Adventure Game Studio

Last night movies changed forever for me.  I saw Avatar.  James Cameron may not have made a movie since Titanic but a 12 year gap had no effect on the man's movie-making talents.  I dare say he's better than ever.  This movie is fantastic.

I want to start with the 3D technology before getting into the movie itself.  The first few previews were traditional (non-3D) and then the screen said "Please put on your 3D glasses now".  Now... I have been reading about the 3D tech for Avatar for years and was really anticipating seeing what it had to offer.  The next two previews were in 3D and I must admit, I was very underwhelmed and disappointed. 

Then Avatar began...

The previews were, I'm guessing, "dumbed" down a bit because it wasn't thrilling.  But the 3D in the actual feature was mind-blowing.  This new 3D technology cannot be adequately explained in words.  You have to have your ass in the seat with those [dorky] glasses on to truly appreciate it.  James Cameron has (in typical James Cameron fashion) truly revolutionized the industry.  This is the new way to make movies.  I can honestly say that I will put on those glasses for every movie I see if they look/feel like this!  I will admit that when there was a lot of camera motion coupled with fast action on the screen the 3D gets a little lost, but if the camera motion was more steady, and the action on the screen mid to slow it was simply amazing.  There was a part, in the Pandora jungle, where there were bugs flying around.  The focus was not on the bugs, they were just adding to the immersion.  I actually, entirely sub-consciously, swatted at one of the bugs in my peripheral vision.  I then promptly realized what I had done and looked around to see if anybody had noticed, and saw 4 other people swatting at nothing.

It's that good.

Now I want to talk about the CGI.  James Cameron said he had written this script in 1995, but knew back then the tech wasn't available to allow him to make this movie and he wanted to wait until it was.  Well ... he waited long enough.  The CGI has finally reached a point (and this is truly the first time I can say this) that I was unable to distinguish the live-action and the CG.  It was so seamlessly integrated.  Being a technophile I spent a good portion of my time in the seat studying the special effects that I probably missed out on the great story (more on that in a bit).  There is a scene where Jake Sully and Ney'tiri have a kiss ... this CG was simply, mind-blowingly, amazing.  Most of the movie-goers probably just thought it was a kiss.  But the CG characters; their lips, teeth, eyes, cheeks ... it was almost not CG. 

It's that good.

Now ... the movie.  Almost three hours in length (and I could tell he had far more material that was removed to get the movie under 3 hours; perhaps he learned his lesson with Titanic) you don't notice the length.  Now, I have to admit, I'm still in a bit of awe of the over-all experience so eventually I might find some things to complain about (as I always do with most movies) but at this point.  I'm in love.

Sam Worthington is Jake Sully, the lead.  Sam, at this point, would be a virtually unknown actor had it not been for his role in Terminator: Salvation (which was shot long after Avatar's production; meaning Jim picked Sam before seeing him in Terminator).  I was nervous about him in the lead role as I just wasn't sure he had the chops to carry the film.  I was wrong.  He has the chops.  I felt the same thing about Leonardo DiCaprio when learning he was cast as the lead in Titanic. I knew the kid had talent (Gilbert Grape) but wasn't sure he could carry a lead.  James Cameron proved, again, that he knows what he's doing and I wouldn't be surprised if Sam's career sky-rockets (his next role as Persius in the retelling of Clash of the Titans) after this role. 

Having said that; Zoe Saldana, as Ney'tiri was incredible.  I had a crush on her because of her role as Uhura in the new Star Trek.  I am now in love with her.  Now, normally, this wouldn't be much cause for surprise from an actress in a lead role in a movie.  The reason it's remarkable (and surprising to me) is because Zoe Saldana is not in this movie.  Her Avatar is.  Totally motion-capped and computer animated.  It was outstanding.  She breathed so much life into the character.  This was the first time that I actually had an emotional connection to non-real characters on the screen.  I wasn't sure it was possible with CG human characters ... but this was CG aliens and still, the performances coupled with the technology ... it's hard to describe, but I was involved.  I thought this connection and emotional involvement with CG was impossible.  I was wrong.

I want to make a prediction here; I'm going to predict that Ms. Saldana will be nominated for an Oscar (yes, an Oscar) for this role.  And I dare say, she deserves it.

Plot Spoilers Ahead...

The movie was paced perfectly.  Three precisely sectioned acts seamlessly sewn together.  Now I will say that it bordered on being a little preachy at parts (but wasn't, just came close) about environmental issues ("their world is green, ours is no longer") but it works perfectly in the context of the film.  Jake's conversion to the Na'vi way of life and his eventual betrayal of his own people is done so perfectly that you don't realize until you're sitting around later talking about it that you supported his decision to fight the humans.  It's done that well.  You want him to fight them (granted the humans aren't painted in an appealing light, they are painted as corporate greedy pigs and military tyrants but still).  This goes back to my comment about how the CG characters have reached a point where you get involved with them.

The world of Pandora is breath-taking.  There was no part of it that made me think, "stupid CG backdrops" (and I am very picky about such things).  There is almost nothing on Pandora that looks like earth.  It's a bio-luminescent planet that is so full and realized in a way that has never been equaled in sci-fi before.  James Cameron has not set the bar, he has shattered it.  This movie will change Hollywood.

The battle sequences are simply amazing.  I have said for years that James Cameron has an amazing ability to put together action sequences that are so perfectly constructed that you don't get lost in them but lose none of the intensity.  Hacks like Michael Bay rely on large explosions and hectic camera moves to confuse you into a sense of action but you're most often left with that, "what just happened" feeling.  Cameron delivers all that intensity, but you don't wonder what just happened, you are part of the action.

I posted it on my facebook (so some of you have read it) but, as the title of the this thread suggests, I want to personally thank James Cameron.  It is movies like this that make me realize why I love movies.  It's story-telling at it's best, production at it's best, design at it's best, acting at it's best, pushing technology at it's best... it is, in short, what movie-making should be about.

It's that good.

Thank you, Mr. Cameron, for reminding me that magic does still exist.

I'm taking my father to Avatar in IMAX 3D tonight.  Can't wait!

People seem to love to hate Titanic but I love it. Apart from Piranha II: The Spawning, he hasn't made a bad movie (and that he had to take over half way through). Going to see Avatar tomorrow. :)

Now I'm really looking forward to that movie *even more*.

I agree 100% with Darth and only wish to comment that I was immensly annoyed by the music (James Horner :(). Music was awful, repetative to a great point, and was 'just working with a film', only because one shouldn't want anything more.

The rest of the movie was simply PERFECT! A stunning movie!

The latest 3D movie I saw was Up. I was not impressed.
I think this whole 3D rage is just a hype to lure people into the theatres instead of downloading it from pirate bay buying the DVD release.
From what I've seen the movie looks like that chase scene from the latest Indie 4, so Avatar better have some suprizing and deep story if it want to leave an awe impression on me.
Does it?

I'd like to preface this by saying: I really liked Avatar! It's a 5/5 from me! Excellent movie!

That said, it's not the revolution it was hyped up to be. This is the third 3D movie I have seen (and the only one at the Imax) and I am completely underwhelmed by 3D technology. I think it is unnecessary and adds nothing to the experience - there is never a point where I thought "that's pretty" specifically because of the 3D element (with the possible exception of some of the transparent screen thingys in the control rooms.*)

That's not to say it wasn't a beautiful film! The environments and characters were gorgeously rendered and expertly "shot", it's constantly a visual treat, especially during action sequences.

The animator in me had a couple of issues. 98% of the time, the characters were perfect, they way they moved was natural. But there were a couple of points (one that stood out was when Jake's avatar first runs through the camp) where I wasn't convinced - the characters moved in a way that looked like what an animator had been taught humans moved like, rather than a natural thing. It's a common thing I notice these days, when characters move in a very textbook way and look a bit too perfect, it's jarring and unnatural. Like I said, it's a very rare occurance, and this movie is a huge leap forward in that respect, but to be convincing you have to convince 100% of the time.

In some ways it seems redundant talking about the film on normal terms - any focus is on the technological aspect - but the acting and direction in "regular film" terms are excellent. The plot is predictable, but not in a bad way - it's clear early on what issues will be explored, and for the most part how, but that's okay. It's not the story, it's how it's told, and it is told very well. I was worried it would feel long and have a drawn out battle scene near the end, but as Darth says it's paced very well.

On the whole: recommended!

* sidenote - when are we actually going to get those transparent screen things where you move stuff by hand to smaller handheld screens. Hollywood has been teasing us with them for years! Get it sorted, technology.

I have to agree, the 3D-effects were amazing and the CGI was great (as in I had to realize those were not people running around). And I say this a CGI hater, I hated the new Star Wars trilogy merely for the crappy effects, Indy 4 was nice but the CG: lame etc etc. This was awesome. The forest scenes at the beginning were just awesome, I was actually smiling all of the time (the last time that happened was Kill Bill). I even suffered through German dubbing (you have to drive quite a long way to find a cinema which has both 3D AND original language...).

And while the story was kinda straight and with absolutely no single surprise it was well fitting and not dumbed down. They actually kill people without anyone telling the audience that that's not the right thing to do (like in Transformers - okay movie, but the Autobots telling they won't harm any human - urgh!).

But while 3D was great and sometimes even awesome, I don't need it in each and every movie. I still hate 3D for delaying the new Joss Whedon movie A WHOLE YEAR (it was not shot in 3D but now they think it would make more money if they post-processed it to 3D. lame).

Oh oh oh I just remembered the worst thing about Avatar: The Papyrus.

I liked it a lot. Sure, the story is predictable, but it's told very well and it doesn't try to force a message-of-the-day down your throat. The whole thing progresses very smoothly, and there are no filler scenes or unnecessary humor.

They also made a video game about the movie.

I believe it is on the Xbox360 and PS3, if you are interested Darth.

Just wanted to let you know,

Shawn

Yes, there is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rge9Z0JMNJI

Now I haven't watched it but read and heard about it but this rant is very much intiated by this movie.

I heard that the story is the same as Dances with wolves and then a friend described the movie and I have to agree with that. For a story that was announced to be so epic and not being able to be made with the old technology and bla bla bla...this all sounds (and even you were talking mostly about it) like it's another movie where the main thing is 3d and animations and the story and the characters are just some old recycled stuff (note: I think Dances with wolves is a godd movie, although not my kind of genre, but copying the plot almost exactly doesn't make the story better).

