I guess James Cameron is a genius

[Darklighter]

Oh look, it's this thread again. :rolleyes

 

[Jamanticus]

Actually I don't buy this argument. Six clips is enough to show me the level of dialogue, the quality of animation, and the director's choice of videogame motion on the camera and characters (it's inconceivable that the 6 clips I saw were all dreck and the rest of the film is great). I didn't make a judgment on any other aspect of the film. I did say it fails for me as eye-candy, and that's because of the style clearly in evidence in the clips, a style which must permeate the whole film. If it doesn't, then the film is guilty of having no consistency. It has none anyway, since the ani-world fails to mesh with the live-action, obvious just from the clips. The mere fact that the film has the material seen in those clips renders the whole movie unwatchable for me.

I kept my mouth shut about the story, but my predictions for that were perfectly borne out by the witty and intelligent review link posted in the other avatar thread...

Those are good points you bring up.

 

[dbuck]

Cameron has played a very subtle game with Avatar. He seems to have grabbed upon a bunch of demographics and given them each something to chew on.

For guys, there is the cool hardware, badass guys, marines and plenty of stuff go boom.

But Avatar is also a chick flick with a strong heroine and a romantic hero who understands her and lots of that touchy feely emotions women can't get enough of.

It's got the big cool universe roleplayers digg.

A lot of it is lifted from Jurassic Park and Walking with dinosaurs.

The Na'vi are plain furry fodder. Cameron makes Xenophilia almost respectable.

AMP suits, guns, starships, and those supercool holographic screens are just plain techie geek fodder.

Add 3D and a smart use of the technology (Cameron doesn't fall into the trap of tossing pingpong balls at you all the time)

And then there is the actual Avatar idea, the mother of all transformation fantasies, you not only get to be a better, cooler person, you are in touch with the whole planet and have a neural connection when making whoopie ... (Yes, there is an Eywa, Virginia)

The whole new age in touch with nature and plain living

Avatar throws so many leads about it has something to appeal to a very broad segment of the population.

Cameron just manipulates us with a very efficient little movie that manages to push enough buttons to rake in 2 billon $ and it suckered me to go watch it twice because he got to some of my emotional buttons, even though my rational mind says that it's not a great movie.

Tah dah!

Thank you for saying it so well.

 

[Carson Dyle]

Although we’re each entitled to our opinion re: the overall effectiveness of Avatar’s FX, I can’t help but wonder at what point the dissenting view in this case becomes irrelevant. Perhaps it already has.

Avatar has succeeded for critics, Avatar has succeeded for audiences, and more importantly for the FX team that worked on the film, Avatar has succeeded for visual FX artists all over the world (I say this based on having recently attended a “bake-off” screening of FX footage for AMPAS. The audience was comprised of the crème de la crème of the visual FX community, and they were uniformly blown away by the Avatar footage. And Dennis Muren is not an easy man to impress).

Whether the effect in question is the stop-motion work on display in the original King Kong, or Jack Pierce’s prosthetic work for the Universal horror pictures, or the Alien, or Yoda, or the N’avi, there is simply no pleasing everyone. If the viewer is looking to spot a mask, a monster suit, a matt line, a miniature, a fill-in-the-blank CG glitch, he will spot it. In the case of Avatar I find both the storytelling and SFX conception/ execution are strong enough to sell me on the effects in question, but that's just me and a few million others.

I realize special effects geeks like me will argue this stuff `till the cows come home, but I respectfully submit that if Avatar’s effects don’t do it for you it’s because you don’t want them to.

And if you think you can judge this particular film based on a few shots glimpsed at a convention or on a TV monitor, you literally don’t know what you’re missing.

 

[hoverboy]

haha. Looks suspiciously like this...

 

[Jango Wes]

SO, those that don't agree with you are idiots. Got it.

Although we’re each entitled to our opinion re: the overall effectiveness of Avatar’s FX, I can’t help but wonder at what point the dissenting view in this case becomes irrelevant. Perhaps it already has.

Avatar has succeeded for critics, Avatar has succeeded for audiences, and more importantly for the FX team that worked on the film, Avatar has succeeded for visual FX artists all over the world (I say this based on having recently attended a “bake-off” screening of FX footage for AMPAS. The audience was comprised of the crème de la crème of the visual FX community, and they were uniformly blown away by the Avatar footage. And Dennis Muren is not an easy man to impress).

