James Cameron's Avatar

  On 12/23/2009 at 5:38 AM, Fred McGriff said:

lol at the wallet joke. pretty good on-the-fly MST 3000 right there.

 

way to go zazen for giving a crap enough to present the pro-avatar perspective so eloquently.

 

as far as the professional slating up there goes, fucking transformers are you kidding me these movies are not comparable. i'd like to read the new yorker review, has that come out yet?

 

if you are a very visual person this will appeal to you. if you have dull senses then it wont. or if you treat moviegoing as academic labor then it wont get you off either.

 

i'm genuinely curious: of those of you who didnt like avatar, how many of you have done lsd before?

be willing to bet i've done more drugs than you. avatar doesn't compare to an acid trip.

as much i dislike this movie, that review a few posts up is utter bullshit. this movie is too dumb to be about racial identity.

  On 12/23/2009 at 5:58 AM, pigster said:

  On 12/23/2009 at 5:53 AM, Kcinsu said:

I like how some of these negative reviews are trying to defend the American soldiers... I don't recall at any point in the movie people saying the word America... they are humans, with no distinction of nationality, yet people are getting up in arms about how the American soldiers get slaughtered.

 

It kind of speaks about their overall world view, no?

 

all that's true.. but.... they're pretty american. like, the full on cliche american military colonel. the film kinda reminded me of starship troopers without the tongue in cheek humour.

well, its an american made movie... the marines in aliens looked similar... and they werent specifically american either.

and id argue that the military cliche is universal... its a type of person, not a type of nationality.

  On 12/23/2009 at 6:01 AM, zaphod said:

  On 12/23/2009 at 5:38 AM, Fred McGriff said:

lol at the wallet joke. pretty good on-the-fly MST 3000 right there.

 

way to go zazen for giving a crap enough to present the pro-avatar perspective so eloquently.

 

as far as the professional slating up there goes, fucking transformers are you kidding me these movies are not comparable. i'd like to read the new yorker review, has that come out yet?

 

if you are a very visual person this will appeal to you. if you have dull senses then it wont. or if you treat moviegoing as academic labor then it wont get you off either.

 

i'm genuinely curious: of those of you who didnt like avatar, how many of you have done lsd before?

 

be willing to bet i've done more drugs than you. avatar doesn't compare to an acid trip.

 

as much i dislike this movie, that review a few posts up is utter bullshit. this movie is too dumb to be about racial identity.

it actually did conjure up old acid trip feelings for me. it's not really relevant who's done more drugs, that would be useless posturing. but i'm just wondering if others had fond acidlike memories from their youth the same way i did, and maybe that's why i enjoyed the movie so much when i know there were plenty of weak aspects of it.

well the movie might have vaguely been about settling the americas, the pocahontas story and all that. to me it was just a blanket allegory for whatever issue cameron thought about that day when he was writing the script. "fight terror with terror", unobtanium, the ridiculous environmental message, the poor economy that they're living in and lack of health care. it was all pretty messy.

i totally understand why people liked this, i mean, it was really fucking impressive and as fred said, it was a physical experience. but for those of us that felt it was lacking, maybe it's not "academic" as much as my ability to relate to a movie where the script is on rails and the dialogue could have been written by a ten year old is just hampered. and then it was presented in this totally earnest way that was just completely ridiculous. again, it's all about the technology on display, and i can't find anyone who mentions how much they loved the plot or characters over the 3d.

  On 12/23/2009 at 6:09 AM, Fred McGriff said:

  On 12/23/2009 at 6:01 AM, zaphod said:

  On 12/23/2009 at 5:38 AM, Fred McGriff said:

lol at the wallet joke. pretty good on-the-fly MST 3000 right there.

 

way to go zazen for giving a crap enough to present the pro-avatar perspective so eloquently.

 

as far as the professional slating up there goes, fucking transformers are you kidding me these movies are not comparable. i'd like to read the new yorker review, has that come out yet?

 

if you are a very visual person this will appeal to you. if you have dull senses then it wont. or if you treat moviegoing as academic labor then it wont get you off either.

 

i'm genuinely curious: of those of you who didnt like avatar, how many of you have done lsd before?

 

be willing to bet i've done more drugs than you. avatar doesn't compare to an acid trip.

