PDA

View Full Version : Avatar



Blue2th
08-20-2009, 09:46 AM
http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/avatar/teasermedium.html

DarthQuack
08-20-2009, 10:49 AM
:drools: looks pretty sick!!

Ando
08-20-2009, 05:38 PM
It looks pretty exciting and hopefully the toy line from Mattel will be well thought out and interesting, too.

Rocketboy
08-21-2009, 11:15 AM
Pretty underwhelming from all the hype.
The blue creatures look terrible. Poor design and terrible CG-looking animation (like something out of a video game).

Qui-Long Gone
08-21-2009, 04:53 PM
Looks good to me...I like the blue creatures...

OC47150
08-23-2009, 03:42 PM
It looks interesting. I might have to check it out, but I won't be rushing to the theatres opening weekend.

But my first initial reaction was: Cameron spent 10 years working on this? Eh.

JediTricks
08-23-2009, 05:17 PM
I have to admit, it did have the feel of a video game cut scene rather than a movie, and felt a little "soft", but I'm not counting it out yet.

El Chuxter
08-23-2009, 07:34 PM
Awesome! I love those "this trailer don't tell you s*** about the movie" trailers!

So people are taking over a primitive world and somebody gets put into a poorly-CG'd blue alien body to spy on them, or something, and sympathizes with them. That's my best guess. Wasn't Asif Mandvi supposed to star in this, or is his role pretty minor?

JediTricks
08-23-2009, 07:39 PM
Wrong Avatar, that's "The Last Airbender" he's in.

El Chuxter
08-23-2009, 08:08 PM
Ah, gotcha. Then I guess my being confused about M Night I'm-not-going-to-try-to-spell-his-name's involvement is also answered.

JediTricks
08-23-2009, 08:15 PM
Ah, gotcha. Then I guess my being confused about M Night I'm-not-going-to-try-to-spell-his-name's involvement is also answered.
Presactly! "Shyamalan" isn't that hard to spell though, it's almost phonetic.

El Chuxter
08-23-2009, 08:33 PM
Yeah, but everyone has one name or word that trips them up. I screw up the spelling and pronunciation of Shyamalan every time.

jedibear
08-29-2009, 11:18 PM
And where's Grandpa Smurf?

I'll dare to say it....get ready for "Waterworld"...in other words, a huge, expensive bomb that Cameron, the studio and the hardcore "JC can do no wrong!" camp will spin into a "hit" no matter how low the dom BO ends up being...

I'm sorry, but this just looks awful. From the Gungun-Smurf-Cat people to the endless stream of deja-vu designs and images (slap rotors on the Terminater HKs-check! Turn Ripley's powerloader into a metal-clad Hummer suit-check! Unplug the light-bright soapdish people from "The Abyss" and paint them blue-check! Add not-so-subtle class warfare "forbidden love" ala "Titanic"-check!) to the sagging, been-there "tech bad! green good!" message, this doesn't seem as inspired as one would expect from the "artist" who brought us "Terminator" and "The Abyss"...it looks more like a lame "Dances with Wolves" in sci-fi drag spectacle than anything.

There seems to be a bigger focus on the 3D and motion-capture aspect of the movie than anything else so....I guess it will be safe to say it might be a beautifully made movie but a bad one just the same.

I'd love to be wrong here....but based on what's been shown so far, I think lowering expectations down a bit seems to be a more sensible approach to this at this point. But again...I'll be ready to be wrong in December...

El Chuxter
12-17-2009, 11:57 PM
Hmm... not seeming to be an awful lot of interest.

Can someone who watches this at midnight (and I know someone here will) post whether the effects are as revolutionary and groundbreaking as the hype is claiming? I keep hearing that this will revolutionize filmmaking, and no doubt it will--from a technical perspective. From the trailers and clips I've seen, I see nothing in the end product that is remarkably different from the Star Wars prequel trilogy, TMNT, or Sky Captain.

Just curious if Cameron's living up to his own hype machine or not.

TeeEye7
12-18-2009, 11:23 AM
I read a review this morning which lauded the special effects but panned the story as a whole. The critic called it an environmental "Dances with Wolves". (His best line in his review was "It will be Al Gore's favorite action flick of the year".).

And you're right, Chux. There isn't a lot of interest with me to go see it.

OC47150
12-18-2009, 04:49 PM
I read a review this morning which lauded the special effects but panned the story as a whole. The critic called it an environmental "Dances with Wolves". (His best line in his review was "It will be Al Gore's favorite action flick of the year".).

And you're right, Chux. There isn't a lot of interest with me to go see it.

My local paper more or less said the same thing, gave it 2 1/2 stars.

My buddy and I might see it the week after Christmas; too busy this weekend and next week.

I'm more interested in seeing Sherlock Holmes, which I might be seeing post-Christmas week.

The commericals for Avatar changed sometime this fall, from a manly adventure to a more Disney-like feel.

bigbarada
12-18-2009, 08:45 PM
Ugh, if this is just going to be yet another preachy, environmentalist sci-fi flick then I'll probably just skip it altogether.

TeeEye7
12-19-2009, 03:25 AM
I'm more interested in seeing Sherlock Holmes, which I might be seeing post-Christmas week.

I'm with you there, OC! :thumbsup:


Ugh, if this is just going to be yet another preachy, environmentalist sci-fi flick then I'll probably just skip it altogether.

Sadly, that's what I've been hearing, BigB. The mean ol' humans are screwing up paradise again, but this time on another planet. It's a pass for me. One critic said it ends with an obvious opening for a sequel (it's probably already been filmed).

plasticfetish
12-21-2009, 02:06 AM
I'm having a hard time believing that I'm the only one that's seen this film so far. My son and I caught an early matinée of the 3D version, and I've gotta say... it was absolutely amazing. I went into Avatar with absolutely no expectations. To be honest, I was only minimally interested in seeing it at first, but we decided to give it a go, and ended up walking out of there in awe. It was incredible.

