Avatar (2009)

[John Crichton 4]

By the way, I never saw either Transformers movie.

Count your blessings.

John- who still needs to find time to go see Avatar

[Uni 306]

Someone link me to an academic essay (or feel free to write one yourself!) that explains this movie's success, and with all due respect, many people's sudden blind love for it.

There's no need for an "academic" essay. Many people liked the film more than you did. Simple as that. In an age where films are generally so poor (and expensive), Avatar reminds us of the days when we would go see a movie three or four times in the theater, the same way you'd take a roller coaster ride at least than many times the day you go to the amusement park. It isn't "blind love" (an assertion that implies we're too stupid to know better). It's pure enjoyment.

- Uni

[Wojo 2,453]

People like Avatar for the same reason babies' eyes gravitate to whoever is holding a can of beer.

OOH, SHINY!!!

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

are there differences between theathers about DIGITAL 3D 'methods'?

becauswe i was told that in one theater the glasses had some kind of receptor, and if you blocked it the 3d was gone, and where i went it was just the polarised glass.

I liked the 3d, but expected more, as i saw it, the nearest plane was the screen and other espatial planes were behind that, the other person (with the in-glasses receptor) said the 3d was awesome and things were near you.

[Quintus 5,399]

People like Avatar for the same reason babies' eyes gravitate to whoever is holding a can of beer.

OOH, SHINY!!!

Nope.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

It has terrific SFX...the rest is average.

well it's certainly not Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

[Datameister 2,042]

I liked the 3d, but expected more, as i saw it, the nearest plane was the screen and other espatial planes were behind that, the other person (with the in-glasses receptor) said the 3d was awesome and things were near you.

At least at the theater where I saw it, things got slightly closer than the screen, but there were only one or two shots where things really popped out. That's a good thing, as far as I'm concerned. On the contrary, the problem was that the scenes didn't extend anywhere near deep enough. Many of the scenes were like looking through binoculars - very limited parallax, and thus very limited depth. I was expecting a step forward, not a step back. Even "Honey, I Shrunk the Audience", a much-reviled 3D short film created for Disney theme parks a decade and a half ago, allows the backgrounds to recede more than this film does - and the setting of the whole film is a lab or stage perhaps fifty feet deep. Not thousands.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

are there differences between theathers about DIGITAL 3D 'methods'?

becauswe i was told that in one theater the glasses had some kind of receptor, and if you blocked it the 3d was gone, and where i went it was just the polarised glass.

I liked the 3d, but expected more, as i saw it, the nearest plane was the screen and other espatial planes were behind that, the other person (with the in-glasses receptor) said the 3d was awesome and things were near you.

there is a difference in the 3D projection. In Little rock you can keep the glasses. I took them with me the other day when we went to see it again. The glasses did not work in the 2nd theatre.

data must have gone to a poor theatre because at the two theatres I saw, one sitting in the middle and the other on the edge, I felt immersed in the screen. The depth and feel was a wonderful experience. Or maybe he(data) has poor eyesight.

[Quintus 5,399]

The quality of the 3D is definitely theatre specific. My brother saw it at two different venues and said the second screening was hugely inferior to the first.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

i think i may have to see it in a good theater then.

[indy4 155]

It has terrific SFX...the rest is average.

well it's certainly not Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

I know you're being sarcastic, but I'd prefer KotCS to Avatar any day. And it's not the kind of blind love that might bias me and rank KotCS above, say, The Dark Knight. At least KotCS has an original story, isn't completely predictable, isn't as horribly cliche, and is watchable many times partially due to its shorter running time.

[Muad'Dib 1,802]

I saw the film yesterday, and I am really impressed! I loved the film, every minute of it. I loved the effects, the characters, the story, the action, the music... Everything! The score worked perfectly on film, and I even smiled when I heard for the first time on the film Horner's danger motif. It was a nice moment, and the reuse of certain Horner elements didn't bother me at all, despite I could predict when the motif was going to appear

James Cameron has done it again! Bravo, Jim!

