try and sell the dvd version on it being an extended cut of the film which might give some of the characters some depth.

PirateShampoo

Went to see it the other night in Cineworld, i loved it.

The opening scene was pure awesomeness, i was blown away by the 3D. I probably could of watched this without the sound, and the 3d made the holographic dispalys look unreal.

So the film was a bit chessy, but i didnt mind i really enjoyed it.



Off topic, i cant wait for Shrek 3D and Alice 3D, they both look pretty good.

CyberGhost

So I guess I'm the only one that found 3D annoying, very blurry, mushy and hard to focus on?

Mossy Monk

Nice to look at but very dull story.

Basq

Just back from it about an half hour ago.

Let's cut straight to the point - it was visually stunning and the battle sequences were hugely enjoyable but to be honest, there was massive gaps on Pandora where I was bored senseless, the characters were paper-thin, the performances were patchy and majority of the dialogue was horrific!

If you want to see impressive battle sequences and real effective use of 3D cinema, you'll love it.

I can't understand people claiming it's one of the best movies of the last year or last few years, it's visually stunning but I'd implore those same people to see it in 2D and see if they feel the same.

I'd give it a 7/10 for superb visuals and battle sequences.. but everything else really let it down.

A-Trak

Avoided the reviews, avoided the trailers, avoided the hype avoided this thread.:p

Not so as to avoid "spoiling" the content / suprise more the accident by design to be honest.

Bloody hell, I was transfixed from start to finish. As a spectacle I've yet to see any work of fiction to match it. Lost count the amount of times I said wow.

As a visual spectacle, in my opinion it was breathtaking.

DinnyBatman

basquille wrote: »

I'd give it a 7/10 for superb visuals and battle sequences.. but everything else really let it down.

Sweet Jaysus, what does a director have to do to get a 10/10 for "visuals"?
The film was visually incredible. Storyline was as expected. I came out of the cinema a damn sight happier than say 2012.

L31mr0d

DinnyBatman wrote: »

Sweet Jaysus, what does a director have to do to get a 10/10 for "visuals"?

Well I think he's saying that it gets 7/10 for visuals and battle sequences but loses 3 points for lack of character development and plot.

I mean I can see where he's coming from. I mean just look at E.T., predictable plot, 1 dimensional characters and what do we really learn about the Aliens, not a whole damn lot tbh, where was the character development and depth?

Same with Jurassic Park, I mean the characters are really just there to take us on a guided tour around some neat visual spectacles... and the plot.. pff... millionaire tries to play god and fails miserably... that's original :rolleyes:

I agree, E.T, Jurassic Park and Avatar all 7/10 films because of the paper thin plots and character depth.

cats.pyjamas

The 3D was amazing ! story was beyond soppy though , which was disappointing. Was I the only one who thought it could have been called "Pocahontas! (except not Native American) Live Action Movie!" It was basically the same story line except they never attacked grandmother willow in Pocahontas (but I'm sure they would have eventually)

BlitzKrieg

DinnyBatman wrote: »

Sweet Jaysus, what does a director have to do to get a 10/10 for "visuals"?
The film was visually incredible. Storyline was as expected. I came out of the cinema a damn sight happier than say 2012.

no he meant it got 7/10 overall because it looked pretty. not 7/10 just for visuals.

BlitzKrieg

Same with Jurassic Park, I mean the characters are really just there to take us on a guided tour around some neat visual spectacles... and the plot.. pff... millionaire tries to play god and fails miserably... that's original

I'm sorry but the characters in jurassic park got alot more development then the characters in avatar. To contrast the big rich billionaire vs the corporate man. In Jurrasic Park the big rich millionaires ethics were questioned and he actually at one point in the film

tried to justify it by comparing the park to a flea circus, and his desire to have something real that he could touch.

And at the end of the film he had developed to change his position on the whole issue/ In contrast the corporate mean did what? He justified it by pointing out the piece of rock was worth millions, despite everything that was said to him in the events of the film, did he change his position? No, we get two passing shots of him doing nothing for the rest of the film after the big tree scene, no development.


And a better question about avatar

Why should we care about the chief when he died? We had a big scene of him dying and passing on his bow to his daughter, why should we as an audience morn his passing, what aside from being *the chief* can we say about his character? Was he a good chief? We dont know, was he a caring father? We dont know. We never even saw him talk to his daughter aside from his introduction. We cared more when her banshee died because they had earlier in the film established their connection and developed it.

Rowley Birkin QC

Just back from seeing it in the coolest cinema I've ever been in, the Pathé Tuschinski in Amsterdam, absolutely blown away. Both my girlfriend and myself commented that it brought back the same sort of awe that came the first time you went to the cinema as a child, which is something I've been waiting for a film to deliver on for a while now.

