So I went and saw it this weekend expecting to be disappointed, and completely fell in love with it. The story is nothing new, but the storytelling, the acting, and digital rendering of the acting as well as how elaborate the world was completely blew my socks off. The movie must be seen in 3D, I even teared up at a few places, I don't normally get emotionally involved in sc-fi, but this one got me. Am I weird?
No time, No Money?
it could be reasonably said that I'm not much of a movie person.... never had HBO or any of the other movie channels.... never rented/bought a movie.... and the last time I was in a theater was 1981....
wbjones said: it could be reasonably said that I'm not much of a movie person.... never had HBO or any of the other movie channels.... never rented/bought a movie.... and the last time I was in a theater was 1981....
WHAT? then how do you get pop culture references? Since 81? Really? you have never seen The Matrix (just the first one), Silence of the Lambs, Jurassic Park, The Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Shawshank Redemption, any of the Tarantino films? You have not seen any of them?
wierdo. Even among an internet group of wierdos, you are a wierdo.
I will agree with you that the movie is definitely good. No offense to the Star Wars geeks, but I figure it is probably better than any of the Star Wars movies (not being a geek and willing to forgive their shortcomings) when you discount the iconic status of the SW films. Insane graphics, very well integrated, good action, not overly political (which it very easily could have been).
The story will not blow you away, it is pretty obvious, but still good. Hopefully there will be no sequels. Of course if there is, it will be a LOT cheaper to make (they already have all the models built).
It really is an iconic Sci-Fi movie. I suspect Cameron will create some sort of production / effects company to create similar types of movies. There is a potential for almost unlimited creativity in a movies style, great for Sci-Fi / fantasy.
I will disagree with you though on the 3D. I would say do NOT see it in 3D. It doesn't really do much (at least for me). It is generally distracting, makes the movie a bit dull looking and makes some of the action hard to follow and will cost you a few more bucks. That being said the movie does not over do the 3D, it is used rather sparingly and appropriately (no blatant 3D ism'). I have seen this movie and Up in 3D, I really am unlikely to see another... it really just doesn't add anything. If this is the best of 3D, I have no need for it.
The crazy thing is to think of is how they spent the 300 million! The actors could not of cost more then 5 million (no real big names), hardly any location shots. I am sure the promotion cost a bit, but most of it had to go to the animation. There was a lot, lot, lot, lot of it, but damn... 100's of millions of dollars worth!
shooting for xmas day to see this one, in 3d ofcourse..
maroon92 wrote:wbjones said: it could be reasonably said that I'm not much of a movie person.... never had HBO or any of the other movie channels.... never rented/bought a movie.... and the last time I was in a theater was 1981....WHAT? then how do you get pop culture references? Since 81? Really? you have never seen The Matrix (just the first one), Silence of the Lambs, Jurassic Park, The Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Shawshank Redemption, any of the Tarantino films? You have not seen any of them? wierdo. Even among an internet group of wierdos, you are a wierdo.
Or Bladerunner, Return of the Jedi, Any star trek movie except the first one, Aliens, Die Hard, Back to the future....
Some cult classics I just can't like. I watched Mad Max and Bladerunner. I just can't watch them again. Maybe, just maybe Mad Max if I had to. But Bladerunner... no.
aircooled wrote: The crazy thing is to think of is how they spent the 300 million! The actors could not of cost more then 5 million (no real big names), hardly any location shots. I am sure the promotion cost a bit, but most of it had to go to the animation. There was a lot, lot, lot, lot of it, but damn... 100's of millions of dollars worth!
I've been involved in a few movies (and my cousin is the president of FX network). Generally speaking, movie costs do not include the promo costs.
The 300 million was spent ON THE MOVIE.
It was a technological wonder. Absolutely fabulous. The world view was a bit extreme and invasive (the VooDoo tree worshipping went WAAY too far for me), but the movie was incredible.
I saw it in 2D, because I hate 3D, but I'll probably see it in 3D. I can count on one hand the number of movies I've seen more than once. This one was worth it. Sometimes weird, but worth it.
maroon92 wrote:wbjones said: it could be reasonably said that I'm not much of a movie person.... never had HBO or any of the other movie channels.... never rented/bought a movie.... and the last time I was in a theater was 1981....WHAT? then how do you get pop culture references? Since 81? Really? you have never seen The Matrix (just the first one), Silence of the Lambs, Jurassic Park, The Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Shawshank Redemption, any of the Tarantino films? You have not seen any of them? wierdo. Even among an internet group of wierdos, you are a wierdo.
never seen any of them... but I have read a few..
I've got >2500 volumes on the shelves... read them all at least once.. plus as I've gotten older I've found less and less need for pop culture...
Just got back. Still processing.
My initial reactions are that it's definitely a game changer. And I am absolutely in awe of the sheer digital horsepower that it must have taken to create that movie. I'm just glad that Cameron didn't forget to hit "save" at some point during production.
More thoughts when my brain can handle it.
jg
I saw it on Friday, and it definitely beat Star Wars. Awesome movie!
