James Cameron's 'Avatar'

[XNine]

I refuse to see this movie. Not because of the hype or some-such, but because of the preview. So there are tons of giant walking robots, ships flying around, hovering for landings, bio-scientists doing bio-experiments, and here comes this guy in a ****ing wheel chair. Really? Really? All of that technology and they obviously didn't bother spending the money on stem-cell research to fix paralysis. What a waste!

That and I have a bad taste from the last three Star Wars movies. Lucacemia (the condition where you believe everyone lives in your own fantasy world, which is kinda like Shatneritis...) has apparently infected James Cameron now. Too much CG.

 

[dukebound85]

they explain that in the movie

 

[GfPQqmcRKUvP]

Yes I have seen it, I own it. The story is the same being that he is an outsider who learns the way of the locals to only fall in love with the culture and then identifies with that culture over his own

Do you have any idea how many great movies and amazing literature you're excluding by your statement? There really aren't that many over-arching themes to choose from in general, so what did you expect?

I refuse to see this movie. Not because of the hype or some-such, but because of the preview. So there are tons of giant walking robots, ships flying around, hovering for landings, bio-scientists doing bio-experiments, and here comes this guy in a ****ing wheel chair.

Like dukebound said, explained.

That and I have a bad taste from the last three Star Wars movies. Lucacemia (the condition where you believe everyone lives in your own fantasy world, which is kinda like Shatneritis...) has apparently infected James Cameron now. Too much CG.

Not too much CG. The CG is so well done it brings your imagination to reality. It's unbelievable.

 

[obeygiant]

The CG is so well done it brings your imagination to reality. It's unbelievable.

You're right, you have to remind yourself that its CG. Its so thorough and so well done that you forget within 60 seconds that its not real. This is miles beyond any star wars bullcrap.

Part one of seven of a brilliant critique of the Phantom Menace. lol

 

[Antares]

I saw it in 3D at a regular cinema. Fantastic! Most films don't live up to the hype....but Avatar is one of those rare movies that actually do. Beautiful, engrossing, engaging, epic. I was in awe the whole time. The movie was definitely groundbreaking. I have never felt so immersed in a film.

Next up: IMax 3D

 

[jaw04005]

Just got back from watching it. To be honest, you could guess the entire plot ten minutes into the movie, and for some reason it reminded me of Fern Gully (the early 90s animated cartoon) with a dab of GI Joe and Star Wars mixed in.

Saw it in RealD 3D or whatever. It was OK, but I wasn't blown away by it.

 

[Skengman]

I saw it last night, thought it was brilliant.

The 3D was perfectly done, not tiring or irritating but immersive, and believable. Animation/CG was incredible.

The story is a cliché but a decent enough one. Like a previous poster said, you guess everything way before it happens but I didn't really mind that, as I was so deeply drawn into the film.

The one thing I wasn't aware of is that it is 3 BLOODY HOURS LONG! I didn't get into the film until 9.30, was not expecting a half 12 finish.
Although, I didn't get that dragging sensation that you do with other films, so I guess thats a good sign too.

 

[gloss]

Really derivative story, but beautifully done. The theatrical experience is well worth a ticket - the likelihood that you'll be able to have anywhere near the same experience watching at home is basically nil.

 

[iBlue]

Can anyone who saw it in IMAX 3D tell me if it's TOO overwhelming?

I haven't seen a film in Imax or 3D in a long time but I remember both (separately) being almost too much and the 3D giving me a headache. I know the technology has improved a lot but I worry about the possibility of a headache if it's too 'heavy'. (if you see what I mean)
Opinions?

 

[VideoFreek]

Really derivative story, but beautifully done. The theatrical experience is well worth a ticket - the likelihood that you'll be able to have anywhere near the same experience watching at home is basically nil.

I totally agree--this movie must be seen in a good theater, and it must be seen in 3-D. However, regarding the home experience, never say never. With the recent announcement of a finalized Blu-ray 3D spec, this movie could well help drive sales of home 3D hardware in 2010 and beyond.

Can anyone who saw it in IMAX 3D tell me if it's TOO overwhelming?

If you have a chance to see the Imax version, do so. I had a chance to see it in an Imax theater while back in the States, and I kept thinking to myself throughout the movie "I've never seen anything like this before." I'm old enough to remember having a similar reaction to seeing Star Wars for the first time in 1977...a feeling of being totally mesmerized by something new and completely different. Sort of like watching a movie from the future. In fact, I was so immersed in it that I lost track of time, and at the movie's conclusion I was astonished to see that nearly three hours had elapsed--I could have gone on much longer! The Imax experience was fantastic; although I'm not a big fan of Imax's squarish aspect ratio, the sheer size and pristine clarity of the image created a totally immersive experience. I plan to see in in regular 3-D here in Germany--a few theaters around are showing it in English--so it will be interesting to compare the versions.

