Avatar

Wow. That's a big deal.

He created the characters. You would have to say there is no such thing as a redneck NRA member to have any ground to stand on whatsoever. Even then the ground wouldn't be much firmer than the idiotic floating mountains because we're talking about an imaginary time in the future when just about any kind of person may exist.

Further, this description in the script is not even a spoken part of the final product. It's a screen direction for the cast and crew. How would the NRA reference be conveyed through the filming of that scene if there is nothing seen or heard that refers to them?

It's funny that you want to say that this scene direction tells you about Cameron's attitude towards guns or the NRA while ignoring the fact that his movies, you know the final, published product of his work, prominently feature gun use in heroic causes. It's absurd to ignore the Terminator movies and Aliens while focusing on a line of scene description.

I think Cameron is intellectually simplistic, disappointingly so, and didn't see much more of a message than modernity and industrialism are like really, really hard on the natural world and makes us lose touch with the natural world. That's some real slam bang political dynamite there, man.
 
Terminator had guns?
smile.gif
 
For the life of me, I can't understand why people can't just enjoy (or dislike) a movie for what it is. I mean, this wasn't Fahrenheit 911. This was a sci-fi movie about blue cat-like people.

Did the people ragging on the "liberal propaganda" in this movie also hate It's a Wonderful Life for its negative portrayal of unfettered capitalism? Or, were you able to enjoy a great movie about generousity, that also includes an antagonist who happens to be a rich white guy?

Is the context of Avatar really all that different than the context of Independence Day? A group of aliens descends on a planet intent on stripping it of its natural resources. The locals, who are relatively primative, fight against hope to save their way of life. Independence Day = good family fun, but Avatar = liberal propaganda? Why? Because the people that look like us are the good guys in one film, but the roles are reversed in the other?

And, yes. I know that film-makers have political views and insert them in their films. That doesn't mean that I'm going to decide to hate Braveheart because I see pro-agrarian/populist sentiment in it. (Frankly, I thought Avatar had a lot of Braveheart in it).

In any case, I agree with a lot of posters that the plot was fairly thin, but deep enough to make it hold up. I don't really expect many layers of character development and plot from big budget/effects-driven movies. I struggle to think of one that delivers on that.

The visuals were amazing. When I watched, I wasn't thinking CGI the whole time like I did with something like The Hulk. The CGI blended well enough that I just enjoyed the imagery for what it was intended to be.

Look forward to the sequel.

Edit to point out that on Texags, some are convinced that the destruction of the TreeHome was supposed to be an analogy to the twin towers, but with the U.S. being the terrorists. I don't see that at all.
______________________________________________
 
converse,
for me you hit the nail on the head. The plot was thin. Why see a movie when the plot was indeed 'thin' and to add to that the dialogue was less than average.
All the 'visuals' in the world won't save a movie with a below average plot and script, which is really the reason why I thought it was not a good movie.
When a person isn't enjoying a movie, that is when minor points begin to grate on people's nerves. Because the movie's plot didn't hold my attention, I began to fixate on things like 'what is unobtanium used for?' 'why can't Cameron come up with a better name than 'unobtainium'? How is is even 'unobtainium' if indeed it is being obtained? Why is humanity portrayed as evil? Why the enviromentally nutty lines? ( that coming from a conservationist)...

The poor plot and dialogue is what made the other questions pop up. This thing was like a kid's picture book. The words were just almost pointless.... so why not just make it a picture book without words? I guess I think a movie should do much more than 'look good'.
 
I would say this mark the time when big hollywood movies become more like 2 hour disney rides than vehicles for storytelling. Scripts, acting and dialogue will be afterthoughts. This isnt necessarily a bad thing. I got every bit of my 13 dollars worth with avitar. Movies w/ decent scripts,acting and cinematography will be more indie, while the big movies will be all whiz-bang. Each will find their audience easily.
 
more blue people with no plot for the moronic masses, yea!

So a movie is just supposed to look good, with no plot? I guess if you want to go back to the days of silent films.. only damn it, even they had plots.
I guess movies with plot holes, and inconsistancies that are made in 3D or have a bunch of imaginary creatures will always find an audience. I know my 2 year old likes such things, and there are plenty of 2 year old adults out there. Just think. People voted for Obama. The world is indeed filled with mindless boobs.
 
Saw it in 3D yesterday....loved it.

1) took me out of my world. I watch movies to get absorbed into the world of the movie, it's why I love them.

2) the 3D was incredible. the bugs flying around the screen started to make my skin crawl. at one point I almost wished they would have cranked it 85 degrees with 82% humidity in the theater, just so I could have added that much more realism to the whole thing

3) it was a coaster ride.

4) yes, Cameron is a tree hugger, and it's not hard to figure that out. deal with it or don't go see the movie. However, if you think the idea of a "brown" planet devoid of plant life is inconceivable, then you aren't really paying that much attention. Did you have a similar issue with Wall-E?

5) Unabtainium? Really? That's the best you can come up with? And you couldn't even tell us what it's used for?

6) Avatar II, the NBA recruits Pandora...book it.
 
I will also go on record as saying that this was the best cinematic experience I've ever had. Not that it was the greatest movie, but the overall experience is simply unparalleled.
 
The haters seem to have never seen a major blockbuster that was weak on plot but strong on action and special effects.