Sure it had its sappy moments, like just about every other Science Fiction film, and there were a lot of things that reminded you of something else, but the scale, complexity, and detail of the event made it unique. And yeah, I have to use the word "event", because the 3D experience makes this an entirely new thing. I imagined that what I'd experiencing was very similar to someone seeing and hearing a "talky" for the first time. The skill with which they've managed to integrate the 3D effect was stunning.

With that said, I'm not sure if the film would be worth seeing, or would have the same impact if it wasn't in 3D. I'm also kind of curious to see what kind of life this thing has beyond the theater experience... as a video rental, etc.

Qui-Long Gone
12-21-2009, 12:22 PM
I plan to see Avatar Tuesday night...I imagine I'll like it better than both Transformers and all the PT Star Wars, but not as much as Cam's greater works T2 and Aliens....(although the "drawing" scene in Titanic is also up there...no pun intended)...

Maradona
12-21-2009, 12:47 PM
I saw it last night. While I was impressed by the 3D, the story did not match up. My first reactions to it, were "Pocahontas in Space" or "Dances with Aliens" could have been toned down or been presented more subtly. Is this present time really the best climate for a film where the military is the bad guy? I'll wait to discuss specifics when more people have seen it so as not to spoil.

preacher
12-21-2009, 11:36 PM
Whenever there is a ground breaking special effect of the sort that has made Avatar possible I can't help but remember Abyss from late 80s. That movie was all the rage because of the effect with the weird water elemental but the storyline wasn't anything earth shattering.

The next big step was Matrix which had a very simple story but the bullet time was the jaw dropper, pretty old hat by todays standards.

Gotta give props to Lucas for starting the fully integrated virtual characters amongst actors. Storyline was meh.

So it really isn't surprising to me to hear that Avatar's story is easily accessible to a broad base. What I have seen in the trailers has my curiousity at the same level I had when I first heard about Matrix. I haven't even set any expectations because I've heard so many differing opinions about it. I plan to see it this weekend. 10 years in the making, plus Camaron was responsible for Aliens so this new flick is bound to have something I'll enjoy.

Rocketboy
12-21-2009, 11:55 PM
Saw it tonight in 3D.
I really enjoyed it, despite the fairly predictable story and I wasn't thrilled by the look of the
Na'vi. CG still has a long way to go before true photorealism with a character is achieved.
That being said, the rest of the visuals more than make up for any of the films shortcomings

Other than the leaps forward in special effects, this really isn't the Hollywood "game changer" people are saying it is, but it is a hell of a lot of fun to watch.

plasticfetish
12-22-2009, 03:23 AM
but not as much as Cam's greater works T2 and Aliens....(although the "drawing" scene in Titanic is also up there...no pun intended)...I hated Titanic, which isn't a big deal given that it was made for thirteen year old girls and not me. Avatar wins me back to James Cameron, and makes up for the horror of having to hear about that film, and all of its "the boat's sinking and I love you" c**p. T2 and Aliens are what James Cameron is all about as far as I'm concerned, and there are some significant nods to both of those films in Avatar.


I saw it last night. While I was impressed by the 3D, the story did not match up. My first reactions to it, were "Pocahontas in Space" or "Dances with Aliens" could have been toned down or been presented more subtly. Is this present time really the best climate for a film where the military is the bad guy? I'll wait to discuss specifics when more people have seen it so as not to spoil.I agree about waiting until more people have had a chance to see Avatar before we get into the details, but you know... I'm not sure that "the military is the bad guy" in this film is totally relevant to what's going on in our world right now. If anything, James Cameron is playing with the same theme that he had pushed forward with Aliens, where the real bad guy is "the company" and the military is just protecting Earth's interests.

Sure, it's possible to draw all kinds of parallels when we're talking about the job that a military force is paid to do... but it's a classic Sci-Fi theme, and if anything, I think you're right about James Cameron taking a less than subtle approach when it comes to the somewhat clichéd themes in this film.

Still though, I'll forgive a few clichés if the end justifies the means, and in this case it all paid off. I think so anyway... and it's not as if James Cameron has ever tried to pass himself off as being "subtle" anyway.


Whenever there is a ground breaking special effect of the sort that has made Avatar possible I can't help but remember Abyss from late 80s. That movie was all the rage because of the effect with the weird water elemental but the storyline wasn't anything earth shattering.The Abyss is a good example, and I was thinking Tron also... maybe more so, because it was more of a completely immersive experience. The thing that Avatar has going for it that is different than The Abyss or The Matrix, is that we're talking about an entire film style, and not just one individual effect or element.


Gotta give props to Lucas for starting the fully integrated virtual characters amongst actors. Storyline was meh.Yes... exactly. And as much as Lucas may or may not deserve a flogging for the problems that plague The Phantom Menace, he really does deserve a great deal of credit for going out on a limb to promote the concept. It's just too bad that he didn't have the skill as a director that was needed to pull a lot of it off. But I think that there's something to be said for the learning curve when it comes to directing real people in a virtual world. I imagine that a lot of other directors looked at the stiffness and weird emotional detachment that actors have in The Phantom Menace, and thought, "Well... okay, I'll be doing things a little differently for sure."


I haven't even set any expectations because I've heard so many differing opinions about it.I'd totally cut myself off from reviews or any chatter about it, and hadn't even seen the trailers... pretty much just a few stills. maybe that's why I was so blown away by the whole thing... it really was a surprise.


Saw it tonight in 3D.
I really enjoyed it, despite the fairly predictable story and I wasn't thrilled by the look of the Na'vi. CG still has a long way to go before true photorealism with a character is achieved. That being said, the rest of the visuals more than make up for any of the films shortcomings.You're right about having a long way to go before achieving true photorealism, but at the same time, what they have gotten better at (or at least WETA anyway), is knowing when and when not to use CG. Remember the old debate about Gollum vs. Jar jar? How what it really boiled down to was that Lucas pushed his CG characters into the daylight, and Peter Jackson was smart enough to keep them shadowed, so that the dark would cover up some of the "fakeness" of the whole thing.


Other than the leaps forward in special effects, this really isn't the Hollywood "game changer" people are saying it is, but it is a hell of a lot of fun to watch.Well, the effects and the skill with which the film has been crafted as a 3D experience are what made this unique. Again, the story is pretty much a mishmash of well worn Science Fiction themes and motifs, but how it's delivered is what makes this a "game changer."