9.5/10

[Datameister 2,042]

Or maybe he(data) has poor eyesight.

Or maybe he's spent more time researching, thinking about, looking at, and creating 3D imagery than most of the folks on this forum and thus is more acutely aware of problems with it. As I've said already, my eyesight is fine - with contacts or glasses, I've got 20/20 vision in both eyes, and my depth perception is fine whether I'm wearing them or not.

[Quintus 5,399]

Funny how the rest of the world (even the critics who didn't like the movie) all agree that the 3D is spectacular.

I guess it must just be you and a few other people, huh.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I still haven't seen the film. I need to stop going to bed at 4am and waking up at 4pm.

[Datameister 2,042]

Funny how the rest of the world (even the critics who didn't like the movie) all agree that the 3D is spectacular.

I guess it must just be you and a few other people, huh.

Well, I'll give you that one- if everyone else says it, it must be true. Just one question, though. If everyone thought this was spectacular, what would they have thought if it'd been even better?

Again, though, it may have just been the theater where I saw it. If the projectors were angled so that the right-eye image was too far to the left (and/or the left-eye image too far to the right), that would cause everything to appear closer, bringing the backgrounds forward and getting rid of the depth I was so craving. Having only seen it one theater, I can't really judge how it appears to "the rest of the world." But aside from the uncomfortably close CG backgrounds, nothing seemed too close, which leads me to believe that if the theater was off, it wasn't by much. And I know there were several other people in my group who had similar problems with the 3D, though I noticed it the most. Again, I've spent a lot more time dealing with stereoscopic images than most people.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Or maybe he(data) has poor eyesight.

Or maybe he's spent more time researching, thinking about, looking at, and creating 3D imagery than most of the folks on this forum and thus is more acutely aware of problems with it. As I've said already, my eyesight is fine - with contacts or glasses, I've got 20/20 vision in both eyes, and my depth perception is fine whether I'm wearing them or not.

I suspect that James Cameron has you beat with ease in this subject area.

[Datameister 2,042]

Which is exactly why I was expecting so much more. But after doing a little more reading on the topic, turns out most of the stereoscopic innovation for Avatar had to do with making things easier for the filmmakers during production, not with ensuring that backgrounds actually recede to appropriate depths or that brightness levels don't vary from projector to projector.

Unless you happened to be there for the 6:15 showing of Avatar at the Century 20 Oakridge on December 31st, 2009, I'm going to have trouble taking you seriously if you try to tell me that what I saw was actually phenomenal 3D that was ruined by poor eyesight, bizarre opinions, or general insanity on my part. I've said from the get-go that it may have just been the theater I where I saw it. I really have no way of knowing at this point because I've only seen it at the one theater. It may be that Cameron did a fantastic job with the 3D.

But wherever the problem was, I can assure you it wasn't in me.

[Henry B 50]

It has terrific SFX...the rest is average.

well it's certainly not Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

I know you're being sarcastic, but I'd prefer KotCS to Avatar any day. And it's not the kind of blind love that might bias me and rank KotCS above, say, The Dark Knight. At least KotCS has an original story, isn't completely predictable, isn't as horribly cliche, and is watchable many times partially due to its shorter running time.

Not predictable? Nonsense... anybody who's seen the Star Wars prequels could predict exactly how the movie would go: Kinda cool moment, awful dialogue, pointless CG spectacle, surprisingly good acting job here, actor blows it in the next scene, another pointless CG spectacle, music having no effect due to editing and mixing, another pointless CG spectacle, a joke that's so bad it's good, another pointless CG spectacle, a joke that's so bad it's bad... and so on.

[Quintus 5,399]

Data, just see the damn movie again in different theatre!

