Avatar. [Archive] - Lounge of Tomorrow

Alex

12-19-2009, 10:48 AM

Now I'm afraid of overselling it. But it really did work for me.

In terms of just being a spectacle it most reminded me of when I first saw The Matrix, having gone in completely cold on opening day simply because a trusted friend said "trust me, see it."

The biggest criticism you see in reviews is about the story being cliche and simple. And it is, but as I've said many times that can be done well (there really aren't many new stories under the sun) and I think it was done well, could have been better.

The big kicker for me is that I've always hated watching pixels fight on screen. That's the biggest flaw in the Transformer movies. But for a 20-minute battle scene in which not one thing on screen is real I was tense, agog, and rapt.

I fear for what this will unleash on us as movie goers since I suspect few will do it so adeptly but when I woke up this morning I was seriously thinking about walking across the street for the 9am show.

BarTopDancer

12-19-2009, 11:06 AM

Wow. I think I'll have to see it.

Chernabog

12-19-2009, 11:46 AM

Damn, Alex bought the Pandora Action Playset, the Na'vi Underoos (complete with treehuggin' hippie tail), AND he has a fantasy bromance with Sam Worthington? Now THAT'S a recommendation. ;)

cirquelover

12-19-2009, 12:45 PM

Well with that kind of a recommendation from Alex, I may just have to give in to the boys and go see it too! We can't do 3D, with Gary being blind in one eye it just gives him a headache, but we could catch a regular showing.

Alex

12-19-2009, 12:59 PM

Does he still wear the glasses? Even if he's not getting the 3D, does that not filter out the second image enough to just look like flat 2D? That's what happens when I close one eye.

Cadaverous Pallor

12-19-2009, 02:59 PM

James Cameron is going to owe Alex some royalties....I think we'll have to make time in our schedule for this.

LSPoorEeyorick

12-19-2009, 03:54 PM

Hmm. I'm still not feeling it whatsoever but now, based on Alex's recommendation, at least I don't have to be dragged there.

Alex

12-19-2009, 04:32 PM

Man, such pressure. Almost want to recant so I can't be held responsible.

But I guess it is an opportunity for anybody who felt I was calling them stupid for liking Transformers to get revenge.

Chernabog

12-20-2009, 12:00 AM

LOL well I did just get back from seeing it in 3d and it was one of those movies that ended up being more or less what I expected, plot-wise, visual-wise, etc. In other words, I enjoyed myself, but wasn't blown away or anything.

A few observations:

1) Sigourney Weaver is still my favorite actress. She rocks in everything, and I was pleased to see she had a bigger part in this than I thought. Though, where did her avatar find such big dorky shirts?

2) Sam Worthington needs to pick an accent and stick with it.

3) I was pleased to see that James Cameron got over the "creepy" eye factor with humanoid computer animation that Robert Zemeckis can't seem to get right -- namely, he did so by giving the Na'vi non-human eyes. It works. The Na'vi are very expressive CGI creatures. That being said...

4) ... it still looks like I'm watching a video game (especially in the non close-up flying shots), albeit with very high resolution textures. I'm not buying the "this is a giant leap forward in motion picture technology" stuff. With the exception of the close-ups of the Na'vi being slightly more expressive, the CGI seems more incrementally better than "oh-my-god" better.

5) I like how half the animal and plant life on Pandora either glows, spins, or glows AND spins. If there wasn't a danger of being eaten, I would totally relapse on acid there.

6) The plot definitely got more fun as time went on and it started getting away from the "Pocahontas... IN SPACE!" stuff (I swear, at one point I started humming "Colors of the Wind"). I won't give away a major plot point here, but after there was a rather large explosion, the action factor went into overdrive and I stopped looking at my watch. Oddly enough, even though it was all just pixels fighting, it didn't devolve into the mindless crap of Transformers. I mean, there WAS mostly a point to the whole thing.

7) The dialogue is really pretty terrible. Giovanni Ribisi gets some of the worst lines. (And does some of the lousiest acting, which just ups the "really?" factor) But then again, the dialogue in most Cameron movies isn't too great, right?

8) I mentioned how much Sigourney Weaver rocks, right?

So that's my review. You'll be entertained, you'll think the pretty video game graphics are gorgeous, you'll want to make out with Sam Worthington and/or Sigourney Weaver and/or both at once, but it doesn't break too far from the expected plotline.

7 Jolly Blue Giants out of 10 :)

mousepod

12-20-2009, 08:16 AM

Probably going to see it today. One of my friends reminded me of an Outer Limits episode called "The Chameleon" that was first aired in 1964. The wikipedia synopsis:

A flying saucer has landed in a remote part of the United States and wiped out a military patrol sent to investigate. Concerned that the saucer contains nuclear material, the authorities decide on a wild scheme: send Mace, an alienated CIA daredevil, to infiltrate the ship. Genetically modified to pass as an alien, Mace finds that he is beginning to think as an alien, and begins to question his allegiance - and his very nature.

I'm going to have to watch this one soon...

Alex

12-20-2009, 08:35 AM

Two things I don't understand from critics of the movie (though it is fine with me if people don't like it):

1. Those saying it is a comment on current US policy seem to forget that Cameron wrote this back in the mid-90s.

2. If this movie is solidly liberal then I guess the Spanish destruction of Central and South America resources and people is a convervative ideal? More than anything, that is the real world example the overall story reminded me of.

3. People sayign that it is a rip-off of Dances with Wolves seem to think that the fundamental story progression was original to Dances with Wolves. "Warrior goes native, realizes his side is wrong" is a much, much older idea than that.

RStar

12-20-2009, 12:53 PM

I'm going to see it today, but I have just lowered my expectations a notch, just in case....

alphabassettgrrl

12-20-2009, 04:25 PM

Thought we'd have time for this today, but we won't. Dangit.

I am looking forward to watching Sigourney Weaver. And I hope to be amused by the big blue aliens.

mousepod

12-20-2009, 06:10 PM

Just saw it. Immersive. Beautiful. A great technological leap forward. But somehow emotionally not there. It reminded me of the first time I saw Jurassic Park. There were plenty of "wow" moments, and I knew instantly that the bar had been raised for special effects movie making, but I also knew that the cool stuff that I was marveling at would be quickly adapted for TV commercials, etc. As far as storytelling goes, it was more "big spectacle" ("Braveheart" "300" etc) than clever. Last week I rewatched The Matrix trilogy (I know, I'm not supposed to like 2 & 3 - sue me), and I think that the story of those movies held up years after the special effects became mainstream. I'm not so sure about Avatar.

Gemini Cricket

12-20-2009, 10:32 PM

I saw it. Liked it a lot. But it did have its problems...

As Alex had mentioned earlier, I kept thinking of Dances With Wolves all the way through. Now that Cherny mentions it, Pocahontas works too.

There seemed to be a lot of throw backs to Cameron's previous films, especially Aliens.:

1. Tough chick pilot from Aliens.

2. Loaders like in the movie Aliens.

3. Helicopter planes like in Terminator 2.

4. Cryogenic sleeper pods like Aliens.

5. Epic huge SFX happening in a film that was reminiscent of the Titanic sinking in Titanic.

6. Sigorney Weaver.

7. Corporate jerk who is trying to ruin the day like in Aliens.

8. Hot shot military crew like in Aliens.

9. Jumpy specimens in large jars as in Aliens.

10. Hot shot female military soldier sacrifices her life in the midst of battle like in Aliens.

I have to disagree with Cherny about Weaver. I like her in some things but as in Aliens, she bugged me in this one. Since Aliens, she's never learned how to swear convincingly on camera. It always seemed forced as if she's never sworn before in her life. I liked the idea of her character, but she wasn't hard-assed enough for me.

The 3D is spectacular. You have to see this film in 3D or you're missing out on a lot.

Loved all the animals and the bio luminescent doings on Pandora. Truly imaginative. Ralphie had mentioned that Cameron had talked to some of his colleagues about deep sea stuff and bio luminescent seaweed and animals several years ago.

Loved the animation. As Cherny said, they got the eyes right. And there were expressions they made that totally sold certain moments.

It drove me nuts all the way through the movie trying to place CCH Pounder's name to her voice. Love her.

The ending... I would have liked to see Jake save the day or save himself as a human. It gave this weird message that crippled people need help.

