Joined: 22 Mar 2005 Posts: 1506 Location: Amazing Stories neighborhood, CA
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:04 pm Post subject:
Frankly, the movie didn't look any good from the trailers. I'll maintain this if/when I decide that the movie itself is incredible. Titanic (which all the previews and news reports may lead you to believe was, along with The Terminator, a prequel to this film) had exceptional trailers with images that had the audiences proclaiming fecal matter was in some way religious as they saw this massive ship flooding and fucking plummeting down into the sea.
The reaction to the Avatar trailer was complete disinterest. A bunch of FernGully things and guys on mechs. Yawn. It looks like some Final Fantasy Spirits Within-esque shit and that just doesn't float my RMS Titanic in the least. I'm mostly a fan of Cameron's work, he's a hell of a director. But the trailers aren't the reason I'm seeing this. It's the reviews. It HAS to be good. The trailers have to be completely misleading.
Joined: 20 Apr 2004 Posts: 464 Location: Southern California
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:35 pm Post subject:
SI wrote:
There's so many half-baked and knee-jerk responses in this thread I actually feel embarrassed for the posters.
What a fucking triumphant piece of cinema that was.
Cameron IS King.
Yeah, but they're (mostly) knee-jerk responses to a marketing campaign designed to provoke a knee-jerk response (i.e. "Go see this movie"). You have the high ground because you've actually seen the film. We Americans still have a few hours to wait.
tbh the trailers for Avatar were somewhat underwhelming.
I have never bought into the 3D gimmick either, even when I was a kid, but if you don't see this in 3D you're either clueless or a complete fucking dope, or both.
Then again, if you don't like mechs and tree huggin' hippy crap you probably won't like this anyway.
There's so many half-baked and knee-jerk responses in this thread I actually feel embarrassed for the posters.
What a fucking triumphant piece of cinema that was.
Cameron IS King.
Joe1138 wrote:
Yeah, but they're (mostly) knee-jerk responses to a marketing campaign designed to provoke a knee-jerk response (i.e. "Go see this movie"). You have the high ground because you've actually seen the film. We Americans still have a few hours to wait.
Yeah but aren't all marketing campaigns just an expensive way to say "Go see this movie!"?
This is why I rarely, if ever, read previews particularily on a film I'm really wanting to see.
The crowd actually applauded during the films credits which is something that just doesn't happen down here.
Anyway, let's wait until some others here have seen it I'd like to see some responses.
Joined: 20 Apr 2004 Posts: 464 Location: Southern California
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 11:45 pm Post subject:
Joe1138 wrote:
Yeah, but they're (mostly) knee-jerk responses to a marketing campaign designed to provoke a knee-jerk response (i.e. "Go see this movie"). You have the high ground because you've actually seen the film. We Americans still have a few hours to wait.
SI wrote:
yeah but aren't all marketing campaigns just an expensive way to say "Go see this movie!"?
Of course they are but I don't see what that has to do with my original point.
Joined: 20 Apr 2004 Posts: 464 Location: Southern California
Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:32 pm Post subject:
So, after seeing "Avatar" in IMAX 3D last night I feel the title couldn't have been more appropriate: it's an old story, told here very well, with a brand new skin. It deserves multiple viewings if only to regard Cameron's splendor but the plot, character all feel retread and little worn.
Joined: 26 Jul 2004 Posts: 69 Location: The Netherlands
Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:05 am Post subject:
I've seen it yesterday ...in 3D, to me it was the first time i've seen such sharp 3D stuff, I'liked the life tanks , the control displays, the trees, the flying dragons, the hammerhead cows, the giant panther thing, the flowers, the floating rocks, the Na'vi, even the ugly copter things, very terminator style...so no I couldn't find anything negative about.
Is this because of the 3D?
The story might not be as innovative as people hoped it would be, but let's be honest, aren't stories like Star Wars , Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, Aliens, based on old myths aswell???
These days it's so difficult to create something totally original, maybe it's because it has all been done before, I am very fond of Sci-Fi stories like the next bloke around the corner, I guess my thurst for Sci-Fi is starting to get quenched, which doesn't mean i'm getting over it, no it means , it's getting a firm place on my 'favorite kind of movies' list, for the moment not on the number ! spot but, a nice second place.
What I am very curious about now is, about medieval Japanese hired killers, still craving for Japanese Mythologie like the Ninja, when is that Epic Ninja movie going to come out.
Joined: 20 Apr 2004 Posts: 464 Location: Southern California
Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 9:33 pm Post subject:
Jinh Warrior wrote:
The story might not be as innovative as people hoped it would be, but let's be honest, aren't stories like Star Wars , Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, Aliens, based on old myths aswell???
