Avatar

PhilNYC · « **Reply #60 on:** 3 Jan 2010, 01:22 am »

Saw it last night (3D, but no IMAX). Enjoyed it a lot, and definitely think it should be seen in a theater...truly stunning visuals, completely immersing you in this fantasy world.

That said, as a parent of young children who has seen Disney's animated Pocahontas and Tarzan films literally dozens of times over the last year or two, I found the story to be extremely predictable almost to the point of being "plageristic"....

Tyson · « **Reply #61 on:** 3 Jan 2010, 05:08 am »

I liked the movie, but it felt like I was watching "Last of the Mohicans" combined with "Dances with Wolves", with big blue people in the future.

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #62 on:** 3 Jan 2010, 06:05 am »

Curiosity got the best of me, but I should have known better. There's little substance here and if it weren’t for the CGI, this film would pass unnoticed by most of its fans.

With the exception of the Star Trek franchise, I'm just not into fantasy, so big blockbusters like LOTR and Batman Begins are tough viewing. Having said that I was able to sit back and watch the film without looking at my watch every 5 minutes debating if it was time to leave.

2.5 stars out of 5.

satfrat · « **Reply #63 on:** 3 Jan 2010, 06:11 am »

Quote from: Wind Chaser on 3 Jan 2010, 06:05 am

Curiosity got the best of me, but I should have known better. There's little substance here and if it weren’t for the CGI, this film would pass unnoticed by most of its fans.

With the exception of the Star Trek franchise, I'm just not into fantasy, so big blockbusters like LOTR and Batman Begins are tough viewing. Having said that I was able to sit back and watch the film without looking at my watch every 5 minutes debating if it was time to leave.

2.5 stars out of 5.

Maybe The Young Victoria is more down your alley? Plenty of good reviews.

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #64 on:** 3 Jan 2010, 06:18 am »

Quote from: satfrat on 3 Jan 2010, 06:11 am

Maybe The Young Victoria is more down your alley? Plenty of good reviews.

Haven't heard anything about it, but hey, you might be right.

ctviggen · « **Reply #65 on:** 3 Jan 2010, 12:11 pm »

Quote from: Wind Chaser on 3 Jan 2010, 06:05 am

Curiosity got the best of me, but I should have known better. There's little substance here and if it weren’t for the CGI, this film would pass unnoticed by most of its fans.

With the exception of the Star Trek franchise, I'm just not into fantasy, so big blockbusters like LOTR and Batman Begins are tough viewing. Having said that I was able to sit back and watch the film without looking at my watch every 5 minutes debating if it was time to leave.

2.5 stars out of 5.

That means I'll probably love it, because I thought the last two Batmans and The Lord of the Rings were fantastic (as was the last Star Trek). My wife liked all of these too, and she rents things like Frost/Nixon, Into the Wild, Milk, etc.

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #66 on:** 3 Jan 2010, 12:32 pm »

Quote from: ctviggen on 3 Jan 2010, 12:11 pm

That means I'll probably love it, because I thought the last two Batmans and The Lord of the Rings were fantastic (as was the last Star Trek).

Star Trek 2009 was terrific and much more alluring than Avatar. However Avatar is a far better film than LOTR or Batman Begins. I have a hard time suspending reality so most fantasy films seem too corny from the get go.

werd · « **Reply #67 on:** 3 Jan 2010, 08:42 pm »

Avatar cost 400 mill to make and has just past the 1bill box off sales mark, reported today.

TerryO · « **Reply #68 on:** 5 Jan 2010, 01:35 am »

I saw it with my son last weekend in 3D. Great visual effects offset by a dismal, predictable story line.
If it cost $400 million to make, they must have paid the writer $35K for the screenplay and even then, he made out like a champ.
It is certainly a "green" movie, they used only recycled 3rd rate material.