Whether the effect in question is the stop-motion work on display in the original King Kong, or Jack Pierce’s prosthetic work for the Universal horror pictures, or the Alien, or Yoda, or the N’avi, there is simply no pleasing everyone. If the viewer is looking to spot a mask, a monster suit, a matt line, a miniature, a fill-in-the-blank CG glitch, he will spot it. In the case of Avatar I find both the storytelling and SFX conception/ execution are strong enough to sell me on the effects in question, but that's just me and a few million others.

I realize special effects geeks like me will argue this stuff `till the cows come home, but I respectfully submit that if Avatar’s effects don’t do it for you it’s because you don’t want them to.

And if you think you can judge this particular film based on a few shots glimpsed at a convention or on a TV monitor, you literally don’t know what you’re missing.

 

[AT-AT Luvah]

One cannot take seriously somebody's assessment of a 3-hour film based on that person's 'review' of 6 clips viewed on the Internet.

This film was designed for the big screen in the RealD 3D process. You make your entire point based on 6 clips.

How can we debate that?

 

[0neiros]

Sure you can. A Polaroid of the Mona Lisa is more than enough to keep me of actually going to the Louvre and seeing it in person, I now don't need to waste the time and money, I can stay in my home at my computer. This is because your 15/17/19/Whatthe****ever size monitor you have, can compare to a 3d movie/Imax screen. I saw it, I loved it, I was as entertained as I was, when I first saw Star Wars, and really, speaking of which, Really Analyze the original, all your point by point ripping of Avatar can be just as easily pinned on ANH...Oh, Wait it WASN'T "A New Hope" When I saw it, it was just Episode IV.

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

One cannot take seriously somebody's assessment of a 3-hour film based on that person's 'review' of 6 clips viewed on the Internet.

This film was designed for the big screen in the RealD 3D process. You make your entire point based on 6 clips.

How can we debate that?

My 'assessment' was not a review of the film, but was limited to 3 points, easily discernible from 6 clips: phoney videogame camera motion, mediocre animation, and witless dialogue. What I was saying is that since the film has these features - features that I am sick and tired of - I won't be seeing it, no matter what other joys it may hold. I explain above how that is justified. But if you want more:

If a film has no videogame camera motion and no animation problems, then such features won't show up on a monitor. Just as great FX will show up. (Look, they make this stuff on monitors for heaven's sake!) I went to see LOTR on the basis of the beautiful Gollum animation, which I first saw on a monitor. Once in the cinema, I was then subjected to the lousy hobbit-on-troll animation and phoney videogame camera motion. Much of the film was great, but these were bad problems. I saw the SW prequels on the big screen. The animation problems and the videogame camera moves remained undiminished from the clips I saw on my TV screen. If anything they looked worse. I refuse to believe that the weightless, jerking figures-riding-creatures in the avatar clips, for instance, will look any better on the big screen. And 3D can only maximise the motion flaws. After the weightless, jerking, BS figures-riding-creatures scenes inflicted on us by Lucas (and, it has to be said, Dennis Muren) and Jackson, I'd've thought Cam would've made some attempt to get this kind of stuff sorted out. I've seen extensive clips of the end battle. Some nice helicopters, but clearly marred, for me, by phoney videogame motion of creatures snatching folk up etc.

And the dialogue level will not be enhanced in the transition from monitor to 3D big screen.

As for not wanting to like Avatar FX, you're wrong Carson. I did want to like it. I was looking forward to the film. I made a point of that in my post. But it's plain from the clips that the FX are riddled with all the problems that bugged me so much in Lucas and Jackson's films. Sure, there's obviously a lot of nice stuff , big machines, aerial combat, big trees, great for the kids who've never seen this stuff, and for folk who are not bugged by the problems I mention... it's just not for me, and I can divine that fact from the clips. Why is that so unacceptable? You'd rather folk waste their money, than poor little Cameron receive 'unfair' criticism?

So far no one has told me: 'You're wrong, there is no video game camera motion, the character animation is as good as Gollum in LoTR, and the dialogue is as good as Aliens.' Why not?