The difference is that "Star Wars" still manages to feel fresh thirty years after its release, only time will tell if the same can be said of "Avatar." I will say the film lacks that indefinable quality that makes the great stories resonate and linger in the public consciousness. Make no mistake though, Cameron is a master filmmaker in a league all his own and "Avatar" is surely among his greatest works but he fails to add anything new to the canon other than some amazing production design.
If I sound conflicted, it's because I am. I'm sure I liked "Avatar" but I feel more viewings and time will be needed for me to fully digest what I saw.
Joined: 24 Aug 2004 Posts: 291 Location: The Empire State
Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 8:27 am Post subject:
Visually, the film gets an 'A'. But the story is most definitely a 'C' (I average the whole thing out to a 'B'). And I still contend that the film is a cartoon (one of the most beautiful cartoons you'll ever see, but yes, to me, it's a cartoon).
And I still contend that the film is a cartoon (one of the most beautiful cartoons you'll ever see, but yes, to me, it's a cartoon).
Not to pick at your opinion, especially since I haven't seen the movie, but - is that a bad thing? Being a cartoon? You say "cartoon" with an air of "yes he's the best on his team, but he's still in the minor leagues."
Joined: 26 Jul 2004 Posts: 69 Location: The Netherlands
Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 1:33 pm Post subject:
Jinh Warrior wrote:
The story might not be as innovative as people hoped it would be, but let's be honest, aren't stories like Star Wars , Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, Aliens, based on old myths aswell???
Joe1138 wrote:
The difference is that "Star Wars" still manages to feel fresh thirty years after its release, only time will tell if the same can be said of "Avatar." I will say the film lacks that indefinable quality that makes the great stories resonate and linger in the public consciousness. Make no mistake though, Cameron is a master filmmaker in a league all his own and "Avatar" is surely among his greatest works but he fails to add anything new to the canon other than some amazing production design.
If I sound conflicted, it's because I am. I'm sure I liked "Avatar" but I feel more viewings and time will be needed for me to fully digest what I saw.
I can understand what you are saying, I think it's very difficult to surpass the greatest stories of today or you would be seeing too much of the same stuff indeed , which isn't bad in away( Maybe all these storytellers are too busy thinking too much about there own story, that they're forgetting that the greatest movies like star wars aren't orignal either), Even Star Wars has a lot of comparisons to LOTR, these stories came from the 1940's.
Well what can they do about it , going back in time, reinventing the weel with steelpunk for instance, Wild Wild West was nice, but there has to be some storyteller which can do better than that.
All I'm saying is to get an epic story, you have the reinvent storytelling itself like lucas did with Star Wars.
Joined: 24 Aug 2004 Posts: 291 Location: The Empire State
Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 8:36 pm Post subject:
Maveritchell wrote:
Not to pick at your opinion, especially since I haven't seen the movie, but - is that a bad thing? Being a cartoon? You say "cartoon" with an air of "yes he's the best on his team, but he's still in the minor leagues."
I don't think you're picking at my opinion. Cartoons aren't something to be criticized out of hand -- and if my post came across as speaking ill of cartoons in general, then I need to backtrack on that. Being a cartoon isn't necessarily a bad thing at all. As a case in point, I thoroughly enjoy the Clone Wars series. I hold Beast Wars in high regard. Heck, even Finding Nemo is a triumph of style and story. What I was trying to say is that Avatar, for all of its visual wizardry (it really *is* a beautiful film) and 3D presentation, isn't some new form of storytelling -- that it is, essentially, a cartoon -- meaning that what matters most (like any cartoon or any live action film) is its story. And in that regard, I found the story to be average, at best. As a comparison, I'd say Battle For Terra represents a much better overall movie (if not purely visual experience) than Avatar.
If I'm honest, my explicit categorization of the film as a "cartoon" comes as a direct result of it being billed as some "revolution" in filmmaking. Honestly, I think Jurassic Park did more for pushing the possibilities of filmmaking than Avatar. And without question, Jurassic Park is a better overall film than Avatar.
Maybe a better comparison is Pixar's Toy Story which couched a new style of total CGI filmmaking within a really accessible, enjoyable classic story. Avatar, on the other hand, couches its new 3D style within a thoroughly derivative, unimaginative story -- with cringe worthy dialogue to boot. Yes, the world building of Avatar is phenomenal, but just because Cameron creates a visual feast doesn't mean he's managed to finally use CGI and 3D to create a truly photorealistic world -- let alone tell a truly compelling story.
