Avatar reviews - Attention : spoilers

Re: Avatar reviews

The reviews at the top seem pretty good--Oscar buzz? Wow. Given that I tend to like this type of story, I think I'll enjoy it. As long as it's not TOO didactic, which is a turn off and a clear danger. As I see more commercials, my early fears about crappy CG have all but evaporated. It looks like a fun ride, a harkening back to 80s fantasy aesthetic that has been sorely lacking (can you say SW PT?).
 
Re: Avatar reviews

It sounds like Dances with Aliens to me.


Dances with Smurfs is how South Park put it. :lol



These reviews sound like the second coming.

3D film/imagery is something I have experienced my whole life to varying degrees, so I could care less one way or the other.


Just getting burned out on the preachy evil pillaging hoomans angle.

I could generate no interest to see District whatzit because of that.

I am sure it was a fine film.


And I have the same disinterest in this when I learned that evil hoomans are simply after their valuable Smurf berries.

Is anyone else worn out on that angle?
 
Re: Avatar reviews

I saw some uber-nerds last week on tv who had seen it and they all said it was incredible. Although these guys look like they might recommend "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" as an academy award worthy film they had me intrigued with some of the things they were saying about the film.
 
Re: Avatar reviews

In general? No. Not if it's done well. Dances with Wolves was actually a really well done film in its day.

Of course, you could make the same argument for the "Aliens/Machines are evil and humans ROCK!" angle that a lot of sci-fi falls back on, too. Unless, of course, it's done well.

Ultimately, I'll bite on any story IF it's told well. The focus on the technology for this film leaves me wary. If people are paying so much attention to the technology involved, are they paying attention to the underlying story? I'd rather watch a free 10 minute "tech demo" at a consumer electronics fair than pay $10 to sit through 2+ hours of weak story with awesome f/x.

I'm not saying this film does or doesn't have a weak story. I don't honestly know. But I will say that technology alone doesn't get MY *** in the seat.
 
Re: Avatar reviews

The big question is... do we get to see the blue alien chicks boobs? :lol I mean, even if it doesn't have a story, I'd go to see that!

Really though, I want so bad to like this film... but everything I see looks like a CGI cartoon with really bad writing :confused
 
Re: Avatar reviews

So many wet blankets on this board. I really look forward to it. It looks to have a grand sense of fantasy and an intriguing storyline, even if its not 100% original.
 
Re: Avatar reviews

You know you could just as easily say "So many starry-eyed optimists on this board." Those of us who come across as wet blankets merely know our own sense of what's entertaining. I know that Hollywood has a tendency to hype stuff up, and to hype up new technology specifically. That's all fine and dandy, but what matters to me is a good story. Avatar might have that, or it might not. so far the reviews seem to be fairly split among them. I'll wait for a bit after this comes out before seeing it, to see how folks react to it. But I do know that I just don't go in for f/x extravaganzas that lack any kind of good story these days. Not in the theater, anyway.
 
Re: Avatar reviews

But the story looks good and its James Cameron, who is pretty good at telling stories. I actually think the people on here who are complaining about an "f/x extravaganza" are letting their own bias against CGI getting in the way of what looks like a good story.
 
Re: Avatar reviews

I know that Hollywood has a tendency to hype stuff up, and to hype up new technology specifically. That's all fine and dandy, but what matters to me is a good story.

Cameron has never made a film that didn't have a good story. Granted his dialogue can be clunky at times, but if the story to Avatar is bad it will be a first.
 
Re: Avatar reviews

I have absolutely ZERO interest in seeing this movie. I think a lot of people feel the same way I do. There is no draw to it.
 
Re: Avatar reviews

You know you could just as easily say "So many starry-eyed optimists on this board." Those of us who come across as wet blankets merely know our own sense of what's entertaining. I know that Hollywood has a tendency to hype stuff up, and to hype up new technology specifically. That's all fine and dandy, but what matters to me is a good story. Avatar might have that, or it might not. so far the reviews seem to be fairly split among them. I'll wait for a bit after this comes out before seeing it, to see how folks react to it. But I do know that I just don't go in for f/x extravaganzas that lack any kind of good story these days. Not in the theater, anyway.

I agree with you, I really do, but I think human (and sci-fi geek) nature is to focus on the negative, and I think if you looked at film discussions as a whole around here, negative posts would faaaaaaaar outweight positive/excited ones. Is that a reflection that more bad movies come out than good? Absolutely. But people are pretty fast to nitpick things to death in the geek community. Remember the Comic Book Guy in Simpsons criticizing Itchy and Scratchy?
 
Re: Avatar reviews

Cameron has never made a film that didn't have a good story. Granted his dialogue can be clunky at times, but if the story to Avatar is bad it will be a first.

I'll be seeing this, hopefully in 3D. If it's sufficiently big, perhaps its other flaws will be overcome. But that sounds a lot like an attempt to like The Phantom Menace, doesn't it? I dunno...I suppose I do want to like it, despite Cameron's puffery.
 
Re: Avatar reviews

But the story looks good and its James Cameron, who is pretty good at telling stories. I actually think the people on here who are complaining about an "f/x extravaganza" are letting their own bias against CGI getting in the way of what looks like a good story.

Matter of opinion. I think the story looks like it has potential, but whether it's good will depend heavily on how well the story is told. The flashy graphics being only a part of that (and for me, a small part). I'll gladly forgive shoddy effects if the underlying story is good. Hell, I enjoy the old Flash Gordon serials, despite the waaaaaaaay outdated f/x because it's a cracking good adventure story. If Cameron can do that, then I'll likely enjoy the film. If he can't, I'll be proven right that the hype machine is in overdrive again.