 

[ReaverReject]

My 'assessment' was not a review of the film, but was limited to 3 points, easily discernible from 6 clips: phoney videogame camera motion, mediocre animation, and witless dialogue. What I was saying is that since the film has these features - features that I am sick and tired of - I won't be seeing it, no matter what other joys it may hold. I explain above how that is justified. But if you want more:

If a film has no videogame camera motion and no animation problems, then such features won't show up on a monitor. Just as great FX will show up. (Look, they make this stuff on monitors for heaven's sake!) I went to see LOTR on the basis of the beautiful Gollum animation, which I first saw on a monitor. Once in the cinema, I was then subjected to the lousy hobbit-on-troll animation and phoney videogame camera motion. Much of the film was great, but these were bad problems. I saw the SW prequels on the big screen. The animation problems and the videogame camera moves remained undiminished from the clips I saw on my TV screen. If anything they looked worse. I refuse to believe that the weightless, jerking figures-riding-creatures in the avatar clips, for instance, will look any better on the big screen. And 3D can only maximise the motion flaws. After the weightless, jerking, BS figures-riding-creatures scenes inflicted on us by Lucas (and, it has to be said, Dennis Muren) and Jackson, I'd've thought Cam would've made some attempt to get this kind of stuff sorted out. I've seen extensive clips of the end battle. Some nice helicopters, but clearly marred, for me, by phoney videogame motion of creatures snatching folk up etc.

And the dialogue level will not be enhanced in the transition from monitor to 3D big screen.

As for not wanting to like Avatar FX, you're wrong Carson. I did want to like it. I was looking forward to the film. I made a point of that in my post. But it's plain from the clips that the FX are riddled with all the problems that bugged me so much in Lucas and Jackson's films. Sure, there's obviously a lot of nice stuff , big machines, aerial combat, big trees, great for the kids who've never seen this stuff, and for folk who are not bugged by the problems I mention... it's just not for me, and I can divine that fact from the clips. Why is that so unacceptable? You'd rather folk waste their money, than poor little Cameron receive 'unfair' criticism?

So far no one has told me: 'You're wrong, there is no video game camera motion, the character animation is as good as Gollum in LoTR, and the dialogue is as good as Aliens.' Why not?

I'd like you to put my money where your mouth is, mate. I will PayPal you the price of admission if you go watch this film in 3D with an open mind and come back and honestly tell us it met each and every one of your low expectations.

I walked in with VERY low expectations due to all the arguments you and others made about the built-in video game POV, the "Been there, done that" CGI effects, and the beaten beyond recognition dead horse of a story line, but more than anything, the force-fed hard-core leftist anti-capitalist, noble-savage myth swallowing ideology, and the neo-pagan nature worship I knew Cameron was shamelessly employing in the film. And despite all my intellectual, moral, and emotional misgivings, I fell in love with the movie as an ACHIEVEMENT- enough to go watch it again.

God, I can't stand self-serving pontification based on the power of self-persuasion rather than the wisdom of reasoned reflection.

RR

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

Look, I've said the film may even be amazing in other ways, but while there is video game camera motion, sub-Gollum animation, and sub-Aliens dialogue I'm not interested. Tell me honestly the film does not have these - I don't care how great it may be in other depts, I just can't sit through that style any more - then you can buy me a ticket. The thing is I don't want to see any more movies with lines like, 'Run... definitely run,' in them. The clips tell me this is such a film.

Ok I went too far when I described it as a 'mess'. I withdraw that, but stand by everything else.

The clips tell me I don't want to see it, that's all. Don't have a cow, people.

One other point. Going to the movies is to risk one's money. The clips don't pull me in, I don't take the risk.

 

[Soundwave]

You're wrong, there is no video game camera motion, the character animation is as good as Gollum in LoTR (if not better). I LIKE the dialogue in Avatar, but prefer the dialogue in Aliens.

Good enough for you? All in all a fantastic film and at the end of the day...I am AMAZED at the people who refuse to see the film for themselves but still feel compelled to keep posting their hollow opinions in EVERY Avatar-related thread... :rolleyes

I get it, it's cool not to like Avatar.

 

[CTF]

I get it, it's cool not to like Avatar.

It's the other way 'round, isn't it?

Everyone thinks I'm crazy for not liking it.

 

[ReaverReject]

One other point. Going to the movies is to risk one's money. The clips don't pull me in, I don't take the risk.