Best Regards,
TerryO

mjosef · « **Reply #69 on:** 5 Jan 2010, 05:50 am »

My second attempt to see this today...SOLD OUT.

launche · « **Reply #70 on:** 5 Jan 2010, 04:28 pm »

Quote from: TerryO on 5 Jan 2010, 01:35 am

I saw it with my son last weekend in 3D. Great visual effects offset by a dismal, predictable story line.
If it cost $400 million to make, they must have paid the writer $35K for the screenplay and even then, he made out like a champ.
It is certainly a "green" movie, they used only recycled 3rd rate material.

Best Regards,
TerryO

That was funny.

But what are some of you expecting, I don't imagine this movie was ever intended to have a bullet proof screenplay. What you have is an accessible movie using some tried and true elements and incorporating some groundbreaking ones as well. Do we go to the movies to be entertained or to critique? The trailer showed you giant blue people from another planet flying on dragons. Was anyone really expecting anything more than a good time sci-fi flick? This is James Cameron folks. You want more substance in your stories as Robin suggested go see "The Young Victoria". For those that want an immersive entertaining disneyland like cinematic experience, Avatar is the ticket.

Enjoy life now, complain when your dead.

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #71 on:** 5 Jan 2010, 10:58 pm »

A screenplay is a blueprint to a movie. Why compromise a $400 million dollar movie with an ordinary screenplay?
All things being equal, the better the screenplay, the better and more entertaining the movie. The point is Avatar, could have been a much better film.

Atlplasma · « **Reply #72 on:** 5 Jan 2010, 11:09 pm »

If anyone has monovision (naturally or as a result of laser surgery), don't bother paying extra for the 3D version. My wife and I went this weekend with friends, and I learned you have to be seeing in stereo to appreciate the 3D effect. Oh well...

PhilNYC · « **Reply #73 on:** 6 Jan 2010, 12:50 am »

Quote from: launche on 5 Jan 2010, 04:28 pm

That was funny.

But what are some of you expecting, I don't imagine this movie was ever intended to have a bullet proof screenplay. What you have is an accessible movie using some tried and true elements and incorporating some groundbreaking ones as well. Do we go to the movies to be entertained or to critique? The trailer showed you giant blue people from another planet flying on dragons. Was anyone really expecting anything more than a good time sci-fi flick? This is James Cameron folks. You want more substance in your stories as Robin suggested go see "The Young Victoria". For those that want an immersive entertaining disneyland like cinematic experience, Avatar is the ticket.

Enjoy life now, complain when your dead.

Imho, James Cameron is usually much better at getting his audiences to suspend disbelief (eg. Terminator/T2, Aliens, True Lies, etc)...still entertaining, but I had hoped for more...

rave959 · « **Reply #74 on:** 6 Jan 2010, 01:12 pm »

I agree that the movie is a visual achievement as well. Though the character & plot development were predictable or just plain shallow, I believe it was done on purpose to suit a broad range of audiences, and of course to make money. I do agree that the blue female character (i forget her name/girlfriend) served as a model on how modern females should be (IMHO) - independent, caring and firm when situations called her to be. The underlying message about human's nature regaring destruction, selfishness and arrogance is a good addition. And it is kinda sad that Hollywood is now trying to teach us about a thing or two about morality, but if that's what it takes to inform and make the general public aware of what we do to the environment, then so be it.

An overall entertaining movie! Genres such as love story, action, sci-fi and drama all wrapped into one!

launche · « **Reply #75 on:** 6 Jan 2010, 03:34 pm »

Quote from: PhilNYC on 6 Jan 2010, 12:50 am

Imho, James Cameron is usually much better at getting his audiences to suspend disbelief (eg. Terminator/T2, Aliens, True Lies, etc)...still entertaining, but I had hoped for more...

I think you hit one nail on the head Phil, it's all about expectations. I have said this for years, one has to try to approach many things with a clean slate or open mind. I had very little expectations or preconceived notions regarding this film, maybe I was even a bit skeptical. That's why any movie I really want to see I do so as soon as possible before reading or hearing too many opinions about it. Those things shape your perception and expectations from the start. I have no doubt that many people saw it after hearing X,Y,Z, about it and the movie gets measured based on those things and other standards instead of first on its on merit, it's human nature.