Regarding the movie itself, as many have noted the plot doesn't quite match up to the film's visual acuity and sophistication. But this is something else that this movie has in common with Star Wars--George Lucas has always unabashedly admitted that Star Wars was targeted at 12 year-old boys. Unlike Lucas, however, James Cameron knows how to direct human actors, so the acting was perfectly serviceable despite a cast consisting of mostly unknowns and character actors (I've always found the wooden acting and stilted dialogue in all Star Wars movies to be enormously distracting--Lucas has the rare ability to make even fine actors like Natalie Portman and Samuel L. Jackson suck). All in all, this is a must-see experience.

I refuse to see this movie. Not because of the hype or some-such, but because of the preview. So there are tons of giant walking robots, ships flying around, hovering for landings, bio-scientists doing bio-experiments, and here comes this guy in a ****ing wheel chair. Really? Really? All of that technology and they obviously didn't bother spending the money on stem-cell research to fix paralysis. What a waste!

How silly. Not only is this adequately explained in the movie, as others have noted, it actually plays an important role in the plot development--the promise of a cure is the "carrot" that draws the young marine into complicity with the military commander. You really ought to approach things with a more open mind.

 

[solusoracle]

I thought the first half was brilliant but the entire film was badly tainted by the second half.

 

[Eraserhead]

Can anyone who saw it in IMAX 3D tell me if it's TOO overwhelming?

I haven't seen a film in Imax or 3D in a long time but I remember both (separately) being almost too much and the 3D giving me a headache. I know the technology has improved a lot but I worry about the possibility of a headache if it's too 'heavy'. (if you see what I mean)
Opinions?

Yeah I got a bit of a headache - though the 3D is pretty well done in Avatar. Not so good in the ads before it though.

 

[obeygiant]

Can anyone who saw it in IMAX 3D tell me if it's TOO overwhelming?

I haven't seen a film in Imax or 3D in a long time but I remember both (separately) being almost too much and the 3D giving me a headache. I know the technology has improved a lot but I worry about the possibility of a headache if it's too 'heavy'. (if you see what I mean)
Opinions?

I had a little bit of a headache going in and afterwards it got worse. I was a little nauseous actually. My eyes were extremely tired.

 

[XNine]

How silly. Not only is this adequately explained in the movie, as others have noted, it actually plays an important role in the plot development--the promise of a cure is the "carrot" that draws the young marine into complicity with the military commander. You really ought to approach things with a more open mind.

So you're telling me that this guy can't go get stem cell therapy at a local clinic to fix his problem yet there's walking/running robots the size of a two story building? And why is he an active duty marine in a wheelchair in the first place?

 

[Eraserhead]

As I'm going to spoil part of the plot (though its all near the beginning) the rest of my post is in white.

So you're telling me that this guy can't go get stem cell therapy at a local clinic to fix his problem yet there's walking/running robots the size of a two story building?

Because like the current situation in the US you have to pay for healthcare, and the stem cell therapy is expensive.

And why is he an active duty marine in a wheelchair in the first place?

He's not, he was a marine, but he is actually working for the scientists as his twin brother (who was a scientist) was killed by a mugger before the start of the movie and his genetics are similar enough (as he's an identical twin) that he can use the avatar.

 

[harperjones99]

CG was wild...story just meh. The "bad guy" military commander, the "smart and benevolent scientists" to balance out all the "stupid" military people with their "evil guns", the "1st in line warrior" who loses his girl to the new guy...tries to kill him...then comes around at the end and is "honored to fight with him" 🙄 You can feel the politics oozing out of all movies anymore. They don't even TRY to be even keeled.

 

[gloss]

Eh, it's easy to demonize PMCs, but I agree to a point. There were at least a handful of lines that were clearly thrown in there just to politicize.

Nonetheless, I enjoyed it. Besides, if you've got any confidence in your viewpoints you should be able to say 'Yeah, those guys ARE pricks. Not like me.' 🙂

 

[harperjones99]

Eh, it's easy to demonize PMCs, but I agree to a point. There were at least a handful of lines that were clearly thrown in there just to politicize.

Nonetheless, I enjoyed it. Besides, if you've got any confidence in your viewpoints you should be able to say 'Yeah, those guys ARE pricks. Not like me.' 🙂

Who the writers who repeat the same drivel over and over? Yeah they are pricks. The quality of films beyond CG has dropped a lot in recent past. Technology is improving but the stories are lame. The "stealing the girl from the tribe alpha male only to bond with him later and fight by his side" thing is so weak and things like that show there is not much imagination left in Hollywood.

 

[GfPQqmcRKUvP]

So you're telling me that this guy can't go get stem cell therapy at a local clinic to fix his problem yet there's walking/running robots the size of a two story building? And why is he an active duty marine in a wheelchair in the first place?

It's adequately explained. What more do you need to know? Seriously, you're not seeing a groundbreaking movie because of something that is well-explained and integral to the plot. Get over it.