 

as much i dislike this movie, that review a few posts up is utter bullshit. this movie is too dumb to be about racial identity.

 

it actually did conjure up old acid trip feelings for me. it's not really relevant who's done more drugs, that would be useless posturing. but i'm just wondering if others had fond acidlike memories from their youth the same way i did, and maybe that's why i enjoyed the movie so much when i know there were plenty of weak aspects of it.

i took your post wrong, i guess. i thought you were trying to say if you hadn't done acid you wouldn't "get" the movie, or something. it didn't really bring to mind an acid trip, outside of the visuals being kind of weird.

also huge lol at whoever said this is like watching a psytrance album. that's so spot on.

I find days later, on reflection, that I still completely agree with my first post (for once). Avatar might be remembered as a breakthrough in 3d movie-watching, which will probably become standard I would think, until we can become totally immersed by something like a VR movie, but it will be remembered only as a technological masturbation session. There is nothing real in this movie but a dedication to making things look beautiful... perhaps if Cameron was a funny guy (doubtful) he would have done this on purpose--- in which case I would have more respect for it (and him)-- as a representation of western culture; a concern with the skin-deep only. Anyway that would have been a stupid thing to do and nobody would have agreed to fund it. What they did instead was let Cameron have sex with his cameras and computers with an outrageous budget and compromise by whitewashing the script and dumbing the plot down so that nobody is offended and there's something for everybody to "understand." This movie takes no risks and it makes no interesting statements. it's fucking boring on all accounts except the visual.

  On 12/23/2009 at 6:57 AM, Franklin said:

I find days later, on reflection, that I still completely agree with my first post (for once). Avatar might be remembered as a breakthrough in 3d movie-watching, which will probably become standard I would think, until we can become totally immersed by something like a VR movie, but it will be remembered only as a technological masturbation session. There is nothing real in this movie but a dedication to making things look beautiful... perhaps if Cameron was a funny guy (doubtful) he would have done this on purpose--- in which case I would have more respect for it (and him)-- as a representation of western culture; a concern with the skin-deep only. Anyway that would have been a stupid thing to do and nobody would have agreed to fund it. What they did instead was let Cameron have sex with his cameras and computers with an outrageous budget and compromise by whitewashing the script and dumbing the plot down so that nobody is offended and there's something for everybody to "understand." This movie takes no risks and it makes no interesting statements. it's fucking boring on all accounts except the visual.

whey.!

  On 12/23/2009 at 6:57 AM, Franklin said:

. it's fucking boring on all accounts except the visual.

but oh what visuals

i thiiink transformers impressed me more. was first thing i saw on one of those massive massive screens. the cgi + high definition + amazing visuals on massive screen impressed me more than impressive cgi in 3d. 3d is good but it makes does (at least for me) make things a little blurry. is flickery a word?

  On 12/23/2009 at 6:15 AM, zaphod said:

well the movie might have vaguely been about settling the americas, the pocahontas story and all that.

Not that it matters, but I couldn't shirk the Native American reference after realizing this..

=

Its interesting how some are saying the plot and script completely suck, and for some (like me) it held together ok.

Its not Shakespeare, but for me it did the job. Perhaps because I had lower expectations going in. I switched my brain to blockbuster rather than arthouse expectations and had a whale of a time in there. For me there were a lot of good scenes, and very few that seemed badly thought out or acted.

...

Why am I here being a chearleader for this film that obviously doesn't need my help? I think I'm kindof staggered by the scale of this piece of art (humour me, lets call it art). And that so much of it has been directed and conceived by one person. Cameron wrote the script, visualised the world, invented a new camera, invented a new way of doing motion capture, pushed the CGI bar higher than its ever been, tore up the rule book saying how 3D should be shot, employed most of New Zealand to bang out the effects and managed to have very few leaks, and unveiled this thing on the world and _it_doesn't_suck_. I understand that he had tonnes of help from lots of other talented people, but he's still there at the centre integrating everything. The fact that so much effort, money and time from so many people can go into one project and produce something that works as well as it does just really impresses me.