Yeah, fun... a lot of fun... maybe even close to $20 worth of fun, (which is what it cost me.) I can't think of many films that I've seen in the past year that actually earned their ticket price. Maybe that's the real game changer here.

Neuroleptic
12-22-2009, 10:29 AM
I'm personaly hopeing my theater has a showing of it NOT in 3D, as the tickets cost more, and I'm not able to see in 3D, thus the extera cost is a waste of money for me. Hopeing to see it on my birthday, but if they dont have a showing of it in standard form, I may wait untill later.

Rocketboy
12-22-2009, 10:57 AM
I'm personaly hopeing my theater has a showing of it NOT in 3D, as the tickets cost more, and I'm not able to see in 3D, thus the extera cost is a waste of money for me. Hopeing to see it on my birthday, but if they dont have a showing of it in standard form, I may wait untill later.There's a good chance they will. The theater I saw it in had one 3D and two 2D screens.

sonofsokol
12-22-2009, 12:12 PM
I saw it in 3D last night. What I liked was that the 3D wasn't gimmicky, by that I mean they didn't have things jumping out at you or arrows flying over your head and stuff. The 3D just enhanced the experience. The scenery and effects were great. I left wishing that they would make all movies in 3D just to add that extra something to it. My brother-in-law and I talked about how cool a movie like Return of the King would be in 3D. I can imagine how cool it'd be to see Gollum sinking into the lava in 3D...

All in all it was very entertaining. I try to enjoy movies for what they are and not get too critial though, so I can enjoy just about anything.

What may have been more exciting than the movie itself was the preview for Clash of the Titans (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0800320/)which comes out in March. Qui-gon plays Zeus!!!!

El Chuxter
12-22-2009, 12:17 PM
Lord of the Rings raised a lot of bars in the technical side (especially the CG for an entire animated army), and had a great story.

preacher
12-22-2009, 12:34 PM
Lord of the Rings raised a lot of bars in the technical side (especially the CG for an entire animated army), and had a great story.


You stole my thunder. I was going to mention Jackson's contribution. Also avery noteworthy leap. Where Lucas started the CGI character interaction, Jackson (I think) was first to give CGI mobs decision making capability. If any of you have the extended edition of the Two Towers there's a 45 minute long feature on one of the extra disks that talk about this effort and it explains why the armies seemed so organic.

Tycho
12-25-2009, 11:49 PM
I loved Avatar!!! Geeze I have to go see this more than once!

I'm going to take a long hard look at the toys the next time I'm in a toy isle (I think we're only talking about hours from now in reality...)

It took my Top 5 of 2009 list and turned it into a Top 6:

1) Avatar
2) Star Trek
3) Wolverine
4) Transformers
5) GI Joe
6) Terminator Salvation

These might have to re-ordered. Avatar is fresh and new in my head, but the passion in the story actually made me cry. Star Trek was the only other film this year that came close to that, though Wolverine makes a pretty good attempt. GI Joe might wind up ranking above Transformers, too. And now Terminator 4 has grown on me a bit.

But more on Avatar later. I want to go to bed.

jedibear
12-26-2009, 09:58 AM
Saw it last night. For those who still haven't seen it, some light spoilers ahead in my rambling remarks here....

It was neither the second coming of cinema like most critics are claiming or the unmitigated disaster the naysayers want it to be.

It felt like most movies do these days...like a re-boot, remake, gussied-up version of what we've seen before. Now that hasn't always been a bad thing, mind you...

Now I saw this in standard, 2-D format...that 3D stuff has always just given me a headache, so more than ever for me, the movie had to stand on it's own merits of production values, story and performance without the big sales gimmick of the 3D to work.

It does work...well, mostly. The production looks sumptuous and lush...lots of layers and detail...it's obvious a lot of thought and work went into creating the world of Pandora. It's exotic and familiar at the same time and that is one of it's problems.

As the Na'vi move effortlessly through their environment, they almost defy gravity and it's that moment for me that the "reality" is pierced and my analytical side takes over and kicks me out of the story and it begins to fall apart. There's no "weight" here (literal or figurative) and it just starts looking like an effects reel or a video game instead of keeping me in the story. Yes, I get it that the idea was that the Na'vi were physically more attuned to their environment than the clunky humans were, but it just didn't translate well to me...things weren't convincing enough to me to make that leap.

Another part of what took me out was the "choppy" feel of the narrative...the inconsistent use of Jake's "logs" and the abrupt fade-to-blacks which I presume were meant to be like the "acts" of the story but instead seemed like potential commercial breaks or just awkward stops.
Does this mean there's the inevitable extended cut(s) coming on disc?

But the two biggest issues I had with the movie when it was over were...the design of the Na'vi and the concept of the "Avatars" themselves.

The Na'vi design just looked like a mish-mash of every "savage-tribal-native" look that could be crammed into one being. Sloped foreheads, flat noses, tall and thin builds, aloof feline features with monkey tails, clad with bits of bones, fur and greasepaint, They just come across as caricatures with nothing really unique or new to offer. With the exception of a few close-up shots, they were never entirely convincing or alive in the frame. Again, that nagging video-game comparison that has been foisted around by the naysayers comes to mind.

The whole Avatar concept itself seems a bit much for what they seem to be "built" for. They are culled from a mix of DNA- human and Na'vi - so they are not entirely either. Grace and her colleagues inhabit them to live and move among the Na'vi...to study them, to teach them, to build schools for them (to teach select ones how to speak perfect English). The Na'vi know who/what they are, even giving them the name "sky people"....

So, my big question is....WHY HAVE THE AVATARS AT ALL? Seems like a huge waste of resources to simply study and blend in with the "natives"...the high-tech equivalent of blackface (er, make that blue).
The answer isn't a pretty one...without them, there would be no movie. At least not this one....