This movie wasnt trying to be Casablanca on Endor. It was supposed to be fun, action packed, and a game-changer in terms of special effects.

Check, check, check. Loved it.
 
"Haters."

C'mon. Some people don't like some movies as much as some other people do. The only thing I hate is when people turn disagreements in taste into some sort of cause. This is not "the common man" versus "the elites."

I didn't ike the movie much, but Hornbud perfectly describes why someone might like the movie. I'd have preferred to have his experience, but I didn't.

By the way, Casablanca is more of a model for a great blockbuster than an art movie. A crowd pleaser can also be a classic.
 
I use the term haters because of how passionate the people that dont like the movie can be. They go all aggy about it, hating Avatar more than they like other movies it seems.

The truth is that the plot is weak but no more week than 90% of the major blockbuster-thrill ride-type movies that get released. They're very bitter that the 3D sci-fi 9 ft tall blue alien movie didnt have the script or acting that they expected (?). Oh-kayyy.
 
Is it too much to hope for or expect the story to work as well as Aliens, Terminator 2, or Star Wars? None of those are particularly big thinkers, but they're all at least good.

I don't think complaints about a shallow plot are necessarily calls for My Dinner with Andre or The Lion In Winter.

Aren't there blockbusters that you thought were lame? Last summer's Terminator disappointment? The Star Wars prequels?

Why do you assume that people who don't like this movie have different thought processes than you do?
 
1) With regards to your comparisons....therein lies one of the problems. If your standard for any future sci-fi flick is that it be as good as arguably the two best ever made (Aliens/SW), then I think that is a very unreasonable bar to set.

2) I'm lost because I dont see why this movie catches so much flack compared to the Transformers of the world. Not once did you hear that the plot for Transformers, Independence Day, Spiderman, 300, etc were lame. People went, enjoyed themselves, and thought nothing of it despite those films flaws.

3) There is a fascination people have with hating movies that cost a lot of money to make, and for some reason particularly the last three James Cameron movies. Why do you care what it cost to make? Unless you choose the 3D version, this movie cost no more than the next movie. Have you heard any backlash over the "official" most expensive movie ever made (which was far worse than Avatar by the way -- Pirates 3 -- at approximately 250-300MM)? None. Spiderman 3? 258MM. King Kong? 207MM. Granted this one will probably top those but thats with using the most advanced technology ever seen.

4) In 10-20 years this movie will be hailed as a pivotal milestone in film making. The others mentioned from this decade will not be.
 
RCDO,

You keep projecting things into people's minds that I am not sure are there. To respond to your enumeration:

1. The point wasn't that all movies had to be as good as those, the point was that movies don't have to have a deep plot to have a good plot. Look deeper in the examples I give and you find two Cameron movies used as an example of how he himself has done better in the past. Is that not a fair benchmark?

2. You actually believe that no one had bad things to say about any of those movies? In some cases, the plot may not have been attacked because the consensus was that the plot of the movie in question was sufficient. Do you think the quality of the story is equal for all the movies you name? You make sweeping generalizations about both viewers and movies that really don't hold up.

3. Some people do pre judge movies for odd reasons. I don't know that there was a particular level of ambush waiting for Avatar. I didn't read much about it in advance nor did I gather people were hoping the movie would fail. Can you substantiate your claim? (An aside, I think you're wrong about the cost of Avatar being in the 3-D version. The cost comes from massive pre- and post-production efforts to create a new world and animation. I don't think not offering a 3-D version would have offered much savings. Besides, the 3-D tix are more expensive.)

People were laying in wait for Titanic because of the fabulous cost and the fact that everyone knows what happens in the story. I knew Paramount people who were sweating bullets. Cameron did a nice job and he got the bonus of having teenage girls repeatedly watch the movie because they were in love with DiCaprio. The point is, if the movie delivers it will overcome bad expectation. Again, I can use the Cameron example of Titanic.

4. Maybe. Can you name the first movie that used the Steadicam? Technicolor? Sound? Wide screen?

I'm not even sure that this movie is a breakthrough in new technology as much as it is an excellent application of technologies that have been used in other movies.

In 20 years, this movie may not be any more important that The Abyss. The quality of the story and storytelling are what usually make films classics. For me, Aliens and the Terminator movies are far more memorable.
 
1. With Aliens as your James Cameron bar (though really good I dont count T2 as one of the best ever), I think that leaves about a 99% chance that you're going to be disappointed with any movie that guy ever makes from that point forward. I think each film should be judged on its own merits. I dont think this one is getting that chance.

2. Of course I'm generalizing the sentiment in general (critics, IMDB, people in my circle, etc) with regards to this film. I dont have the time to respond in depth about each one. The flack received/flack warranted ratio for this movie compared to others like it is off the charts so yes, I think I have a point. I heard very little backlash about the POTC3 or TF2 story, regardless of how stupid or played out it was.

3. There was - 6 months to a year in advance the budget was already a story. The groans had already started before even the first screening. I think you misunderstand my reference to the 3D -- I was saying that customers only pay more for a movie if its in 3D -- they pay the same $8 for the "regular" version of Avatar as they do for Date Movie so what do they care what it cost?

I'm no expert but I know enough to know that Gone With the Wind, Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Toy Story, The Matrix, and Avatar were game-changers. I'm just a layman - I just know what these eyes see. I'm sure there are others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top