 

[harperjones99]

I refuse to see this movie. Not because of the hype or some-such, but because of the preview. So there are tons of giant walking robots, ships flying around, hovering for landings, bio-scientists doing bio-experiments, and here comes this guy in a ****ing wheel chair. Really? Really? All of that technology and they obviously didn't bother spending the money on stem-cell research to fix paralysis. What a waste!

Are you telling me there are spoiled Saudi princes with private 747s and fleets of luxury cars and navies with billion dollar aircraft carriers and movie stars with mansions and we don't have a cure for the common cold? It's MADNESS!!!!!

 

[mysterytramp]

I was really disappointed with this movie. The graphics were great, but so what? It's supposed to be a movie, it's supposed to tell a story, and for 10 bucks I want a good story. It really wasn't. You can argue whether it was Dances with Wolves. How about Return of the Jedi. Same. Exact. Thing.

As for the "rich detail" of the movie, strange that some of the mammals had six legs or four eyes and others had four legs and two eyes. That kind of biological detail I found disconcerting. Granted, it's a different planet and evolution can go in different ways, but things like the number of eyes and legs inside a class of organisms is usually constant (at least on Earth). It looked less like rich detail and more like random nonsense.

mt

 

[XNine]

Who the writers who repeat the same drivel over and over? Yeah they are pricks. The quality of films beyond CG has dropped a lot in recent past. Technology is improving but the stories are lame. The "stealing the girl from the tribe alpha male only to bond with him later and fight by his side" thing is so weak and things like that show there is not much imagination left in Hollywood.

So story and plot-wise you're saying this is just like the crappy remake of "Planet of the Apes" with Marky-mark, and instead of Apes it's blue tribal people, and instead of Marky-mark it's wheelchair bound marines?

Movies are too CG'd these days. Whatever happened to using models, puppets, and animitronix? I knew movies were going to hell the second George Lucas decided to CG every single storm trooper. Someone out there thought "hey, why not follow suit and CG everything we can!"

BTW, a lot of you obviously can't take sarcasm. I'll see the movie, when it comes out on Netflix streaming.

 

[MovieCutter]

Just saw this last night. My conclusion:

Never before has the bastard child result of a three way between the Matrix, Ferngully, and Return of the Jedi looked so good.

I've seen this movie a dozen times in a dozen different forms. Still not sold on 3D as it knocked the brightness down a few stops and gave the whole thing a yellow hue, not to mention it was overdone (3D photographs anyone?). Gonna go see it again in 2D in a couple weeks. But the story of this movie isn't it's writing or story...it's obviously the effects. I reluctantly admit that the facial animation is the new benchmark in CGI. The rest of it seemed like nothing new, but the real magic was in the close ups (specifically the kissing/mating scene)...which there weren't nearly enough of. Cameron traded story for CGI and made this movie a vehicle to show off the tech...nothing more. He's not going for originality of plot. And the writing was really heavy handed, especially with the parallels to the Iraq War and terrorism. We get it. America likes to invade 3rd world civilizations to let it's corporations profit on it's resources...this is nothing you have to bash us upside the head with using a sledgehammer.

Other than that, this movie is nothing special.

That said:

Whatever happened to using models, puppets, and animitronix? I knew movies were going to hell the second George Lucas decided to CG every single storm trooper. Someone out there thought "hey, why not follow suit and CG everything we can!"

While initially I'd agree with you, the story here is bigger than that. Motion/Facial capture is the future for films LIKE this. You'll never do a film like No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood, The Departed, Casablanca, etc using full CGI. HOWEVER, the advantage to this kind of filmmaking allows the director to capture the FULL performance of the actor, then do whatever he or she wants as far as camera position, lighting, set, environment, etc. It gives FULL creative freedom to the storyteller. Which, for films LIKE this...is invaluable. Not saying I enjoy this kind of film any more or less than traditional methods, but it's an important tool that will hopefully lead to better films down the line.

 

[Melrose]

I saw it twice once in IMAX 3D and the other time in a regular theater in 3D, and the best way to see it is IMAX 3D, absolutely stunning. The movie was amazing really one of the best movies ever made IMO. I think it will set the new standard in film, much like Titanic did when that was released. (Which is also a James Cameron film, if you didn't know).

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think Titanic set a standard for movies; films that set a standard were Citizen Kane, Blade Runner or The Matrix. It's not so much the emotional tug of heartstrings or even production budget but movies that change the way films are made or have a major influence on ones that follow.

I haven't seen Avatar yet, but going by the trailer - for me - it just seems to be the basic "popcorn entertainment" but lacks a good story or unique, relatable characters. ...and unless they resolved the issue with the way things move in CGI (that whole inertia thing where animated creatures never walk right or land right and whatnot) it's just an expensive CGI production piece. That's not to say it's not a good movie or highly entertaining - I don't doubt that at all.

 

[timerollson]

Saw it last night. Visually stunning but really a drag to sit through. :-/