Thank you James Cameron...

[Chicky]

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!

[Haddas]

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

The most memorable thing was when I saw THIS TRAILER. I nearly shat my pants with excitement. I can't believe it's actually being made!

[Darth Mandarb]

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'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.

[Matti]

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.

[i stole your car]

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.

[Spire]

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... 

[Ryan Timothy B]

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?).

[Atelier]

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.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

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:

Sure, 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?

[Ryan Timothy B]

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.

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.

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.

[Matti]

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.

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!

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.

[Anian]

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.

[Matti]

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.

[Darth Mandarb]

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.

[LimpingFish]

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.

[Igor Hardy]

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.

[Andail]

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?

[Darth Mandarb]

Darth, 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.

[Misj']

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

IMDB:
Academy Awards:
1. Best Achievement in Art Direction
     - Avatar
     - The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
     - Nine
     - Sherlock Holmes
     - The Young Victoria
2. Best Achievement in Cinematography
     - Avatar
     - Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
     - The Hurt Locker
     - Inglourious Basterds
     - The White Ribbon
3. Best Achievement in Directing
     - Avatar
     - The Hurt Locker
     - Inglourious Basterds
     - Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire
     - Up in the Air
4. Best Achievement in 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
     - Avatar
     - Fantastic Mr. Fox
     - The Hurt Locker
     - Sherlock Holmes
     - Up
6. Best Achievement in Sound Mixing
    - Avatar
    - The Hurt Locker
    - Inglourious Basterds
    - Star Trek
    - Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
7. Best Achievement in Sound Editing
    - Avatar
    - The Hurt Locker
    - Inglourious Basterds
    - Star Trek
    - Up
8. Best Achievement in 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, Av) 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.

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.

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...

[Ryan Timothy B]

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.

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.