Maybe he should've waited with Terminator 2 or Abyss...no you say? Why not? Because they're great movies and they have great and original plot and the effects should not be a selling point they should add to the immersiveness and not so the whole movie is based around it, does a CGI background need floating mountains to tell an interesting story?!

Probably gonna watch it for the 3d but I'm not going overly enthusiastic.

It's true, the story is nothing new. Still, it's interesting to see it done in a different way. I watched the movie yesterday (not the 3D version) and came away feeling very much satisfied with the whole thing. I was much less impressed with the CGI than Darth was, but it was good enough for the audience to get immersed easily.

It's a familiar story but retold in a new way for a generation brought up on Final Fantasy and Halo. I think the best part of the movie was the attention to detail. I was especially impressed with how they managed to make Jake Sully's legs look withered.

Some parts were cheesy, yes, but I see this movie as targeted not only at adults but kids as well, unlike Terminator and Titanic which were not exactly kid-friendly shows.

The story is just another DUNE. But the movie is amazing... :) I have seen it in 2-d, and I am thinking in watching it 3-D. I really loved it. *Nacho runs to buy the videogame.

Vince, SSH and Ghost - please let me know what you think/thought of the movie!

Nic - really??  I love James Horner's music.  Granted I'm no expert on music but one of my favorite things about movie music is if it sets the mood, but you almost don't hear it.  And Horner does that for me.  One of my favorite of his scores was from a oft-forgotten movie called Deep Impact.

Jet - the story isn't too original, but it's still a great (enjoyable) story!

I would say the story has similarities to Dances with Wolves but it's not "the same" as it or "copy" it.  This argument has always bothered me a bit as all [good] stories follow a similar vein (not going to go into it).  I don't think similarities to another great story take away from this movie though.

Quote from: anian on Mon 21/12/2009 01:55:12Maybe he should've waited with Terminator 2 or Abyss...no you say? Why not? Because they're great movies and they have great and original plot and the effects should not be a selling point they should add to the immersiveness and not so the whole movie is based around it, does a CGI background need floating mountains to tell an interesting story?!

Terminator 2 was basically a recycling of the plot of The Terminator with a few twists thrown in (and some new technology).  Not exactly "original" there.  The Abyss has original elements but is still a recycling of an age-old story telling method.  He waited to make Avatar] until technology caught up to his vision.  I applaud his willingness to wait.

I would be curious to hear your thoughts on the movie after seeing it though!

VWG - I'm a little surprised to hear your thoughts on the tech!  I was blown away by it.  I read somewhere that some people have ... something ... about their eyes that keep this 3D technology from working for their vision.  They don't have bad eye sight or anything it's just some kind of thing with their eyes where the 3D illusion isn't maintained.  Perhaps this is the case because I was blown away!

Shawn - I had heard about the game but deliberately ignored it 'cause I wanted to avoid spoilers!  I intend to check it out but I don't like buying things for myself around Christmas time :)  Thanks for the heads-up!

Nacho - go see it in 3D.  You will not be disappointed!

I'm going to go see it again on Thursday.

Peace out.

I liked it. Some of the 3d worked better than the rest, and yes, I did half swipe at something before realising it was just 3d magic.

Oh yes, this was my first 3d movie, the only other thing I've really seen is the Terminator 'ride' at Universal Studios.

I couldn't decide if I watch Avatar or not, because I asked 20 people and they had 20 different opinions, mostly bad...but none of those people is related to graphics in any way.
I still can't decide, but I notice that people who say bad things about avatar are mostly the amaters of teh classic cinema, with flesh and all.

I guess I'm going to see it around Christmas.

Short ass post: I really fricking liked it.

Long ass post with potential spoilers: The imagery is rich and lush and beautiful.  The world (moon?) of Pandora was as real as any alien planet has ever been.  It feels like a real place, populated with real people and with the 3d, you really do feel like you're there.

I have seen one other movie in 3d, Coraline, and I thought it was used to great effect there, but in Avatar, it's a whole new level of immersion.  The bugs that Darth mentioned really do feel like they're buzzing around your head.  It feels like the leaves of the jungle should be brushing against your face as the camera moves through the jungle.  In fact, it's so impressive that it actually feels like it's breaking immersion when the leaves don't brush your cheeks!

Another effect that just blew me away and was super subtle: looking through windows.  There were lots of shots through windows looking out onto Pandora, or through canopies of helicopters or big mechas and the glass would have finger (or whatever) smudges on it.  And they just made it feel like the glass was right there in front of you.  It felt like you could move your head slightly to see the details slightly obscured by these smudges.  Pretty cool.

I saw it on an IMAX screen and it was pretty nuts.  The screen takes up almost your entire peripheral vision, so there's nothing between you and the bad guy breathing down your neck!  I actually felt the same sense of vertigo that the character on screen does at one point (in the director-intended way, not in the 3d-makes-you-nauseous way) when the character runs out onto a log and sees the beautiful world all around below him.  The character gets dizzy for a second and you feel it.  I thought for a sec that I was slipping over the edge off the log and moved a foot to catch myself.

And the CG is fantastic.  As has been said, the aliens look amazingly life like.  You do forget that you're watching a character made up of polygons.  The Na'vi become real to you.  Especially Uhura, who is gorgeous and finely acted to boot.  The other alien animals are similarly believable and life-like.

As for the story, yeah, it's essentially Dances With Wolves/Pocahontas, but it's told in such a way that it feels fresh.  (And isn't that how story telling works?  Aren't there only really nine stories told again and again?)  Moreover, Cameron does a great job at making you deeply care for the characters, and not just the characters, the entire civilization he has built.  When you see the bad humans mercilessly crushing the poor innocent Na'vi, you feel gutted.  And you really do worry about the characters making it through this.

And more importantly, it's fun.  It's fun to watch the coming of age tests as Sully becomes a Na'vi man.  It's fun to watch the big battle and action scenes.  And it's even fun to learn how the different flora and fauna of Pandora work together.  The ending is very cool, and I'm looking forward to the inevitable sequels that Cameron is already planning (and promising won't take so long to make).


On the 3D, though, I was getting a bit of a headache throughout the whole movie.  I didn't have a problem with Coraline, so I suspect it was because I watched this in IMAX.  Here's my big problem with 3D movies:

When you look around in real life, you focus your eyes on whatever you're looking on without even thinking about it.  Anything substantially closer or further away than what you're focused on becomes blurred in your peripheral vision.

When a director makes a movie, he choses what to focus on and what will remain blurred in the foreground/background.  Your eyes don't mind because they only have to focus on the screen and don't have to change focus.

But when you watch a movie in 3D, your eyes think they can focus on the different things at different depths (and you can!  Changing the focal distance of your eyes brings certain parts of the stereoscopic image into line.)  however, even if you do that, the part of the image that you're focusing on may not be in focus because the director may be focused on something else.  So if you try to focus on, say, a background piece of jungle (which is hard not to do, since you want to soak up all the details of this world) you wind up just focusing a blurred image, which makes your eyes think that they're still not focused even though they are.

And you couple that with the movie changing between a closeup of a characters face and a wide shot of some action, your eyes no longer have to just move across the screen to look at the portion of the image that the director has focused on like in a regular 2D movie, you have to also find the right focal distance for your eyes to view the new scene.  And it could change each time there's a cut between shots.  It takes a while to adjust to, and then gets tiring and gave me a bit of a headache.  (Though again, it may not have been such a problem on a non-imax screen)

Luckily the film was so enjoyable it distracted me from the slight throbbing beneath my right eye.

All in all, I can't wait to see this movie again, and I'm really sad that it will be very unlikely that I'll find the time to get out to see in in a theater again because it really is a film that should be seen in the theater.  So, instead, I need to save my money for a sweet HDTV and bluray player!  'Cause damn!

Fine film.  Loved it.  Would recommend.

Quote from: Nikolas on Sun 20/12/2009 16:10:59
I agree 100% with Darth and only wish to comment that I was immensly annoyed by the music (James Horner :(). Music was awful, repetative to a great point, and was 'just working with a film', only because one shouldn't want anything more.

The rest of the movie was simply PERFECT! A stunning movie!

I agree! And what was with the music during the credits?!

Oh yeah, music.  It didn't stand out to me as good or bad.  I hardly remember there being music at all, actually (which I suppose could be good or bad, again).

Quote from: Vince Twelve on Mon 21/12/2009 20:04:03Oh yeah, music.  It didn't stand out to me as good or bad.  I hardly remember there being music at all, actually (which I suppose could be good or bad, again).

I actually consider it a good thing when I don't remember the music but, rather, remember emotional involvement with the movie!  To me, that is what music (in a movie) should do!

Quote from: Vince Twelve on Mon 21/12/2009 18:37:51Another effect that just blew me away and was super subtle: looking through windows.  There were lots of shots through windows looking out onto Pandora, or through canopies of helicopters or big mechas and the glass would have finger (or whatever) smudges on it.  And they just made it feel like the glass was right there in front of you.  It felt like you could move your head slightly to see the details slightly obscured by these smudges.  Pretty cool.

YES!!  This was, by far, my favorite part of the 3D experience!  It created so much depth that I actually got the feeling of being IN the scene.  Nothing has ever come so close before to such sensory stimulation as that.  The scene SPOILER where Jake (riding the dragon thing) threw the one helicopter into the other and it was the cock-pit view of the one about to be struck and you could see the thing coming I actually flinched back in my seat anticipating the impact!  It was amazing!  My heartbeat was actually accelerated!  Most excellent indeed!

Quote from: Vince Twelve on Mon 21/12/2009 18:37:51On the 3D, though, I was getting a bit of a headache throughout the whole movie.  I didn't have a problem with Coraline, so I suspect it was because I watched this in IMAX.  Here's my big problem with 3D movies:
...
But when you watch a movie in 3D, your eyes think they can focus on the different things at different depths (and you can!  Changing the focal distance of your eyes brings certain parts of the stereoscopic image into line.)  however, even if you do that, the part of the image that you're focusing on may not be in focus because the director may be focused on something else.  So if you try to focus on, say, a background piece of jungle (which is hard not to do, since you want to soak up all the details of this world) you wind up just focusing a blurred image, which makes your eyes think that they're still not focused even though they are.