I was blown away by the first moments on Pandora. Him exploring the jungle and getting his butt kicked and all. But there were long periods of time in the film that dragged. Slllloooow. But the rest of the film made up for it.

So God, Mother Nature saves the day? Hmm. Don't know about that one...

The CG of Jake's legs were spot on. Nicely done.

Huge liberal green message in the film. Cleverly done tho. I mean how do you get straight, Fox "News" watching dudes to see a movie about preserving the environment? Fill the film with military guys, explosions, wars and more explosions.

I was wondering if there is such a thing as too much movie. There was so much going on in this one, was it too much, too over done?

I'm beginning to wonder if I just saw the winner of Best Picture... You never know.

€uroMeinke

12-20-2009, 11:09 PM

I haven't seen it yet, but I did have a Big Mac, which allowed me to enter the world of Pandora, and find things like a box of fries hidden in the foliage - unfortunately my fully emersive experience in McDvision was cut short because I need to eat more Big Macs to advance to the next level of play.

Gemini Cricket

12-21-2009, 01:15 AM

And can I just say... The cost to make this movie: $300 million?!!! WOW!

Cadaverous Pallor

12-21-2009, 08:48 AM

We didn't go yet...but it's made $232 mil worldwide this weekend. $73 mil of that in the US.

Chernabog

12-21-2009, 09:46 AM

We didn't go yet...but it's made $232 mil worldwide this weekend. $73 mil of that in the US.

I think that fell somewhat on the conservative side of initial projections... I was reading that $60mil was super conservative and $80-$100mil was going to be considered super good. Eeeh I don't think Cameron has anything to worry about. :)

€uroMeinke

12-21-2009, 11:11 AM

That's a lot of Big Macs

Moonliner

12-27-2009, 07:11 AM

I made it out yesterday to see Avatar.

The overall look, The bullet nosed ships, Marines working for "The Company", Am I the only one that thinks Avatar is set in an earlier time-frame on the same world as Aliens?

Come to think of it, there are a lot of nasty ass creatures on Pandora. I wonder.....

Story wise, I'd say Camron read some of the same books I did growing up. Harry Harrison's 'Deathworld' series comes to mind. To bad Avatar did not include power holsters. I always thought that was a cool idea.

I can't wait for Avatar to make it to Blu-Ray. It will be one helluva test for any home theater sound system. One specific scene ought to topple Kung-Fu Panda off the list as a sub woofer torture test (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1085027).

Cadaverous Pallor

12-27-2009, 12:59 PM

We also saw this last night. I enjoyed it from beginning to end. The 3D was great (non-IMAX).

No irksome sidekicks, no cutesy alien pets, no in-your-face comic relief. THANK GOD. For an over the top CG extravaganza, it got surprisingly down to the necessary components.

The world was fully realized, full of fun without being gimmicky or video-game-ish. There was one moment where I thought "what an awesome interactive blacklight playground this would make", but that was about it.

I love how movies like this are able to play both sides of issues.

1. You hate the humans, hate the military, hate the profiteering...but what is it that saves the day? A human who learns to love the People. It's a classic redemption story, a "one person saves a race", but which race are they saving? Both...

2. When Jake asks Aywa for help in battle and he's told that Aywa doesn't take sides, I really dug it. "That's right, mother nature doesn't take sides!" But then, oh wait, no. Necessary, perhaps, but I liked the previous idea better. I guess it's easy to argue that Aywa was just defending herself.

I was reminded of many other movies but in pleasant ways. To me it didn't feel like it was stealing ideas so much as presenting new ways of looking at them.

I loved the moment the gawky scientist's Avatar gets hit, and the human stumbles out of his pod, unharmed though in shock. Yay, it's not the Matrix! "Your mind makes it real" my ass. ;)

Weird Al jokingly called it "Cameron's $250mil Smurf Movie" but I have to admit I was reminded of the Smurfs, with the environmental message and the looming evil that wants to exploit them. Blue skin helps too.

When Jake is being chased by the crazy monster near the beginning, the noises it makes are exactly like the dinos in Jurassic Park. I groaned a bit at that. For crying out loud, make some new crazy beast noises!

Since we just watched the Phantom Menace review (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKtZmQgxrI&feature=related) in full, which mentions that Lucas kept shoehorning crap in the background in both the prequels and the Special Edition OT, I felt extra sensitive to an overloaded background...but I think Avatar did have a good amount of this action without overwhelming the viewer, and kept the focus clear.

Yeah, slightly weak dialogue but I've definitely heard worse. Very good casting.

It didn't make me cry at any point, and though I did feel for the characters I think it didn't quite hit as deep an emotional mark as it might have.

Overall, this is the type of thing that defines the genre of Science Fiction / Fantasy. Awesomeness.

flippyshark

12-27-2009, 01:16 PM

I'm divided on this one.

On the upside:

- This was a superior example of other-world imagining, the kind of visionary creativity that makes me love movies.
- The Na'avi worked splendidly as living, breathing characters. They were even kind of sexy.
- James Cameron knows how to stage an action sequence so that it's always clear exactly what is happening, and he realizes that the best way to make you feel you are there is to stage things with clear compositions, careful staging, judiciously varied time-length of shots, and no gratuitous shaky cam. Up and coming movie-makers, please study these techniques!

On the downside:

- The major characters were mostly cut from the cliche cookie sheet. Would it kill writers to inject some unpredictability, some nuance, maybe even some well-earned divided loyalties, into these paper-thin characters? Case in point - early on, I wanted to like the hard-ass Colonel. What if he had a little more substance instead of being just plain evil? What if Jake Sully actually had good reason to trust and respect him, and it ended up being an actual tragedy that they end up on different sides? What if both had good reasons to make the choices they did, and both lost something by choosing sides? Instead, our bad guy was a ludicrous stereotype, not worth giving a damn about. Boring.

- Jake had his moment of moral clarity WAY too late in the story - it was very artificial, and clearly timed so that we could follow a drearily familiar plot device. ("I'm an outcast now, but I have to convince them I'm on their side, even though I pretty much destroyed their lives.") And forgiveness came much too easily as well.

- I knew exactly who was going to die and at what point along the narrative arc. For f**k's sake, H'wood - try to surprise me sometime, okay?

- Even though I thought the big blue people worked visually, for some reason, Sigourney was a little bit "uncanny valley" in her avatar form.

- I love the earth, but this movie's tree-huggery and hyper-pantheism got heavy-handed and ridiculous for me.

My (perhaps predictable) criticisms aside, I highly recommend the experience, especially in a good theater, and certainly in 3D. i'm very glad I went, and may even go back for seconds - especially because I don't think this is going to be nearly as compelling on home video.

Just an aside - It would have been interesting if there had been inter-clan strife among the Na'avi. It occurred to me that since this was a race of warriors, and obviously had been for a very long time, there must naturally have been tribal conflicts and wars - but this is never mentioned. One sensed that there was nothing but widespread peace and Eden-like perfection until the Earthies had shown up, but, this can't have been the case. Anyway, this is an interesting enough world, endless other stories about the Na'avi could spring from it. So, I guess I'd like to see their history, and I don't want it to be all glowy flowers and swaying kum-ba-ya around the tree.

So, that's my immediate response.

flippyshark

12-27-2009, 01:19 PM

CP - You bring up an excellent point - all my criticisms aside, this movie absolutely buries George Lucas. Compared to Phantom Menace, Avatar does everything right, and my nit-picking is sheer ungratitude.

Cadaverous Pallor

12-27-2009, 02:43 PM

Flippy's right - Cameron's composition is miles ahead of many others, never overusing shaky cam.

Just an aside - It would have been interesting if there had been inter-clan strife among the Na'avi. I think enough emphasis was put on "uniting the clans" to show that they aren't exactly buddies, but you're right, they could have made that more dramatic than it was. Perhaps they decided against it to avoid even more cliche pitfalls...or maybe the movie is really long as it is.

Cadaverous Pallor

12-27-2009, 03:19 PM

For those that tweet - click on the Trending Topic "Avatar". About every 30 seconds, the page refreshes and tells you there are now another 40 or so more tweets mentioning Avatar. Now THAT is word of mouth.

Ghoulish Delight

12-27-2009, 04:48 PM

Wow, I totally love The Hippy Matrix Avatar! I tried to keep my expectations low, even with all of the praise its been receiving. And I apparently kept them low enough, because I was really really really charmed by this movie.