10/10

Ri_Nollaig

Saw it today.
Second film Ive seen in 3D (first was Up)

The Visuals and use of 3D was unbelievable good.
But other then that it was pretty crap, bit too long and does any one else find it odd that he basically wanted to do a like ~9 foot tall alien? that really is going native

Still nothing on Terminator 1/2 and Aliens for me but overall there is certainly worse ways to spend 2 and half hours.

DinnyBatman

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

no he meant it got 7/10 overall because it looked pretty. not 7/10 just for visuals.

oops. but i'm a shallow f*cker - pretty is everything!;)

L31mr0d

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I'm sorry but the characters in jurassic park got alot more development then the characters in avatar.

My point is that if you want to be cynical you can boil down any movie to being clichéd with limited character development, compared to the book I think the characters in Jurassic Park where horribly distorted and underdeveloped. The traits of Hammond in the book are far less idealistic and more realistic.

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

And a better question about avatar

Why should we care about the chief when he died?

It's not really about caring when the

chief dies

. It's about the Na'vi as a people. In Schindlers list when

we see the red jacket of the jewish girl on a body in the back of a truck

, the symbol is more important than what we got to learn about this girl as a character.

The chiefs death, coupled with the falling of the tree was representative of what was happening to the Na'vi as a people. How their situation was apparently hopeless.

BlitzKrieg

L31mr0d wrote: »

My point is that if you want to be cynical you can boil down any movie to being clichéd with limited character development,

I would say the issue with Avatar is not so much that they are cliched it is that they are horrible underdeveloped as characters full stop. You can have a character that is cliched but a bit of development can allow any cinema goer overlook it easily. That is the core issue with Avatar we got cliched characters and were not given anything to look past that cliche.

compared to the book I think the characters in Jurassic Park where horribly distorted and underdeveloped. The traits of Hammond in the book are far less idealistic and more realistic.

I've read the book and I know the difference between them, but I wouldnt call Hammond in the film underdeveloped, I would blatantly say he is a completely different character to the one in the book so much so that they were able to springboard the plot of the 2nd film in a completely different direction just on how they changed his character over how the book actually played out (for the record I liked leonard in the book and was disapointed when he wasnt in the film.)

It's not really about caring when the

chief dies

. It's about the Na'vi as a people. In Schindlers list when

we see the red jacket of the jewish girl on a body in the back of a truck

, the symbol is more important than what we got to learn about this girl as a character.

The chiefs death, coupled with the falling of the tree was representative of what was happening to the Na'vi as a people. How their situation was apparently hopeless.

Hmm if thats what you think the specific scene with the chief meant fine. Personnally I thought it was too melodramatic and focused on the daughter crying over her father to be merely a symbol for the Na'vi being crushed. But thats what I saw in that scene and you saw something different.

B0X

Avatar's really shallow, the whole thing is just seemed like a means to show special effects. Yes they are amazing, but the plot and characters are what makes a film, both of which in this case are clichéd and predictable.
6/10

mdwexford

What was the last action movie any of you saw that wasnt predictable out of interest??

I for one didnt want in depth character development going on, if i wanted that id stay home and watch The Wire or something.

Ri_Nollaig

B0X wrote: »

Avatar's really shallow, the whole thing is just seemed like a means to show special effects. Yes they are amazing, but the plot and characters are what makes a film, both of which in this case are clichéd and predictable.
6/10

you know I was thinking about this afterwards.
Do you think James Cameron just wanted to make the alien rain forest and strange creatures in 3D CGI and then just wrapped the story around this...
Seems to kinda mirror how games were made back in the day, game made using the limit of the technology and a storyline was tided into what they could.

Its currently 25 on imdb top 250...
I am wondering are those who are voting it 10/10 the same who say films like transformers are crap as they are just about explosions and special effects?

nyarlothothep

It was a good film but not a great film. The plot was cliched from the outset, but I thought the character development was reasonably alright compared to other hollywood blockbusters. Certainly not to an aliens standard but nonetheleses there was some character depth involved. It reminded me of sci fi space opera novels and it was nice to see something like this on the big screen given that its unusual amid all the fantasy films. The fx were without a doubt excellent. 7/10.

BlitzKrieg

What was the last action movie any of you saw that wasnt predictable out of interest??

*cough*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g3P63pv2C0

Basq

DinnyBatman wrote: »

Sweet Jaysus, what does a director have to do to get a 10/10 for "visuals"?

You misunderstood!

L31mr0d wrote: »

Well I think he's saying that it gets 7/10 for visuals and battle sequences but loses 3 points for lack of character development and plot.

Spot on L31mr0d!