It beat Star Wars in your mind because everything that came after Star Wars has benefited from the ground that Star Wars broke. Have you ever known a world where Star Wars didn't exist? Star Wars was astoundingly different when it was introduce a gazillion years ago.
Avatar is nowhere near the catagory of a ground changing film as Star Wars. Avatar is blatanly overdone and the CG stuff is very distracting but that's good cause the story line "won't blow you away" as someone else said.
I have a feeling it was done just cause it could be done. Just cause it could be done doesn't mean it should have been done. I guarantee in a year or 2 (if that long) you'll be yawning over Avatar.
Please quit comparing to Star Wars. Star Wars came out in 1977 and it was a game changer back then. I think there have been a few advances in technology since then. The prequel movies don't count. They get beat by just about everything.
Star Wars was, is and always shall be a phenomenon, it changed so many ideas and created a whole new world for many of us. Avatar is just another movie that pushes the envelope in a previously used area.
No comparison
Tommy's Star Wars comparison is interesting. As we were leaving the theater, I noticed a family, with a kid about 7 or 8 years old—the same age I was when I saw the original Star Wars (okay, A New Hope for you purists).
It made me a little jealous that THIS would forever be his paradigm. This movie would set the bar for him, and everything he sees after it will be compared to it. I envy that kid. I imagine him walking out of a theater (or neural-holotainment complex) at 40, after having seen the latest technological blockbuster, seeing a seven year old kid and thinking "Heh, back in my day all we had was Avatar. We didn't need to plug a fiber optic cable into the port at the base of our brain that gave us a three hour long halucination induced orgasm."
But that's a bit of an aside.
Okay, you can nitpick this movie to death if you want. The story is derivative: We've seen endless variations on the "Guy infiltrates an indiginous people with nefarious intent only to learn the true meaning of love from the 'simple' natives." Heck, even Webster was a variation of this. So it's not an "original" story as such. Michelle Rodriguez plays, well... Michelle Rodriguez. And "Unobtanium?" Come on guys.
But Cameron was not trying to tell an original story. He was trying to tell an old story in an original way. He was trying to tell a story with absolutely no limitations on the way he presented his information to the audience.
I disagree that it was "blatantly overdone" or that the CG was distracting. Because i think what Cameron has done here is not to use CG to create "special" effects, but to use the technology that he developed to create an entirely new canvas for his artists to paint on.
We saw glimpses of this with Gollum, where a digital character is brought to life by a stellar real life, motion captured performance. I see this movie as the next evolution of that line of thinking, where the digital characters are brought to life by actors who are not simply being motion captured, but almost wearing these characters as so much digital makeup. In that way, one of the themes of the movie itself—humans occupying and controlling alien bodies— becomes a metaphor for the production itself.
There are folks who will claim that motion capture makes the actor less important in the process, but I completely disagree. It's simply a new skill set that modern actors will have to adapt to,and you can see excellent examples in this movie of actors that were more comfortable with it than others. Zoe Saldana's performance was amazing. she brought a specific physicality to her performance that made her character seem somehow more "real" than the others at times. The way she moved just seemed to give credence to that world.
I also like that Cameron waited until he was completely ready to make this film—either because he or someone else had finally created the technology necessary to put what he had in his head on film. I like that there's a guy in the movie industry with enough juice to do absolutely whatever he wants, and enough brains and resources to make whatever he wants push the envelope of the medium so much. In a lot of ways, this is like the world's biggest indie film. What studio is going to have the balls to tell James Cameron he has to compromise on something? Exactly. None. They simply write the check, and let Jim make exactly the movie he wants to make.
And I would certainly see it in 3D. It's about the most "seamless" application of the technology I've ever seen. I think it adds to the production,and doesn't exist as a gimmick.
jg
better than Starwars. I must see
JG Pasterjak wrote: Tommy's Star Wars comparison is interesting. . . . I disagree that it was "blatantly overdone" or that the CG was distracting. Because i think what Cameron has done here is not to use CG to create "special" effects, but to use the technology that he developed to create an entirely new canvas for his artists to paint on. . . . And I would certainly see it in 3D. It's about the most "seamless" application of the technology I've ever seen. I think it adds to the production,and doesn't exist as a gimmick. jg
Methinks thou dost protest too much!
Gimmickry is in the eye of the beholder and this beholder was distracted by the CG as well as most of the critics and just about everyone I know who's seen it. I didn't see it in 3D but would have loved to if it was the Disney Polarized version, which I expect it was.
Just wait till it comes out in HD and look at it on your TV. You'll be amazed at how obvious the CG was.
Isn't it amazing that your TV is now better picture quality than the movie theater. It makes many if not most of the special effects seem contrived and obvious.
We had the DVD discussion last night on the way home. Both the wife and I agree that this might not hold up too well in a home environment, simply because much of the fun of the film was in the incredible level of detail and complexity. That type of detail needs a lot of screen real estate, not just resolution. I fear that watching it on TV will be like watching a football game on TV, except they're showing you the field, the stands, and the parking lot of the stadium. That experience can only be enjoyed at the game, and the home experience needs to be a different one.
