37 replies to this topic

[markie_c]

The most important elements of a film are story and characters. The visuals are just one element. Any hack can impress people with some pretty pictures, but it takes a real talent to craft an original story and good characters.

What about 2001, The Fountain, and Blade Runner?

[way2lazy2care]

You're right about the line I bolded. Having an unoriginal story and unexplored characters is what stopped me from giving this movie a 5/5. The truth is that James Cameron can get away with a recycled story and still make tons of money by showing impressive visuals.

I can also see people saying 20 years from now "For the time, Avatar's visuals were great"

cut out the parts not about my comment.

Anyway, I said this in the other thread, but realistically people could look back on Avatar and see it as the first movie to use 3D in a more serious fashion rather than a gimmick. Obviously there's still some kinks that need working out, but when compared to movies like beowulf and a christmas carol the 3d is used to highlight the world and add depth rather than as a gimmick.

[TubularLuggage]

I will agree that for our time, the visuals in Avatar are well done. I just feel that Cameron should have still actually tried with the other elements.
I said this in the other thread, but in case anyone hasn't seen it, I'm okay with people enjoying the film. What I'm not okay with is it being praised as a really good film. If they were only praising the visuals, I probably wouldn't have a problem with it, or at least not as much of one. It's that many are heralding it as one of the best films of 2009 (and some are even saying one of the best films ever), when it's just not.

So basically, I'm okay with people being entertained by the film. I just strongly disagree with remarks about its overall quality.

[Kilt Knight]

I loved that they didn't abuse the 3D and put in lame ass gags
I don't remember one part of the movie where something really poked out of the screen at you
and I respect them for that

I used to hate 3D movies but after this one I can't wait for something amazing to come out with the same visuals

[darkhen]

I saw this at the IMax in 3d. The problem is I spend so much time trying to actually figure out a major difference between 3d and Not 3d that I keep Sliding my glasses on and off. Also, there was no True 3d'ness Like I wanted some Spears coming out at the audience, I wanted blood spurting out of the screen etc, there was none/little of this im afraid.

Also, If the Titanic had a budget of 1 bijillion dollars and had blue people attacking the ship instead of blue ice then it would have been hailed best movie evrar.

I agree however that the Story, Plot, characters were infact very 1 dimensional. The script was pretty much "Oh no, there are blue people. What shall we do! We shall fire missiles at them!"

Edited by darkhen, 09 January 2010 - 10:44 PM.

[way2lazy2care]

I agree however that the Story, Plot, characters were infact very 1 dimensional. The script was pretty much "Oh no, there are blue people. What shall we do! We shall fire missiles at them!"

It was more like "Blue people are on shit we can sell for millions. What shall we do! We shall fire missiles at them!"

[darkhen]

No doubt Cameron was sitting in a big chair thinking "GUYZ IV FIGURED OUT HOW TO STRIKE UP EMOTION IN AUDIENCES. WE WILL KILL THE INDIGENOUS POPULATION."

[.zero]

I loved this movie 9.5/10 stars, 0.5 stars get taken away because the story has been done heaps of times before, but holy shit, I want to be a Na'vi.

[eedok]

after they quit introducing creators I got bored of the movie fast

didn't help the movie was far too long, the only character that I even found remotely interesting was Trudy, but then they went and gave her barely any time in the movie, then killed her off

It's also near impossible to take Joel Moore seriously after Grandma's Boy

[Xayun]

It's also near impossible to take Joel Moore seriously after Grandma's Boy

Fuck, I know, the entire time I was expecting a nice big 3D "adios, turdnuggets"

[Plasmic Fury]

didn't help the movie was far too long, the only character that I even found remotely interesting was Trudy, but then they went and gave her barely any time in the movie, then killed her off

You liked Trudy?


.......

no comment

[eedok]

She's the only dynamic character in the entire movie, the only one. She's also the only character that seems to have any sense in the entirety of the movie, like maybe you should have a strategy when you're outgunned, but it's okay it doesn't matter because these awesome plot holes will do fine in taking back our planet.

Also you gave Avatar 4/5 so lol

I went hoping to experience something different in a movie, something that would separate this movie from its kind - like Star Wars did back in 1977. I had high expectations and hype going into the movie, and I’m glad to say I left having those expectations met.

SUPER LOL. Avatar isn't even 1/10 what Star Wars was

Edited by eedok, 27 January 2010 - 01:59 PM.

[Plasmic Fury]

She's the only dynamic character in the entire movie, the only one. She's also the only character that seems to have any sense in the entirety of the movie, like maybe you should have a strategy when you're outgunned, but it's okay it doesn't matter because these awesome plot holes will do fine in taking back our planet.

Also you gave Avatar 4/5 so lol


SUPER LOL. Avatar isn't even 1/10 what Star Wars was

I had high expectations, and I had them met. I really enjoyed Avatar.

Was never comparing Avatar to Star Wars in terms of how good each movie was, but more in terms of how cinema has changed and to expect something completely new and different - and for me, Avatar in 3D was what made it a new experience.

I can see mine and your opinions are opposite, but there is no need to bash my score, Lots of people would agree with it.

Edited by Plasmic Fury, 27 January 2010 - 02:27 PM.

[eedok]

Had you seen other movies in 3D(TBH the only other movie I saw in 3D was Coraline) the whole 3D aspect of the movie is nothing new, Avatar just didn't get gimmicky with it

The issue with Avatar isn't that it's a reused story, it was just done really really poorly

Take the Departed, it's a remake so the movie is 100% unoriginal storywise, but it's done so well that it doesn't matter

Edited by eedok, 27 January 2010 - 02:47 PM.

[Plasmic Fury]

Had you seen other movies in 3D(TBH the only other movie I saw in 3D was Coraline) the whole 3D aspect of the movie is nothing new, Avatar just didn't get gimmicky with it

The issue with Avatar isn't that it's a reused story, it was just done really really poorly

Take the Departed, it's a remake so the movie is 100% unoriginal storywise, but it's done so well that it doesn't matter

Never seen 3D before. I liked it with Avatar.

I disagree with how you said the story was done poorly, even though it was basic and overused I still enjoyed it. But like I said in the review if it was made better the movie would've in turn been better..

[g_pwnage]

TL;DR
Avatar is a horrible movie. The visuals weren't all that impressive. Can't believe I watched this crap. Also 3D is just horrible in ANY film, makes the screen too dark and who the hell wears glasses to watch a movie. C'mon.

[crazymike]

Sorta Long; Did Read

If you're into comedies and furrys, you will like Avatar. There is simulated sex between a man and a blue cat person, a precious material named "unobtainium", and hippie blue people holding hands around glowing trees.

The guys at Redlettermedia tore Avatar and James Cameron a new one in their review. They're hilarious and very clever:

[oldSkool]

The guys at Redlettermedia tore Avatar and James Cameron a new one in their review. They're hilarious and very clever:

Classic!