*** Official AVATAR Discussion Thread - Page 4

I absolutely loved this film!  I saw it in 3D and now can't wait to go see it in IMAX3D.  I'm still processing it all so I won't fully comment, but I will say that it lived up to my expectations.  Except for the trailer I stayed away from all the hype and discussions leading up to the release so as not to be disappointed and I definitely was not.  I agree that Zoe stole the show.  I totally bought the CG and completely forgot that most of what I was watching was not real.  I agree with Zack that I would of liked to see the science explained, especially the floating mountains and the flux.  Anyway, that's it for now, I'll comment again after I've seen it a second time.

Most of the Na'vi are barely dressed, in a very National Geographic sort of way.  The two main CGI characters are briefly shown making love. Language is basically two or three G-D's, and several s**t's. A LOT of violence towards the end, mostly impalings and non-gory injury.

I dreamed I was on Pandora last night.  It's been a while since I dreamed about being inside a film's world.

It is a PG-13 movie.  Not a harsh one, not a gentle one.  And the rating is primarily for action violence.

I understand your POV, Patrick.  Its a different emotional component than many films; a sense of discovery, for lack of a better word.  The weather here is horrible; I'm glad I saw it a second time already, because I am jonesing to experience it again.

I mentioned some shots I loved in the Review thread, but didn't want to spoil them (though the incessant commercials spoiled a few of them) where some folks might read,  But we're safe in here :)

• The Valkyrie (shuttle) breaking atmosphere
• Climbing Iknimaya (to the banshee nest) - this whole sequence
• When Jake is accepted and they all lays hands on him (probably my favorite shot)
• Jake with the ocean clan, all of them flying along the coast with the waves breaking
• Quaritch exiting the Dragon (the huge gunship) in his AMP suit as it explodes around him (probably the most badass shot in the film - and it is for the villain)
• Neytiri cradling Jake's crippled body in the Shack

There were some awesome shots during the major action sequences as well.

Caught this yesterday, in the theaters.  The "special effects" (computer graphics) were too cartoony, compare to the new Call of Duty game. The plot can only be enjoyed by people who rooted for the Ewoks in the Retrun of the Jedi. Note to Hollywood, I do not root for cartoony Smurf color aliens and their slings and arrows aginst the evil human war machine. My final verdict is, it was not worth the price.

James Cameron really should have his man card revoked for directing this pansy movie. It really is too bad, because back before this and Titanic I used to think he was a really cool director.
Edited by Charles Knox - 12/19/09 at 9:49am

Your comments might have meant something. Unfortunately, you started with this line and went downhill from there. Comparing the visual effects in this movie to CoD: Modern Warfare 2 is just......well.......the response would probably get me banned.

Seen it twice - first in 2D, then 3D My initial reaction was an amazing film despite the cliches and unoriginal story, and the visuals were stunning. Also Zoe Saldana's performance was great and her character was certainly the main one that I was invested in. However, while I enjoyed the film the second time, and it remains a beautiful film to watch, I couldnt shake the feeling that this is going to be one of those films that is going to really suffer once the 3D wow factor wears off. Whilst I agree that the film is probably intentionally derivative, it is ultimately going to hurt the film, certainly on repeat viewings and I think in at home it will be nowhere near as successful.

Don't get me wrong I did enjoy it but the problem was it simply TOO derivative of other films - especially Dances With Wolves. Im sure that film itself is derivative of others but it was less obvious. 4 out of 5 has now changed to 3 1/2 out of 5 and I can see this going down again on future viewings. Certainly worth seeing but I am completely surprised by the criticial reaction to the film and I think this is going to have a lot of backlash against it ultimately.

LOL. Me too. I was an Avatar. :)

Irony is something completely lost on Cameron. He made (at the time) the most expensive movie of all time, "Titanic", which was about how money doesn't make you happy. And with "Avatar" he's made the most technologically advanced movie of all time about the evils of technology. (And although not ironic by definition, I thought it was interesting that one of the production companies for this new film was Dune Entertainment).

With that said, I did like it. It is by-the-book storytelling, but it's very good by-the-book storytelling. Just see "Transformers" as an example of really poor by-the-book-storytelling.

My avatar was a bit on the pudgy side, though...

Is it really about the evils of technology? Or is it more about us, as a species, never learning our lesson because we are so arrogant in thinking that we know everything and therefore have the right to do anything because of our supposed species superiority? There is a line in the movie that sums it up. It occurs when Sully is telling the Na'vi that he has been sent to learn and the Na'vi oracle says -I'm paraphrasing here- that you can't fill a cup that is already full. IMO, the film is about our species psychotic need to bend everything and everybody to our will for the basest of reasons: money. We will destroy entire ecological systems for a susbstance that actually cannot physically sustain us. We can't eat, drink or breathe money but we will risk entire ecological collapse in the quest to acquire as much of it as possible.