Now...it's looking like I really hated this thing, eh? No. Not really.
As usual, Cameron shows he knows how to put together great images and scenes. The movie looks great. There are a lot of great set pieces and moments that are a pleasure to watch. The sound design is impressive and Horner's score adds a great (much-needed) emotional layer to the whole thing. A couple of stand-outs for me....Jake's first moments in his Avatar...breaking into that run! It was emotional and well-played. Having him literally plunge into this new world was a great touch and spun things off with a great energy. The other component was Grace's (Weaver) whole story arc- her journey through the story felt as complete as Jake's, right up to it's bittersweet conclusion. Well-played, indeed.

I'm a genre fan...and this movie is indeed a major genre event. I liked it enough despite the issues I had with it to mull it over some more and check it out again on the big screen. Like most "big" events like this, it polarizes the audience into intense opinions and discussions and that alone makes it a success.

Is Pandora worth turning into a franchise and visiting again? Well, this movie definitely leaves it open for that. Time and the level of success will tell...

Slicker
12-27-2009, 03:16 PM
I was dragged to this and I actually enjoyed it quite a bit. It was just something different than what I'm used to seeing but I personally felt it was just some sort of CG showcase.

autumnsdescent
12-27-2009, 04:09 PM
Saw the movie last night. I walked in expecting nothing special since I've read a ton of negative comments about it.

I expected the CG to be too unreal. I expected the acting to be sub-par. I expected the story to be recycled. I expected political overtones.

I was blown away. The story, although not completely original, was really well done. I thought the graphics / CG were absolutely stunning. The acting was strong. The political overtones weren't overt. In fact, I think I really enjoyed this movie.

I noticed the advertisements on TV don't seem to do the movie justice.

It's been a long time since I saw a movie like this. Cameron really drew upon the strengths of his previous efforts here. I will most likely see this one again.

Bel-Cam Jos
12-30-2009, 06:53 PM
I saw it in 3-D today. It was a good film, but I can't call it my favorite this year (I'd put Watchmen, Up, or even Sherlock Holmes above it). Looks wonderful (I have to wonder who created the Falusia/Pandora planet first: Cameron or Lucas?), decent story (certainly not great, and a bit predictable in the bad way), flat characters though. I held up two fingers at the end, because I expected to see an "Avatar 2" logo to end it. The song during the closing credits (done horizontally makes it rough to read names, as I like to do) did not fit the tone at all.

On a 10 scale, I'd give it a 7.6.

autumnsdescent
12-30-2009, 08:25 PM
Hmm.... Movie of the year for me was probably Star Trek. It was just... fun!

In fact, here's my rundown:

(used this list to remind me what came out this year: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_in_film#Scheduled_2009_releases_.28United_Sta tes.29)

1> Star Trek
2> Avatar (saw twice at theater)
3> Wolverine
4> GI Joe (saw twice at theater and the more old school fans hate it the more I like it!)
5> Terminator Salvation
6> Coraline
7> The Proposal
8> District 9



Worst movies of the year:
1> Watchmen - what a violation of everything I believe in! Found nothing redeeming in the entire movie.
2> Monsters Vs. Aliens - for as quality as Pixar movies are, this Dreamworks stinker couldn't stand up...
3> Did You Hear About the Morgans - haven't seen it, but because it has Sarah Jessica Parker in it, it automatically earns a spot on the worst of the year list
4> Harry Potter 6 - According to my wife, this movie leaves so much out of the story as compared to the books that she demanded it be added to the worst list.

Popular Movies I Ignored:
1> Angels & Demons
2> Jonas Brothers in 3D
3> Hannah Montana Movie
4> Drag Me to Hell
5> The Hangover (will probably rent)
6> G-Force
7> Aliens In the Attic
8> Inglorious Basterds
9> Final Destination
10> Halloween 2
11> 9 (the animated movie - will probably rent)
12> Jennifer's Body
13> Paranormal Activity
14> Zombieland
15> Where the Wild Things Are (may rent)
16> Saw VI
17> Jim Carey's A Christmas Carol
18> Men Who Stare at Goats (may rent)
19> Fantastic Mr. Fox (may rent)
20> Precious
21> 2012
22> The Blind Side
23> Invictus
24> Planet 51
25> Old Dogs
26> The Princess & the Frog
27> Up in the Air (may rent)
28> Alvin & The Chipmunks 2
29> Sherlock Holmes (Sir Author Conan Doyle is turning in his grave)
30> Nine (the musical)

Notice Transformers 2 is not on any of the lists. I saw it. I still haven't decided if I enjoyed it or outright hated it. So I don't know where to put it. It was the top grossing movie of 09 though.

bigbarada
12-30-2009, 08:46 PM
Hmm.... Movie of the year for me was probably Star Trek. It was just... fun!

I would definitely agree with you there! :thumbsup:

Tycho
12-30-2009, 10:50 PM
Yes, definitely between Star Trek and Avatar for me too.

Avatar is new and I haven't watched Star Trek for a while.

2-1B
01-01-2010, 11:25 PM
I saw it and loved it!

I was skeptical and thought several months ago that this would bomb, so I have to admit I thought it was wonderful. I saw the 3D version and thought it was very well done. I think Sam Worthington is fantastic and I'm looking forward to Clash of the Titans.

The best movies of '09 at the top of my list are Up in the Air and District 9, although there were several other fantastic films this year. Errrr, I mean last year.

Mad Slanted Powers
01-02-2010, 11:11 AM
Since I wear glasses, I'm wondering how well the 3D glasses would work over mine. Thus, I might go see the non-3D version.

Yesterday I heard a couple people raving about it. They loved the visuals, and I think they liked the story as well, even though they did say it had the whole "man destroying paradise" theme in it.

Beast
01-02-2010, 11:58 AM
Hot! The upcoming DVD/BLU release will feature a cut Na'Vi sex scene. :D

Avatar Blu-ray to Feature Deleted Na'vi Sex Scene

In a recent group interview, James Cameron has revealed that, when making 'Avatar', he shot a sex scene between two Na'vi characters. "We had it in and we cut it out," said Cameron, "so that will be something for the special edition DVD, if you want to see how they have sex." Note that the text below contains spoilers to the plot of the movie.