My bias against CGI is also not based on nothing. It's based on watching plenty of films that I wanted to like which turned out to be crap stories that relied too heavily on CGI to carry the day. Often CGI that I found to be imperfect. Let me tell ya, when the story's good and engaging, I won't care if the CGI isn't perfect. I'll be too busy enjoying the story. But as soon as you lose my interest in the story, that's when I start noticing that the animations were too fluid or the surface textures were too glossy.

Honestly, as impressive as Gollum is in the LOTR films, I still can spot the flaws in the CGI....and I don't care. Why? Because the story's so good and more importantly because Andy Serkis' performance is so amazing. It doesn't bother me that Gollum's proportions aren't always maintained 100%. Likewise, it doesn't bug me that he looks too glossy at times. It's just a good story and the imperfections don't detract from it.

Cameron has never made a film that didn't have a good story. Granted his dialogue can be clunky at times, but if the story to Avatar is bad it will be a first.

I haven't seen all his films, but I've enjoyed all the films of his I've seen. The problem I'm seeing is that so much of the discussion -- especially coming from his camp -- is about the "ZOMG!!! LOOKIT DA NEW TECHNOLOGY!!! IT'S AMAAAAAAAAZING!!!" It's not "You know, we really wanted to try to tell a story that is, at its core, just about humanity and two sides of it. In a way, the Na'vi are just an aspect of humanity. The technological stuff was really just to make the Na'vi look more realistic than, say, prosthetics or traditional CGI." Hopefully my concerns are unfounded, but I've been burned too many times on stuff like this to not go in at least a LITTLE skeptical.

I agree with you, I really do, but I think human (and sci-fi geek) nature is to focus on the negative, and I think if you looked at film discussions as a whole around here, negative posts would faaaaaaaar outweight positive/excited ones. Is that a reflection that more bad movies come out than good? Absolutely. But people are pretty fast to nitpick things to death in the geek community. Remember the Comic Book Guy in Simpsons criticizing Itchy and Scratchy?

That's certainly true, and I think it comes from the degree that people care about the underlying material. Either because it ruins something they liked, or because they love the stuff and in the course of watching it for the umpteenth time, they notice imperfections (like the Gollum stuff I mentioned above).

For me, though, my concerns are a far cry from nitpicking this or that. Saying "Story was clunky and unengaging" is pretty different from "OMG, I can't BELIEVE that they gave Gollum hair!! It specifically says on page 349 of the third appendix to LOTR that after Gollum moved underneath the Misty Mountains, he spent years tortured by the ring and in the process tore all his hair out! It's like they didn't even CARE!" ;)

I'll be seeing this, hopefully in 3D. If it's sufficiently big, perhaps its other flaws will be overcome. But that sounds a lot like an attempt to like The Phantom Menace, doesn't it? I dunno...I suppose I do want to like it, despite Cameron's puffery.


I don't do that anymore. I don't go to movies HOPING to like them, because I almost always end up disappointed. I go in either with no expectations, or expecting to like the film and having no reservations about it. I also go in after reading reviews (both professional and casual) and piecing together whether I'm going to enjoy the film based on what folks have said.
 
Re: Avatar reviews

Dances with Smurfs is how South Park put it. :lol



These reviews sound like the second coming.

3D film/imagery is something I have experienced my whole life to varying degrees, so I could care less one way or the other.


Just getting burned out on the preachy evil pillaging hoomans angle.

I could generate no interest to see District whatzit because of that.

I am sure it was a fine film.


And I have the same disinterest in this when I learned that evil hoomans are simply after their valuable Smurf berries.

Is anyone else worn out on that angle?

QFT - What an original "Hollywood" concept - Sounds like every episode of Captain Planet.
 
Re: Avatar reviews

In general? No. Not if it's done well. Dances with Wolves was actually a really well done film in its day.

Of course, you could make the same argument for the "Aliens/Machines are evil and humans ROCK!" angle that a lot of sci-fi falls back on, too. Unless, of course, it's done well.

Ultimately, I'll bite on any story IF it's told well. The focus on the technology for this film leaves me wary. If people are paying so much attention to the technology involved, are they paying attention to the underlying story? I'd rather watch a free 10 minute "tech demo" at a consumer electronics fair than pay $10 to sit through 2+ hours of weak story with awesome f/x.

I'm not saying this film does or doesn't have a weak story. I don't honestly know. But I will say that technology alone doesn't get MY *** in the seat.


Dances with Wolves was a great film and the character said it best, he wanted to see the frontier, before it was gone.
Frontier to white people anyways.

And one thing I give them credit for is that they did show that native peoples were not exactly nice to each other living in a perfect Eden or something.

I know there are those core story catagories things must fall into.
Man vs Machine, Man vs Nature, Man vs Self, blah blah blah.


Will Cameron's aliens be without flaw and humans the only snake in the garden?
 
Re: Avatar reviews

My bet? Yeah. Cameron tends to paint with a broad brush. Not that he paints poorly, mind you, but I wouldn't call any of his films particularly subtle in how they portray the good guys and bad guys. On occasion he'll play around a bit (IE: Sarah Connor almost killing Miles Dyson), but for the most part he plays it right down the center. No curve balls.

So, yeah, I'd bet that the Na'Vi are basically "noble savages" rather than nuanced characters. That's what I'm gathering from the reviews, anyway.
 
Re: Avatar reviews

I just came out of watching Avatar (In Dolby 3D) at the Empire, Leicester Sq and
I feel like someone just played a trick on me. I feel like an old person who
Cluelessly watches a child program a VCR!

I am fairly well versed (and experienced) In most Film production and FX techniques -
Both practical and CGI - but I found myself saying "how?? How have they done this?"

Some will say it isn't the best film ever made. And maybe it's not, but it is truly a
Cinematic milestone that will sit on my shelf between 2001 and Star Wars!

Gobsmacked
 
Back
Top