I thought the depiction of the Na'vi was overly idealistic, but the depiction of humans was bang-on. We'll deplete the earth and if we are able to find another planet like it we will merely repeat the process.

All of Cameron's films, all of them, have been about the misuse of technology.  The man is not a Luddite, but he does tell cautionary tales.  I read a review (I think it was Ebert's) before I saw the film that called it both very green (and it is) and anti-war.  I don't see it as anti-war at all.  It is anti-colonialism, anti-conquering (I made that word up), but not anti-war.  THAT would be ironic.

And I think Cameron is pretty aware of the ironies of his films.

Yeah, I wouldn't call it anti-war. In fact, one of the ironies is that it takes a member of a species in love with war to convince another species to go to war on a mass scale. To tell the truth, I'm not sure if that is an irony,a conceit or a corruption of another culture by mankind.

I do know that the destruction of the Home tree scene was spectacular on a number of levels. I don't know about others but I felt bad watching that tree go over. In terms of wholesale destruction that was like nuking a city on Earth.

I managed to avoid all the spoilers and pre-viewing discussion and will be going through this thread tomorrow cause we braved the Blizzard and got to see this in Imax 3D today.  It was a little bit predictable but otherwise a total home run.  More soon.

Saw it tonight in digital 3D and it was a magical experience. You could nitpick the film to death, but why? Pure, escapist fun like I had at the movies when I was a kid.

9/10

I totally fell in love with Pandora. The Na'vi, the characters, the story, I was there. It grabbed me and I just went with it.

This is the first film I've seen in 3D, Imax 3D at that, and it did take a bit to get settled, but some of the shots were just so convincing it was incredible. There were a few moments when the 3D just didn't work right. Some flickering, blurriness but overall it was pretty good. The actual special effects were top notch. Just give them the Oscar already.

Fun side note, I was sitting next to two groups of people that worked on it. One did the tech for the motion (performance) capture, and I think the other did some of the animation.

Anyway, spent $20.25 to see, and I'll spend another $20.25 to see it again.

Loved this movie!

Edwin and Chuck:

The problem is that Cameron tells his tale with all the subtlety of a semi truck.

Furthermore, from all accounts, Cameron himself has also put everything (professionally and personally) at risk to put his visions on film. So I find his message more than a bit hypocritical.

Like I said in the review thread, loved the spectacle but the story never grabbed me. I found it derivative and simplistic.

I agree that Cameron tells his story with the subtlety of a Mack truck.  H'e always been like that.  But I'll counter that he also directs his movie with the horsepower of a Mack truck.  He directs the hell out of this film.  

That is what I (and I'd suspect quite a few others on this board) am responding to.  This is probably the ultimate expression of the Ebert quote: It is not what a movie is about, but how it is about it.  I have great passion for this film even with the basic script.  Because it is absolutely single-minded.

Regarding the story, I absolutely agree that it is derivative.  And it is also simple, but I'd argue, not simplistic.  It is straightforward, but the director believes in it.  And that is what makes it work.

I don't understand the basis for the hypocrisy comment.  What are you referring to, Chris?  He always shoulders the risk himself.  He always has.  For his many faults, that is one of his virtues.  He is an authoritarian a-hole, but he doesn't shift blame and he works harder than everyone else on his project.

My personal comment against him was too harsh. Will revise and explain later.

From Matt Fini's review in the review thread.

How did you expect the story to turn out? That Sully wouldn't change sides and the whole area would be devastated, turned into a strip mine and all the natives would be slaughtered? That would have been the only alternative to the way it did turn out.

Chris,
I didn't think you were harsh.  I didn't understand your comment.  I am genuinely curious.

No worries.

It wasnt just the main story that was predictable, it was pretty much every story development in the film.

Here's another thing that bothered me in this film - the way Cameron handled the exposition. It felt like the film had to stop all the time to explain what was going on when exposition wasnt necessary. Take the scene for example near the start of the film where Ribisi's character decides to explain what's going on to a character (Weaver's) who already knows exactly what he is talking about. Terrible scene which is just there give the audience information yet in the context of the film it makes no sense. 
Cameron is better than that 

STUNNING

That's the first word that comes to mind after seeing AVATAR.

It was a completely satisfying moviegoing experience. I was totally immersed in the film. The world that James Cameron has created in Avatar is nothing short of amazing. The attention to detail is astonishing. It is without a doubt one of the most beautiful films ever made.