I too had this problem (not in IMAX either).  I was getting a bit of eye strain.

My brother and I discussed this on the way home and had very similar ideas as to what you expressed here.  You almost have to stop watching the movie in the way you used to (where your eyes could wander and take it all in)  You just need to watch the focal point the director wants you to watch.  While this is somewhat limiting I do not mind it so much in trade-off for the overall immersion experience.  I found, about 1/2 way through the movie, that if I just relaxed my eyes and let them follow the focal point my eye strain went away.  But my curiosity always gets the best of me and I needed to keep looking around (in a movie other than this with the AMAZING level of detail it'd probably be far less an issue, but I needed to check out Pandora).  That and I was constantly trying to see if the female Na'vi actually had nipples :P

I would wager, as this is really the first movie with this technology, that eventually it'll be tweaked to allow for those of us who like to let our eyes roam to take in the entire screen rather than just the focal point.

Personally, I cannot wait to see how this evolves!

The scenery and immersion in this movie was extremely well done. The plot was ok, it was just a backdrop to the scenery. The characters were cookie cutter, but there were very good moments where Cameron was able to get an emotional response out of me. Regardless, the three hours went by quickly.

I went with the iMAX 3d experience, and didn't have any probems with my vision or eye aches. I'll still have to wait to and see how well it translates on my 32 inch television.

The action scenes were intense and wonderful to watch. The plot, as mentioned, was ok, but it was told well, and it wasn't told in a Hollywood one-liner saturated way that most of these big budget films are prone to overuse. I'd highly recommend going to see this in 3d.

Spoiler

My one real complaint, is that it started out as a science fiction movie and turned into a fantasy movie. The forest backdrop didn't make it fantasy, however, floating mountains? His ability to be absorbed and actually become one of the aliens?

That's not to say fantasy is bad, but I started with the belief that this could be a real world somewhere in the future and ended with the belief that it was pure fiction/fantasy.

[close]

Mill: I usually complain about such things and found 2012 to be so outrageous that 'Aramgedon' seemed a documentary compared to that! 2012 was filled with moronic scenes!

Avatar didn't bother me one bit, and I wasn't even thinking "oh... these mountains float", or why, or how... It was the first time for me that I wasn't asking questions really...

BTW, 3-d didn't work THAT well with me. I didn't try to dodge anything, didn't feel so amazing. I would be curious to see it in 2-d just for the shake of comparison...

Totally amaizing movie! Liked it a LOT! super graphics and 3d effects!

I just bought the videogame... Where can I get 3-d glasses???

Quote from: Nacho on Tue 22/12/2009 13:13:03
I just bought the videogame... Where can I get 3-d glasses???

You need an LED TV iirc and there are lots of different types of 3D glasses (red-blue,red-green,colorless tinted etc)

I came very close to walking out of the theater with 2012.  Right at the beginning, "The nutrinos are heating the earth's core!".  The neutrinos?  Seriously?  That's the best you could come up with? It was just downhill from there but the visuals were pleasing, so I soldiered through it.

I hate to say it, 'cause he's made some movies I love (Stargate, The Patriot) but I think Emmerich has lost his touch.

SPOILERS AHEAD

Mills - interesting perspective... I remember just thinking how cool the floating rocks looked and how they sort of just "fit" on Pandora (they mentioned lower gravity and strange minerals so I just accepted it as part of that).  I did get the mythical/fantasy feeling at the end when the "goddess" transferred Jake into the avatar and let his human body die but it didn't bother me at all as the movie, up to that point, had been sort of hammering home that Pandora (and by extension the na'vi) was not like Earth and humans and that the entire planet was "connected".  It started off with a very technological tone (act I) showing the colonization of Pandora and the greedy humans and their toys, then shifted seamlessly into a [gloriously non-offensive] treehugger mode (act II) as Jake fell in love with Pandora and The People and then ended on a spiritual/fate tone (act III) after many explosions of course!

I don't know, for me it just worked on all levels :)

Nacho - I can't wait to play video games with this style of 3D.  I think some game companies are going to get sued when some idiots try to duck under something coming at them and get concussions from bangin' their heads on their keyboards :)

I sense an AGS plug in for this 3D stuff  :)  Get working all you module builders out there!!

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Tue 22/12/2009 14:29:46
I came very close to walking out of the theater with 2012.  Right at the beginning, "The nutrinos are heating the earth's core!".  The neutrinos?  Seriously?  That's the best you could come up with? It was just downhill from there but the visuals were pleasing, so I soldiered through it.

I didn't mind the initial premise (the world is coming to an end because some kind of neutrinos BS are... blah blah.

SPOILERS but who cares about such a bad movie?

But I did mind the repeated 'escape' from scratch just secs before the rest of the world go boom. The buildings cut in half, but yes, lights were still on. The underwater scenes that seemd to last forever. The gigantic huge machine, build years in advance, yes cannot work because a MF decided to stop one gear... The tidal wave of 1 km high, overpassing Everest. The monks praying outside in mount Everest (or close by anyways) and drinking tea! The sad loss of the Russian gal, which was just 'forgotten' from the movie producers (nobody seemd to give a shit that she died). Poor plastic surgeon dies and secs later the wife is back with the writer!

@Chicky: Thanks... I have the TV, now I just need the glasses :)

@Darth: I walked out the cinema with last DeNiro's... Which is the English name? "Something happens in Hollywood" or something like that... Terrible...

Jess and I just saw it tonight. It's interesting to read other people's feelings of the movie but I'm starting to feel like the only person who was completely bored of the movie.

I don't write this to try and shit on anyone's parade because I hate when people enter a conversation "I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU LIKED THAT!! IT WAS HORRIBLE!" and I don't mean to sound like that. People are writing their feelings on the movie and these are mine.

It wasn't a bad movie. VanHelsing was a bad movie, the final 2 Matrix movies were bad in my opinion. This was just middle of the road. It was Ferngully only they were big instead of small! I kid I kid   If this movie changes Hollywood I guess people will just stop writing harder. I kid I kid... If this movie changes Hollywood I hope I get to watch a 3d pretend nature documentary set on a distant planet with a robot Attenborough telling about it. That I am serious about!

I see you... Put on some pants!

QuoteI hope I get to watch a 3d pretend nature documentary set on a distant planet with a robot Attenborough telling about it

For some reason I imagine The Attenbot 2000 looking strikingly like Tik-Tok from Return to Oz:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycaWhlHbhrg

complete with the dashing moustache.

Just watched the movie
I liked the movie but didn't think it was "The movie"
But it's a good movie

I didnt watch in 3D, but I guess for me the 3D stuff don't surprise me.
The CG characters animation and some expression were really great

Spoiler

I think that should be more blood there and they should have killed everyone in the american base in the end, it was a war. It would add more realistic feel to the movie.

[close]

o/

Don't worry, Eric... :I I Felt bored by it at certain moments, but I enjoyed it, overally... :)

If you've seen the movie, I'm sure you'll enjoy this:
http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/bum-reviews/15043-ep036 (http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/bum-reviews/15043-ep036)

I haven't seen it yet so I don't have an opinion.

Saw it today (3D IMAX)...was slightly sceptical beforehand (I tend to be that with over-hyped movies), and felt empty afterwards (and not in a good way).

I'm glad so many of you people liked it, because I have to completely disagree. At some point during the final battle all I could think was: I wish it's over. And to be honest, I think that's about the biggest insult you can give a director.

The 3D felt very 3D to me (I was not immersed into the world at any time); it always felt like I was watching a computer game rather than a movie. The world had a lot of plants, but at the same time felt very empty (unless if you count flies, because flies (particularly those giving light) were everywhere).

The story was predictable (including who was to die and who was to survive), and - in my opinion - badly paced (as I said, during the grand final battle I was bored (there was really no thrill for me (no, it's not Michael Mann, but it's not interesting either)) and I wished it would all be over already). Of course it's difficult to pace a story well if you predict everything way way before it happens...and I knew just about nothing about the story going in.

As for the 3D (glasses) vs 2D...3D was a waste, I think (I of course base this only on the 3D experience, since I really don't want to watch this movie again). There was little to no use of the extra dimension except several shots where the director put stuff (like hands) uselessly in front of the view. Of course I realise that I base my comment solely on the 3D (IMAX) version, so maybe the 3D was used that well that I just didn't realize it...except when Cameron missed the mark...that's certainly possible (although I would find it unlikely).

In short, I don't think this movie has revolutionized movies, and I certainly hope this won't be the future. I know it does well, and I know Cameron wants to make a trilogy, but I really have no desire to visit this world again. Simply because I did not find it captivating.



Ps. I just saw it, so my sentiments regarding the disappointment with this movie may be bigger than they deserve (it's certainly not the worst movie I ever saw...the worst I've seen this year, but it's also the only one yet, so there aren't any contenders). But I'm exactly on the other end of the spectrum than Darth's initial post: it's just that not-good. Casting was good (except for Duke Nukem who looked and acted exactly as Duke Nukem), on the technical aspect there was a lot done right in this movie, and several environmental shots (that did not include animals or blue people) were nice. But it just wasn't good enough. There was no magic.

Pps. And now I'll end my rant. I know many people liked/loved this movie, and I hope I didn't spoil anyone's memory of it. While I may not want to visit this world again, I know many of you do.

I saw Avatar a couple of days ago and really loved it.  I felt the story was slightly generic sci-fi/fantasy fare, the premise of which was nothing special  But it was dealt with very well and I always felt immersed and involved.  The visuals were amazing, as I think the rest of the world has already worked out, so they don't need me to tell them.

I did have one tiny gripe.  The 3D was by far some of the best 3D I've ever seen, but rarely did anything actually seem to come right out in front of me.  In the adverts and trailers at the beginning, there was an advert for Sky, and the Sky logo came right out of the screen and was so close to my nose I felt I could have reached out and touched it.  Same thing with the Cadbury's advert.  But in the actual feature they rarely took advantage of this.  Certainly there was a long of 'depth', but there didn't seem to be a lot of what I'm going to call 'fronth'.  There was a bit, but I felt they should have exploitd that more.

Like I say, it's a tiny gripe...

Awesome film though, and I'm happy to be able to say that I've seen it.

Saw it.
Not good, not bad. I'd say "watchable".