At one point in the movie, the Na'vi avatar of Jake Sully has an intimate encounter with Neytiri, but very little is shown of that. Actress Zoe Saldana, who had said that she thinks Neytiri is "very sexy", went into the specifics of how the Na'vi "get their groove on", which turns out to be through the tendrils at the end of their ponytail-like tentacle.

Saldana explained: "If you sync to your banshee and you're syncing to a tree, why not sync into a person? I almost feel like you'll have the most amazing orgasm, I guess. It was a very funny scene to shoot because there were so many technical things that sometimes you have to keep in mind that paying attention to all those might disrupt the fluidity of how a scene is supposed to take place."

"And because Jim was shooting for a PG-13 rating, we couldn't move in certain directions," said also the actress. "The motion would look a little too past the PG-13 rating standards. So it was really funny for Sam [Worthington] and me. We had a lot of giggles there."

sonofsokol
01-02-2010, 01:18 PM
Since I wear glasses, I'm wondering how well the 3D glasses would work over mine. Thus, I might go see the non-3D version.

I wear glasses and the 3D glasses were big enough that they fit over my them pretty well. I had to adjust them several times during the show, but it wasn't horrible. I have only seen it in 3D, but I felt the minor inconvenience of adjusting the glasses well worth it.

I guess it depends on the style of glasses you wear and what style of 3D glasses they have at the theater. Good Luck:thumbsup:

DarkArtist
01-20-2010, 07:46 AM
finally saw this last night in 3D and I have to say I loved the entire movie from start to finish. the effects and animation were awesome. loved the story, felt the pain of the characters, marveled at the beauty of Pandora.

it was almost as if James Cameron took 3 movies and blended them together for one.. Dances with Wolves, Terminator and Star Wars. this is a movie that I would definately see again and again. can't wait for it to come out on DVD.:thumbsup:

Slicker
01-20-2010, 03:42 PM
I'm hoping that I can see this in 3-D at some point here but I've only got maybe one day out of the week where I could actually see it so I doubt it'll happen. :(

TeeEye7
01-23-2010, 03:43 AM
I'd hold out for Specialman in 3-D, myself.......

Slicker
01-23-2010, 07:41 AM
I'd hold out for Specialman in 3-D, myself.......I take it you didn't see the press release? Specialman isn't being released in 3D...it's being released in 4D!! When you're watching just remember the words of Doc Brown and think fourth dimensionally!

Mad Slanted Powers
01-23-2010, 08:59 PM
Went and saw it today, but not in 3D. I enjoyed it. The visuals were amazing. They should be though. In watching the credits, I saw that both Weta and ILM worked on it, along with a bunch of other effects companies.

Maerj2000
01-23-2010, 09:04 PM
I just saw the film today as well. It was pretty good. Story was really Pocahontas but thats okay, lots of effects, action. It was a fun experience.

The most amazing thing was that Cameron was able to do that no one else has ever been able to do: he made MIchelle Rodriguez likable! Good job! She even smiled for most of the movie!

Slicker
01-24-2010, 03:46 PM
What?! Mich Rod (that's my pet name for her.) is pretty awesome and likable in everything she's in! I'll give you a point for the fact that she rarely smiles though.

DarthBrandon
01-25-2010, 02:04 PM
finally saw this last night in 3D and I have to say I loved the entire movie from start to finish. the effects and animation were awesome. loved the story, felt the pain of the characters, marveled at the beauty of Pandora.

it was almost as if James Cameron took 3 movies and blended them together for one.. Dances with Wolves, Terminator and Star Wars. this is a movie that I would definately see again and again. can't wait for it to come out on DVD.:thumbsup:

Lets not forget the Matrix as they jack into the Avatars.

Tycho
01-25-2010, 03:24 PM
If Michelle Rodriguez was Trudy Chacon, the Marine Corps pilot, then I liked her.

She was a nice b-character in the whole thing.

Amongst the voice actresses you also had the girl playing Lt. Uhura from Star Trek, and CCH Pounder, the lady who played Claudette (Capt. Wimms) on The Shield.

bigbarada
01-25-2010, 06:32 PM
Still haven't seen this movie and it's not playing at any of the theaters near me anymore. Ah well, I guess I'll just wait for DVD.

2-1B
01-25-2010, 09:35 PM
I saw it a second time (in 3D again) and it was cool to see it again to pick up on more details, but I don't feel the need to watch it on DVD anytime soon...not until the sequel comes out in a few years, then I'll probably watch it again.

Darth Duranium
01-25-2010, 10:46 PM
I thought it was a very good film but I didn't see the visuals as being as groundbreaking as Matrix, Final Fantasy, Akira, or Episode I were. I thought the FX were great but didn't see how the envelope was pushed very much... a bit, sure. Too much hype, IMO.

I thought that Cameron's worlds looked suspiciously similar to George's SW visions. Anybody else think the same?

I would have liked a shorter, tighter film but I did enjoy it... certainly was entertaining and densely packed.

Mr. JabbaJohnL
02-28-2010, 07:52 PM
I finally saw it today. It was kind of meh. The visuals were okay but, as has been said before, nothing groundbreaking. The Na'vi looked weird when they talked, and when there were actual actors on-screen with them, it looked fake. Some of the creature designs were cool but I couldn't fathom why so many beasts would need six legs other than the filmmakers wanted them to look strange. The story was by-the-numbers and extremely obvious, but I'd heard that already. Without the hype or billion dollar box office receipts, I'd say it was thoroughly average. Oh, and the 3D was also average, but it was the first time I'd gotten a headache from the effect. The glasses tend to dim the colors and make the movements look even more artificial than they already are, so I think I'll actually skip most 3D releases from now on (aside from the potential SW re-releases) since it honestly adds nothing to the movie.

JEDIpartner
03-03-2010, 01:24 PM
Everyone I know who's gone to see this film said it was horrible because it had no story. I happen to agree with them. Unfortunately, it must be made of crack or something 'cos these same people went back to see it several times 'cos it was so pretty to look at. I thought it looked like an animated film-- especially when they composited the live actors into the shots. I was bored about an hour into it and wanted to leave. I'm really disgusted that it's made as much money as it has because it sends a message to Hollywood that they can scrap any semblance of a plot and just make three hour wallpaper and people will pay to see it. Best film nomination? No thanks!!!!