[Datameister 2,042]

That was a non sequitor, Henry, tongue-in-cheek and largely true as it may be. You didn't address indy4's claim that KOTCS's plot was less predictable than Avatar's, a claim I happen to agree with. I certainly didn't anticipate KOTCS ending with a flying saucer ascending from crumbling South American ruins, but even if Avatar's trailers hadn't spoiled the entire story, I would have known exactly where it was all going. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing...I was annoyed with the unexpected aliens and rather pleased with the completely predictable, even archetypal plot of Avatar. The point of Avatar was to showcase this new world in an exciting and poignant way. Does that make it an outstanding film in terms of plot? No, not really. But it works, and we certainly get to spend a lot of time getting acquainted with the wonders of Pandora. (Can I just say again how much I love that name for a planet? Seriously.)

I think I may see the film in 2D if I see it in theaters again. It'd be more scientific to see it in 3D again, for comparison's sake, but I'd kinda rather not risk it. Which is not something I take pleasure in saying, because ideally, I'd want EVERY film to be released in (top-notch, completely natural, non-gimmicky) 3D. We'll see. Maybe I'll just save money and wait to rent or buy it on Blu-ray.

[Henry B 50]

That was a non sequitor, Henry, tongue-in-cheek and largely true as it may be. You didn't address indy4's claim that KOTCS's plot was less predictable than Avatar's, a claim I happen to agree with. I certainly didn't anticipate KOTCS ending with a flying saucer ascending from crumbling South American ruins, but even if Avatar's trailers hadn't spoiled the entire story, I would have known exactly where it was all going. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing...I was annoyed with the unexpected aliens and rather pleased with the completely predictable, even archetypal plot of Avatar. The point of Avatar was to showcase this new world in an exciting and poignant way. Does that make it an outstanding film in terms of plot? No, not really. But it works, and we certainly get to spend a lot of time getting acquainted with the wonders of Pandora. (Can I just say again how much I love that name for a planet? Seriously.)

No, he didn't say the plot of KotCS, specifically, was less predictable. It's true that it is. However, I don't think that the random, incomprehensible plot of KotCS is any better than the dull, conventional plot of Avatar. At least Avatar has strength in its effects, acting and just general intensity. KotCS has no intensity, bad effects, and its acting ranges from very good to horrifying.

[Ollie 1,059]

Yeah who knew Spielberg would resort to using The Mummy & The Mummy Returns endings in some similar fashion.

KOTCS was quite predictable, sadly.

[Datameister 2,042]

No, he didn't say the plot of KotCS, specifically, was less predictable. It's true that it is. However, I don't think that the random, incomprehensible plot of KotCS is any better than the dull, conventional plot of Avatar. At least Avatar has strength in its effects, acting and just general intensity. KotCS has no intensity, bad effects, and its acting ranges from very good to horrifying.

Although I'd hardly call KOTCS random and incomprehensible, I do prefer the dull conventionality of Avatar, as I said. The effects in KOTCS weren't bad, though. The only CG shots that bothered me were in the jungle chase...the rest looked as good as Avatar to me, albeit in a far less exotic way. (Off-topic, but the original Indy films had their fair share of less-than-exemplary VFX, too - the plane crashing into the Himalayas in TOD, the dogfight in TLC, even some of the shots from the climax of Raiders. Doesn't justify it, but I'd say those flaws are a lot more glaring than the relatively few shots that look especially CG-ish in KOTCS.)

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

At least KotCS has an original story, isn't completely predictable, isn't as horribly cliche, and is watchable many times partially due to its shorter running time.

Original story? It's pretty much the same as ROTLA. Indiana Jones is pursuing some mystical artifact that's supposed to have powers. Meanwhile, Nazi, err, I mean Russian bad guys are also in pursuit of this thing to use the power to their advantage. Thing found, actions scenes ensue as they fight over it, thing's power kills the bad guys. The only damn surprise in the whole thing was that Sean Connery was DEAD.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Avatar is a great picture, KOTC is a sequel of a great picture. Who didn't see Indy4 loving Kotc more. Its so far up his ass that if surgery were performed to remove it, he'd die. It would be like removing his heart or skin.

