Supprised no one beat me to it, but any one else out there seen it, excited about it in any way or just a little bit curious?
Saw it this afternoon with my equally nerdy girlfreind, so failed on the "taking the girlfriend to the movies" front cos we both actually watched it, but can say it was pretty good.
First things first, this is not the best film ever, or even of the year. But it is quite enjoyable, visually stunning and you don't have to think too much. It's also in 3D.
Now, IMO, the 3D is not totaly needed. The film is exciting enough on its own. But its not just a gimic either. If you do see, do see the 3D version.
Any way, plot: There is one. Its not the best ever but it works in as much as it gives the CGI a horse to ride. Essentially it is a retelling of that 90's eco-fairytale Fern Gully. Add to this two eggs, a generous helping of return of the Jedi, a pinch of The Wrath of Khan, and a good slosh of Dances with Wolves with a touch of Pocahontas.
Essentially the humans want this mineral (humerously named in the film "unobtain-ium") that is on this moon called Pandora where the blue guys (the NA'Vi live. They are a tribal society of hunters. Our hero is given the job of learing their ways and gaining their trust so he can shift them out of the way of the human miners.
In order to do this a cloned version of the NA'Vi (made by Sigourny Weaver) are made, into which the minds of unconsious people can be effectivly transfered using some tecobabble and an imersion tank. Good guy soon finds himself as a part of the tribe, realises humans are baddies, falls for the chiefs daugther, gets rejected by tribe and cheifs daughter, wins their trust again and saves the day. And all (when he's a NA'Vi) in CGI.
Oh yes, the CGI.
Well, it's good. Very good. You can almost forget it's not real in quite a few places (allthough a suspension of disbelief is required once or twice). It looks real, which I guess is the point.
But the funny thing is I was more impressed (mostly because it was in 3D) with the little details, like the falling ash looking like falling ash dancing in front of me. In this resespect the 3D does not help, but rather distracts. You are looking for cool stuff in 3D while not noticeing other bits.
There are essentially two parts to thios films world. The human world and the NA'Vi world.
The human world is epic. It looks like a real place 150 years in the future. The screens are like projections (much better than in Trek '09) but totaly believable. The stuuf lookis used where it should be and new where it should. It also is shown off (such as where one curved screen fixed in mid air has the information it displays taken from it and "slid" a la iPhone ap onto a handheld device), but mostly unobtrusivly, as if it is just the stuff these guys know, grew up with and use every day. Good SFX, good acting.
The same goes for the NA'Vi world (mostly). You think it's real. I don't know what is totally CGI and what isn't. Unlike films such as Peter Jacksons LOtR or King Kong, the transition is near perfect from real to fake (allthough King Kong was still quite good).
It's not the masterpiece some are calling it. But it is a very good example of how far this stuff's gone and it is (I think) a good look into how action films will look from now on. I'm not sure if it's a good thing or not. It's also pretty damn corny and has a simplistic plot. But as I say, it looks pretty sweet.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Is it basically Pocahontas in Space?
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Sorry Mars - my mouse went funky and hit post before I'd finished.
Basically (and a bit crudely) yes it is, but unlike Pocahontas I'd say it's worth seeing.
It's a bit like an RPG playerd nerdgasm.
I don't give a crap about the 'message' the film gives off, but I'd still see it again, if only to see it 2D so I can pay more attention to the big picture.
As a side note, I hope that 3D is a passing fad again, because you do need to see every film twice (once 3D and once in 2D) as, especially if very effects driven, they become two different films.
Posted by vwuser (Member # 2182) on :
A more recent film that comes to mind for me that bears a superficial resemblance is The Battle for Terra. In both films, the humans are depicted as coming from a dying world looking for a solution for their immediate needs and, in the process, a continuation of the species. In both films, a human comes to accept the native culture and chooses to fight for this culture. The endings are very different. In The Battle for Terra, the humans and natives resolve their immediate differences and learn to co-exist. In Avatar, the humans, with a few notable exceptions, are exiled from the moon.