Story was on the lame side - done hundreds of times (Dances with wolves, anyone?), some effects and props were really boring imo (like chopper/plane things and flying animals) but some were really good (tree shattering scene) and glowing forest/mushroom things at night.

3D-effect was... someplace (especially start) great, most of the time almost unnoticeable and few places downright annoying, like when ashes from tree rained down... It felt very much like it was placed there just to remind you that it's 3D and it irritated my eyes and senses instead of coming as awesome.
But I admit that at few moments, I raised my 3D glasses and though that it could be hi-quality 2D instead.

But what I do find genius about this movie is how it tries to push everyone's buttons, from green movement to anti-war to anti-colonization  to anti-genocide to anti-war-for-oil-stuff to heavy appeal from MMORPG players -- avatar cat-people race was almost exactly Khajiit from TES4:Oblivion, bow fight sequence reminded very much night elf scene from World of Warcraft intro, flying islands were straight outta Netstorm, etc. I none of the occurrences were intentional - it makes this movie very unoriginal.

I don't regret seeing this, but don't care much to see it again.
I would had definitely enjoy this more if it wasn't so dumbed down, military/mercs really felt/acted like one and natives too. All the simplicity felt a bit too childish and tale-like.

Bottom line - overhyped. It's no better or worse than most of the movies previous year.

Quote from: Stupot on Sun 03/01/2010 23:38:56I did have one tiny gripe.  The 3D was by far some of the best 3D I've ever seen, but rarely did anything actually seem to come right out in front of me.  In the adverts and trailers at the beginning, there was an advert for Sky, and the Sky logo came right out of the screen and was so close to my nose I felt I could have reached out and touched it.  Same thing with the Cadbury's advert.  But in the actual feature they rarely took advantage of this.  Certainly there was a long of 'depth', but there didn't seem to be a lot of what I'm going to call 'fronth'.  There was a bit, but I felt they should have exploitd that more.

I am actually glad the movie didn't do this!  I find the, "wow it's coming right at me!" to be over-done in past versions of 3D.  Sure it's neat, but I think it's more of a gimmick.  I don't think Cameron's intention was to make you recoil in your seat from objects flying in your face, but more to just immerse you in the experience.  To give it depth.  And he very much accomplished that.

I saw it in IMAX/3D.

If I tried to judge Avatar as a "film," taking into account entertainment, originality, plot and all that other nonsense, I probably wouldn't like it that much.

It was only when I was out of the theater several hours later did I realize I wasn't in Pandora anymore. For nearly 3 hours I was in that world, fully immersed, and part of its habitat. For that, I would say the film succeeded, not because of its plot, or characters, or anything else strictly related to film. Because to me, Avatar is not really a movie--it's an experience.

Just came back from the cinema, just regular 3D version.

I went in expecting uncanny valley. Sure they aren't human, but still, they were very humanoid. Only one or two slight little things made me realise I wasn't watching real blue tall people on a planet with funky plantlight plants.

Plot, standard extended hero's journey nonsense. Predictable, yes, but who cares, you feel better that you figured out who would die, who would survive, etc. Bad movies give you suprise endings without leaving any clues. Good movies kinda hint at it subtly and you congratulate yourself and feel better for being right. We do like to think we are clever after all.

And... I liked that they didn't use the 3D effect in an OTT way. It was nice and subtle. The way it should be.

Darth, pretty sure I did see blue nipples on the lady navi. What man wasn't trying to see if they could see that? :p

I thought the world of Pandora was very well done indeed. I wouldn't say it was empty, the 'life' wasn't just the animals that populated it, it was the plants as well. Also, adding in too many creatures to keep track of would have been distracting during the latter half of the film.

Increator, did you see the same film as me? The avatar people look nothing like the Khajiit from Oblivion. They kinda look somewhat similar to night elves from WoW, but still different.

Anyway, I enjoyed it, if you didn't, then hype probably got the better of you.

Quote
Increator, did you see the same film as me? The avatar people look nothing like the Khajiit from Oblivion. They kinda look somewhat similar to night elves from WoW, but still different.

Dunno, maybe we sense fantastical characters differently. Wide noses and cat eyes and human hair on something that shouldn't have human hair yelled khajiit at me. Didn't let myself to be distracted by blue skin though. Maybe that's where our viewpoints differ.

Also, what I actually thought most of the time during film was how awesome porn would be in 3d glasses & big screen  :P

Quote from: InCreator on Mon 04/01/2010 12:16:02Also, what I actually thought most of the time during film was how awesome porn would be in 3d glasses & big screen  :P

I feel you there, brother.

Quote from: Stupot on Mon 04/01/2010 12:20:03

Quote from: InCreator on Mon 04/01/2010 12:16:02Also, what I actually thought most of the time during film was how awesome porn would be in 3d glasses & big screen  :P

I feel you there, brother.

Nice choice of words.

I personally now want to play games with awesome 3d dork glasses and smash things on my desk while I swat at flies that are really just polygons.

Time to give back all christmas gifts and ask for money instead...

$598!

http://www.nvidia.com/object/GeForce_3D_Vision_buying_options.html
wannawannawanna

Quote from: Ben304 on Mon 04/01/2010 12:25:06I personally now want to play games with awesome 3d dork glasses and smash things on my desk while I swat at flies that are really just polygons.

My cousin had a videocard that came with these glasses back in 2000/2001; it was able to convert 3D games to actual 3D games. It was funny when you played Monkey Island 4 (which had just come out), because you could clearly see that the background was merely a flat backdrop (and the videocard was unable to make that 3D as you might expect) with 3D characters 'floating' around.

But other than that, he never really used it (of course he liked adventure games over shooters, so that was one of the reasons why it didn't complement his gaming).



EDIT: removed all the useless ranting about Avatar; because it's negativeness didn't do the movie justice either

Quote from: Misj' on Mon 04/01/2010 14:30:21removed all the useless ranting about Avatar; because it's negativeness didn't do the movie justice either

You needn't have removed it!  I enjoy reading all view-points (even if I totally disagree :))

Quote from: Layabout on Mon 04/01/2010 08:58:03And... I liked that they didn't use the 3D effect in an OTT way. It was nice and subtle. The way it should be.

Exactly!  It's not gimmicky or "hey look at this!"... it's just a new way to view movies. 

Quote from: Layabout on Mon 04/01/2010 08:58:03Darth, pretty sure I did see blue nipples on the lady navi. What man wasn't trying to see if they could see that? :p

Glad I wasn't the only one!!

I heard a rumor (but it was on the 'net so it must be true) that the sex scene was more ... graphic ... but was cut down to get a PG-13 rating, and that the director's cut blueray/dvd will have the unedited version.

I must admit to being curious as to how the na'vi bump uglies (if they actually bump ... or have uglies).

I went to this for a second time yesterday because my wife wanted to go.  We went to the IMAX 3D (her first IMAX trip, actually).

This time I didn't get a headache, so that was good.  I noticed actually that it was much easier on the eyes watching the fully CG scenes than it was the live action bits.  I don't know if it was because they could fine-tune it better when it was being created in a computer or what.

But my wife had to take off her glasses and close her eyes around the middle of the movie for a while because she was getting so nauseous.  She eventually recovered and enjoyed the second half more.  I don't know if she just took a while to adjust or what.  She also got a bad headache when we watched Coraline in 3D.  But I noticed she kept leaning her head over to the side propped up on her hand, which is not a good way to watch 3d, since it throws everything out of line if the glasses are not perfectly horizontal, but she says she was nauseous before she started doing that.  We concluded that it would be the last time she goes to a 3D movie, sadly.

Fun experiment: I turned my glasses upside down on my head for a while and it throws the 3D in reverse.  Things that are supposed to go to your left eye go to your right and things that are supposed to go to your right go left.  It makes some things that are supposed to be close look far and vice versa.

So, I still think that it's a fun film.  The CG is amazing and the world is engrossing.  I like the story despite it's familiarity and predictability.  All the details and effects blew me away.  I do think the movie is great, but I don't think that it has revolutionized movie making.

I certainly hope that we don't start seeing every film moving to 3d, like films moved from black and white to color.  There are still some big problems with the format, like the headache and nausea-causing issues I've discussed here and in my previous post in this thread.

And really, the heart of films are their stories and this film certainly didn't revolutionize story telling.

But it is a high-water mark for film special effects and the 3D presentation, and is an overall entertaining film that I would easily recommend to anyone.

And hey, it made a billion dollars already, so expect a sequel in a couple years!

Worst thing is that I couldn't see Aang anywhere in the whole movie
o/

Well, my opinion is that this was a weak movie. In fact this was the kind of old school Hollywood trash that I thought even Hollywood already outgrown a while ago.

The world of Pandora is just another generic CG world with little visual imagination. But I have to admit, while you're watching the film it certainly does make an impression of being a genuine, fully realized place - mostly based on the strength of the time you see it on screen and because truly no expenses have been spared on showing it in full detail.

The really bad part was the story though. Never before have I sat 2h 40' watching something based on such feeble screenplay, nonexistent plot and without a single sympathetic character (except maybe Weaver's scientist).

In my opinion Avatar was good, but it is way way too overhyped.

Story is so-so. Certainly ok for a Hollywood blockbuster, though overly familiar as others before me have noted. The 3D made a friend of mine nauseous, she had to keep her eyes closed for parts of the movie. The 3D thing was actually the part I was least impressed with. Yeah, some scenes were quite impressive, but I wouldn't say it improves the theatrical experience by a lot and in Avatar the 3D in my opinion wasn't even that much better compared to other movies that came before it. Mind you, I am talking about immersion here, not about things jumping out at me.

I would and will re-watch the movie, probably on DVD, but I wouldn't pay extra for 3D again. But then I am mostly immersed by good writing and characters anyway, so 3D is still a gimmick to me. Nice to watch from time to time, but nothing more. But I fear Hollywood will take Avatar as an excuse to produce more and more big 3D movies in the future. Which is ok as long as it is done subtly (like in Avatar for most of the time), but who are we kidding? More impressive than the 3D I think was the capturing of the emotions of the CGI Navi. Although I still kind of dislike their design, that part worked really well.

In summary I think Avatar is technically well done, but not much better than other special effect heavy blockbusters of the past. I liked it, but I certainly don't want every other movie in a few years to look like it. And i am already growing tired of 3D.