Compare this to what happened when George Lucas had an unlimited budget and could do whatever he wanted (watch that 70-min review of Phantom Menace)

I don't think I would even like Cameron much as a person, but just the scale of technical expertise and creativity on show here boggled my mind. I struggle to write a 3 minute piece of music in less than a month, whereas some guy has spent 4 or 5 years thinking about and guiding this huge expensive thing. And it hits the mark! (For some, at least).

i agree completely and I haven't even seen it.

  On 12/22/2009 at 10:56 PM, Awepittance said:

  On 12/22/2009 at 10:49 PM, Springymajig said:

, and the CG on them just didn't look real in the slightest... They just looked like silly videogame characters.

 

 

well let me ask you then, have you seen any CGI of humans or humanoid people that has ever impressed you or looked real to you?

id like to see examples of what you consider realistic looking cg humans/humanoids

Well you've got a good point there... in that I've NEVER been impressed by CG humans/humanoids. I thought Kong was done really well in PJ's King Kong but that's probably straying a bit too far from human.

I still prefer people in suits and stuff like that. I actually find it less distracting to see a puppet or a person in a suit. I think CG's strength (at least in the context of live action films) is in environments/architecture, special effects, and enhancing real life people, but not so much to represent characters completely.

I have to say the main problem I have with the Na'vi is the design... if they looked cool but fake I wouldn't have minded as much as looking dumb and fake.

  On 12/23/2009 at 9:59 AM, thanks robert moses said:

  On 12/23/2009 at 6:15 AM, zaphod said:

well the movie might have vaguely been about settling the americas, the pocahontas story and all that.

 

Not that it matters, but I couldn't shirk the Native American reference after realizing this..

 

=

http://io9.com/5422666/when-will-white-people-stop-making-movies-like-avatar?skyline=true&s=i

aw man. the scene where they were doing the tribal arm in air dance thing to bring people back to life. so terrible.

  On 12/23/2009 at 12:39 PM, plstik said:

"When Will White People Stop Making Movies Like Avatar?"

http://io9.com/5422666/when-will-white-people-stop-making-movies-like-avatar?skyline=true&s=i

That was pretty interesting. I'd say its more human-guilt than white-guilt though. Although the two are pretty close historically because most of our species worst moments were enacted by whites. (I'd say that was just because Europe happened to get ahead technologically and so whites had the opportunity to colonise and wreak large scale havoc earlier than any other race - it could all have been the other way round if things had developed differently at the early stages. (See 'Guns Germs and Steel' by Jared Diamond) ... That is, I'm saying the flaw lies in humans in general rather than any particular colour of human. hence: Human-guilt)

I saw it.

It entertained me for 3 or so hours.

I believe thats what I paid 6 quid for.

EDIT: Film students really piss me off.

  On 12/23/2009 at 12:40 PM, pigster said:

aw man.

  Reveal hidden contents

the scene where they were doing the tribal arm in air dance thing to bring people back to life. so terrible.

 

(you need a spoiler tag round that bit)

  On 12/23/2009 at 1:02 PM, zazen said:

  On 12/23/2009 at 12:40 PM, pigster said:

aw man.

  Reveal hidden contents

the scene where they were doing the tribal arm in air dance thing to bring people back to life. so terrible.

 

 

(you need a spoiler tag round that bit)

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

I can see how that could be really cheesy, but for me, because their 'religion' was real in the context of the story - like, they really _could_ commune with their dead, and the trees _could_ transfer consciousness - I was seeing the arms in the air dance as some sort of biological equivalent of technology rather than a superstitious ritual. So it didn't seem cheesy to me, and thats quite a feat, cos I'm not a big fan of new age stuff in general. But, yeah, I can see your point.

 

 

ah, it was more in response to the discussion about the characters looking cgi/real or not. that particular scene struck me as particularly bad. i guess i should actually quote posts i'm responding to from now on, should clear things up!

  On 12/23/2009 at 1:23 PM, pigster said:

  On 12/23/2009 at 1:02 PM, zazen said:

  On 12/23/2009 at 12:40 PM, pigster said:

aw man.

  Reveal hidden contents

the scene where they were doing the tribal arm in air dance thing to bring people back to life. so terrible.