My one and only criticism is that the last 1/3 dragged pretty badly. I was perfectly okay with a thin, one-dimensional, predictable, retread story, but for god's sake, if I know where you're going, don't waste my time getting there.

But the sheer beauty and wonder of the film was enough to overcome even that. Bravo, Mr. Cameron.

And, thanks to Mythbusters, the one moment that I probably would have otherwise rolled my eyes and and cried foul fell squarely into "plausible":

During the attack on Home Tree, the entire clan let loose their arrows on the gun ships, and did nothing more than nick the cockpit glass. But during the final battle, an arrow pierced clear through the glass and killed the pilot. What gives?!! Well, thanks to the Mythbusters episode about firing an arrow from a horse, we all know that an arrow fired from a moving mount does indeed carry more force do to the forward momentum of the mount, and those flying beasts were certainly diving pretty fast, so I'll give it to them! Nice.

flippyshark

12-27-2009, 05:07 PM

Further proof of the indispensability of Mythbusters, GD!

JWBear

12-27-2009, 08:45 PM

We just saw it. AWESOME!

My observations have mostly been brought up in other posters, so I won't repeat what they have said.

And, thanks to Mythbusters, the one moment that I probably would have otherwise rolled my eyes and and cried foul fell squarely into "plausible":

During the attack on Home Tree, the entire clan let loose their arrows on the gun ships, and did nothing more than nick the cockpit glass. But during the final battle, an arrow pierced clear through the glass and killed the pilot. What gives?!! Well, thanks to the Mythbusters episode about firing an arrow from a horse, we all know that an arrow fired from a moving mount does indeed carry more force do to the forward momentum of the mount, and those flying beasts were certainly diving pretty fast, so I'll give it to them! Nice.

It seemed to me that the arrows they were shooting from "horse"back were also much more substantial.

Ghoulish Delight

12-27-2009, 11:25 PM

It seemed to me that the arrows they were shooting from "horse"back were also much more substantial.
Yeah, and they were also shot from much closer range, and a more direct angle. But the appropriateness of the Mythbusters episode made me chuckle

Also, was I the only one who had to suppress the urge to swat at bugs during the first scene in the forest?

Gemini Cricket

12-27-2009, 11:42 PM

I think GD secretly works as a spokesperson for Mythbusters and the Container Store.
:D

Alex

12-28-2009, 12:00 AM

Also, when shot from the sky the spears and arrows were striking the glass mostly perpendicular whereas the ground shots were hitting at an extremely oblique angle.

Glad that nobodies seems to have been particularly burned by my enthusiasm.

Whoops, missed the next page.

Alex

12-28-2009, 12:03 AM

If interested, apparently you can find floating around on the internet Cameron's original treatment which contained a lot more explanatory information (such as the conditions on earth, some differences in the planetary mythology -- if CP didn't like the planet's role in this version she'd have liked the original version less). Apparently if it had all made it on screen the movie would have been about 5 hours long.

If the sequels happen I suspect a lot of it will end up in those.

flippyshark

12-28-2009, 12:09 AM

This movie does seem especially franchise-ready - sequels, novels, comics, animation, TV series, video games - it could really explode. I'll be interested to see if it does.

Cadaverous Pallor

12-28-2009, 10:46 AM

I realized later that another thing bugged me about the planet's "role". When they bulldoze the sacred trees, Weaver yells at them about how there is something real going on down there, that they are connected to the planet mainframe, yadda yadda....but to me, this is a non-point, and a bit of a disappointment. Does it matter whether their religion is based in fact, or based on something that no one could prove, or if they worshiped their planet for no good reason?

In the face of "this Aywa thing is real" the villain says "it's just a bunch of trees" and that's supposed to make it ok. If that's a holy place for them, then they have no business destroying it without permission, and that should be the argument made.

I'd argue that they had no business on the planet at all without permission from the natives, but of course that is the entire point of the movie.

JWBear

12-28-2009, 11:53 AM

Ghoulish Delight

12-28-2009, 12:46 PM

Somehow I don't think he would have been swayed by the religious argument either.

No, but from the standpoint of what ethical message the movie sends, having the "religion" turn out to be a reality kinda dilutes it. With such an emphasis on, "But it's not just some tree huggers, there actually IS a consciousness in the forest and the planet," it begs the question, "Well then, does that mean if it were just a bunch of trees, without this neuro-network of roots, it would be okay to bulldoze the place?" I certainly don't think so, but that's kinda what the movie says, otherwise, why does it matter that Aywa was actually real? It shouldn't be okay to forcibly uproot (so to speak) a civilization, regardless of whether their religion is scientifically provable or not.

flippyshark

12-28-2009, 01:09 PM

No, but from the standpoint of what ethical message the movie sends, having the "religion" turn out to be a reality kinda dilutes it. With such an emphasis on, "But it's not just some tree huggers, there actually IS a consciousness in the forest and the planet," it begs the question, "Well then, does that mean if it were just a bunch of trees, without this neuro-network of roots, it would be okay to bulldoze the place?" I certainly don't think so, but that's kinda what the movie says, otherwise, why does it matter that Aywa was actually real? It shouldn't be okay to forcibly uproot (so to speak) a civilization, regardless of whether their religion is scientifically provable or not.

Amen, brother! And that goes for any number of other movies that include a supernatural element that turns out to be real and vindicates our heroes. Is a moral message any use if it is predicated on the reality of things that stubbornly refuse to be provably real?

Moonliner

12-28-2009, 03:54 PM

I'd say it's time to drop the spoiler tags in this thread. If you have not seen the movie you won't get much out of reading the posts unless you peak anyway.

So beware: Past this point there be spoilers.

It's his sled.

I warned you!

Alex

12-28-2009, 07:43 PM

In terms of whether it dilutes things for there to be evidence that the planet is sentient in some way and the religion based on something real, I don't really see how it was possible to avoid that since otherwise the only outcome for the movie is for the Na'vi to lose and be annihilated.

Also, since it is the very rare movie indeed that can present faith without also preventing evidence so that the audience can buy in I don't really hold that against anybody.

But if evidence dilutes the message, then doesn't it also dilute the message that the good guy is only convinced to do the right thing once he himself has come to believe in the religion? Wouldn't the most powerful message be for him to not only have no evidence that the planetary religion has a factual basis but to in fact believe it to be silly nonsense and yet still be willing to risk death protecting those people from what is coming?

Though the tact to take with the company representative was not to say "hey, they're religion is real" but rather "hey, it looks like their religion is based on the fact that biosphere is a single sentient entity, how much fricking money do think that might be worth if we can learn to work with it?"

Ghoulish Delight

12-28-2009, 07:47 PM

But if evidence dilutes the message, then doesn't it also dilute the message that the good guy is only convinced to do the right thing once he himself has come to believe in the religion? Wouldn't the most powerful message be for him to not only have no evidence that the planetary religion has a factual basis but to in fact believe it to be silly nonsense and yet still be willing to risk death protecting those people from what is coming?

Yes, that's implicit in that observation. I thought that much was equally dumb. But only when I take the time to delve into the story, which I didn't do while watching, and only am doing afterwords for laughs. It hasn't diminished my enjoyment of the movie, seeing as I never intended it to serve as my moral compass.

Alex

12-28-2009, 08:10 PM

Somehow I don't think he would have been swayed by the religious argument either.

More importantly that argument had already been made (the natives attachment to the place was the whole reason Sully was given three months to try and find a way to convince them to leave peacefully) and obviously had not carried the day so it certainly would not have been effective for Sigourney Weaver to argue it again.

flippyshark

12-28-2009, 09:30 PM

(the natives attachment to the place was the whole reason Sully was given three months to try and find a way to convince them to leave peacefully)

Sully really dropped the ball on that, too. Talk about procrastination. "I'm one of you now. Oh, by the way, they tanks are here. Um, I guess you all had better leave right away. Oh, and I knew this was going to happen three months ago. Sorry, dudes."

Capt Jack

12-29-2009, 11:08 AM

dug it. wanna see it again. I think I'll try to go IMAX this time.

RStar

12-29-2009, 11:31 PM

I loved it, also! It reminded me a loy of "Ferngully", mixed with the American Indian history and the way we treated them.

The one "plausable problem" I saw was that huge planet that was so close it seemed like there would be gravitational pull issues.