Quote from: Vince Twelve on Mon 04/01/2010 16:40:43
Fun experiment: I turned my glasses upside down on my head for a while and it throws the 3D in reverse.  Things that are supposed to go to your left eye go to your right and things that are supposed to go to your right go left.  It makes some things that are supposed to be close look far and vice versa.

This works with the old bog-standard Red-green/red-blue glasses, too.
I used to played about with this as a kid and used to draw my own 3D pictures (only basic stuff, like stick men and houses).
All you need is a red pen and a blue/green pen and you basically draw the image twice... the distance between the red pen and it's blue/green counterpart determines the depth of that part of the image.  And when there is no gap then that part of the image is neutral.  Frontness and backness depends on whether the red is to the left or the right of the blue/green, so based on that alone, it makes sense that turning your glasses upside down is going to reverse the depth of the 3D image.
One picture I was particularly proud of was a house... the basic kind all kids draw, 4 windows, a chimney with smoke coming out of it, and a door with a bendy garden path leading up to it (I guarantee everyone here has draen that picture at least once).  But I made the garden path look like it readlly was leading up to the house, and i drew stick fugures in the house that really looked like they were on the other side of the window.

Hooray for 3D!

Sorry to dig this up, but I wanted to share this:

(http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/epic-fail-avatar-plot-fail.jpg)

My god I was about to post the same thing!

You mean the story for Avatar was similar to another existing story?

No way?

I have those 3D glasses from Nvidia, left 4 dead is particularly good in 3D, I don't use them much but I do hope they release avatar in a 3D format when it's released on DVD. The only 3D films I've found for them are mostly on the tech page: http://www.nvidia.com/object/3D_Vision_3D_Movies.html but there are some b-list sort of movies I've noticed on various torrent sites, I haven't downloaded them but it might be worth ago

I've written in here before, I watched the damn thing last week and....it sucks.  If I were 10-12, I would probably be fascinated.

Yes, the effects are great, but did you expect anything less for the most expensive cgi movie (imagine if this movie didn't have that big of a budget, it wouldn't even make it into cinemas)?
3d, yes, it's ok (i'm not talking about pulling it off, I'm talking about what I got from it), but some scenes are just not exploited enough, for example a tail waves as they walk but instead of the tail going towards the audience it goes somewhere off camera. Things like that - good 3d effect scene, but ruined. Still it's ok, it's great how it all looks natural.
That's where it stopped, just everything about the quality, originality, dignity, creativity stopped. Films were made before 3d and cgi, great films. Seems now days as long as it has cgi it's ok. Technologoy has way passed the point where the story and other asspects can be ignored...or, alas, it seems people still like the glitter.

The plot is just so sad. Sad as in bad. Some movies have such a bad plot that it's funny or interesting cause it's so bad - Avatar doesn't even have that. Somebody said that this is a good movie cause you know what's gonna happen?! This would be a good script if it was a demo for the 3d technology, but not for something that actually boasted for it's originallity and perfection of script. The only character I liked was the colonel (or whatever rank it was), he  did a couple of smart things and thought about he's fighting. Everybody else is just copied. Even the catchphrase the pilot uses is so expected- things like "I didn't sign up for this $hit" - that really insults me as a human with some brain activity. You didn't join the army to follow orders, what the hell were you expecting, do you know your history woman?! Btw we don't know any history, humans are just BAD. They're BAD, except 4 humans which mostly spend their time as blue aliens....so yeah, humans bad, aliens good...great morals mr. Cameron.
Nobody had the idea to jump on the back of that red dragon/perodactyl thing...well I guess if you throw arrows at a great big metal thing that has almost nuclear missles on it, you're not that bright.
And don't say that aliens are any better than humans, cause they're not - they're full of prejudices, they hate people, they refuse to try to understand others ways - they're the same, but the movie didn't show that.
And the finale, oh, god, can you say DEUS EX MACHINA, you know when the ground crumbles at the end of the 3rd LOTR movie and all the army falls into nothingness...for no special reason. Do you know when Mel Gibson gives a great speech about freedom, do you know when a soldier comes to live with a tribe and finds their ways better and falls in love etc.
By the end I just got into a crazy giggle, cause I really couldn't believe

True, not everything has to be original, and true there is an art in putting ideas in one big cool story but you make it your own somehow...this is just copy pasted stuff on an already copy pasted material. My friend put it like this: this is a story that the four of us could've constructed but would've thrown it away cause we wouldn't believe anybody would watch it. And it makes me sad that some of you very creative people find this movie so fascinating.

Some article said people get depressed because they can't live on Pandora. Excuse me but 99% of plants and animals there want to eat you and kill you. They do not want you there, you can live there so you avoid them but they will freakin' eat you when they can.


p.s. Thank you James Cameron for:
1. desensitizing the public and children by making it all look like a spectacle, who's gonna protect this planet, we don't have any plug and play trees around...
2. prooving that story is not important anymore as long as aliens look lifelike
3. for doing very little contribution to science and not saving the nature you so admire instead with that 200+ millions of investors and another billion of dollars people seem to have around, if this is what we award as a culture these days, then we're already doomed

Yeah, I've heard of this director, he made one of my favourite movies as a kid.

Piranah 2, the sequel to a movie no one asked. Who would have thought of that, Piranah's flying out of the water and attacking people.

Be interesting to go back to look at anyway. Just like peter jackson, did "bad taste" & "meet the feebles"


I haven't really watched tv for over a year, didn't even hear of avatar til just before xmas cause one of my mates saw it, still haven't even seen a preview of the movie. heard something about blue people, and 3d, and the story is basically every block buster movie combined with the iraq war. Cant be that exciting, oh and yeah, haven't really read this thread incase i do see it one day.

Quote from: Mr. Matti on Thu 21/01/2010 17:53:32
Sorry to dig this up, but I wanted to share this:

(http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/epic-fail-avatar-plot-fail.jpg)

What.. what?! A hollywood blockbuster followed the hero's journey! Oh noes!

Seriously, good luck getting money in hollywood without writing to that formula. They literally won't buy most scripts that don't follow the damned hero's journey.  Look it up, good theory for adventure game design.

Quote from: Chicky on Fri 22/01/2010 11:28:39What.. what?! A hollywood blockbuster followed the hero's journey! Oh noes!

Seriously, good luck getting money in hollywood without writing to that formula. They literally won't buy most scripts that don't follow the damned hero's journey.  Look it up, good theory for adventure game design.

There's a difference between a "hero's journey" and the same story but with aliens. This was like saying "try to ride this horse" and turning it into "fly this winged creature" -> now that principle applied to a whole story...soldier passes with a riffle to soldier passes by in a mech suit.
Oh, yeah, maybe the original part was sad ending -> happy ending by way of deus ex machina event (they couldn't even avoid the sad ending by any other way than making up something that is just thrown in there just for that).

Hero's journey is one of the main rules of 99% of stories (well except "art" pieces, but even those go with "know the rules so you can brake them" pattern). Especially with fantasy and similar settings. And it can be made into great or at least interesting stories.
Besides, the whole point of a story is usually a look into someones life but most of the time it shows how a person develops when faced with some change in their life -> hero's/protagonists' journey- it's a skeleton, maybe not original but works and we are used to them.

Cameron isn't the only one to do that mind you, most of those popular fantasy novels are basically politics and Roman society lookalike worlds which can't be helped cause we're all human etc.. But still those use the mold and ideas to transform them into something new, while Cameron just disguised them and in that wayso it doesn't change the story even the slightest. Just as an example Mad Max, LOTR, Fargo, Inglorious basterds, Casablanca are a hero's journey in some way or form, but I wouldn't say they're like Pocahontas.

Yeah.  I hate The Lion King because it's just Hamlet but with lions.

Quote from: Vince Twelve on Fri 22/01/2010 14:15:07
Yeah.  I hate The Lion King because it's just Hamlet but with lions.

Oh, come on. That's not what I said. And just to put it to the lowest level of difference - at least LK has musical numbers.  :P But you actually proved my point, cause what Cameron did is not Hamlet to Lion King, but something along Lion King to a Tiger King.

I wasn't responding to you.  I actually hate The Lion King.  You're so vain.

Quote from: Vince Twelve on Fri 22/01/2010 16:56:32
I wasn't responding to you.  I actually hate The Lion King.  You're so vain.

Sorry.

I'm totally joking, by the way, anian.  Even though I keep forgetting to add smileys to indicate it.

I'm just wondering where the line gets drawn between "derivative or" "same story but with aliens" and "inspired by" or "modern retelling"  How much do you have to change the story before it becomes worthy of being judged on it's own merits instead of put down flatly for having the same story structure.

There are just so many movies/books with this same "White man meets natives, white man joins natives, white man becomes the awesomest native ever" story.  Dune, Dances With Wolves, Pocahontas, The Last Samurai.  Pocahontas, which that fail image (which is admittedly hilarious) compares Avatar to, took more of its story from Dances With Wolves than from the true story of Pocahontas.

I'm not saying that Avatar is particularly original, mind.  I do think that it is way closer to the story and characters of Disney's Pocahontas than it should be and wish it had some kind of original plot that could surprise me (because this one didn't at any turn).  But it didn't stop me for enjoying the movie for the ride that it is, with good characters, effects, and action (in my opinion).

I think, bottom line, Cameron knows what story is going to resonate with the largest number of people and put the most butts in seats. (Titanic also was a derivative love story dropped into a great choice for a setting.)  And that's certainly working out for him.  I definitely enjoy smaller smarter films like Memento or Moon on average more than these big blockbusters, but sometimes you've got to take a break from all the steak and have some ice cream, right?

The movie was fantastic, although like lots of people have said already, the story was very unoriginal. Personally the humans should definitely have won instead of the Na'avi. Men with kick-ass guns and suits of armour against natives with magic trees and seahorse mounts?

The humans should destroy the natives, and their way of life completely; just like we would do if that situation was reality, with no mercy. The whole 'rising from the ashes' thing spoilt it for me, as it was too predictable.

Quote from: AtelierGames on Fri 22/01/2010 22:05:34
The humans should destroy the natives, and their way of life completely; just like we would do if that situation was reality, with no mercy. The whole 'rising from the ashes' thing spoilt it for me, as it was too predictable.