I personally had my belief suspended. I also think the story was made rather simplistic on purpose, maybe in an attempt to tell a story with a clear message and not to be a confusing element to the visual experience. Most will have there hands full with the visual presentation let alone trying to breakdown a more complex plot or method of storytelling. There's enough here for good tasty consumption and it's satisfying even if it isn't the best meal you've had in a long time. Any movie can be better and a particular movie won't appeal the same to everyone. My point is there is a lot to be enjoyed in this movie and a notion of a predicatable screenplay should should fall by the waist side to a large degree. This genre/style of movie typically only has a few ways to tell the story. They make other movies to cater to other tastes, it makes no sense to ponder on an element of a movie in which it's not a strong point or maybe the intention in the first place. Would you watch "Sunshine Cleaning" expecting to see a fast paced edge of your seat thriller with state of the art video and sound?

Did many miss that fact that we were engaged and connected to giant blue computer generated aliens as if they were us in a way I think we haven't been before. Usually with these animation, stop motion etc... films the characters aways have a tell, in that my mind knows they are not human enough and there's a wall/filter there but with this movie that wall/filter pretty much dissapeared. And they have never gotten the eyes right for me on any of the previous attempts, in this case they got the eyes right and furthered the cause.

I would really urge people to take a close look at what you are getting from the Na'vi characters, specifically Neytir. Watch and study her nuance, emotion and fluidity, it is IMO truly noteworthy. I would put her performance against any I've seen of late. Again, measure the Na'vi characters against the human actors and I think you will come across something very interesting. I firmly 100% believe there is something "game changing" that many are just missing here. What I am telling you is not you have the ability to do an entire movie with characters cut from the Na'vi cloth with no physical humans on screen and if will likely not cause a real life-CGI disconnect with most people.

When I saw the movie a second time I made a point to look around at people and everyone was engaged, a classic movie scene with the 3d glasses and their faces washed with white/blue light and wearing their emotions on their faces, isn't that the point. I guess even the first films to actually have moving pictures, then sound, then color there were people saying the screenplay wasn't good enough.

When I go see these movies I try to be 12 again, when there was still wonder in the world, instead of as the jaded adult I am. Personally, that makes all the difference in my viewing experience. We have seen too much, overstimulated and overindulged and maybe losing the basic sense to simply enjoy. Cameron has brought something major to the table and if you can meet him halfway you'll enjoy the ride.

Bottom line: Like anything in life, if you want to have a good time, you'll have a good time. If you don't then you won't.

PhilNYC · « **Reply #76 on:** 6 Jan 2010, 03:50 pm »

Launche, I'm with you on the expectations thing. So, for me, what I found distracting (and perhaps why I found my disbelief not quite as suspended) was that there were SOOO many elements in this film that were taken directly from Disney's Pocahontas and Tarzan to the point where I was expecting the dialog to be verbatim as well.

launche · « **Reply #77 on:** 6 Jan 2010, 05:09 pm »

FWIW, I saw neither Disney's Pocahontas or Tarzan but I think we all know the formula. As they say, there are precious few new ideas just different takes on the same old themes. May be give it another viewing and those elements will not be a the forefront of your thought process I hope. I know the second time around I wasn't as bothered by some things that I noticed during the first viewing. I do agree and understand the criticisms, I too wish he had pushed the envelop on all fronts but I'll take what I can get as it comes.

PhilNYC · « **Reply #78 on:** 6 Jan 2010, 06:16 pm »

Launche...take a rental on Pocahontas. The similarities are unreal...no doubt, James Cameron was going for a "New World" thing, with the "civilized" humans trying to teach and manage the native "savages" who were living on the land the humans wanted to take for their own purposes. But to go as far as "John Smith making a plea to Mother Willow" (ie. Jack Sully makes his plea to the Tree of Souls) was a bit much...(<---just one example)...

jmc207 · « **Reply #79 on:** 6 Jan 2010, 06:35 pm »

I still liked the movie but as Phil mentioned the similarities are a bit much. Here's a rewritten Pocahontas script for perusal.

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/7269/originalvq.jpg

If that link quits working, check my Gallery.