And yes, that was a much more substantial arrow that went through the glass.

Jazzman

12-30-2009, 02:13 AM

The Wife and I were going to go ahead and see Avatar in IMAX 3D this coming weekend, but then I found out how much tickets cost. $15.50 to see Alien Smurf Hippies!?! I don't f-ing think so! If I want to see 3D hippies with anti-capitalist ideals running around raging against The Man, I'll go hang out in downtown Portland. And if I want them to be funnily colored hippies, I'll go hang out at the Saturday Market. Besides, isn't it a bit disingenuous to make a big movie all about how humans are evil, Western nature rapists, and then charge $15 to see it? Seems a little un-hippy-like to go all mega-capitalist on the admission price to see your anti-capitalism movie. Shouldn't they be charging, like, beads or carbon credits or organic, free trade coffee for admission or something? Anyhow, I'll see it when it hits Netflix. Sorry Mr. Cameron.

Cadaverous Pallor

12-30-2009, 12:11 PM

Your beef isn't with Mr. Cameron. IMAX always costs that much.

You do have the option of seeing it sans IMAX, and sans 3D, for normal ticket prices. I didn't think IMAX was worth it to me so we went for just 3D.

Jazzman

12-30-2009, 05:00 PM

I just found out that there is a renovated single screen vintage theater here in Portland showing the digital 3D for $9, so I think we'll go there. The only way I'll see this film is in 3D, as that and its overall visuals are all that I'm interested in. Otherwise, it's just another "People are evil" film, which isn't worth more than a Netflix slot to me.

Alex

12-30-2009, 05:26 PM

Why bother seeing a movie you've already decided you won't like?

Cadaverous Pallor

12-30-2009, 06:06 PM

Why bother seeing a movie you've already decided you won't like?That's what I'm wondering.

I'm also wondering why he thinks all the people in the movie are evil. Spoiler alert - they're not.

mousepod

12-31-2009, 11:24 AM

After seeing Avatar, I joined the large group of movie fans who thought that the effects were brilliant but the story was lacking and derivative. Now, a couple of weeks later, I've rethought my position a bit, based on an unrelated request from my sister last week. Right before we moved to LA, I took some Disney/Ghibli animation DVDs and reburned them for my then two-year-old niece with all of the non-movie stuff removed, so she could just pop it into a DVD player and go straight to the flick. When we visited her in San Francisco last week, my sister asked me if I could burn a copy of the theatrical version of Star Wars for Ella, now four. It occurred to me that part of the reason that I loved Star Wars so much when it first came out was that it was an exciting sci-fi adventure with characters that I liked. For an eleven-year-old me, it didn't matter that the story was derivative or that there were shortcomings in the logic or production. Had I been a forty-something with a sophisticated knowledge of cinema, I would have been able to intellectually block my visceral enjoyment of the film. And that would have been a shame. I hope that my nieces and nephews (all 13 and younger) get a chance to see Avatar in its initial run. When they're in their thirties and Cameron produces a crappy movie set in the "Avatar Universe", they'll get all huffy about how he betrayed his original, unique vision. And I'll quietly smile.

wolfy999

12-31-2009, 12:15 PM

Just purchased tickets for the Irvine Spectrum IMAX showing of this on Sunday afternoon....from everyone's input, I'm really looking forward to this.

Gn2Dlnd

12-31-2009, 12:29 PM

That's what I'm wondering.

I'm also wondering why he thinks all the people in the movie are evil. Spoiler alert - they're not.

Sez the funnily colored hippie. ;)

Jazzman

12-31-2009, 12:34 PM

Why bother seeing a movie you've already decided you won't like?

The only way I'll see this film is in 3D, as that and its overall visuals are all that I'm interested in.

:rolleyes:

Alex

12-31-2009, 12:41 PM

Roll your eyes all you want, but the question remains unanswered. 3 hours of hating a movie is a lot of investment to see some pretty pictures.

Or to ask it a different way, if you're going to see it anyway, why bother pre-determining that you won't like it?

Jazzman

12-31-2009, 12:57 PM

No, no, it's answered. Rather clearly too. Perhaps not satisfactorily to your fight-picking baiting, but it's answered.

After seeing it I'll post my own review. Enough for now though.

Tref

12-31-2009, 01:02 PM

Otherwise, it's just another "People are evil" film, which isn't worth more than a Netflix slot to me.

Yeh, I am tired of 'people are evil' movies, too. I want more 'animals are evil' films. Stupid animals.

Gn2Dlnd

12-31-2009, 01:44 PM

Irwin Allen wants you!

To sit in a movie theatre in the '70s.

Alex

12-31-2009, 01:56 PM

No, no, it's answered. Rather clearly too. Perhaps not satisfactorily to your fight-picking baiting, but it's answered.

But I asked the question, it's my question, wouldn't I be the one to know when it's been answered? And since I remain unclear on why you'd subject yourself to nearly three hours of offensive story simply to look at pretty pictures, it would appear that the curiosity behind my question remains unanswered. I was hoping for something like "I'll be wearing headphones playing the audio track from Season 4 of The Golden Girls and therefore will only be experiencing the pretty pictures." That would be an answer to the question. "I restate that which prompted the question" not so much. You're not very good at Q&A, perhaps The Learning Annex offers a class.

Besides, watching Avatar is now my Christmas tradition. It isn't very nice of you to poop on it like this. Baby Jesus weeps, and not just because he's a baby and that's what babies do. But because through him is found salvation and that's an awfully big burden for a baby to bear and it is only in knowing that I enjoy Avatar, unsullied by pre-emptive pooping that he is able to bear it. And you take that away from him? Now mankind can't be saved and god forsakes us. I hope you're happy with yourself mister, you've made a mockery of the Pope's entire life (except the Nazi youth stuff, that remains unsullied).

Tref

12-31-2009, 01:57 PM

Irwin Allen wants you! To sit in a movie theatre in the '70s.

I'd say that's just the right temperature. Anything less and I need a jacket.

alphabassettgrrl

01-03-2010, 03:01 PM

Saw this last night.

I found the continual foreground 3D and the 3D bugs distracting. Ok, show us you can do it in the beginning, but then STOP IT. Using the 3D as background and midground- brilliant. Yes, more of that, absolutely.

Visually: pretty. I liked the blue people (yes, I know you're supposed to. I like them anyway).

Plot: No real surprises except for the ending. I was pleased with the ending. I didn't expect they'd actually do it.

People: wanted to smack the crap out of Jake all the way up to when he went to choose his dragon. Even then, he didn't seem to "get" it and I despised him for it. I loved the communal stuff at the tree of souls. I loved the adoption of a new member, and how everybody formed a web of touch.

Overall- thank you for having a story. It's still kind of showing off, too much of the "look what we can do," but it's starting to integrate into the movie and be just a part of it instead of calling attention to the effects. I'm not a fan of how movies are going deeper and deeper into the showing-off of effects, big blockbuster costs, and it's just crazy, but then at the core, there's no story. Big explosions, 3D, big sets, astounding scenery, but then it doesn't say anything.

blueerica

01-03-2010, 10:30 PM

More-or-less liked the movie a lot. Didn't see it in 3D, and I'm kinda glad I didn't.

alphabassettgrrl

01-03-2010, 11:03 PM

The 3D added a lot to some of the scenes. I'm glad we saw it in 3D.

Alex

01-03-2010, 11:17 PM

People: wanted to smack the crap out of Jake all the way up to when he went to choose his dragon. Even then, he didn't seem to "get" it and I despised him for it. I loved the communal stuff at the tree of souls. I loved the adoption of a new member, and how everybody formed a web of touch.

Of course he didn't get it until the end, up until then it was just another person's religion. Interesting anthropoligically but not much more. It wasn't until that last night when he listened to ancestors as the tree (the same night they had sex -- or however Na'vi bond) that he knew it was actually true and not just mysticism.

Before that, the best he could do would be to simply respect the odd religious beliefs of the others.

cirquelover

01-04-2010, 01:15 AM

It was an interesting movie. It truly amazes me what they can do with CGI, the trees and water were amazing! It didn't help that some silly woman brought a 4year old and a 4 month old, it was rather annoying to say the least!

wolfy999

01-04-2010, 07:37 AM

I saw it yesterday at the IMAX in Irvine. I just go for entertainment....and I was entertained. Hubby not so much.

alphabassettgrrl

01-04-2010, 03:58 PM

Before that, the best he could do would be to simply respect the odd religious beliefs of the others.