But Cameron's a bright (and shrewd) guy. My guess is that he's not just going to allow this to be slapped on BluRay and sent to Wal Mart. I would not be surprised if the home release of this movie wasn't also a showcase for a new type of home viewing experience. Let's face it, the only thing bigger than the guy's budgets is his ego. I don't think he'll ever allow anything with his name on it to not be an event of some sort.
jg
I was surprised that I enjoyed it as much as I did. I didn't care for the 3D -- it made me a bit queasy after 3 hours, but it wasn't forced like in other movies.
Three things surprised me. First, I never knew I was attracted to giant blue women with tails. Second, I kept hoping for a "wardrobe" malfunction on said woman, even though she was computer generated and it was NEVER going to happen. Third, how can there be floating mountains, with waterfalls? That is, mountains that hover, but water flows down them?
I also couldn't figure out why Sigourney Weaver's avatarr wore different clothers and had a "normal" nose while all the other avatars looked like the indigenous popultation.
I'd recommend it -- it's not painful, and pleasantly entertaining.
SVreX wrote: my cousin is the president of FX network
Then can you please get him to TURN DOWN THE FREAKING COMMERCIALS?! It would be a great service to America if you could do so, and it would probably mean more people would watch that channel. As it is I can't stand it.
Thank you. Sorry for the OT.
ZOO wrote: Third, how can there be floating mountains, with waterfalls? That is, mountains that hover, but water flows down them? I also couldn't figure out why Sigourney Weaver's avatarr wore different clothers and had a "normal" nose while all the other avatars looked like the indigenous popultation.
Ain't-it-cool had a really neat essay on the science of the movie, and concluded that someone did a lot of homework on a lot of the principles on display (even if they did cut a few corners elsewhere in the interest of narrative expediency).
As for the clothes and look, I wonder where they got the huge hat for Norm. I think I missed the part where they visited the Na'vi Old Navy. I did like the variations in the hybrids vs. the natives,though. Did you notice the human avatars had five fingers and toes while the native Na'vi had four? Cool touch.
jg
aussiesmg wrote: Star Wars was, is and always shall be a phenomenon, it changed so many ideas and created a whole new world for many of us. Avatar is just another movie that pushes the envelope in a previously used area. No comparison
Actually, it is a very good comparison. Star Wars did create a huge number of derivative Sci Fi projects, but it was hardly ground breaking as far as Sci Fi is concerned (Star Trek, 2001, THX1138 etc. are earlier examples). Ground breaking effects?? Well sort of. 2001 and Star Trek did similar effects 10 years before it (in smaller amounts of course). The story of course was pretty pedestrian (like Avatar). The acting was OK, as was Avatars (probably better though).
What did Star Wars do then? It created a generally accessible (Sci Fi can be too "deep" for some) Sci Fi movie with plenty of action and "new" (at least in extent they are used) special effects.... sounds pretty similar to me. Of course Star Wars is the one that opened that door Sci Fi / action wise, so historically it is still wildly significant.
I do think though that avatar is leading the way for what has been predicted for a while, fully (or mostly) cgi / motion capture movies for the main stream. The method and extent of motion capture makes the actor very relevant, so they will not go away (as some had feared). Many of the restrictions of "standard" movie making will be gone, it could create some very interesting projects (hopefully not sequels though). This sounds very similar to Star Wars to me...
Have to agree with the unobtainium. I thought it was a joke when they first said it, but they kept with it... must be some strange story (or missing scene) behind that choice.
I also notice the Sigourney Weaver avatar. It really seemed out of place. The facial features where way different than the others, pretty much a direct mapping of her face (maybe another missing scene?)
I suspect the floating mountains had something to do with magnetic fields and ferrous rock (they were only present in the "vortex" area).
Don't know what you guys are seeing with the 3D, it just doesn't do it for me. Of course maybe I need to wait for PIRANHA 3D to come out!!!! oh boy!
All of the comparisons to Star Wars are interesting considering the fact that Cameron was actually a truck driver in 1977 and was inspired to go into the movie business after seeing Star Wars.
Star Wars was the breakthrough in that it proved that you could actually make big money with a Science Fiction Movie. Gene Rodenberry was actually having problems getting Star Trek 1 financed until Star Wars came out. After Star Wars, financing was not a problem for that movie and quite a few others, including one called Battle Beyond the Stars that had James Cameron as Art Director in his first big movie job.
Avatar could be another breakthrough movie. If it makes enough money, more movies created in CGI worlds will get the green light. In a few years, everybody will be using the technology that Cameron developed.
jj jizzles said: also like that Cameron waited until he was completely ready to make this film—either because he or someone else had finally created the technology necessary to put what he had in his head on film.
Ab-so-berkeleying-lutely. That is truly admirable of an artist in any medium.
Haven't seen the movie yet, and until I read this thread, I hadn't planned on it. Just looked like another "3 hours of weak plot, weak acting, and lots of stuff blowing up, with the sole intent of selling the video game, lunchbox, and happy meals" movie to me.
You'll need to log in to post.