Seconded. For me it was the moment of nature fighting back after the Na'vi failed that really lost me. I think a bad ending would have lifted the movie to another level for me. Though it probably wouldn't be as successful and it'd be much harder to do sequels. But even as it is, its hard to believe the humans wouldn't be back before long and obliterate any resistence.

usually i enjoy most movies i watch, even bad ones, but this movie just lost me about a 3rd the way in (when native girl saves Sammy). for the last 2 hours of the movie i was rooting for the soldiers just to end it all.  ;D  and then there was that awkward blue monkey love scene.   :o
great cg, though i really didn't enjoy the movie at all.  :'(

Awkward blue monkey love scene (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/524391) you say? :)

Arboris, you're horny. (and I kind a love it)

Nothing more I think I need to add,
Avatar is one of the better films I have watched in my life; mind-blowing graphics, intriguing storyline (with a touch of science fiction) and some hot-bodied blue peeps, I think it really deserved the many praises and awards it received. Kudos.

Quote from: Taeyang on Sun 24/01/2010 13:52:25
Arboris, you're horny.

..Pardon me? That might not be the most accurate observation of me when I stumbled across this on newsground. Laughing might have been a closer description

Quote from: Arboris on Sat 23/01/2010 21:05:22
Awkward blue monkey love scene (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/524391) you say? :)

I don't remember the Na'vi having green lemons stuck in their eye sockets.

I watched it last Friday and I think I agree with the prevailing sentiment here, that while it was good eyecandy - probably the best sci-fi adventure so far in terms of special effects and details, the plot or the characters didn't really add anything original to the world of cinema.

The hours afterwards I was really adrenaline pumped, but then the effect waned and now I see it as a fun ride, but nothing more.

To be sure, I like the concept and the plot - how we demonize our enemies, how we blur the concepts of terror and self defence, the exploitation of indeginous etc etc - it's just that the core story has been told so many times before.

I haven't read the whole of this thread yet - in fact, I haven't got through all of Darth Mandarb's original posting yet, but I really relate to this point he made:

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Sun 20/12/2009 14:41:53
There was a part, in the Pandora jungle, where there were bugs flying around.  The focus was not on the bugs, they were just adding to the immersion.  I actually, entirely sub-consciously, swatted at one of the bugs in my peripheral vision.

I had a similar experience. There were also a couple of points in the film when I thought "I wish people wouldn't keep getting up and walking in front of the screen" before realising that those people were in the foreground in the film!

As Darth says, it's that good.

Quote from: paolo on Wed 27/01/2010 18:39:15
I had a similar experience. There were also a couple of points in the film when I thought "I wish people wouldn't keep getting up and walking in front of the screen" before realising that those people were in the foreground in the film!

But the thing is... every time this happens, you remember that you are in a theatre, breaking the immersion. I still haven't seen the film in 2d, so I might have enjoyed that a bit more, but the constant breaking of my suspension of disbelief is one of the main factors that forces me to consider Avatar a "good film" or possibly even "great film", but not revolutionary like many have been saying.

Quote from: paolo on Wed 27/01/2010 18:39:15
I had a similar experience. There were also a couple of points in the film when I thought "I wish people wouldn't keep getting up and walking in front of the screen" before realising that those people were in the foreground in the film!

Funny, I kept thinking: man, that Cameron keeps putting annoying and useless stuff in front of me to make bad use of 3D. To me that added to the (sometimes annoyingly) bad directing, and I never thought/felt any of that was really happening in front of me.

I liked the movie but some times immersion was lost, especially with things that were supposed to come towards you... or the front objects were too 'front' in an unnatural way, like they were stuck in your eye not just within your view limits. The story was quite predictable, but the lines were well written, which sort of corrects it.

To be honest, I only concentrated on the "mistakes" because of the critics and marketing craze. It wasn't a boring movie.

Overall impression, the graphics were beautiful (especially the live plants and the lighted things) and the real actors were also good.

So why the hell was that mining company not named "Weyland Yutani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weyland_Yutani)"? Missed chance, James ...  ;D

Anyway, seen the movie twice and love it.

I'm gonna watch it today - after all it's the last chance (before tomorrow) for watching it in a cinema! I hope it'll be worth it.

Watched it in 3D, awesome!

The trailer for Burton's Alice looked super trippy in 3D but there was a clear difference in quality between that and Avatar. Super awesome film, very immersive. Mr Matti, you will not regret seeing it at the cinema!

I loved the movie, even though I had to watch it in 2D.

The most memorable thing was when I saw THIS TRAILER (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D46QhwFyzp0). I nearly shat my pants with excitement. I can't believe it's actually being made!

Quote from: Chicky on Tue 02/02/2010 13:04:03The trailer for Burton's Alice looked super trippy in 3D but there was a clear difference in quality between that and Avatar. Super awesome film, very immersive. Mr Matti, you will not regret seeing it at the cinema!

I'm guessing that was intentional (the difference in quality).  They didn't want to blow people away with the 3D with the trailers.  Wanted to save it for the feature.  It's like how the opening acts at concerts are always a lower volume so the headliner can really stand out.

I don't know if it'll always be like this or if Cameron insisted on it so as to not steal Avatar's thunder.

Quote from: Chicky on Tue 02/02/2010 13:04:03
Mr Matti, you will not regret seeing it at the cinema!

I don't regret it indeed. I just regret watching it in german, because one of my friends has problems with english.

The story was very predictable and standard, despite its nice message: Don't kill natives and nature for resources ;), but from the optical / aesthetical aspect it was very worth watching.

One thing I noticed was that the movie could very well do without any spoken words. The story was clear and you could trash most of the dialogs and comments.

Never before have I ever been so disappointed with cinema. If I wasn't with a group of friends I would have walked out and demanded my money back and believe me I have never before ever felt the need to do that, even during some mindless shit films. What I would like back more than my money however is my time as having just finished watching this film about an hour ago I am still actually ANGRY about how bad it was and how hyped up it has been.

The 3D was so bad I didn't notice it at all throughout the entirety of the film save for the subtitles to the foreign language sections, which kind of stuck out from the screen a bit. Granted I was sitting in a seat near the front of the cinema which my friend, having dragged me to see it after seeing it four times herself assures me did lessen the quality. That however is not really an excuse. I don't want to pay full price to a film and then be told that it only works correctly for the select few people that got prime seating position.

The special effects that were so hyped up were no better as far as I could really tell than any recent videogame and although maybe I could get over that otherwise as they do look nice, it is not cool for James Cameron to hype it so much HIMSELF and then have it turn out to be pretty much the same kind of look that has been around for a few years now already. It wasn't as groundbreaking as he has been saying for so long, and even the 3D has been done before (and I would say better.) Beowulf was not a good film, but as far as I am concerned it was far superior to Avatar.

When you look behind the gimmick of the special effects and the 3D, the storyline is bland and formulaic. Like has been mentioned before it is practically a carbon copy of a few films that have come before and seems to be a complete by-product to the film itself which seems to be all about pioneering these new "groundbreaking" effects. The story is not engaging or entertaining, the relationship between the main character and the Na'avi girl pretty much develops over the course of a montage to go briefly into the level of depth that it goes into (ie none) and the way it executed the political/religious elements were already feeling self-righteous and irritating before the first hour of the film had ticked by. Some of the scripting was so so bad and some of the reactions of the Na'avi were so unconvincing I wanted to throw my dumb 3D glasses at the screen.

The Na'avi looked stupid as hell, the film almost completely lacked substance, it was not groundbreaking and it did not at all live up to the hype. I can't understand how this film is getting the kind of praise I am seeing and the kind of fanatical devotion to advertising it to anybody that hasn't seen it and bandwagoning onto "the greatest film ever made."

I would say that anybody with any respect for substance in cinema should bypass this pathetic gimmick film, but I won't because it seems I'm the only person in the world with this opinion. The response I am seeing to this film seems to alienate me from everyone else and that kind of baffles me. It would point the finger at me and say clearly as I am the only person with this opinion I must be wrong, but I don't think I am.

The only saving grace of the film is that sometimes... there are shiny glowy things that float across the screen and they are nice to look at. Everything else to me is nothing more than insult. Never before have I ever been so angry and disappointed.

James Cameron, thanks for striking a massive blow to my optimism in cinema.

I'm normally a lurker here, but I play AGS games and have ambitions to make one in the future.

Darth's first post took the words out of my mouth.  I LOVED this movie.  And that is not something I say lightly.  I have seen hundreds and hundreds of movies from every decade since the 1890s.  I've been blown away before, by films like Citizen Kane, Lawrence of Arabia, Casablanca, Singin' in the Rain, and even obscure films like Koyannisqatsi and Russian Ark.  I watch lots of Hollywood blockbusters, and find most of them entertaining, but forgettable.

But something about Avatar has really struck a chord with me.  I was blown away by the visuals, charmed by the simple, yet effective, story, and ultimately felt for the characters and cared about what happened to them.  I went a second time to confirm that I wasn't just being distracted by the visuals, and found that I loved the movie just as much.

I can certainly understand how people might not like it; like every other film, it's all subjective, and everyone has different tastes.  For me, anyway, Avatar exactly my cup of tea, and very few other films have delivered the pure joy I felt watching it.

That being said, come Oscar time, there are lot of deserving films up for Best Picture this year.  I would be happy if almost any of them won.  It was good year for movies in my book...  :)

I just got back from the watching Avatar in 3D.  With all the hype the movie received I walked in believing it was going to be INSANE and absolutely incredible... well honestly, it was!

The first few scenes before they started using the avatars, I was immediately starting to think "wtf is this? why is this a $2 billion movie?".  Then suddenly I was sent on a crazy journey through the entire film.  Every time he left the avatar I waited anxiously for him to get back in.  Like when she was trying to force him to eat the food, or sleep, I just wanted him back in there.

I've now read through this whole thread and I am totally confused how some of you people find this movie to be utter shit.  Sure, I predicted Every moment of every scene, sure it had a cookie cutter story and characters.  But it was the experience that left me in awe.  I was completely blown away and want to go back to see it again (which I probably won't, I'm too tight with my cash).  I hate watching movies in the theatre, they're usually too blurry with over stretched images and I can never focus on what is happening.  With Avatar I did not experience that, unless you try to focus on the foreground/background elements.

Darth's expressions and Spire's are my exact words.