I'm not sure he even really respected it, but I am glad he got it in the end.

Gn2Dlnd

01-05-2010, 02:50 PM

Pocahontas = Avatar (http://thenextweb.com/shareables/2010/01/05/pocahontas-avatar/)

(Joe's been saying this for weeks.)

Alex

01-05-2010, 02:57 PM

I've never seen Pocahontas (though this hero progression through going native is hardly original to it) but does it really have them killing the Indians for gold?

I knew it wasn't a historically accurate movie but that seems way off.

Alex

01-11-2010, 07:26 PM

The sex scene has been cause of some ridicule. Turns out a fuller version was filmed but edited out. It's still in the script out for awards, consideration though.

I'm glad what is in the script wasn't in the movie (since it seems even more awkward) but I do wish the edited version had been clearer that they weren't have genital-to-genital sex (which is what it looked like) but bonding through the hair things.

You can read the scene here (http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2010/01/navi_sex_scene_found_how_they.html).

Ghoulish Delight

01-11-2010, 11:12 PM

Someone pointed out...that brings up awkward questions when you consider what they do with the animals.

Chernabog

01-12-2010, 12:11 AM

Someone pointed out...that brings up awkward questions when you consider what they do with the animals.

Yeah, I mean... ewww.

Jazzman

01-12-2010, 12:19 AM

Now that I know there's a love scene, I really have to see it. 3D Smurf love... How fantastic is that!?!

wendybeth

01-12-2010, 01:23 AM

Now that I know there's a love scene, I really have to see it. 3D Smurf love... How fantastic is that!?!
Duly submitted to the quotes section.:D

(Anyone else flash- however briefly- on the disturbing image of Papa Smurf getting his freak on? Anyone?)

Alex

01-12-2010, 07:04 AM

No. But since they're currently making a Smurf movie maybe you'll get lucky.

Someone pointed out...that brings up awkward questions when you consider what they do with the animals.

True, if you think of it as biologically analogous to sex. But no so much if it is merely a way of emotionally bonding at a deeper level (which people do wit animals all the time without it making bonds with humans ickier).

Cameron has said the Na'vi are not placental so I have no idea how they go about reproducing. For all I know the planet manufactures them and they are born from tree pods (if method was mentioned in the movie then I missed it).

Kevy Baby

01-12-2010, 09:05 AM

(Anyone else flash- however briefly- on the disturbing image of Papa Smurf getting his freak on? Anyone?)I've seen Avenue Q and Team America World Police and this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrYqU_H8Q6c) (um, yeah; NSFW). I doubt Papa Smurf bumping nasties could be much worse

Alex

01-12-2010, 09:07 AM

If you want Smurf porn, it's out there. But I'm not going to help you find it.

Kevy Baby

01-12-2010, 09:08 AM

I'll take your word on that one

Alex

01-12-2010, 09:15 AM

I don't believe you. I'm guessing that people really won't want to expand your next spoiler tag.

JWBear

01-12-2010, 10:07 AM

I don't believe you. I'm guessing that people really won't want to expand your next spoiler tag.

Like we were not already afraid to do that...

flippyshark

01-12-2010, 01:25 PM

I looked. It's not THAT horrifying. (it's pretty amusing)

alphabassettgrrl

01-12-2010, 04:15 PM

Just the term "smurf porn" makes me giggle.

Gemini Cricket

01-12-2010, 04:47 PM

Avatar is now the #5 All Time Domestic Box Office Grosser.
Wow! I don't think it will dethrone Titanic, tho.
But who knows.
:)

Jazzman

01-12-2010, 05:41 PM

Considering that many people are paying up to $15 a person to see it, I'm not surprised it's up there.

Here are the top films (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films_in_the_United_States_and_Canada) adjusted for inflation. Revealing. Gone With The Wind still tops out, with over a billion in today's dollars and two hundred million tickets sold in 1939! Impressive!

flippyshark

01-12-2010, 05:57 PM

I'm happy to see Rocky Horror on the adjusted list at #45 - It was a very modest production with hardly any studio support or expectations, but I think it succeeded not just because of the novelty of the audience participation that grew around it, but because the music kicked ass, and still does. I think it is the songs that have made this one timeless - that and the perfect casting. (It isn't the story, dialogue or pacing, heaven knows) I know kids now who love it even more than I did back in the (gulp) 70s and 80s.

flippyshark

01-12-2010, 05:59 PM

Also, I wonder if Star Wars would retain the number two spot without counting the Special Edition release.

Jazzman

01-12-2010, 06:03 PM

I'm pretty sure that the list only counts the release of the original Star Wars in '77 and doesn't account for the re-release. I could be wrong, but that's the way I read it.

Alex

01-12-2010, 06:25 PM

Since that's the Box Office Mojo list (here (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm) it is in current form, Wikipedia's appears to not have been updated in a bit) it includes re-releases (which is a lot for popular movies made before the '70s. For example the numbers for Star Wars (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=releases&id=starwars4.htm) includes the initial 1977 release, a re-release in 1982, and the Special Edition release in 1997).

While inflation adjusted lists are good at keeping a general sense of relative financial success of movies across time, they aren't nearly so precise as the numbers tend to imply. Especially since they rest on the faulty (and those who do it admit it's faulty) assumption that dividing gross by average ticket price gives a reasonably accurate total number of tickets sold. As an example, in 2008 both Horton Hears a Who! and Gran Torino had similar domestic grosses. But Horton Hears a Who! probably sold at least 20% more (and possibly quite a bit more than that) because a huge percentage of its tickets were cheaper kids tickets and it played a lot better in suburban and rural areas where tickets are cheaper. But they'll forever be viewed as equally popular.

And then there are the intangibles such as what success means in 1939 for Gone with the Wind when people knew that once it left their local theater town they might possibly never get another chance to see it again vs. now where everybody knows that they can watch the movie on their couch in six months and if they really wanted to pirate it a week early. Or that in 2009 there'll be four times as many movies released as in 1939.

But yeah, relative to society as a whole Avatar will be nowhere near the all time top, but it will be in the top 25 which isn't all that bad.

Jazzman

01-12-2010, 08:21 PM

Looks like some people are buying into the Greenpeace message (http://www.aolhealth.com/condition-center/depression/avatar-causes-depression?icid=main|search3|dl3|link5|http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.aolhealth.com%2Fcondition-center%2Fdepression%2Favatar-causes-depression) a bit too much. :eek:

flippyshark

01-12-2010, 08:46 PM

Wow, people are depressed because the film's idyllic world is not real or attainable. Personally, I'm relieved, as the Na'vi society seems to spend an awful lot of time sitting cross-legged and swaying back and forth in front of a tree, arms flailing about in the air. Not my idea of paradise. (And the whole hive mind thing just creeps me out, no matter how pretty a world you put it in.)

I do know at least one person who experiences similar disappointment that she cannot ever be at Hogwart's.

RStar

01-13-2010, 08:09 AM

Moonliner

01-13-2010, 09:17 AM

And some people are contemplating suicide so they can leave this world to go to that one. And they are considering building an Avatar commune also. WTF? Are people that out of it? No wonder the government covers up all the UFO landings, the were right- the public can't handle it!

Meh. There are always outliers in any set. Sex, Drugs, Booze, D&D, Elections, TV Shows, Pop Stars, Religions, Sports franchises, Video Games, Relationships, take your pick.

Pretty much anything that gets some national attention will get at least a few extremist. Then the press steps in and further mucks things up. Hell if CNN ran across this site the headline might read "Disney Nerds plan hedonist commune for bacon worship"

For the few individuals truly in trouble, I say take the focus off the movie and look for the true underlying cause of their distress.

Capt Jack

01-13-2010, 09:25 AM

"Disney Nerds plan hedonist commune for bacon worship"

Film @ 11

visible Moonie mojo :snap: :snap:

alphabassettgrrl

01-13-2010, 10:53 AM

Yeah, the movie is just a symptom, not the actual cause.

While I understand the desire to withdraw, to live what seems like a simpler life, real life is never as smooth as the fantasy is. Fantasy is perfect because it's a fantasy. It can be.

A bacon commune? Awesome! Where do I sign up?