The story services the film perfectly. And the visuals service the story spectacularly. I saw it in a baby IMAX 3D theater and the presenation was flawless. The 3D was the best I have ever seen. The CGI has set the bar now for what is possible.

Sure the dialog is a bit weak and the story somewhat familiar and derivative but no matter. The film delivers in spades what I wanted. I was never bored and always interested in what was going on. The action scenes were jaw dropping. It never felt preachy to me as it's message is more relevant now than ever.

AVATAR is a film that is not only meant to be seen but to be EXPERIENCED.

See it on a BIG screen if possible. 

I LOVED IT!


Edited by Tino - 12/20/09 at 4:42pm

It doesn't? You have never had a superior state the obvious to you in order to signal that you are, in his/her mind, out of line? To me, that scene makes perfect sense. He knows that she knows. He is just being the typical dick manager by insulting her intelligence and "reminding" her who pays the bills and, therefore, who is in charge. I suppose Cameron could have written it more directly and have the guy say, "Listen, bitch, I pay for your wages and research, now shut up and get the f$%# out". However, that doesn't work too well, since he plays an oily character, not a straightforward one. Now Lang's character, Quaritch, definitely would have said something like that if he had been the mine boss, rather than an ex-Jarhead.

This wasn't that groundbreaking or impressive as a whole.

After the intial wow factor, there isn't much left besides a great ending battle scene. It seems James Cameron spent all those years on the technology to make this happen, but didn't spend much time on the story at all. I don't care if a story has been told many times before, but there are variations, new ways for a story to be told, or there could be good storytelling, but Cameron fails miserably. There are no surprises and it's very predictable, with cliched characters, moments, dialogue, and more.

If you've seen Dances With Wolves, then this is just a badly told version of that story. From the beginning, it feels rushed. Costner was able to establish the characters and take his time in telling the story, showing us how the man learns and grows an attachment to the other culture. Malick also did a great job with The New World. Cameron clearly had enough running time but wasted it.

For all the visuals, there were few things that were imaginative or that I thought were cool. As I said, the intial wow factor wears off. I can think of many other movies in the past 10 years or so that had better "wow" experiences that lasted the entire movie, such as The Matrix, Speed Racer, The New World, Polar Express, Final Fantasy, and The Fall.

Sorry but it felt like pointless exposition to me and there was nothing in that scene that we were told that wasnt shown visually or explained elsewhere. Its what should be a deleted scene on the DVD. Im sure it worked for some people but my point is that when you are telling a story which is very familiar and I have yet to hear any review that doesnt point this out, you'd better make sure that the way in which the story is told feels fresh. I think he failed in this. How many people have mentioned Dances With Wolves ? I know I wasnt the first :) Some have stated that it was Cameron's intention to make the story as familiar as possible, Perhaps but it doesn't mean it should get a pass for it. I think Cameron feels the visuals and 3D would compensate and it does first time (and perhaps a couple more for some), but not after repeated viewings.

Ive seen it twice now and whilst the first time I was amazed visually and largely forgave its flaws, the second time this wasnt the case. Dont get me wrong, I'm not saying the film is terrible, but equally, I am amazed this film is being considered for awards beyond its technical achievements. Its a solid Hollywood blockbuster with outstanding visuals, but I expected a better "film" from Cameron.

And just so I dont come across as being unbalanced in my comments, things I did like :

1. Neytiri - the performance of Saldana allowed this character to rise above its familiarity and make me care about her. To a certain extent so did Weaver's character, Augustine, but I put that largely down to seeing Weaver in a sci-fi film again :)
2. Jake's first ride on a banshee/dragon thing - I did love this whole scene from the climb up the mountains to his first flight.
3. Final battle - he knows how to create a battle scene. Again what's happening here has been done to death in other battles, but the editing and visuals make it feel fresh. Only problem was I only really cared what happened to Neytiri

Hi Thi

I agree that Speed Racer had a "wow" factor that lasted the entire movie as in "Wow I can't believe how horrible this is".

JK. Each his own I guess. I thought Cameron did a fine job setting up the characters and the story he wanted to tell.

Cheers Thi

Hi Tino, nice to see you are still around here after all these years.

Maybe I missed something, but why were the Navi teaching the humans, or specifically Jake about their lifestyle? You'd think they'd want to benefit somehow from him/the humans, besides learning English.

That is a difference between the Na'vi and humans.  They aren't quite as quid pro quo.  They seem to be interested in teaching their ways (based on what Mo'at said to Jake) without consideration as the recompense.  As for Jake, the representation of Eywa (the floating seed) indicated that he was unique among his kind.

i thought the film left you with the impression that they had tried to teach the humans their ways prior to Jake's arrival to make them understand why they would not move from their home and that it wasn't until they started mining the place that things went bad.