I'm also glad they didn't push the boundaries of the 3D element.  I've never actually watched a 3D movie before, took me about 5 or so minutes to wrap my brain around the fact that I can't and shouldn't focus on the things I am not meant to focus on.  I also had the 'get out of my face, bug' reaction.  I never actually swatted air or lifted my hand, but the instinct was still there and made me chuckle every time.

I noticed that there is a threshold of the 3D foreground and when it goes beyond that, it looks like poop.  Only a few scenes did this, where something was sticking in front of you.  But it looked really bad.  Like I said before, I'm glad he kept the 3D to a minimum.

The only two things I would have preferred him doing instead:

• Instead of their hair having those connection things, why didn't he just make it the tail?  They could move their tail, and it also fits better with the creatures since all their connection things were like tails. Why would he break the design for the humanoids?  Was it just to make it look less like a penis?
  
• The helicopter pilot, she had no reason to attack the humans.  I understand her not wanting to attack the natives since she more than likely joined the army only to fly, but she really had no reason to attack the humans.  Unless just her flying around and enjoying the world had given her enough of a connection to the planet to want to protect it at any cost.  Meh
  

Only two small issues really.


Anyway, excellent movie and I was totally excited reading a few of you posting that he's planning on making a sequel or even trilogy.  Freakin Excellent news.

Great movie.  Loved it. 
I believe it's now my favourite movie (I'll officially call it my fav movie once I watch it again, perhaps the second time around won't be as impressive?).

Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Sat 13/02/2010 09:12:10
Instead of their hair having those connection things, why didn't he just make it the tail?

The Na'avi use their minds to control the actions of their mounts, therefore it's a link from the head of the native to the body of the animal.

Ryan, what you said basically confirms why I don't really like the movie.  You are concerned with having an 'experience' and I am concerned with having an interesting plot with well fleshed out characters, motivations and plot twists I don't see coming from a mile away.  Tastes vary, and I have no problem with other people liking the movie, but when you list something like:

QuoteSure, I predicted Every moment of every scene, sure it had a cookie cutter story and characters.

and then say the movie was awesome I get confused since those are rather important parts of a compelling narrative.  Outside of the '3d effect', the movie is quite humdrum and reviews seem to echo this mentality, so again, I wonder if this movie is just being propped up by offering an 'experience' rather than a film with memorable content?

Well the way I see it Progz, is that sometimes in life it's nice to just turn off your brain and sit down to a very relaxing and beautiful movie.  And this movie happens to be one of those that I enjoy fully.  I love space exploration, I love aliens and I love little blue titties and cool robotic things.

My top favourite movies happen to be Matrix, Fifth element, Back to the Future, Starship Troopers, and many others.  Most of those have a pretty decent storyline in my eyes, perhaps Fifth Element being the weakest and mostly just a shoot'em up, but the directing in it is absolutely astounding.

I also watch a movie for it's directing style.  I am Always watching how scenes are cut and merged together, the good ones are seamless, have a purpose and don't confuse the viewer.  I felt every cut, every camera shot, every scene in Avatar had a purpose and was well directed (It was a little hard to fully enjoy the movie in that aspect due to the incredible world I was exploring, which is another reason why I want to watch it again).

Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy movies with a good storyline.  But perhaps because of me always trying to understand the purpose of every scene and why the director did it that way, I usually predict the outcome of the movie near the beginning/middle long long before my family and friends do.  Sure, some of those movies aren't exactly what I'd call meat and potatoes for a storyline.  But not many movies can be done well with a storyline that you cannot predict, unless they just don't give you all the answers until the very end.

QuoteThe Na'avi use their minds to control the actions of their mounts, therefore it's a link from the head of the native to the body of the animal.

I totally understand that it's supposed to be a link to their head, but what is the spine?  It's a direct channel to the brain, and the tail just happens to be an extension of the spine.  I think it would have made more sense, would have looked less awkward and weird, and would have had the same design as all the creatures.  Since all the creatures were capable of moving their connection node thingy, it seems like flawed imagination of evolution for the Na-avi to be different (except all the creatures nodes were attached to the upper spine, and seemed to have two of them. meh).

Unless perhaps in future movies they end up showing that the hair is only protecting a tail-like element that just dangles from their head, I'd be more willing to forgive that little inconsistency.  And when the Avatar bodies were created, the scientists actually hand braid the hair over the connection node just since it might be a custom for the Na-avi to do so.  But like I said, it's not insanely stupid so I don't mind it too much, but would have preferred it being the tail.  It also looked insanely awkward when they were on the horse creatures.

Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Sat 13/02/2010 09:12:10
I just got back from the watching Avatar in 3D.  With all the hype the movie received I walked in believing it was going to be INSANE and absolutely incredible... well honestly, it was!

This I can't comprehend! I still don't know why there was such a hype.

Quote
My top favourite movies happen to be Matrix, Fifth element, Back to the Future, Starship Troopers, and many others.  Most of those have a pretty decent storyline in my eyes

This neither!

Quote from: ProgZmax on Sat 13/02/2010 10:30:49
I am concerned with having an interesting plot with well fleshed out characters, motivations and plot twists I don't see coming from a mile away.

Yeah, me too, but when do you get that in the theatre? I'm rarely watching movies in the cinema, once a year tops. I think the last ones have been Star Wars Ep. I, Lord of the Rings I, Sin City and Avatar. ALL of them sucked, but at least Avatar was some kind of "experience" like Ryan put it. The other's weren't.

Quote from: Mr. Matti on Sat 13/02/2010 18:25:51
Yeah, me too, but when do you get that in the theatre? I'm rarely watching movies in the cinema, once a year tops. I think the last ones have been Star Wars Ep. I, Lord of the Rings I, Sin City and Avatar. ALL of them sucked, but at least Avatar was some kind of "experience" like Ryan put it. The other's weren't.

You're kidding, right?
LOTR wasn't an experience but Avatar was? Maybe the "3d experience". I'm no LOTR or SW or SinCity fanboy, but at least they weren't that generic, which is exactly what Avatar is (well SW was kind of, but that's exactly what you expect in a SW movie, even then it's at least on the same level).
Yeah, it wasn't bad in it's essence, it had an experineced director and budget no one has ever seen before and every minute of the film is copied from somewhere...that all however is not what makes an experience.

I mean, you want new worlds? LOTR had hobbitts, wizards, orcs, 2 types of elfes, Mordor, forsets, dwarf mines. SW Ep1 had Gungan, Naboo (water and above), robot space stations, Tattoine. Sin City had the noir/comic stlye, prostitues with guns, detectives, farms, jails etc. Every part of that was thought of and imagined and different., it gave some atmosphere, it showed some imagination.
Avatar had a jungle after a rave party look, dinosaurs, and manned robots from Matrix and soldier equippment from Gears of war games- all that wrapped up in a classic Disney film type plot.
As I said, if I was still in primary school and never seen another sf or fantasy movie (which btw this movie is neither good at being) before, I would probably be impressed.

Quote from: anian on Sat 13/02/2010 18:59:24
You're kidding, right?
LOTR wasn't an experience but Avatar was?

Yeah, I forgot to mention that: LOTR was an experience, but SO annoyingly greasy and elevated/lofty/solemn/declamatory* that it was a very bad experience. I couldn't watch any LOTR movie twice cause the continuous slow-motion, heroism and dramatic music just were too unbearable.

* these words are from leo.org, I don't know which the most appropriate one is. In german it would be "pathetic" (from "pathos"), in english it isn't.

I don't particularly like Avatar, but it was pleasant to the eyes without being too annoying. It was neither more nor less then what I expected and that's why I don't regret going to the cinema. But as I said I can't understand the hype at all.

I knew, after seeing Avatar, that it would be the global phenomena that it has become (I'm usually right about these things).  As is always inevitable, with popular things, the haters just love telling everybody why the movie sucked.  Using the same stand-by excuses that are always used; unoriginal story, bad acting, not enjoyable blah blah blah.

Some people found the movie enjoyable.

Some did not.

I think the love/hate debate in this thread is pointless.

I'd like to move on to another aspect of Avatar now that the Oscar Nominations are out.

How do you guys feel about the nominations it received?   Did it deserve the best picture nom?

I'm pleased with everything it received except...

I think Zoe Saldana was freakin' robbed of her nomination.  She should have, in my opinion, been nominated.  While she, in her human form, is never in the movie her Avatar (pun intended) is.  All the facial emotion, body language, etc was entirely her.  This is, to me, the epitome of performance art which is what acting is all about.

I haven't seen Avatar yet, and while what I've seen of it seems visually stunning, I won't be going in expecting anything other than a billion dollar b-movie.

I'm sure I'll enjoy it while it lasts, though.

I'm slightly depressed that it does seem to be hopelessly generic in the story/character/acting stakes, and that other writer-directors, whose work could be classed in a similar genre to Avatar, and who may have a lot more to say than Cameron (a director who, and let's not kid ourselves here, embodies the style-over-substance mindset of modern Hollywood just as much as Micheal Bay), have to work with a fraction of Avatar's budget.

Nothing Cameron has ever made could be considered original. But most of it is entertaining.

I think Cameron used to be way more entertaining, much more interesting and even daring at times (the nuclear holocaust dream scene from T2 springs to mind). Avatar didn't even have a likable hero.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Sat 13/02/2010 20:01:30
I knew, after seeing Avatar, that it would be the global phenomena that it has become (I'm usually right about these things).  As is always inevitable, with popular things, the haters just love telling everybody why the movie sucked.  Using the same stand-by excuses that are always used; unoriginal story, bad acting, not enjoyable blah blah blah.

Darth, do you really think this post reads well? Since when are people not allowed to disagree?
I enjoyed Avatar, but I'm not impressed with the story...am I not entitled to voice this opinion without becoming a hater?

Quote from: Andail on Sat 13/02/2010 20:32:07Darth, do you really think this post reads well? Since when are people not allowed to disagree?

I think it reads well and doesn't imply that people can't disagree.

I suppose I can see how it could be interpreted as such.  It was just a comment on the haters which, given how you state your opinion, I would not consider you one of.

Since when can't people offer up their opinions!!! ;)

I am also, in no way, suggesting that anybody else in this discussion is on that bandwagon because I really don't want to clutter up this thread with the backlash such an accusation would certainly cause.