Tycho
03-03-2010, 04:21 PM
Everyone I know who's gone to see this film

You know me!


said it was horrible because it had no story.


I just saw it again last night and loved it. I thought the story was the defining part!


Unfortunately, it must be made of crack or something 'cos these same people went back to see it several times

No. But the action figures might smell nice - like Mouse Droids. That could be it, you know. I haven't opened my Avatar figures yet though. Has anyone here sniffed theirs?


'cos it was so pretty to look at. I thought it looked like an animated film-- especially when they composited the live actors into the shots.

I like animated films! :D Have you seen Garfield? They composited Jennifer Love Hewitt into the film. She's too hot to be real right? So the effects company added her to shots of the cat. I think she made movie history being the first CGI veterinarian, too.


I was bored about an hour into it and wanted to leave.

I thought it was a very emotional moment for me when Jake Sully got acquainted with his Avatar body and was able to walk and then run again for his first time. That was a great bit of writing and the portrayal of it all. Additionally, it acknowledged the sacrafices our soldiers are called upon to make in the line of their duty (often to dubious bs causes, as the movie later showed).

The inter-connected environment's exploration was an important story concept, too. This rings true in our real world as well.


I'm really disgusted that it's made as much money as it has because it sends a message to Hollywood that they can scrap any semblance of a plot and just make three hour wallpaper and people will pay to see it.

You're wrong there. Avatar was not a fluff film, most definitely. I must have watched nearly 10 previews for films that were (or were re-makes) before the movie started.

I know what I saw that is coming, which really doesn't inspire me.

I hope I will turn out to be a much better writer!

JEDIpartner
03-03-2010, 04:54 PM
I can't agree less. The movie was crap from A to beyond the alphabet. :o

Bel-Cam Jos
03-03-2010, 06:56 PM
But it still may win the Oscar tm for BP.

Maerj2000
03-03-2010, 09:21 PM
Jedi Partner, I think you may be reacting to the massive hype. I think that it was way too much but it did help it make a boatload of money.

I enjoyed it, it was a fun film The 3D caused a bit of eye strain for me, I'm not used to wearing glasses and never watched a 3D movie for that long. The effects were decent enough, at times a bit cartoony but still they were pretty good. Its sort of like watching a Harryhousen movie from many years ago. You could appreciate the effects even though you knew that they were stop motion animation. Know what I mean?

The biggest letdown for me WAS the story which was really just a retread as many poeple online said. They made such an amazing planet and spent so much on all these effects I wished they had a more unique story to tell. Maybe we'll be more impressed with the sequels? I don't know. I think that its still worth seeing and I'll get the Bluray when it comes out.

JEDIpartner
03-04-2010, 05:40 PM
I dunno... I've got weird taste in films and I've pretty much hated James Cameron after Terminator 2. I mean, Titanic was a steaming pile. LOL

Maerj2000
03-04-2010, 07:44 PM
I dunno... I've got weird taste in films and I've pretty much hated James Cameron after Terminator 2. I mean, Titanic was a steaming pile. LOL

Lol, can't say that I'm a Titanic fan myself. My favorite Cameron films are Aliens, Terminator and T2. The Abyss, director's cut only, was a really good movie too.

sith_killer_99
04-20-2010, 12:55 PM
Well, the movie comes out today on Blu-Ray and DVD.

Here's the kicker, it will only be in 2D and it will only, and I mean ONLY contain the feature film. No extras, no 3D versions, etc.

Then in a few months they plan to release the extended versions with 20-40 mins. of extra footage, then the 3D versions, etc.

It looks like they will be milking this one of a long time! lol

BTW, great fun going back reading the first posts of this and other "Avatar" threads.:thumbsup:

I have not seen the film myself. In fact, upon checking "boxofficemojo.com" I find that I have not seen any film in the theater that rates above a Star Wars movie, to include Domestic Gross, Worldwide Gross, and "Adjusted for Inflation". Though I have seen a few that fall between Star Wars films.:laugh:

BTW, here is a partial review for "Avatar" from Amazon.com.


***THINGS YOU MUST KNOW BEFORE YOU BUY***

1. A special edition likely including 20-40 minutes of additional footage is already being leaked to media for release later THIS YEAR!
2. No special features. If you are a fan, of all the discs in your collection this is the one you really want the extra stuff. It really should be amazing!
3. No 3D presentation. New technology in TVs is out this year and should enhance the home 3D experience. I don't usually care about 3D at home but things are changing. Be ready!
4. There is also news that the movie itself will be re-released shortly with the 20-40 minutes of additional content I mentioned above. Why buy the Blu if you can see it with additional content and in the best possible 3D at theaters--- then buy the special edition just a few months later?

I have to echo the comments of a previous reviewer. The studios are becoming so brazen. They released this edition and tried to explain the poor accoutrements by saying "they wanted to save all the space on the disc for the best possible presentation". Are you kidding me? Bust out the extra discs already! Offering this bare bones BR right before re-releasing the movie with additional footage was also a classless act that spits in consumer's faces. Just rent the movie or see the enhanced version in theaters. It will tide you over until the Special Edition comes out.

Looks like fans are mad, there were a few reviews like this one.:twisted:

That is the #1 review!


1,862 of 2,098 people found the following review helpful:

It looks like the Studios will be losing out on at least 1,863 sales of this bare bones release. :twisted: Some how, I think they will survive.

El Chuxter
04-20-2010, 01:01 PM
Honestly, I still don't care. I can watch Smurfs on TV if I get the hankering to see funny-looking blue people. I really don't have a lot of faith in James Cameron making movies that are anything but eye candy anymore, which is sad, since the guy once made some amazing flicks. (Same with Robert Zemeckis, who only does that zombie-looking motion capture CG now, and has a weird Jim Carey fetish.)

JediTricks
04-20-2010, 02:31 PM
I see I never posted my thoughts. Well, I finally saw this last month thanks to a friend.