What part of I'll PAY you to go see it didn't you understand? I'm taking the risk out of the equation so you can go in without any guilt or trepidation so I can later enjoy reading your articulate debating skills, reinforced with actual retrospection.

Or are you just too cowardly to admit you might have maybe been even just a tiny bit harsh??? :lol

Come get some, lol...

RR

 

[ReaverReject]

It's the other way 'round, isn't it?

Everyone thinks I'm crazy for not liking it.

But that's exactly my point - I have ZERO problem with your opinion, becuase you earned the creds: you forced yourself to sit through all 2 hours and 42 minutes of it!

RR

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

You're wrong, there is no video game camera motion, the character animation is as good as Gollum in LoTR (if not better). I LIKE the dialogue in Avatar, but prefer the dialogue in Aliens.

The first serious response, thanks. These are the concerns I had, and you addressed them. And if you're right, I'm tempted. I might go and see it, but honestly, I can only afford to blow money on something I'm really sure I'd like. Sadly, the clips still leave me with doubts. So I'll take a chance on missing out on something good...

Again, don't be too amazed at people like me who are not great earners, refusing to see a film about which they have doubts, when they have been disappointed over and over again, when they have given a film the benefit and gone to see it.

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

What part of I'll PAY you to go see it didn't you understand? I'm taking the risk out of the equation so you can go in without any guilt or trepidation so I can later enjoy reading your articulate debating skills, reinforced with actual retrospection.

Or are you just too cowardly to admit you might have maybe been even just a tiny bit harsh??? :lol

Come get some, lol...

RR

******, I was referring to my position when I made the original post. I'm waiting for you now to tell me the film doesn't have lines like 'Run... definitely run' in it.

You dig that kind of dialogue. I'm sick of it. So please, keep your money. I'll check you in your Dick thread , heh, heh...

 

[ReaverReject]

******, I was referring to my position when I made the original post. I'm waiting for you now to tell me the film doesn't have lines like 'Run... definitely run' in it.

You dig that kind of dialogue. I'm sick of it. So please, keep your money. I'll check you in your Dick thread , heh, heh...

You cheated!!! LOL of course it's got painfully one-dimensional dialogue like your example and even the predictable "You're not in Kansas anymore..." But so what? If you go in WANTING to hate it, trust me - you've proven beyond question that there are a million and one reasons to. Or, you could go in with the knowledge that there are a million and one things about it you want to hate, but hey, just maybe it's got some redeeming qualities.

Between you and me, the Red Letter Media review is spot-on hilarious, but it's still not enough to make me condemn this movie as a work of brilliant, albeit highly manipulative art. I would say the same about any Steven Spielberg movie namely ET, Schindler's List, and Saving Ryan's Privates.

But is the movie "BAD"??? HELL, NO! I refuse to believe even you'll come back thinking that. You want my standard of "bad"? Just watch that still-born lovechild between The Matrix and Blade Runner: Surrogates or that awful abortion of a remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still... :sick


R

 

[Jannix Quinn]

I saw it today. It's not perfect but it's definitely worth seeing on the big screen in 3d. The way they've done it really draws you in. Yes, there are cringe moments where the dialogue is typical of a movie, and the heroics are a bit over the top, typical of any hollywood production but they were offset by as many cool and awesome moments as well.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

I can only say that I sat with my mouth agape throughout the entire movie, as I watched it in 3D. I really had not expectations, I had stayed clear of any threads or talk about the movie, so I didn't hear any hype. I was going to go see a Cameron movie and I had barely seen the trailer, but I was blown away. The story has been told a million times, just like Star Wars is the heroes journey and has been told billions of times - I do NOT thereby say it is anything like Star Wars was or is - but even the worst Cameron film is miles above the prequels, Michael Bay, WC Anderson and all those poor directors that make crappy stories with lots of bling.

When seeing this film - forget the hype, forget all the people saying it's cool and the best thing ever, forget the people saying it sucks donkey balls, forget EVERYBODY and ANYTHING you've heard about this movie and just go see it to be entertained. Hell... if anyone can sit through Transformers, AvP, the prequels, Indy 4 and all that dreg - watchable eye candy, but not good films, they should be able to see this - as in my view, it's ten times better, but not the best movie ever.