I have a query about this film. Early in the film, we learn that the hero fought in a jungle in Venezuela. However, the hero, when speaking to Eywah, says there is no green on his world. How do we rationalize this discrepancy?
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Concrete jungle, obviously.
Mark
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women: Is it basically Pocahontas in Space?
Or Neon Genesis Evangelion, in a way?
'NA'Vi Unit One, GO!'
But yes, i'm flush with good emotions from this film. Human greed vs Natural Ethics. Or Colonials vs the Indians? The CGI, was impressive. The visuals made me believe. The only thing i wish was the time line. 200 years into the future? That implies that something speed up our entry into deep space because, even with sleeper/cyro storage of people on long distance trips, it would still take 100's of years to travel, right?
and you go do work, in the private sector, for decendants of stock holders? There's more to the back story, but im sure this will come to light in some means...
*sigh* Very. Good. Film. It'll bring the Chaotic Good tree hugger out, in you...
Posted by vwuser (Member # 2182) on :
I am hearing from other forums that this film is not very original. Honestly, I think this is one of the weakest arguments one could make against this film. Humans have been re-purposing elements of stories for as long as they have been telling them. It's analogous to a cook using the ingredients at hand when creating a masterful meal. The question, then, for me at least, is, does Cameron succeed in his efforts and make a satisfying feast of sight and sound? Yes.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
They put a trailer for ~The Battle for Terra on before the main picture. I thought it looked like the Warner Brothers movie that gets made after Disney anouces their next one.
And as far as I can work out (mind, this is from interviews I've seen) Pandora is meant to be quite close to Earth. I think it's meant to be a moon around one (implying more) gas giants around Alpha Centuri (don't know which one) so it's not that far. The trip suposedly took more than 6 years so fast, but not impossibly fast.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Avatar? Pandora? Looks like Cameron is a bit of a Frank Herbert fan. I don't suppose there's any WorShip in this film?
Seriously though, I'll wait for the DVD. I'm sure it looks great but 3D isn't really an option out here (I sure as hell ain't going to London just to watch a film!) and the local cinema is just rubbish. Cameron has yet to disappoint me in any of his previous films so I have no concerns over the quality or integrity. I'm a little confused over the repeated occurrence of the phrase "it's no masterpiece" in reviews I've read so far. I don't recall Cameron or any marketing claiming it was so. Bit of a straw man criticism if you ask me.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Well, it was supposedly touted as this OMG AMAZING movie in all the hype generated. But, having seen it here in 3D and being very pleased with the movie, the first thing I said to my friends was "Okay, so who's up for driving to Halifax to see it in IMAX?" (a 4 hour drive, probably equivalent to Rev driving to London).
I actually really really enjoyed this movie and would definitely see it again. However, I am a little curious as to the reasoning behind floating mountains...
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
You didn't see the naked chick singing and causing all the rocks to float?
o.O Oh, sorry. had a Macross Zero moment...
possibly the rocks contained amounts of Unobtanium?
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fabrux: (a 4 hour drive, probably equivalent to Rev driving to London)
Oh, you have no idea how wrong that is to say. Driving in London is akin to sticking your head in a blender - if it can be avoided do so.
And when you get there you can't park either.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Revverend Leadfoot:
quote:I don't recall Cameron or any marketing claiming it was so.
Maybe not literally, but they did spread the details that it is the most expensive Cameron film ever and that they've taken the concept of blank, blankblank and blankblankblank to a whole new level (something many people seem to agree with).
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Well, they DID design and build a new type of camera specifically for this movie. That would add to the budget.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Ginger Beacon:
quote:Originally posted by Fabrux: (a 4 hour drive, probably equivalent to Rev driving to London)
Oh, you have no idea how wrong that is to say. Driving in London is akin to sticking your head in a blender - if it can be avoided do so.
And when you get there you can't park either.
Too true. The M25 is like the first circle of hell, in more ways than one.
quote:Originally posted by Fabrux: Well, they DID design and build a new type of camera specifically for this movie. That would add to the budget.