[indy4 155]

I have admitted that sometimes my personal bias might get in the way and make me enjoy KotCS more than I might from an impartial perspective (ie, I like KotCS more than TDK). However, I truly believe that if I impartially evaluated KotCS and Avatar I would find the former to be superior. There's just nothing new to like in Avatar other than the effects. KotCS went out on a limb in several areas. I agree it's not the most original film, but I think it's still far more original than Avatar (and as an aside, I feel like Indy films can more easily get away with being less original, in so far as audiences are always going to be wanting some of the Indy necessities--creepy crawlers of some sort, a happy ending, a bombastic score, etc. These restrictions can both make an Indy film less original by restricting it, but they also magnify originality that goes against the "Indy mold." For example, I appreciate the fact that there are aliens in KotCS partially because they are in an Indy film, and it's a new territory for those films, even if it has been trodden many times by other films.). I honestly can't think of one aspect of plot or character development in Avatar that was original to the film...and I'd be willing to listen to examples if anybody else can.

[Datameister 2,042]

Avatar is a great picture

You're not far off the mark. It's a lot of great pictures - 24 of 'em being displayed every second for over two-and-a-half hours. Unfortunately, it doesn't bring too much more to the table than that.

[indy4 155]

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

At least Indiana Jones is a better hero than that traitor Jake Sully.

[Datameister 2,042]

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Some people must have gone into some of the greatest films in the history of cinema fucking deaf and blind if predictability sours their film going experience this much.

Anyone who enriches himself in literature and has a remote hint of grey matter in the brain and capable of rudimentary deductive reasoning can predict every step of virtually every film ever made.

That's not the point of storytelling. If it was, Star Wars, The Godfather, Jaws, Shawshank Redemption, 2001, ET, Schindler's List, Raiders, Empire Strikes Back, The Good Bad and the Ugly, Casablanca, all of these films would be mediocre at best.

[indy4 155]

It's not only predictability--it's just plain originality. Beyond the SFX, Avatar brought absolutely nothing new to the theatres. Why would I enjoy it if I've seen it all before?

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

It's not only predictability--it's just plain originality.

....What...the...hell?

[Joe Brausam 214]

It's not only predictability--it's just plain originality. Beyond the SFX, Avatar brought absolutely nothing new to the theatres. Why would I enjoy it if I've seen it all before?

The original Star Wars is the same way. I doubt anyone can watch Star Wars and defend the originality of the story. That doesn't make it a bad film. It breathed new life into that type of storyline and film making in general.

[indy4 155]

It's not only predictability--it's just plain originality.

....What...the...hell?

See, predictability means you can expect what's coming next. Originality means how new the ideas in/of the film are. A film can be predictable and original at the same time--perhaps the idea is very new, but the way the film is written the audience has hints as to what is coming next. Understand?

Again, since you seemed to ignore the substantive part of my last post, I challenge you to tell me what new thing Avatar brought to the theatres other than awesome SFX/cool designs.

It's not only predictability--it's just plain originality. Beyond the SFX, Avatar brought absolutely nothing new to the theatres. Why would I enjoy it if I've seen it all before?

The original Star Wars is the same way. I doubt anyone can watch Star Wars and defend the originality of the story. That doesn't make it a bad film. It breathed new life into that type of storyline and film making in general.

I disagree. Star Wars had several original things going for it. Space was not all shiny and beautiful as portrayed in previous sci-fi films, the music was a traditional symphonic score applied to a sci-fi film, and it was rebirth of that type of storytelling for that time period. Avatar smells of films made within the last decade or two, and cliches that are famous today.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6cjHeISq1o

[Datameister 2,042]

Anyone who enriches himself in literature and has a remote hint of grey matter in the brain and capable of rudimentary deductive reasoning can predict every step of virtually every film ever made.

I'll console myself by remembering that I haven't "enriched myself in literature"...I'd like to think that I do indeed have a remote hint of gray matter in my brain, and that I am capable of rudimentary deductive reasoning, and I'm certainly surprised by the plots of many films. Yup, must be the literature thing.