Visually, it is quite impressive, although some of the camera moves and CGI stylings will date it heavily in a few years, I think. The story is deadly simple, which the movie gets away with for the first 2/3rds because it's not trying to do too much while giving you a look at the pretty colors and things. Then a character wakes up at a certain point, stuff is happening, and all of a sudden the stupidity overwhelms the movie completely, characters that made 12% sense before are now in "total idiot bad guy" mode, and the very point of our hero's transformation is washed away with the tide of action movie stupidity. Big stuff like character motivations get too boneheaded to believe, and little stuff goes there too, arrows that were shown the bounce harmlessly off the humans' vehicles' glass now smash right through it. And the final battle gets sillier and sillier, more and more derivative of stuff you've seen before, until a rather brief hand-to-hand battle that results in an obvious climax which could only exist because the bad guy is nothing but a bad guy, no thoughts, no cleverness, no sense of self-preservation, no strategy, just a man driving a car into an elephant.

Bottom line, rent if you have an HDTV, but don't bother buying and don't expect it to be anything but pretty but blandly-told popcorn fare.

Tycho
04-22-2010, 11:34 AM
I bought the movie today at Target. I couldn't help myself.

JT's review above described like all the great movies I like (usually made by Michael Bay) and I couldn't resist pouncing on this one!

From how he describes it, the movie could even be better than Halle Berry's Catwoman!

sith_killer_99
04-22-2010, 03:43 PM
I bought the movie today at Target. I couldn't help myself.

JT's review above described like all the great movies I like (usually made by Michael Bay) and I couldn't resist pouncing on this one!

SUCKER!:p:D;)


From how he describes it, the movie could even be better than Halle Berry's Catwoman!

That shouldn't be difficult, the remake of "The Day The Earth Stood Still" was better than Halle Berry's Catwoman.:rolleyes:

I will likely rent this soon.

El Chuxter
04-22-2010, 03:44 PM
Two hours of a man making armpit farts is better than Catwoman.

JediTricks
04-22-2010, 04:17 PM
I bought the movie today at Target. I couldn't help myself.

JT's review above described like all the great movies I like (usually made by Michael Bay) and I couldn't resist pouncing on this one!

From how he describes it, the movie could even be better than Halle Berry's Catwoman!Actually, Michael Bay's movies start stupid and visually full of themselves, and remain pretty much in that same place throughout cheap cliches and explosions made boring, and they have no imagination or soul or creativity at all.

Also, you really wasted your money on the DVD, not only is it coming out again in August with more material, but with your giganto-screen TV not running Blu-Ray, it's going to look really fuzzy. If I didn't worry so much about my PS3, I'd bring it down to your place and show you the difference, then you'd cry and I'd laugh and Michael Bay would make an explosion.



Two hours of a man making armpit farts is better than Catwoman.104 minutes of Henry Kissinger reading the phone book while eating discount peanut butter crackers would be better.

El Chuxter
04-22-2010, 04:23 PM
104 minutes of Henry Kissinger reading the phone book while eating discount peanut butter crackers would be better.

That actually sounds pretty funny, in a very twisted way. Sort of like the episode of Freakazoid where Henry Kissinger was flying the plane full of villains, and he was trying to get clearance to land, and no one could understand him. (About 9:30 into this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJiD43oeLCU).)

Background Character
04-22-2010, 06:21 PM
I really don't understand what all the complaining is about. Most places have it on sale this week for $19.99 for the Blu-Ray. The lowest price for the standard I've seen is $14.99. I don't understand why anyone would by just the standard. Even if you don't have a Blu-Ray player, for a few extra dollars you might as well get the Blu-Ray version which also includes the standard version and either hold onto it until you get a player, or give that copy to a friend, or even sell it for $10. Chances are, if you saw it in the theater, you paid more than $20 anyway just to see it and not own anything. If you didn't see it at all yet, then it is definately worth the price. It may not be the greatest film ever made, but it is definately entertaining. I think everyone is just looking way too deep into it. If you hate it that much, just ignore it and let it be.

OC47150
04-22-2010, 06:32 PM
I saw it today at WM on sale. If I buy a copy (and I really don't know at this point), it will be one of the special editions. I like extras.

bigbarada
04-22-2010, 08:50 PM
I see I never posted my thoughts. Well, I finally saw this last month thanks to a friend.

Visually, it is quite impressive, although some of the camera moves and CGI stylings will date it heavily in a few years, I think. The story is deadly simple, which the movie gets away with for the first 2/3rds because it's not trying to do too much while giving you a look at the pretty colors and things. Then a character wakes up at a certain point, stuff is happening, and all of a sudden the stupidity overwhelms the movie completely, characters that made 12% sense before are now in "total idiot bad guy" mode, and the very point of our hero's transformation is washed away with the tide of action movie stupidity. Big stuff like character motivations get too boneheaded to believe, and little stuff goes there too, arrows that were shown the bounce harmlessly off the humans' vehicles' glass now smash right through it. And the final battle gets sillier and sillier, more and more derivative of stuff you've seen before, until a rather brief hand-to-hand battle that results in an obvious climax which could only exist because the bad guy is nothing but a bad guy, no thoughts, no cleverness, no sense of self-preservation, no strategy, just a man driving a car into an elephant.

Bottom line, rent if you have an HDTV, but don't bother buying and don't expect it to be anything but pretty but blandly-told popcorn fare.

Yeah, I watched it today for the first time and I pretty much agree with you. James Cameron really needs to do more than just watch old Vietnam war movies when doing the research for his military characters from now on.

Overall the CG was average and only impressive because there was so much of it on the screen at once. However, most of the Navi character animations looked like typical, stiff, "floaty" CG-animation.

I think where this movie really failed was in the sound department. I swear that they just recycled the creature sound effects library from the Star Wars prequels for most of their animal vocalizations. Plus, the music (the "soul" of any movie) was flat and unmemorable. In the few times that I did take notice of the music, it just sounded like something that was lifted from the soundtrack of another movie (which is actually pretty common for James Horner).

The story was embarrassingly heavy-handed. I think an 8th-grade Creative Writing student could come up with a more subtle and thought-provoking plot.

TeeEye7
04-23-2010, 02:55 AM
Plus, the music (the "soul" of any movie)...