 

 

(you need a spoiler tag round that bit)

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

I can see how that could be really cheesy, but for me, because their 'religion' was real in the context of the story - like, they really _could_ commune with their dead, and the trees _could_ transfer consciousness - I was seeing the arms in the air dance as some sort of biological equivalent of technology rather than a superstitious ritual. So it didn't seem cheesy to me, and thats quite a feat, cos I'm not a big fan of new age stuff in general. But, yeah, I can see your point.

 

 

 

ah, it was more in response to the discussion about the characters looking cgi/real or not. that particular scene struck me as particularly bad. i guess i should actually quote posts i'm responding to from now on, should clear things up!

Oh I see, you meant the graphics, not the sentiments.

I think by that point I was just accepting what I saw as part of the story. I guess a certain suspension of disbelief is always required. Someone said earlier in the other thread that the avatars with clothes on looked better than the naked Na'vi because their skin was a bit rubbery. I'll admit that while the faces were amazing, the bodies looked a bit rubbery sometimes. But it didn't distract me from the story or from viewing them as beings rather than CGI models.

  On 12/23/2009 at 10:54 AM, zazen said:

Its interesting how some are saying the plot and script completely suck, and for some (like me) it held together ok.

 

Its not Shakespeare, but for me it did the job. Perhaps because I had lower expectations going in. I switched my brain to blockbuster rather than arthouse expectations and had a whale of a time in there. For me there were a lot of good scenes, and very few that seemed badly thought out or acted.

 

...

 

Why am I here being a chearleader for this film that obviously doesn't need my help? I think I'm kindof staggered by the scale of this piece of art (humour me, lets call it art). And that so much of it has been directed and conceived by one person. Cameron wrote the script, visualised the world, invented a new camera, invented a new way of doing motion capture, pushed the CGI bar higher than its ever been, tore up the rule book saying how 3D should be shot, employed most of New Zealand to bang out the effects and managed to have very few leaks, and unveiled this thing on the world and _it_doesn't_suck_. I understand that he had tonnes of help from lots of other talented people, but he's still there at the centre integrating everything. The fact that so much effort, money and time from so many people can go into one project and produce something that works as well as it does just really impresses me.

 

Compare this to what happened when George Lucas had an unlimited budget and could do whatever he wanted (watch that 70-min review of Phantom Menace)

 

I don't think I would even like Cameron much as a person, but just the scale of technical expertise and creativity on show here boggled my mind. I struggle to write a 3 minute piece of music in less than a month, whereas some guy has spent 4 or 5 years thinking about and guiding this huge expensive thing. And it hits the mark! (For some, at least).

One reason I'm railing this movie is because Cameron spent an unbelievable amount of time on it and then imho chickened out with the plot and script. This movie had so much potential. Another reason is, we, as I guess movie-watchers here in north america, actually control the output of the movie studios. By supporting shallow films we tell the industry that they should keep making them.

Do we really need Michelle Rodriguez showing up with blue paint on her face AND HELICOPTER in the battle scene? I can't remember what her lines were but I'm sure they were pretty fucking awful.

  On 12/23/2009 at 3:50 PM, Franklin said:

Do we really need Michelle Rodriguez showing up

  Reveal hidden contents

with blue paint on her face AND HELICOPTER in the battle scene?

I can't remember what her lines were but I'm sure they were pretty fucking awful.

I need to leave this thread alone for a bit and find something else to do

  On 12/23/2009 at 3:50 PM, Franklin said:

  On 12/23/2009 at 10:54 AM, zazen said:

Its interesting how some are saying the plot and script completely suck, and for some (like me) it held together ok.

 

Its not Shakespeare, but for me it did the job. Perhaps because I had lower expectations going in. I switched my brain to blockbuster rather than arthouse expectations and had a whale of a time in there. For me there were a lot of good scenes, and very few that seemed badly thought out or acted.

 

...

 

Why am I here being a chearleader for this film that obviously doesn't need my help? I think I'm kindof staggered by the scale of this piece of art (humour me, lets call it art). And that so much of it has been directed and conceived by one person. Cameron wrote the script, visualised the world, invented a new camera, invented a new way of doing motion capture, pushed the CGI bar higher than its ever been, tore up the rule book saying how 3D should be shot, employed most of New Zealand to bang out the effects and managed to have very few leaks, and unveiled this thing on the world and _it_doesn't_suck_. I understand that he had tonnes of help from lots of other talented people, but he's still there at the centre integrating everything. The fact that so much effort, money and time from so many people can go into one project and produce something that works as well as it does just really impresses me.