[Incanus 5,714]

Koray did it really take you this long to hear the resemblance between the finale of Gathering all the Na'Vi Clans for Battle and that piece from Gladiator? And yes poor Horner has a bad track record that speaks against him in the borrowing department. I spotted the similarity from the first listen and I thought this to be more of a temp track at work than Horner actively borrowing Zimmer. Temp track is basically the killer of free expression of an artist, especially if the director is dead set to his temp music and wants nothing but the same thing replicated with slight modifications. And it is always a shame to hear it bleeding through the music.

[Quintus 5,399]

I heard the Zimmer rip during my first screening actually. I remember tutting to myself. I'm typing on iPod so haven't seen what Koray linked, but I presume it's that slow building cue which climaxes with the ethnic choir chant thingy. Horner you shameless bastard!

I knew it was only a matter if time before this thread turned into an Avatar vs KotCS bollock fest.

Seriously, the only solid comparison I can make is with the director's - both are legends, but only one can still be counted on to deliver the goods after such high expectations.

[Ollie 1,059]

God I love this board.

Always manages to cheer me up when I'm feeling down and depressed.

[Wojo 2,453]

Should we really be surprised that the story of Avatar is unoriginal and cliched? Didn't James Cameron freely admit that for inspiration he used tidbits of nearly every sci-fi work he had ever come across his entire life to tell the story?

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Should we really be surprised that the story of Avatar is unoriginal and cliched? Didn't James Cameron freely admit that for inspiration he used tidbits of nearly every sci-fi work he had ever come across his entire life to tell the story?

But you can still use those cliches in different ways, whether by writing or directing, to get a new yet classic effect. ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST and STAR WARS are two 'greatest hits' compilations that still seem fresh and original, although in some cases the influences are almost subconscious. Unsure what the deal is with AVATAR as still haven't seen it.

[Quintus 5,399]

Avatar is basically Blue Velvet in space.

[Wojo 2,453]

[crocodile 8,012]

Koray did it really take you this long to hear the resemblance between the finale of Gathering all the Na'Vi Clans for Battle and that piece from Gladiator?

I noticed this right away. Doesn't bother me. A temp track issue, obviously.

Karol

[Ollie 1,059]

It's no big deal, I mean Zimmer wasn't really original with Gladiator either.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Avatar is a great picture

You're not far off the mark. It's a lot of great pictures - 24 of 'em being displayed every second for over two-and-a-half hours. Unfortunately, it doesn't bring too much more to the table than that.

wrong, its a great picture, it's great entertainment, and possibly time will tell if it's a great movie.

As it stands its very entertaining. It's a phenomenon, which is rare today.

remember for once you're the odd ball here, if this were Star Trek you'd be on the side I'm on, and I'd be on the side your dealing with.

[Datameister 2,042]

"For once" I'm the oddball? You really don't know me very well, man. I've been the oddball my whole life. And as I've already stated, I was initially mildly disappointed with Star Trek. I seem to recall you being more enthusiastic about it at the time than I was. It was only as I thought about it and re-watched it several times that I realized how thoroughly I enjoyed it, despite some flaws. I'm hoping the same will happen for me with Avatar. Better to be unimpressed with a film at first and then love it the rest of your life than vice versa, eh?

[JoeinAR 1,949]

"For once" I'm the oddball? You really don't know me very well, man. I've been the oddball my whole life. And as I've already stated, I was initially mildly disappointed with Star Trek. I seem to recall you being more enthusiastic about it at the time than I was. It was only as I thought about it and re-watched it several times that I realized how thoroughly I enjoyed it, despite some flaws. I'm hoping the same will happen for me with Avatar. Better to be unimpressed with a film at first and then love it the rest of your life than vice versa, eh?

Not necessarily because then I'd be stuck loving AOTC. I saw it at a sneak preview and intially thought wow. And then I saw it again and thought wow, but not the same kind of wow. I still think the Enterprise is cool looking and I think the cast is terrific, but the story and the set design leave alot to be desired. There is a video of the set designer trying to justify his choices for the engine room. Concrete and I beams in space...hmmm.