Exactly. Pretty much all of these "claims" from Cameron that I'm aware of relate specifically to the technical advancement of film making, which by all accounts is well justified. It's hardly Cameron's fault if certain people equate technical achievement with storytelling quality.
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
So the first viewing on Xmas day, the projector died during the climactic battle. They couldn't fix whatever it was and wound up having to give our money back. Really liked what I'd seen, but I was DYING to see the end. So today, I returned and watched again (again, no 3D!) And, yeah, no big surprises or anything, but a very satisfying ending to what was I felt an impressive movie (more on account of the technical achievements than the narrative ones).
Also perhaps of general interest. a DVD extra on Pandora Confirms the Alpha Centauri thing.
[ December 27, 2009, 12:50 AM: Message edited by: bX ]
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Finally watched it, in 3D, it did deliver the goods. Worthington has his ticket now, hope he makes the best of it. Gerard Butler and Colin Farrell kinda fumbled the ball, I hope this non-american english type can hold on a bit longer. Stephen Lang was the best "Vietnam village burner" I've ever seen, and his intense glee when killing wildlife with an exoskeletal KA-BAR was awesome.
It was fun hearing James Horner's suspense themes from his Trek soundtracks here and there (na-na-nennaah...), rich and juicy tunes overall. Skywalker Sound got to work up a sweat, but I'm glad they held back on the Wilhelm scream just this once, keeping it classy.
I predict the furry community will die out worldwide in a week, after the Avatar DVD has reached them all. They'll collectively drop the drapes and nail the doors shut, dying from dehydration and hunger with greasy 3D-glasses and smiles on their faces, babbling something about "C-beams at Tannhauser gate". A giant, abyssal vacuum will be left in the underbelly of the internet. I don't even wanna know what will replace furries, maybe some sick shit with ants or whatever. Moss. Moss nuclei porn.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Well I'm shocked, my local cinema was actually showing it in 3D...and I'm glad I didn't wait for the DVD! This was my first 3D film experience (well, since I rented 'Nightmare on Elm Street 6' on video anyway) and I was shocked at how well it worked. Seriously, I wasn't expecting it to be nearly as effective.
Novelty factor aside, the film itself was very good. Cameron has lost NOTHING. Sure I've seen large chunks of the same kind of plot about a dozen times before, but there's a good reason this kind of story keeps being retold.
Anyone else notice that the first time you see Weaver she's climbing out of a metal tube? There's something oddly familiar about that too, I just can't put my finger on it. Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Saw it today, it was all very pretty and cool. Supposedly it contains an environmentalist message, but I couldn't find it since I can't relate to the Navis' relationship with nature, like I couldn't relate to Fern Gully's relationship with nature since I'm not sexy little nymph prancing about the rainforest with the Robin Williams' bat, so was the giant red Pterodactyl thing supposed to be the Robin Williams bat in this movie? Anyway I'm getting off track, the movie was like injecting high grade pharmaceutical cocaine into your eye balls, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. But as far as making a political statement, this movie must take a bow before the almighty District 9.
P.S.:So the furries die out, okay. Their deaths will free up land that once belonged to us Trek fans, and will be ours once again!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
No...the Eel People will full the void.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
Nope. Halflings, fuckers. Half-lings (Deculture!?)...
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Harfoot chibi nyan-nyan.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
quote:"Many thought James Cameron's Avatar was going to win big at the Oscars, this is what happens when your ex-wife beats you out for best director."
Posted by Axeman 3D (Member # 1050) on :
I guess he thought his over-long, stilted dialogue wasting movie was going to win. Loser! No less than Dances With Smurfs deserved. He needs someone to take his movie ideas to who will then slap him in the face hard and tell him to tighten it up to 90 minutes, no more. Stereotypes standing around in impressive sets and landscapes explaining the plot points out loud to each other for hours on end is not a great movie in itself. Kathryn might be the very person for the job!
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Not surprised it didn't win. As much as I liked it, it didn't deserve winning best picture or best director. Having said that I thought Zoe Saldana should have at least gotten a nomination for her performance, but I suppose the academy hasn't quite figured out the difference between performance capture and key frame animation and still think of it as an animation where in reality it more like a digital prosthetic.