On a visual scale, the film can't not get 10/10. But it'd be daft to award it 10/10 considering the numerous problems I had with the film - but on a visual scale, it's unrivalled!

Outkast_IRE

If the dvd edition brings some much needed charecter development scenes then i will be a very happy man .
Honestly loved the film but didnt care much for some of the charecters just cause of lack of development prob due to time constrictions .
A few extra scenes to help us associate with charecters would do this films wonders . Im sure carmeron has plently of footage left over for the inevitable extended cut.:D

FutureGuy

Super film from start to finish. Went to see it with my gf, my brother and his mate. We all have widely varying tastes in fims, but we all loved it.

The 3-D was astounding, but if it's your first 3-D film you may find it takes 10-15 minutes to get used to it. In fairness, there is only so much character building that you can do in the opening hour, but I had plenty concern for

the Na'vi as a species.

.

L31mr0d

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

*cough*

What exactly was original about the Dark Knight? It's an archetypal hero story mixed with nods to unoriginal game theory.

Now my point is, the Dark Knight is still a great film, even though the plot is not original. E.T is still a great film even though the character development is limited. Jurassic Park is still a great film even though a lot of the characters are ancillary to the Dinosaurs.

It is possible for a film to have a fairly weak plot and limited character development and still be a 10/10 film. Take "Duel" for example, it would be a 10/10 film even though the plot is non-existent and the character development is minimal, but as an exercise in creating tension and mystery and holding it it is perfect for the entirety.

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

It's like for video games dropping the score of a racing game because it has no story, it would be stupid.

Personally as a Romeo and Juliet/Underdog story I thought Avatar did quite well and the characters I was meant to care about, Jake and Neytiri, I did by the end of the film. But above all else the overwhelming brilliance of the visuals put this film for me up in the top tier of films I've ever watched.

Sleazus

L31mr0d wrote: »

What exactly was original about the Dark Knight? It's an archetypal hero story mixed with nods to unoriginal game theory.

But it's not. It's the first blockbuster to offer a deconstruction of the myth of the superhero. The story is anything but archetypal hero story.

That's not an original idea of itself, but it's the first time the idea was transitioned to film.

I agree that a movie doesn't have to be original to be good - there's nothing original about Heat or Platoon, for example - but it still has to be, fundamentally, a good story well told (with more emphasis on the last part - I don't care if it's the story of paint drying so long as it's interestingly put together).

Otacon

Sleazus wrote: »

...but it still has to be, fundamentally, a good story well told (with more emphasis on the last part - I don't care if it's the story of paint drying so long as it's interestingly put together).

I thought the pacing and scene selections were concise, with good acting enhancing it. The passage of time was conveyed very well, you understood the motivations of each character [except arguably Michelle Rodriguez's character].

What about Avatar's story is not well told?

Galvasean

I know it's getting a lot of flak for it's 'done before' storyline, but when dealing witha project which costed $300 million I can see why they went for a tried and tested formla. If the storyline was too 'out there' it might have alienated a large chunk of the audience (because lets face it, the vast majority of people went for the eye candy, not the story). If it was unusial and potentially confusing Mr. Joe Soap Public might have been put off. When a film costs that much to make you can't afford to take any unneccessary gambles.
Take a storyline that you know works, make it beautiful and get a nice return on investment. That's how blockbusters work.

L31mr0d

Sleazus wrote: »

But it's not. It's the first blockbuster to offer a deconstruction of the myth of the superhero. The story is anything but archetypal hero story.

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

mdwexford

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

*cough*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g3P63pv2C0

Serious??

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

Mark Hamill

Saw this last night with some of my family and when asked what I thought about it I said

"Too much Titanic, not enough Abyss". It wasn't actually the love aspect of the storyline that bothered me that much (it fit quite well as the driving force actually), but the overall sentimentality it tried to envoke for its enviromental message.
I think that Cameron made a mess of the envirmental message he was trying to get across by constantly trying to bring everything back to a "hippy tree hugging" meaning with life forces and ignoring the fact that Weavers character actually scientifically explained the connection between the lif on the planet (that the "trees" weren't exactly trees, that they had bio-electronic interactions on a order higher than the human brain).
I think that by ignoring the innocent scientific wonder aspect (what was done well in The Abyss) and focussing on the spiritual, magical, hippy meaning he will alienate people who either aren't already "in love" with their planet or dont flip-flop on issues based on the last piece of propaganda they read or saw.
I think Cameron made a real mess of the message at the end when Worthingtons character started refereing to the humans as "aliens returning to their dead planet". It does work for his characterisation (he sees himself as the one of The People, but it pretty much implies that humans are doomed to killing their planet unless they stop being humans.

RoyalMarine

saw it last night. loved it.

cant say anymore than that