Jazzman

01-13-2010, 11:42 AM

I guess one of the things that I find most laughable, or perhaps maddening, about that whole thing is that their depression is based on the belief that Earth sucks and can never be the utopia in the film. Well, yeah, Earth will never have glowing neon trees, disco ferns or six foot Smurfs, but come on, the Earth is not bad at all. It's pretty kick ass, in fact. Visit Yosemite, or Yellowstone, or the Caribbean, or Hawai'i, or the Maldives, or the Alps, or any number of Earth's beautiful wonders. You'll see that this planet still has it going on, so pull your mopey asses together and get out of the house!

Gemini Cricket

01-13-2010, 02:51 PM

I don't want to live on Pandora. I'd hate to live somewhere where I could be eaten at any moment by huge monsters. F*ck that.

Then again, I said a couple of times in passing that I'd love to live at Disneyland. So, I guess that's just as cuckoo as those people wanting to live in Avatarland.

I wouldn't want to live in Harry Potter's world either. I'd lose my temper and then Aveda Kedavra every dinglecheese that cut me off in traffic. Heck, I might even say it in my sleep and then what, how could I manage to keep a long term relationship with anyone then?

Ghoulish Delight

01-13-2010, 05:44 PM

Paula Poundstone, in response to a joke that included the word "ablutions":

"I thought ablutions were the people in Avatar."

Nephythys

01-13-2010, 08:43 PM

Saw it tonight- loved it.

€uroMeinke

01-13-2010, 09:59 PM

The DVD is now available on the Blue Line just north of Compton. Someday I'll see it.

Moonliner

01-14-2010, 06:21 AM

The DVD is now available on the Blue Line just north of Compton. Someday I'll see it.

You might have to allow for the slight possibility that the "Blue Line" edition could be lacking some of the fundamental elements intrinsic to this movies mass appeal.

Nephythys

01-14-2010, 07:13 AM

The only way I'll see this film is in 3D, as that and its overall visuals are all that I'm interested in. Otherwise, it's just another "People are evil" film, which isn't worth more than a Netflix slot to me.

It was a great movie. Not seeing it due to the so called "political" message is as stupid as not reading Harry Potter because it will make your kids turn to witchcraft.

Jazzman

01-14-2010, 08:34 AM

It was a great movie. Not seeing it due to the so called "political" message is as stupid as not reading Harry Potter because it will make your kids turn to witchcraft.

Not quite. Avoiding Potter because one thinks it will turn one to witchcraft is being both ignorant of the story's message and point as well as being foolishly superstitious. Not feeling inspired or drawn to see Avatar because one has no interest in neon alien hippy Smurfs is simply personal taste. Some people are inspired to go see certain movies, others are motivated to see others. I recently greatly anticipated the release of Boondock Saints II. Does that give me a right or reason to criticize those who did not find Boondocks an interesting draw and accuse them of being stupid? No, of course not, because not everyone is required to be pulled into the anticipation and excitement of the same things, even when those things become societal fad du jours. In other words, avoidance due to ignorance and opting not to partake due to lack of any interest at all are two entirely different things, and the latter is a completely innocent and respectable situation.

BarTopDancer

01-14-2010, 07:41 PM

$15.50 to see Alien Smurf Hippies!?! I don't f-ing think so!

Worth every penny of the $16.50 I paid for Spectrum IMAX. And I'm still unemployed. Woohoo for fiscal irresponsibility. Oh wait, I'm an evil liberal so you'd expect nothing less. ;)

My review:

Loved it. It kept my undivided attention nearly the entire way through. I looked at my watch only once and not because my attention was waning, my back started hurting.

It was visually stunning, I didn't have an issue with any of the acting or effects. I just wish someone had warned me that they'd show [CGI] animals on [CGI] fire. That really bothered me.

Oh and that big 'ol dose of corporate guilt tossed in for good measure. I didn't get any religious or political message out of it. Nor did I think "Smurfs", "Pocahontas", "Fern Gully" or "Danced with Wolves". I did think "ooo Stargate" when they linked but otherwise I was to busy being in awe over the pretty on the screen.

Jazzman

01-15-2010, 03:03 AM

Worth every penny of the $16.50 I paid for Spectrum IMAX. And I'm still unemployed. Woohoo for fiscal irresponsibility. Oh wait, I'm an evil liberal so you'd expect nothing less.

Umm... okay. :confused:

Glad you enjoyed the movie.

Gemini Cricket

01-16-2010, 05:01 PM

Avatar is about to overtake Star Wars on the All Time chart.

Moonliner

01-16-2010, 05:40 PM

Avatar is about to overtake Star Wars on the All Time chart.

I've got a bad feeling about this.

Alex

01-16-2010, 05:52 PM

Yeah, Lucas is going to feel the need to update to 3-D and then re-release them.

Moonliner

01-16-2010, 06:07 PM

Yeah, Lucas is going to feel the need to update to 3-D and then re-release them.

I've got an even worse feeling about this.

Alex

01-16-2010, 06:11 PM

He's going to do the same to American Graffiti.

Cadaverous Pallor

01-16-2010, 07:41 PM

Now envisioning American Graffiti with 10x the cars and people in the background.

Jazzman

01-17-2010, 01:10 AM

Avatar is about to overtake Star Wars on the All Time chart.

No worries. With inflation, the next Hannah Montana flick will probably overtake Star Wars too. I can even imagine the weekend figures in the year 2045:

"Van Wilder 38 overtakes Star Wars and Avatar on All Time Highest Grossing Movie List! First place still easily held by Dude, Where's My Shuttlecraft."

Alex

01-17-2010, 07:39 AM

I believe the clinical advice is that if you have a hard-on for beating on a movie you haven't seen yet that lasts for more than four weeks you're supposed to see a doctor.

Yes, inflation will eventually make achieving Star Wars numbers mundane. But Avatar is only the third movie to do so and one of those was 12 years ago. So it is still somewhat noteworthy in a trivia-oriented way that it has done so. Using unadjusted numbers, Titanic's twelve-year reign as the title-holder for most money made theatrically is the longest it has ever taken to be surpassed. So, again, it is interesting to those inclined to trivia that something is showing signs it might finally happen.

Cadaverous Pallor

01-17-2010, 08:03 AM

Alex, stop raining on Jazzman's parade of raining on everyone else's parade.

JWBear

01-17-2010, 08:53 AM

When I took the unpopular position of hating a movie everyone else here loved, I at least watched it first.

BarTopDancer

01-17-2010, 10:53 AM

JW, you silly Bear. He doesn't need to watch Avatar. He's seen/heard enough to know it's just giant Smurfs reenacting Pocahontas and Fern Gully now with teh sex!

Jazzman

01-17-2010, 12:33 PM

JW, you silly Bear. He doesn't need to watch Avatar. He's seen/heard enough to know it's just giant Smurfs reenacting Pocahontas and Fern Gully now with teh sex!

Pretty much. :rolleyes:

Nephythys

01-17-2010, 01:09 PM

$15.50 to see Alien Smurf Hippies!?! I don't f-ing think so! If I want to see 3D hippies with anti-capitalist ideals running around raging against The Man, I'll go hang out in downtown Portland. And if I want them to be funnily colored hippies, I'll go hang out at the Saturday Market. Besides, isn't it a bit disingenuous to make a big movie all about how humans are evil, Western nature rapists, and then charge $15 to see it? Seems a little un-hippy-like to go all mega-capitalist on the admission price to see your anti-capitalism movie. Shouldn't they be charging, like, beads or carbon credits or organic, free trade coffee for admission or something? Anyhow, I'll see it when it hits Netflix. Sorry Mr. Cameron.

The only way I'll see this film is in 3D, as that and its overall visuals are all that I'm interested in. Otherwise, it's just another "People are evil" film, which isn't worth more than a Netflix slot to me.

Now that I know there's a love scene, I really have to see it. 3D Smurf love... How fantastic is that!?!

Looks like some people are buying into the Greenpeace message (http://www.aolhealth.com/condition-center/depression/avatar-causes-depression?icid=main|search3|dl3|link5|http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.aolhealth.com%2Fcondition-center%2Fdepression%2Favatar-causes-depression) a bit too much. :eek:

I guess one of the things that I find most laughable, or perhaps maddening, about that whole thing is that their depression is based on the belief that Earth sucks and can never be the utopia in the film. Well, yeah, Earth will never have glowing neon trees, disco ferns or six foot Smurfs, but come on, the Earth is not bad at all. It's pretty kick ass, in fact. Visit Yosemite, or Yellowstone, or the Caribbean, or Hawai'i, or the Maldives, or the Alps, or any number of Earth's beautiful wonders. You'll see that this planet still has it going on, so pull your mopey asses together and get out of the house!

