Unaltered Original Star Wars Trilogy on Blu Ray?

[Psab keel]

Titanic and Avatar are both mediocre films at best and highly, highly overrated. I saw each one perhaps twice and I personally would be happy if I never saw either again as long as I live. That said it doesn't mean they're poorly made. I rarely doubt the talent of a film production. I'm more critical of the script above all else.

 

[Cephus]

Titanic and Avatar are both mediocre films at best and highly, highly overrated. I saw each one perhaps twice and I personally would be happy if I never saw either again as long as I live. That said it doesn't mean they're poorly made. I rarely doubt the talent of a film production. I'm more critical of the script above all else.

Competently made doesn't mean good or entertaining. Avatar is riddled with plot holes, bad acting, CGI overload, etc. It's one of those movies that you walk out of the theater and you can't even remember what you just saw.

In other words, complete crap.

 

[batguy]

I remembered Avatar just fine.

I didn't care about it, but I did remember it.


IMO the most memorable thing about that movie is that it checked off so many boxes and yet it made so little impact on the culture. An industry titan makes a labor-of-love film. It breaks new technical ground. A new fictional universe is invented. It's a mass-market thing and it sells a zillion tickets. And nobody cares about it later? Nobody quotes or references it in pop culture? No other filmmakers are copying it? There is no demand for sequels or merchandise or tie-ins? Nothing?

Do 'Harry Potter' or 'Fast & Furious' or 'Marvel' movies not have any plot holes? Weak acting? Predictable storylines? Too much CGI?

Avatar's weak points were all very normal ones. Many other movies that became much-loved hits have the same issues. What made Avatar so forgettable despite having so much going for it on paper?



I think a lot of it was those goofy thundercats. Inventing a new species for the main characters is always a gamble and that one didn't pay off.

The blue critters weren't terrible. They were watchable for 2 hours within their own universe. (It could have been a whole planet of Jar-Jars. Or the recent Sonic-the-Hedgehog CGI before they restyled it. Etc.) The wrong creature design could have single-handedly bombed the whole movie. The blue thundercats didn't do that.

But most of the public was not enthused about them either. Nobody reacted like they were Wookies or Ewoks or Yodas.

 

[Psab keel]

The only thing Avatar had going for it was the technology used to make it, which isn't saying much now a days because pretty much anything is possible with the effects we have now. There wasn't anything distinguishing about that script that would set it apart from many others that preceeded it. Unobtanium? Really? That's some amatuer level writing. It could be easily excused as a placeholder in a rough draft but the fact that it made the final cut of the movie is absurd. It's one thing to have clever or hidden references in a script but when those elements are so on the nose, it really begs the question as to how obvious they wanted the story to be and how dumb they assumed their audience was.

There were numerous articles at the time that cited audiences getting depressed over having to leave the theater because the visuals were literally eye candy. That was the only reason people gravitated towards it and why it sold so many tickets. It rode the wave of the then popular 3D fad, a trend which comes about every decade or so to try and dupe audiences into thinking it's something special when it's nothing more than a gimick. It never became a cultural touchstone because it's technology was overhyped and the story was severely lacking. Good stories stand the test of time and this one didn't. It was a rollercoaster ride. Nothing more. The second those effects became outdated, it instantly lost all of it's appeal because something better came along and Avatar was quickly forgotten.

The reason it made zero impact on the culture is because the story had been done a million times before and once the visual appeal wore off I think audiences realized they were being bludgeoned over the head with Cameron's overt messaging and forgettable plot/ characters.
People know, even subconsciously, when they're being talked down to and once the "magic" of all that CGI faded people quickly forgot all about the giant blue smurfs and went on to the next thing.

 

[Captain Dunsel]

Regarding Avatar, I was amazed at the cinematography in the scene where Jake Dunbar helped the Na'vi to hunt the buffalo.

No, wait…

Which movie was this, again?

 

[batguy]

The only thing Avatar had going for it was the technology used to make it, which isn't saying much now a days because pretty much anything is possible with the effects we have now. There wasn't anything distinguishing about that script that would set it apart from many others that preceeded it. Unobtanium? Really? That's some amatuer level writing. It could be easily excused as a placeholder in a rough draft but the fact that it made the final cut of the movie is absurd. It's one thing to have clever or hidden references in a script but when those elements are so on the nose, it really begs the question as to how obvious they wanted the story to be and how dumb they assumed their audience was.

I didn't think Unobtanium was amateurish, so much as a joke that didn't land. That term is common among techies & engineers. I had used it in conversation many years before the movie came out.

It was fixable with one line of dialogue: "The mineral has an official name of __________-ium. But the slang name 'unobtanium' is more common around here just like it is on earth." <-- There. Done.



As for the rest of it - I don't disagree. But again, what makes 'Avatar' different?

Did 'John Wick' have a fresh unique plot? Is 'Fast & Furious' full of great acting & well-written humor? Do the DC & Marvel movies never get clumsy about political messaging? Did the public get bored with the CGI spectacle of 'Transformers' after the first movie?