Not to pick at your opinion, especially since I haven't seen the movie, but - is that a bad thing? Being a cartoon? You say "cartoon" with an air of "yes he's the best on his team, but he's still in the minor leagues."
There is a good quality telesync (cam + direct audio) in the MF Film sub-forum.
Regarding all these "gotchas" by those who claim Cameron stole the story from various comics and books - the invasion of an indigenous noble savage paradise by a "civilized culture" is timeless and has been told for ages. From Pocahontas to even Return Of The Jedi's Endor. Speaking of Lucas' World - Avatar and the Na'vi are everything Phantom Menace and the Gungans should have been.
The only criticisms I have of the film is Jake Sully's initial middle-school level dialog and the New Age-style music towards the end.
Joined: 12 Oct 2004 Posts: 1931 Location: Toronto, Canada
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 11:26 pm Post subject:
I just got back from a screening in 3D at a very subpar theatre.
That being said, I really enjoyed it. Thought it was very well done and thoroughly entertaining. The internet keeps cutting out so I'll delay my expanded thoughts, but I don't think it's as tight as Cameron's other masterworks (Aliens, T2 or even True Lies) and I'm not sure it's got that timeless quality; the kind we'll gather our kids to watch 10-15 years down the line.
The 3D was very cool but the movie is basically half live action half cartoon.
Joined: 20 Apr 2004 Posts: 464 Location: Southern California
Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 2:17 am Post subject:
So I just caught the flick at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood. The 3D technology used, XpanD, is easily the best system I've ever seen on a big screen, in fact I'd go so far as to say it was too good. There was little to no hint of ghosting and the image was crystal clear and very bright (the Arclight uses two digital projectors for their Cinerama screen). However I noticed that my eyes had trouble focusing on certain objects at times although this might be due to my own vision problems. I heard some people complain of motion sickness after the screening as well which was a little funny.
I don't think the film holds up well to repeated viewings but certain things standout. The scene where Sully conquers the flying beast is a real highlight as are most of the aerial scenes. The one thing I keep coming back to in my mind is Zoe Saldana's performance, and it is a performance. She injects her character with a certain spark that some of the other more seasoned actors never quite manage. It'd be a real shame if she doesn't receive some sort of awards recognition come Oscar time. Saldana's the real deal and coupled with J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek" this was her year.
finally saw it in real 3D today. It is the most fully realized alien world ever put on film or paper. EVERYTHING seems to have been thought out and studied and designed and made to be as real as possible. From the plant life to the animals to the trees and the Na'vi, it all seems real. The way things move, breath, what they eat, everything was accounted for and designed and thought out.
The CGI is nearly flawless. It takes maybe 15 minutes to get adjusted to the affect, but once you're settled , you're in for the ride and it never lets up.
Sure, the plot is recycled. It's Pocahontas in space. But the way the story develops plus the addition of basically "soul transfer" through either the use of technology or the spirit-trees, it becomes a beast all to itself.
It completely deserves every dime it makes and Cameron just schooled the world yet again. It needs about 12 Oscars.
The CGI is nearly flawless. It takes maybe 15 minutes to get adjusted to the affect, but once you're settled , you're in for the ride and it never lets up.
The only problem I had with the CGI was (and this may be more a limitation of the technology) the poor focus on front-of-the-field objects. At the beginning of the movie, I sort've "explored" the scenes and a lot of the time objects up front were a little blurry (perhaps only the setpieces?).
I think it was on purpose. The 3D was different than what you're accustomed to seeing. This is built from the ground up. There also aren't any gimmicky things that poke out in the audience like a knife or explosions. Things are pushed more the other way. Deep into the background. There's a depth of field going on. It's as if the movie screen was a window and you were looking out into the landscape. The "blurred" or out of focus foreground objects were used to only enhance this effect.
The "blurred" or out of focus foreground objects were used to only enhance this effect.
That's nothing new, though - that's standard practice in anything with a lens. I suppose you could keep up-close objects out-of-focus to emphasize a crisp background, but I'd just as soon see everything on the screen resolved well. I didn't notice it as much later on, as I said, and I don't know if this represents a difference between the mostly-CGI scenes and the scenes done in a physical set.
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 1434 Location: Down the rabbit hole
Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 1:12 pm Post subject:
I have to agree with bear on this, while it pissed me off that these items were out of focus, it felt more real than having everything in focus, especially when we're looking at action deeper in the woods.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ 
Search 
Memberlist 
Usergroups
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