I always knew we were brothers, BigB! :thumbsup:

Why doesn't everyone else realize that about the soundtrack!?

bigbarada
04-23-2010, 08:31 AM
I always knew we were brothers, BigB! :thumbsup:

Why doesn't everyone else realize that about the soundtrack!?

:thumbsup:

With a good soundtrack, you don't need gimmicky 3D effects to pull audiences into the movie. Imagine Star Wars without John Williams or Lord of the Rings without Howard Shore. It would be like someone gutted those films.

I can think of many other movies whose emotional resonance was significantly enhanced by their soundtracks: Gladiator, Braveheart, Black Hawk Down, The Great Escape, even Titanic (not the Celine Dion song at the end credits, I'm talking about the music used throughout the film). But, despite the fact that it's essentially the same creative team working on Avatar as Titanic, the music in Avatar falls flat and I think that seriously hampers any empathy that we were supposed to be feeling for the Navi.

El Chuxter
04-23-2010, 08:50 AM
Horner has been pretty lazy since Titanic, for the most part, maybe even lazier than Hans Zimmer. Titanic would've had a much better score if not for the atrocious synth choir.

Tycho
04-24-2010, 02:35 PM
Great music soundtracks:

Star Wars
Last of the Mohicans
The Patriot
Glory
Gettysburg
Dances With Wolves
Sommersby
Unforgiven
Wyatt Earp
Tombstone
Flyboys
Indiana Jones
Legends of the Fall
Pearl Harbor
U-571
Schindler's List
Battle of the Bulge
Patton
Band of Brothers
Midway
The Thin Red Line
Windtalkers
Letters From Iwo Jima
Flags of Our Fathers
Hannibal Rising
Shawshank Redemption
Hoffa
JFK
Good Morning Vietnam
We Were Soldiers
Heaven and Earth
Rambo
Charlie Wilson's War
X-men Origins: Wolverine

amongst others I haven't gotten to yet.

JediTricks
04-24-2010, 02:42 PM
I always knew we were brothers, BigB! :thumbsup:

Why doesn't everyone else realize that about the soundtrack!?Because the only thing that stands out is the visuals, so the score is really generic to not distract from those. Or maybe I'm not giving Horner enough credit, maybe he watched the movie and was inspired by it, the underlying movie is bland so it inspired bland music, kind of the same way the prequels are a derivative mess and John Williams' scores for them are self-indulgent, moody messes with more production value than inspiration.

TeeEye7
04-25-2010, 01:19 PM
....amongst others I haven't gotten to yet.

For those of us with kids: Horner's sound track to the original Land Before Time.

Nice list Tycho! :thumbsup:

Beast
04-25-2010, 05:05 PM
Well Avatar is for Blu-Ray what Matrix was for DVD. The movie that led to mass adoption.
Not only was it the biggest release of all time on the format at 1.5M. But Best Buy is reporting a 50% increase in Blu-Ray player sales. So fans of Blu-Ray rejoice. What was still something of a niche, is now in the mainstream.

Also....

'Avatar 2D' Sells 6.7M DVD & Blu-ray Units In First 4 Days To Crush 'Dark Knight' Record

20th Century Fox Home Entertainment today announced that James Cameron's AVATAR 2D flew off shelves to become the fastest-selling Blu-ray of all time after just four days in U.S, and Canadian stores. Excluding rental sales, it sold 2.7 million Blu-ray units in North America, shredding Warner Bros' The Dark Knight's Blu-ray sales record of 2.5 million units total. That means Avatar 2D in 4 days beat what Dark Knight did over 1 1/2 years. Retail sales of both AVATAR 2D's Blu-ray and DVD discs have exceeded 6.7 million units since its launch last Thursday, on pace to be the best-selling title in recent history.

JediTricks
04-26-2010, 04:10 AM
I was at Best Buy this evening, they had Avatar playing on Blu-Ray on a 240hz tv and it looked awful. That unnatural fluidity those faster FPS screens put out enhances the cartoony nature of the CGI tenfold. It was garnering a small crowd though.

bigbarada
04-26-2010, 07:45 AM
When Twilight: New Moon was released on DVD, we had a line of people that stretched across the entire Walmart store and those people started showing up hours before midnight. Naturally the management expected a similar turn out for Avatar; so they had the bakery department make a special Avatar cake and did all kinds of other stuff for their "Avatar release party." Except only one person showed up. :o So we had Avatar cake in the break room for the rest of the night. :D

sith_killer_99
04-26-2010, 10:13 AM
I was at Best Buy this evening, they had Avatar playing on Blu-Ray on a 240hz tv and it looked awful. That unnatural fluidity those faster FPS screens put out enhances the cartoony nature of the CGI tenfold. It was garnering a small crowd though.

That is sad. Sadder still is the new title of #1 fastest selling Blu-Ray of all time.

Of course, that's just because Star Wars hasn't been released on Blu-Ray yet. Wait til you see the Special Features, I hear it will come with Force Powers and your own personal midichlorians counter. Take that Avatar!!!:p

Beast
04-26-2010, 12:50 PM
That is sad. Sadder still is the new title of #1 fastest selling Blu-Ray of all time.

Of course, that's just because Star Wars hasn't been released on Blu-Ray yet. Wait til you see the Special Features, I hear it will come with Force Powers and your own personal midichlorians counter. Take that Avatar!!!:p
Star Wars is a catalog title. No catalog title will match a new release. :)

sith_killer_99
04-26-2010, 05:29 PM
Star Wars is a catalog title. No catalog title will match a new release. :)

I beg to differ. Star Wars: The Phantom Menace struck gold as the top selling DVD when it was released, and it was a "catalog title" when it was released.:yes:

Mad Slanted Powers
04-26-2010, 06:51 PM
The movie was still pretty new then, and there hadn't been a DVD release of it before. Now, most people who want the movies have them on DVD. I don't think there is as big of a leap in technology from DVD to Blu-Ray as there was from VHS to DVD. So, a lot of people may not feel the need to buy a movie they already have. It will certainly sell well. I probably won't be buying a Blu-Ray player until Star Wars is released in that format.