Not quite. Avoiding Potter because one thinks it will turn one to witchcraft is being both ignorant of the story's message and point as well as being foolishly superstitious. Not feeling inspired or drawn to see Avatar because one has no interest in neon alien hippy Smurfs is simply personal taste. Some people are inspired to go see certain movies, others are motivated to see others. I recently greatly anticipated the release of Boondock Saints II. Does that give me a right or reason to criticize those who did not find Boondocks an interesting draw and accuse them of being stupid? No, of course not, because not everyone is required to be pulled into the anticipation and excitement of the same things, even when those things become societal fad du jours. In other words, avoidance due to ignorance and opting not to partake due to lack of any interest at all are two entirely different things, and the latter is a completely innocent and respectable situation.

Pretty much. :rolleyes:

Given the multiple cracks you have taken at the movie-I would say it is not an innocent disinterest.

With the more liberal bent of Hollywood it can not come as a surprise that there are sometimes messages in movies that trend towards that view. So what? Of course you can choose not to go see those movies- but why waste so much time railing about it if it was just "disinterest".

My politics are quite conservative- everyone knows that- but I was able to enjoy this movie for what it was- a fun movie, set in a beautiful world different than our own. It did not make be think that all humans are evil, or that the military is evil, or that we are killing our planet. It's a fictional story-tinted with some "progressive" messages- again, so what?

I guess you are going to go see it-hope you enjoy it. But don't pretend this is benign disinterest on your part-not with so many quoteable slams on something you have not seen- MUCH like the people who slammed the Harry Potter books as evil without reading them or knowing anything about them.

Gemini Cricket

01-17-2010, 01:28 PM

No worries. With inflation, the next Hannah Montana flick will probably overtake Star Wars too. I can even imagine the weekend figures in the year 2045:
lol! :D

Maybe Disney will release a special edition of The Hannah Montana Movie where they CG in some special effects that make her look like she has talent.

Jazzman

01-17-2010, 02:00 PM

Given the multiple cracks you have taken at the movie-I would say it is not an innocent disinterest.

With the more liberal bent of Hollywood it can not come as a surprise that there are sometimes messages in movies that trend towards that view. So what? Of course you can choose not to go see those movies- but why waste so much time railing about it if it was just "disinterest".

My politics are quite conservative- everyone knows that- but I was able to enjoy this movie for what it was- a fun movie, set in a beautiful world different than our own. It did not make be think that all humans are evil, or that the military is evil, or that we are killing our planet. It's a fictional story-tinted with some "progressive" messages- again, so what?

I guess you are going to go see it-hope you enjoy it. But don't pretend this is benign disinterest on your part-not with so many quoteable slams on something you have not seen- MUCH like the people who slammed the Harry Potter books as evil without reading them or knowing anything about them.

Sorry Nephy, but you (and others) are simply looking for emotions and motivations which just aren't there. Yes, I posted my thoughts regarding the film and my sentiments regarding why I have no desire, other than because of the 3D visuals, to see it. But, this is a discussion site. That's the point. I click on LoT, click "New Posts," click a thread, and if I feel like it, I post. I'm not protesting on a freeway overpass or marching through downtown with a sign. I posted on a message board. You, Alex and others can, of course, work all you guys like to create a mountain out of this molehill, but the truth is, I just posted my thoughts on a message board. Took only a few seconds. I don't lose sleep over it, I don't think about it otherwise, I don't dwell on it. I just posted my thoughts on a message board. I don't know how else to say it to make it more clear, so believe what you wish. I know the truth. So, I guess, whatever...

ETA: And really, quoting my posts where I added a link relevant to the film, laughed about the love scene I hadn't known about, and posted about how great the Earth is, as proof that I have some sort of issue or complex? Come on, Neph, you're smarter than that. By that logic, every single person who posted in this thread has issues, and that's obviously not the case.

Jazzman

01-17-2010, 02:01 PM

lol! :D

Maybe Disney will release a special edition of The Hannah Montana Movie where they CG in some special effects that make her look like she has talent.

Ouch! :D Think they'll also CG in a scene of her pole dancing for her creepy Dad, a la the Teen Choice Awards? Joel McHale would have a field day!

Chernabog

01-17-2010, 02:03 PM

I'm still seriously meh'ed about Avatar. The more I think about Avatar, the less I like it. No interest in getting it on blu-ray once it comes out. I'm glad the kiddies like it and all.... but honestly, I've seen all of Cameron's films multiple times (Aliens, T2 and The Abyss I've seen more times than I can count) and Avatar is at the bottom imho in terms of repeat viewings. I could watch Ripley battle it out with the Queen Alien a million times (hell, I could watch the end of Titanic over and over), but can I think of one scene in Avatar I really want to see again? errr... honestly, no.

Kinda like how my least favorite Pixar movie is A Bugs Life.... not a bad movie by any means, enjoyable by all counts, but at the bottom of the heap when compared to work by the same-ish crew.

I saw District 9 last night though, that was an awesome movie :) :) (not to completely change the topic)

Jazzman

01-17-2010, 02:10 PM

I saw District 9 last night though, that was an awesome movie :) :) (not to completely change the topic)

[Furthering derail]

Dude, we just watched that on Friday for the first time and absolutely loved it! Great scifi, and great story. And I love seeing CG that doesn't look like CG. The prawns never once seemed cartoony or fake to me. Really aided the film in drawing me in. I'd love to see a sequel, but last I heard, Blomkamp is talking prequel, which would be cool too, but I want to see what happens when reinforcements arrive! Anyhow, great freaking movie. :)

[/Derail]

BarTopDancer

01-17-2010, 02:19 PM

I just posted my thoughts on a message board.

Over and over and over again. Enjoy beating that poor horse?

Here's a good example actual disinterest in a film thread: Go find my posts in most of the film threads around here. They probably aren't there because I'm not interested in most of the films the rest of the LoT is. I don't go around proclaiming my disinterest.

Actually, with the way you keep coming back to proclaim your disinterest, the quote The lady doth protest too much, methinks is extremely appropriate.

Jazzman

01-17-2010, 02:31 PM

:rolleyes: Whatever. If I see a thread title and choose to click on it and type something in the comment box, that's fine. You can whine and complain about it all you like, but this is still just a message board, and that's the point. Maybe you should take it a little less seriously and go ahead and post in those threads if you have thoughts about the films. Wouldn't hurt anybody if you did.

Like I said, it's just a message board. This isn't a congressional committee meeting where everything needs to be serious and poignant.

blueerica

01-17-2010, 02:45 PM

I think we should all just accept that Jazzman is committed to not liking Avatar for reasons A, B, and C, and just move on with it.

Like I posted earlier, I liked it. Still haven't seen it in 3D, but that might not be happening for a while since J can't see in 3D under any circumstances, for the time being. Maybe when it comes out on Blu-Ray we'll be able to catch some 3D-ness. As far as re-watchability, I haven't been panting to get back to the theater. Once was enough.

BarTopDancer

01-17-2010, 03:00 PM

Maybe you should take it a little less seriously and go ahead and post in those threads if you have thoughts about the films. Wouldn't hurt anybody if you did.

I tend to not hold strong opinions about things I don't know much about.

It would be pointless for me to walk into a thread about a movie I have no interest in seeing and proclaim that I have no interest in seeing it because it's going to be [insert complaint here] and even though other people tell me that [insert complaint here] isn't actually what the movie is about I still go on and on about it then whine that I'm just posting my thoughts on a message board and it's not Congress.

And now I'm done with you. Thanks for playing!

Like I posted earlier, I liked it. Still haven't seen it in 3D, but that might not be happening for a while since J can't see in 3D under any circumstances, for the time being. Maybe when it comes out on Blu-Ray we'll be able to catch some 3D-ness. As far as re-watchability, I haven't been panting to get back to the theater. Once was enough.