 

Compare this to what happened when George Lucas had an unlimited budget and could do whatever he wanted (watch that 70-min review of Phantom Menace)

 

I don't think I would even like Cameron much as a person, but just the scale of technical expertise and creativity on show here boggled my mind. I struggle to write a 3 minute piece of music in less than a month, whereas some guy has spent 4 or 5 years thinking about and guiding this huge expensive thing. And it hits the mark! (For some, at least).

 

 

One reason I'm railing this movie is because Cameron spent an unbelievable amount of time on it and then imho chickened out with the plot and script. This movie had so much potential. Another reason is, we, as I guess movie-watchers here in north america, actually control the output of the movie studios. By supporting shallow films we tell the industry that they should keep making them.

 

Do we really need Michelle Rodriguez showing up with blue paint on her face AND HELICOPTER in the battle scene? I can't remember what her lines were but I'm sure they were pretty fucking awful.

did it really bother you that much are we just nit picking at this point? i'm not sure people would be sitting around thinking of the greatest metaphor they could use in a time of life or death, either. i don't even mean to be cynical i'm just tired of stupid shit.

Again, I really enjoyed both the plot and graphics/3D of this movie... the whole package was fantastic. I definitely got very emotional during certain scenes of this film, and my cousin ended up in tears at the end of it. The characters are well acted, the dialogue felt natural and had many humorus lines, the pacing was good (maybe a little long in the middle), ... sure nothing about it is brilliant like Pulp Fiction, Memento, or something... its very traditional storytelling, but I think that's a good thing. Cause the experience the first time is very much sensory overload, and science fiction stuff in general flies over people's heads a lot. Remember this is also a kid's movie. This is basically our generation's Star Wars. If you go in with that kind of perspective, I don't see how you can have a bad time. There is also of course a lot of deeper themes and ideas going on too, but to realize these things you really need to get invested into the world. If you are cynically sub-consciously judging everything because you had the pre-conceived expectations that the dialogue/story sucked... then of course you are going to find certain things more cringe-worthy. Of course you are going to find the whole tribal stuff weird/silly.... and find the Na'Vi's appearance as stupid. The whole point of this movie is making the transformation from wondering what the hell these stupid blue "monkeys" are, to actually caring and understanding where they come from. Once you realize the Na'Vi could potentially exists in the universe somewhere, that's when it really becomes something special. Because you have this overwhelming sensation that Earth and Humans have totally fucked themselves and that you were born into what the Na'Vi would consider "hell".

  On 12/23/2009 at 4:58 PM, karmakramer said:

Again, I really enjoyed both the plot and graphics/3D of this movie... the whole package was fantastic. I definitely got very emotional during certain scenes of this film, and my cousin ended up in tears at the end of it. The characters are well acted, the dialogue felt natural and had many humorus lines, the pacing was good (maybe a little long in the middle), ... sure nothing about it is brilliant like Pulp Fiction, Memento, or something... its very traditional storytelling, but I think that's a good thing. Cause the experience the first time is very much sensory overload, and science fiction stuff in general flies over people's heads a lot. Remember this is also a kid's movie. This is basically our generation's Star Wars. If you go in with that kind of perspective, I don't see how you can have a bad time. There is also of course a lot of deeper themes and ideas going on too, but to realize these things you really need to get invested into the world. If you are cynically sub-consciously judging everything because you had the pre-conceived expectations that the dialogue/story sucked... then of course you are going to find certain things more cringe-worthy. Of course you are going to find the whole tribal stuff weird/silly.... and find the Na'Vi's appearance as stupid. The whole point of this movie is making the transformation from wondering what the hell these stupid blue "monkeys" are, to actually caring and understanding where they come from. Once you realize the Na'Vi could potentially exists in the universe somewhere, that's when it really becomes something special. Because you have this overwhelming sensation that Earth and Humans have totally fucked themselves and that you were born into what the Na'Vi would consider "hell".

I disagree with just about everything in this post.