All of Avatar's sins are common. They show up in many other spectacle movies that retain their popularity much better. That's the part that never gets explained.

Movies don't succeed by never making mistakes. Weaknesses are part of the game. Movies have to resonate with people and do things right enough to outweigh the weak spots. I don't think 'Avatar's problem was the weak spots, it was the lack of strong spots (aside from technical). That world looked cool and it was really unique. But it was too different. (Audiences have an easier time relating to a Camaro that turns into a giant robot, and that's telling.) The storyline/theme of Avatar wasn't terrible but the timing was. This generation is utterly sick of it. It felt too much like real news - the wrong parts of real news that everyone is sick of thinking about.

 

[Psab keel]

Weaknesses in writing can often be overlooked if the characters are likeable or the plot is relatable to a degree. That's true for just about any movie. The other movies you cited may have been thinly drawn on character or plot but they also offered mindless thrills without the blatant and somewhat condescending attitude that permeated it's script. It was an allegory of Cameron's politics more than anything else.

Avatar didn't land because all it had going for it was spectacle alone and that never translates to longevity with an audience. It's a temporary thrill. Nothing more. I don't really feel the need to belabor the point any further as my previous post and this one are clear.

 

[HMSwolfe]

I personally detest Avatar and Titanic, because Cameron used to really have a way with action films that essentially just completely disappeared overnight. T2 is nearly perfect. True Lies is hilarious. Aliens, while not everyone’s cup of tea, is a super solid action film. Titanic? An overblown romance with some admittedly accurate recreations of the historical event—for about fifteen minutes towards the end. Avatar? Way too long. Characters that aren’t compelling. World that is too alien. Writing that is too juvenile. Just a laundry list of mediocre. It’s like the film was made by an AI that found the perfect formula for a massive profit with the least amount of writing effort and the least staying power.

 

[batguy]

I personally detest Avatar and Titanic, because Cameron used to really have a way with action films that essentially just completely disappeared overnight. T2 is nearly perfect. True Lies is hilarious. Aliens, while not everyone’s cup of tea, is a super solid action film. Titanic? An overblown romance with some admittedly accurate recreations of the historical event—for about fifteen minutes towards the end. Avatar? Way too long. Characters that aren’t compelling. World that is too alien. Writing that is too juvenile. Just a laundry list of mediocre. It’s like the film was made by an AI that found the perfect formula for a massive profit with the least amount of writing effort and the least staying power.

I thought Titanic was really good for what it is.

But I saw it before there was any hype. When it first got released, the press figured it was a weird experiment that would bomb out of theaters in a couple weeks and never recoup the bloated budget. The 'Terminator' guy was trying to do a costume drama - WTF? Everybody figured he would either forget to include any slow-paced drama scenes, or else he would trainwreck those scenes. Either way the target audience was gonna reject it.

I went in expecting that 'Titanic' movie and I came out really impressed.

It's not made for 'Terminator' fans. But it was pretty unique (at the time), it was ambitious as hell, and it totally delivered on what it promised.

Weaknesses in writing can often be overlooked if the characters are likeable or the plot is relatable to a degree. That's true for just about any movie. The other movies you cited may have been thinly drawn on character or plot but they also offered mindless thrills without the blatant and somewhat condescending attitude that permeated it's script. It was an allegory of Cameron's politics more than anything else.

Avatar didn't land because all it had going for it was spectacle alone and that never translates to longevity with an audience. It's a temporary thrill. Nothing more. I don't really feel the need to belabor the point any further as my previous post and this one are clear.

Did 'Transformers' offer anything more than CGI spectacle? The robots' dialogue felt like it came from the Star Wars prequels. Michael Bay's sweaty body sex shots & chaotic directing felt even more insulting (at least to me) than Cameron's politics. The plot was a nothing-burger. Etc.

'Transformers' sold a bunch of sequels. People lined up for them for years. Why did the culture want more of that, and not more 'Avatar?' I just think the issue is more complicated than it appears.

 

[HMSwolfe]

I thought Titanic was really good for what it is.

But I saw it before there was any hype. When it first got released, the press figured it was a weird experiment that would bomb out of theaters in a couple weeks and never recoup the bloated budget. The 'Terminator' guy was trying to do a costume drama - WTF? Everybody figured he would either forget to include any slow-paced drama scenes, or else he would trainwreck those scenes. Either way the target audience was gonna reject it.

I went in expecting that 'Titanic' movie and I came out really impressed.

It's not made for 'Terminator' fans. But it was pretty unique (at the time), it was ambitious as hell, and it totally delivered on what it promised.

That’s fair, and out of the two, that one is the better film. I’m definitely not saying that filmmakers shouldn’t branch out and try new things. It’s really more Avatar that gets me mad, because had he approached even the same story with practical effects, I’d appreciate it more.