If it soothes the feelings of anybody offended I find the opposite of the haters (fan boys?), who dote on it just 'cause it's Jim Cameron (or any other arbitrary reason), almost equally annoying.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Sat 13/02/2010 20:01:30I'd like to move on to another aspect of Avatar now that the Oscar Nominations are out.

---

IMDB: (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499549/awards)
Academy Awards: (http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/82/nominees.html)
1. Best Achievement in Art Direction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_director#In_film)
     - Avatar
     - The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
     - Nine
     - Sherlock Holmes
     - The Young Victoria
2. Best Achievement in Cinematography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinematography)
     - Avatar
     - Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
     - The Hurt Locker
     - Inglourious Basterds
     - The White Ribbon
3. Best Achievement in Directing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_director)
     - Avatar
     - The Hurt Locker
     - Inglourious Basterds
     - Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire
     - Up in the Air
4. Best Achievement in Editing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_editing)
     - Avatar
     - District 9
     - The Hurt Locker
     - Inglourious Basterds
     - Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire
5. Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Score (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_score)
     - Avatar
     - Fantastic Mr. Fox
     - The Hurt Locker
     - Sherlock Holmes
     - Up
6. Best Achievement in Sound Mixing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_sound_mixer)
    - Avatar
    - The Hurt Locker
    - Inglourious Basterds
    - Star Trek
    - Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
7. Best Achievement in Sound Editing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_editor)
    - Avatar
    - The Hurt Locker
    - Inglourious Basterds
    - Star Trek
    - Up
8. Best Achievement in Visual Effects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_effects)
    - Avatar
    - District 9
    - Star Trek
9. Best Motion Picture of the Year
    - Avatar
    - The Blind Side
    - District 9
    - An Education
    - The Hurt Locker
    - Inglourious Basterds
    - Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire
    - A Serious Man
    - Up
    - Up in the Air

---

I won't comment on which movies should be added to these nominees, or which categories Avatar should be added to. I'll just make some comments regarding what I think about what we have. And first of all, I've only seen a very limited number of these movies: Avatar, Sherlock Holmes, Star Trek, and District 9. And only the former two in de cinemas. I planned to go to The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (still do), but it's only showing at some really stupid timeslots, and the current weather isn't helping either. Anyway...

1. Art directing...according to Wikipedia: An art director, in the hierarchical structure of a film art department, works directly below the production designer, in collaboration with the set decorator, and above the set designer. A large part of their duties include the administrative aspects of the art department. They are responsible for assigning tasks to personnel, keeping track of the art department budget and scheduling, as well as overall quality control. -- Assuming this is definition is correct...let's face it: the art director for this movie will have had a much harder time to structure all administrative/hierarchical aspects of the art department. Simply, because the art-aspect of project itself is huge. I'd say that this one I'd agree with (although I wouldn't mind dr Parnassus to win (but I might change my mind once I've actually seen it)).

2. Cinematography: I can see why it should win this one (I have some mixed feelings, but those concern the directing more than the cinematography).

3. Directing: This is the only movie on the list that I've seen, so I can't compare them. The directing didn't capture me (but at least it wasn't chaotic either). My personal feeling was that the movie lost it's flow during the grand-battles, where the director sometimes wanted to show 'stuff' rather than 'story'. I don't think this movie deserves this Oscar...particularly when I compare it to other movies by Cameron (although I'm not too fond of his directing-style in general). But it might be the best in the list of nominees...and I expect it to win.

4. Editing: Personally I preferred the editing in District 9 (although I was a bit disappointed with that movie as well...but for a different reason). To me it had better 'flow'. There were, however, also things in that movie where I felt the flow could be different. In the end the reason why I felt the editing in District 9 was better than in Avatar was - probably - because District 9 was rougher around the edges. I think that in editing Avatar was too smooth.

5. Music: I've seen Avatar, I've seen Sherlock Holmes...and frankly I can't remember the music of either. So I've watched the trailers (SH (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmculGCAh68), Av (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRdxXPV9GNQ)) for reference. I think neither of them will become classics. But I also think Avatar did a better job than Sherlock Holmes in this category.

6.&7. Sound Mixer, Sound Editor: This really isn't my subject so I can't comment on this.

8. Visual Effects: Finally a category where I've seen all the nominees ;) - Actually, I think each of the movies showed great use of visual effects, and all had a director at the helm who understand how to use them. However, if I include budget (according to WikiPedia): Avatar ($237 million), StarTrek ($150 miljoen), District 9 ($30 million)...District 9 created a real world (it felt more real to me than Avatar, but less than for example Children of Men) with effects that were impressive (not perfect, but never unconvincing), and all that for a fraction of the other two. I don't think it was the best movie ever, but I would like it to win in this category (expect Avatar to win though).

9. Best Motion Picture (remember, there is no category for 'best cinematic experience of the year'!): Again, I can only compare it to District 9 (in this category)...I thought that movie was better. But I also don't think District 9 is a perfect movie, and I to me that too doesn't  deserve to win this category (even though I don't know the other nominees). Avatar, as a movie (if you take away the dress-up) was - in my opinion - weak. So I don't think it deserves to win this category. However...considering how much money it made I expect the judges to rule differently.

Conclusion: to me Avatar might deserve 3 wins, 2 I don't know, and 3 losses. The categories where I don't think it deserves to win include best director and best motion picture...which I personally think are among the most prestigious of the categories.

---

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Sat 13/02/2010 20:01:30As is always inevitable, with popular things, the haters just love telling everybody why the movie sucked.  Using the same stand-by excuses that are always used; unoriginal story, bad acting, not enjoyable blah blah blah.

But I thought the story was unoriginal (and quite bad as a copy), and I didn't enjoy myself (well, I did at times, but near the end I just wished it to be over...and that's not a good thing). I don't think it was badly acted though (definitely better than your average green-screen movie!), and I have little bad to comment about the casting (there are always some minor incidents where I might have chosen a different 'look'/actor, but hay...). However, in the end I just really consider this one of the worst movies (within a genre that I usually enjoy) that I've seen this year. But I think you already new that... ;)

QuoteIf it soothes the feelings of anybody offended I find the opposite of the haters (fan boys?), who dote on it just 'cause it's Jim Cameron (or any other arbitrary reason), almost equally annoying.

I would've walked into this movie not knowing who he was if it weren't for reading a few comments in here, a month before I watched it.  I can definitely say I'll be watching out for anything he makes from now on though.  Which is usually the same for Spielberg.

I guess now you can call me a fan boy?  ::) 
Edit: And I found out through Imdb that he was born in Ontario, Canada.  Right on.

Misj' - you are most assuredly not a "hater" in the context I was referring to.  Thank you for your views on the Oscar noms!  I actually enjoyed reading them (even though I don't fully agree :) )  Well done.  I enjoyed the experience of Avatar better than District 9 but were I to pick which was the "better" movie I'd probably have to pick District 9.  I loved it.

Ryan Timothy - shut up you stupid fan-boy!!! ;) 

To clarify; I think there's nothing wrong with being a fan-boy!  Just in blindly supporting something because you're a fan-boy.  I am a Cameron fan-boy and am not ashamed to admit it.  I love his movies and his direction style.  I wouldn't defend a movie of his that I didn't like because of this though.  I mean, I loved The Patriot and Stargate but Roland Emmerich has made some shite movies (10,000 BC was a colossal pile of doodoo and 2012 was only a rung or two above 10,000 BC on the doodoo ladder) and I loath the movies when he teams up with that hack Dean Devlin (Independence Day, Godzilla).

The Oscar nominations are interesting this year.

While I consider District 9 to be a better movie than Avatar (and while I did like Avatar, I also preferred Inglourious Basterds, Up and Up In The Air) I still think Avatar will take Best Picture. Everything I have seen seems to believe that if you're in Best Picture and not Best Director then you've basically no chance. Which is a shame.

I've not seen Hurt Locker but most reckon it's Avatar's main competition for the two main categories, although I'd love to see Tarantino swoop in for either.

RE: Zoe Saldana - should she deserve a best actress nomination? This is becoming more of a factor these days, since Gollum was such a believable character and in a few years these CG characters may be the norm. What people seem to forget is the performance on screen - which at the end of the day is how the category should be judged, regardless of how it was done - was not just produced by Saldana, but an army of animators, modellers, etc. If Saldana deserves an Oscar, do they not all deserve one too? See answer below.













Answer: I don't actually know the answer. I'm sorry. :(

Up wasn't nominated for art direction? :(

I saw Avatar 3d too and this movie is a masterpiece.
I was involved in an other world.  :oJames Cameron is like J.R.R. Tolkien. He has invented his own world with his own cultures and organisms. Simply amazing!
It is unbelievable how many artists worked together so many years to get the
end-product. And this was it worth. It is one of the best movies I´ve ever seen....
NO...wait...it IS the best movie I´ve ever seen! 8)

Has it already an oscar?

I watched it the other day. It had plot holes so large you could sink a cow in them. Aye, nice CGI, but graphics are not enough to keep the movie afloat.
As for the oscars... They're rigged.

I would maintain that imaginative images can indeed make a great film, at least from my standpoint.  Case in point:  The Fall, a film which has a simple, familiar story at best: essentially in the form of a bedtime story told to a child.  Because of this, half of the film critics hated it, because they go to watch a movie for the story above all else, preferably one that is original and/or literate.  Nothing wrong with that.

However, the other half of the film critics loved it, because the film was bursting with tons of creativity, imagination, and sheer scope.  In their minds, the images were so compelling and beautiful that they became absorbed in the movie as much as if there were an incredibly original story.  But on top of that, they felt that although the film might not contain the strongest story, it was still very well told.  As someone once said, to paraphrase: "it's not what story you tell that matters, but how you tell it."

Of course, neither one of these ways is the "right" way to evaluate a film.  I often find myself on both sides of the above spectrum!  It all depends on what you want from a film, whether it be emotional or intellectual stimulation, or both combined.  Someone is not automatically smart because they liked 2001: A Space Odyssey, or stupid because they hated it.  In a similar vein, the inverse is true of a film like Transformers 2.  Although try telling that to the people on the IMDb forums...  :P

Anyway, with regard to Oscar noms, I have seen 6 of the 10 Best Picture nominees: Avatar, An Education, The Hurt Locker, Inglorious Basterds, Up, and Up in the Air.  I thoroughly enjoyed all of them, so bring on the Oscars!  :)