The 3D was cool, I think it made it feel more immersive (on the IMAX screen) but it didn't make the movie. I also won't be going back to the theater and I doubt I'll buy it. Very few movies will I see twice in a theater. I suppose that's why I only own 24 DVDs too.

€uroMeinke

01-17-2010, 04:37 PM

By that logic, every single person who posted in this thread has issues, and that's obviously not the case.

Heh - you sure about that?

Nephythys

01-17-2010, 04:44 PM

I saw District 9 last night though, that was an awesome movie :) :) (not to completely change the topic)

It was incredible- yeah!:D Bought it for Ian when it came out just before Christmas- saw it twice in the theatre. Very good movie-

Nephythys

01-17-2010, 04:45 PM

ETA: And really, quoting my posts where I added a link relevant to the film, laughed about the love scene I hadn't known about, and posted about how great the Earth is, as proof that I have some sort of issue or complex? Come on, Neph, you're smarter than that. By that logic, every single person who posted in this thread has issues, and that's obviously not the case.

Just pointing out the numerous times you needed to tell us what was wrong with a movie you had not seen in a thread about a movie you don't care about.

blueerica

01-18-2010, 12:44 PM

We should have a District 9 thread... (because I rarely open up the Miscellaneous Movie Musings Postings Daydreams Etc thread... mostly because I need to read back too far to find out if someone's talked about a movie or not... and maybe everyone's talked about it, but I'll never know...).

I luvved that movie.

Gemini Cricket

01-23-2010, 11:49 AM

#1 READY TO SEE A GREAT (AND ANOTHER NOT SO GREAT) SCI-FI TRILOGY AGAIN... IN 3D?

As Avatar continues to reign over the box office, a common argument has been that James Cameron's movie changed the way that audiences experience movies in 3D. There has been a lot of speculation that we'll not only see more films made in 3D, but that possibly some older "eye candy" movies could get the treatment, too. Now, George Lucas has confirmed (http://www.accesshollywood.com/george-lucas-avatars-technology-could-make-3-d-star-wars-a-reality_article_27866) that for years he has been looking into bringing the two Star Wars trilogies back to theaters in 3D form, and that Avatar has shown him that the time may be right for him to begin the process. Lucas says "we've been looking for years and years of trying to take Star Wars and put it in 3D, but [the] technology hasn't been there. We've been struggling with it, but I think is the new impetus to make that happen." If Lucas goes through with plans to return all six Star Wars to theaters in the 3D format, it will be the second time that the original trilogy has been rereleased, following the controversial "Special Edition" versions from 1997, and the first for the prequel trilogy.
Source (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars/news/1867519/weekly_ketchup_george_lucas_plans_star_wars_in_3d)

Ghoulish Delight

01-23-2010, 11:53 AM

Do you think Lucas has ANY inkling of what a self parody he's become, or is he truly that clueless?

Gemini Cricket

01-23-2010, 11:56 AM

Do you think Lucas has ANY inkling of what a self parody he's become, or is he truly that clueless?
I think he went nuts somewhere between Empire and the song "Lapti Nek" in Jedi.

flippyshark

01-23-2010, 01:16 PM

In addition to the 3D, I wonder what else he will feel compelled to tinker with. (Of course, he could decide to spend half a billion dollars and turn phantom Menace into a good movie - I guess that means remaking it completely, though.)

Also, in what way did Avatar change the way audiences watch movies? Really! In what way! I demand to know. I sat in a theater seat, wore cheap plastic glasses and was completely entertained by a remarkably conventional narrative. What was new about that?

Jazzman

01-23-2010, 01:19 PM

I sense a great disturbance in the force...

Alex

01-23-2010, 01:31 PM

Yeah, Lucas is going to feel the need to update to 3-D and then re-release them.

I knew I should have kept my mouth shut.

I'm sorry.

BarTopDancer

01-23-2010, 01:42 PM

Dammit Alex! Why do you have to ruin everything?!

Gemini Cricket

01-24-2010, 01:54 PM

I knew I should have kept my mouth shut.

I'm sorry.
Congratulations, Alex, you think just like George Lucas does.
colon, capital "d"

Well, it looks like Avatar is going to overtake Titanic's Worldwide gross. And it just made more money than The Dark Knight on the All-Time gross chart. I have a feeling it will make more money than Titanic soon on that chart too. Amazing. The film did $36 mil this weekend. It's still going strong. And if the distributor wasn't Fox, I'd be really happy for this film.

Alex

01-30-2010, 05:14 AM

Not that it is paticularly important, but adjusted gross was discussed up thread, particularly the fact that Box Office Mojo's list has Gone with the Wind making $1.5 billion (domestic) in today's numbers.

Some people on the message board there (http://boxofficemojo.com/forums/viewtopic.htm?t=82668&sid=632d11ce1cc179b02320a9131bb2091f) did research in the primary documents and it all seems to suggest that the correct number would be around $750 million. The big problem seems to be that A) BoxOfficeMojo is using a ticket price of $0.23 from its initial run when sources (such as this Time magazine (http://boxofficemojo.com/forums/viewtopic.htm?t=82668&sid=632d11ce1cc179b02320a9131bb2091f) article) have people paying triple that for a matinee and more than $2 for premiere locations. And B) BOM has the movie grossing $168 million in all releases before 1989 when the real number from newspaper and magazine articles during these releases would seem to be maybe $80 million.

All of that results in Box Office Mojo assuming more than 200 million tickets sold when the number seems to actually be below 100 million. Still a very, very popular movie but not more than doubling modern contenders.

Chernabog

01-30-2010, 09:56 AM

And of course, everyone is paying a premium to see Avatar, and that's why it's #1 by gross, any not necessarily by # of tickets sold. Are we going round in circles yet, thread-wise?

Snowflake

06-01-2010, 08:55 AM

Finally saw Avatar this past weekend. Predicatable plot and flat as cardboard characters. That said, it was visually stunning and I really did enjoy being immersed in the CGI. I can see why it cost so much dough to make it, the animation was terrific. I only wish Cameron had spent more than $2.99 for the plot.

Capt Jack

06-01-2010, 09:03 AM

I only wish Cameron had spent more than $2.99 for the plot.

probably actually less. that premise has been around so long, its surely public domain by now. unless you mean the charge from Kinkos for script copying

Snowflake

06-01-2010, 09:10 AM

probably actually less. that premise has been around so long, its surely public domain by now. unless you mean the charge from Kinkos for script copying

Well, he probably got it on a Wal-Mart Rollback...... ;)

Moonliner

06-01-2010, 09:48 AM

Has anyone worked on a major motion picture?

How hard is it to review the story during production? With everything shot out of order, effects (sound and visual) missing, can you really tell if the story is getting lost?

I've seen some of the dailies from the original Star Wars, If I'd seen those at the time, I'd have bet heavily the film was going to bomb. Yet that was a case were it all came together well.

On the other side, I'll bet the dailies from the Phantom Menace looked great if for no other reason that Jar-Jar was not in them yet....

Ghoulish Delight

06-01-2010, 09:52 AM

How hard is it to review the story during production? With everything shot out of order, effects (sound and visual) missing, can you really tell if the story is getting lost? I know Tom, our resident professional film editor, has talked about making story changes in the editing room.

Moonliner

06-01-2010, 10:10 AM

And on a related note:

For Avatar James Cameron hired experts in set design, sound, lighting, animation, laser scanning, shading, and literally a thousand other disciplines.

So why does he think he can write? Is that any less of a professional discipline than a animator? Sure you can make the outline of a story but then bring in writers and screenwriters to flush it out.

Alex

06-01-2010, 10:35 AM

I have no real problem with the plot. Yes, it is cookie cutter, but so are 95% of the loved big action movies and 85% of all movies. I thought it was a cookie cutter plot well presented.

Although, there's not really any objective indication that his writing negatively impacts the response to his movies. If the balance is off it certainly doesn't seem suppress the number of people who go to see the movie, and then see it again. Seems like a good example of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Ghoulish Delight

06-01-2010, 10:39 AM

Yeah, I thought the plot was exactly what it needed to be. Out of the way. Something that didn't distract me from the pretty.

Moonliner

06-01-2010, 11:09 AM

Certainly Avatar made major coin so by that measure it was a success but I had no desire to see it a second time or to purchase the blu-ray. A more involving story would have changed that for me an I expect a lot of others.

Strangler Lewis

06-01-2010, 12:25 PM