 

[cboath]

I'm not going to say Avatar was great or bad or anything. I was going to bring up Transformers but batguy beat me to it. He got other stuff right, IMO, as well but what i was going to reference specifically:

'Transformers' sold a bunch of sequels. People lined up for them for years. Why did the culture want more of that, and not more 'Avatar?' I just think the issue is more complicated than it appears.

Well, i'm sure most of you know Avatar is finishing up the filming of 4 sequels, so you'll have a lot more time to trash it

 

[Darth Lars]

It rode the wave of the then popular 3D fad

Rode? No, I'd say that it made it mainstream. People went to see Avatar to experience the 3D, and its popularity convinced studios shoot and/or convert movies to 3D. That is the single worst thing about Avatar IMHO. That stupidity almost killed cinema, accelerating the adoption of home theatres, until studios and movie theatres too late finally understood what a crapshot it was.

 

[Psab keel]

I have to ask batguy . I find it strange that you quote people directly but don't have the RPF member's name attached. Why is that? I've noticed it on a number of your posts and was just curious.

 

[joberg]

Is this the "I hate Avatar" thread? Might've clicked on the wrong button

 

[JoeG]

Is this the "I hate Avatar" thread? Might've clicked on the wrong button

Every thread in this section inevitably turns into the "I hate ________" thread.

 

[Psab keel]

Avatar was cited as an example with regards to the 3D presentation of movies. As much as I disliked the movie it was a benchmark for the fad of 3D. The validity of the subject matter of Cameron's movie or it's overall success/ failure to resonate through the years with audiences was a side bar that often happens in these threads. It's common place on this forum for the subject to get derailed temporarily but I think it's hilarious that some members here assume that just because people express a negative opinion of a movie suddenly the entire thread is "tainted" as a hate thread. I for one said my piece and openly acknowledged an interest in carrying the conversation forward.

 

[batguy]

I have to ask @batguy . I find it strange that you quote people directly but don't have the RPF member's name attached. Why is that? I've noticed it on a number of your posts and was just curious.

I dunno. Never thought about it.

I tend to just quote the most relevant part of a previous post (as in, relevant to my answer) and I sometimes quote more than one person at a time. So I highlight & paste chunks of quotes manually.

Should I be doing it another way? Sorry if I'm being annoying.

Well, i'm sure most of you know Avatar is finishing up the filming of 4 sequels, so you'll have a lot more time to trash it

True dat. I'm really curious how the public is gonna respond to the first new one. (Will they even see it in big numbers at all?)

After almost 15 years the next one will function more like a reboot than a sequel. The first one had tech gimmicks working for it which aren't new anymore. On the other hand Cameron will probably do more new stuff this time. The plot of the last one felt like a retread and he was wrapping the story up in one movie. (He had also spent about 15 years developing that movie; no wonder the plot felt dated when it came out.) Now he's doing a series and he probably wrote the storylines more recently. Etc.

So many variables. IMO the next 'Avatar' probably won't earn as much as the first one and it probably won't be a total epic bomb. But that leaves a wide spread of possible outcomes in the middle.

The 3rd one will probably sink or swim based on the strength of the 2nd one.

 

[Psab keel]

No apology necessary, I was just curious.

 

[cboath]

I dunno. Never thought about it.

I tend to just quote the most relevant part of a previous post (as in, relevant to my answer) and I sometimes quote more than one person at a time. So I highlight & paste chunks of quotes manually.

Should I be doing it another way? Sorry if I'm being annoying.




True dat. I'm really curious how the public is gonna respond to the first new one. (Will they even see it in big numbers at all?)

After almost 15 years the next one will function more like a reboot than a sequel. The first one had tech gimmicks working for it which aren't new anymore. On the other hand Cameron will probably do more new stuff this time. The plot of the last one felt like a retread and he was wrapping the story up in one movie. (He had also spent about 15 years developing that movie; no wonder the plot felt dated when it came out.) Now he's doing a series and he probably wrote the storylines more recently. Etc.

So many variables. IMO the next 'Avatar' probably won't earn as much as the first one and it probably won't be a total epic bomb. But that leaves a wide spread of possible outcomes in the middle.

The 3rd one will probably sink or swim based on the strength of the 2nd one.

Not sure either way.

The difference is that Avatar was shot primarily as 3D. That was a focal point. I'm not sure any movie since has done the same thing. I think if they approach it the same way that 3D could very well get kicked back up to fad levels again, provided there's something to draw people to see it. I think that the 1.6B initial take is what's driving the sequels, not that there's story for that much.

Everything else has seemingly been converted. There have been good conversions and bad ones, but i've seen good ones where you still get the cardboard cutout effect. I think if you want to do it, you need to do it right and film it in 3D and not convert it, but that's another issue.

I have to say i'm curious if people will see it in significant numbers. It depends on what the draw is this time. With 15 years for people to trash the original (whether rightly or wrongly) it will be interesting to see how it does. I think, like before, there will need to be a hook. I think pt 2 has a lot of underwater stuff, so possibly that's it. We shall have to see.

 

[joberg]

SW Prequel shown in 3-D more palatable to the fans...or not Don't hate me folks; just a general question.