As for the overall dumbness of the plot, I guess my impression could have been coloured by the fact my previous two visits to the cinema was my mate dragging me to watch Transformers 2 and his girlfriend insisting we watch some kid's movie about talking guinea pigs. After being exposed to that, a relatively mild "switch your brain of" film like Avatar would have a much greater appeal. Yes I pretty much guessed exactly what was going to happen 10 minutes in, but it was still a fun ride. Surprising plot twists aren't necessary to make an enjoyable film. I know I didn't watch Star Wars for the first time expecting for the rebels to loose.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
It's not what you do, it's how you do it. Ball. Cannonball. CANNONBALL.
Posted by Axeman 3D (Member # 1050) on :
Spending NASA sized budgets on special effects shouldn't automatically mean an oscar for best picture. A bloated, predictable movie is still bloated and predictable even when filled with jaw-dropping effects. As Rev says, it's is a movie where you leave your brain at the door, whereas Hurt Locker makes you think during and after. Trannies 2 was just static, interspersed with porn involving Megan Fox. At least it felt that way to me.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Well I'm sure Cameron will have another shot with Avatar 2, cause it's not like the first movie tied up all loose ends and left very little unsaid that would require a sequel, which then limits the sequel to be a retread of the first movie or have a plot so bad it taints the memory of the first, which didn't require a sequel in the first place and stands well on its own as a one-shot story. Oh wait, it did.
Posted by Axeman 3D (Member # 1050) on :
Just think of all the Avatar sequels, cartoons, spin-offs, etc. I can only hope they make as fine a job of it as they did on The Matrix.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Ouch.
To be fair though, Cameron has a much better track record than the Wakowski brothers. He practically wrote the book on how to make good sequels to already successful films. Those guys...I don't know what to make of them. I half suspect the 2nd and 3rd Matrix films were some elaborate practical joke.
'V for Vendetta' I didn't mind so much - I mean how often does your home town get a cameo in a major motion picture as a death camp? That has to be worth something. I never bothered with the anime car racing thingy. It looked like just a bunch of bright colours and noise and just didn't interest me. Perhaps I'm just slightly too young to appreciate the to source material.
I haven't seen Hurt Locker yet. Normally if I want to see squaddies shouting and causing damage I can just go down to the local pub. So I'll wait for the DVD...or the telly.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
I felt they took the wartime "sullen apathy" too far in Hurt Locker, like they shot each scene letter-by-letter from Boal's journalist notepad/diary. They went out of their way to depart from a three-act routine, I appreciate the attempt to emulate Werner Herzog but the content wasn't artsy enough to validate the departure, just anticlimactic, and the minimal thriller-parts didn't compensate since I half-wanted the main punk to get his comeuppance for 75% of the movie. Not in a Björk-Dancer-in-the-dark-"Well that shut HER up"-kind of way, just that the mainguy's Top Gun "Maverick" schtick took up a lot of space.
Also, worst misuse of Ralph Fiennes ever, it's like they were so scared he would steal the new kid's thunder they threw him into a scene and pulled him away again like a theater prop, to illustrate the randomness of war. Same with Guy Pearce. I'm sure the veterans and servicemen will like it, the only way it could've been more on the ground and in your face was if they'd gone Cloverfield and shot it all by camcorder POV.
Posted by Axeman 3D (Member # 1050) on :
I'll start taking Ralph seriously when he starts pronouncing his name correctly.
I was listening to radio interviews with celebs on the red carpet at the oscars. The guy collared Guy Pearce and started with the in-depth questions on the film, it's financing and the US attitude to the war in general. Poor Guy kept trying as politely as possible to tell him he was only in it for a couple of minutes without giving out a spoiler about his obvious death at the start. It was like a Borat interview, very uncomfortable to listen to.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
EDIT: Forgot to rename the movie discussed for added returns. "Hurt Locker", naturally, is "Fart Knocker".
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)