Damn straight, my favourite film of the year by far.
Avatar - Welcome to the future of cinema!
- Thread starter RedSky
- Start date
Damn straight, my favourite film of the year by far.
District 9 was hardly original, either. It was predictable, silly, and downright racist in places (which is amusing for a film supposedly fighting racial clichés). Not to mention the deus ex machina near the end which nigh-on ruined the climax.
Again, a great film, but nothing spectacular. Frankly, there hasn't been a standout contender this year for Best Picture - at least not one that will go down in history as one of the best films of all time, as a winner should do. Avatar has made its mark on cinema, and will be remembered for that reason, but it doesn't deserve to be remembered on the strength of its plot or characters like an Oscar-winner. Personally, I thought Moon should have been nominated, but even then the ending was a bit silly and rushed.
I've not seen Up in the Air or The Hurt Locker, so I can't comment on those. I'm going to write off the former before I've even watched it, though, because it's got George bloody Clooney in the leading role, and would therefore have won over legions of dribbling fangirls before it had even been released.
Again, a great film, but nothing spectacular. Frankly, there hasn't been a standout contender this year for Best Picture - at least not one that will go down in history as one of the best films of all time, as a winner should do. Avatar has made its mark on cinema, and will be remembered for that reason, but it doesn't deserve to be remembered on the strength of its plot or characters like an Oscar-winner. Personally, I thought Moon should have been nominated, but even then the ending was a bit silly and rushed.
I've not seen Up in the Air or The Hurt Locker, so I can't comment on those. I'm going to write off the former before I've even watched it, though, because it's got George bloody Clooney in the leading role, and would therefore have won over legions of dribbling fangirls before it had even been released.
Fully agree far better and deserving than Avatar and Inglorious.
I've not seen Moon, i might have to check it out.
Very simple film, Rockwells performance is superb.
Personally I go with The Hurt Locker by some distance for best film. I really enjoyed Inglorious Basterds and (for different reasons) Avatar and Moon (was this nominated) but none came close in terms of overall quality film making. Then again who can tell. If the utter turd that was Crash can win then anything can happen.
Watched Hurt locker last night, very good, still preffered District 9. Shits all over inglorious from a great height though.
So i've been thinking about this. Does Avatar deserve to be in oscars? No. Does Avatar have an original storyline? No. Would I recomend anyone go to the cinema or buy it on DVD? No. Would I reccomend people seeing it on Imax 3D? Yes. Would i say this was the best film released this year with the greatest acting, a storyline that kept you engrossed and deserves to be up here with the likes of Ghandi, Godfathers, Apocalypse Now etc? No. Is Avatar one of the greatest films ever made? Yes. Is Avatar far superior to Inglorious Basterds? Absolutely.
The reason being that whilst it has all of it's faults. I wasn't expecting a cinematic masterpiece. What i was expecting was an event film, one that would leave me in wonder. A film I knew long before it was released I knew needed to be seen in 3D on the Imax. It did all this in spades. Dara O'Brien recently said about 3D/HD tv with regards to football thats you go ohh and ahh for a few minutes then you actually forget the details and watch the football match. It doesn't matter what the quality of the image is like. I never once did this with Avatar. I sat in the theatre amazed, totally immersed into this world, when they were near edges i felt slight vertigo. I wondered and was thrilled by the action sequences. Most importantly of all, It made me feel like a child again. Because of this feeling the plot didn't need to be original, the story didn't need to be up there and make me think on an intellectual level, whilst knowingly nodding my head. It needed to get me from point A to point B. Allowing me to wonder at this spectacle in front of me.
So all of you that claim that Inglorious Basterds is superior can sod off. Whilst Christoph Waltz's acting was superb all it did was make me bored, realise I was in a cinema and had spent well over £30 for the privilege. Avatar did what it promised.
Therefore the better film and for me a true landmark in cinema history.
The reason being that whilst it has all of it's faults. I wasn't expecting a cinematic masterpiece. What i was expecting was an event film, one that would leave me in wonder. A film I knew long before it was released I knew needed to be seen in 3D on the Imax. It did all this in spades. Dara O'Brien recently said about 3D/HD tv with regards to football thats you go ohh and ahh for a few minutes then you actually forget the details and watch the football match. It doesn't matter what the quality of the image is like. I never once did this with Avatar. I sat in the theatre amazed, totally immersed into this world, when they were near edges i felt slight vertigo. I wondered and was thrilled by the action sequences. Most importantly of all, It made me feel like a child again. Because of this feeling the plot didn't need to be original, the story didn't need to be up there and make me think on an intellectual level, whilst knowingly nodding my head. It needed to get me from point A to point B. Allowing me to wonder at this spectacle in front of me.
So all of you that claim that Inglorious Basterds is superior can sod off. Whilst Christoph Waltz's acting was superb all it did was make me bored, realise I was in a cinema and had spent well over £30 for the privilege. Avatar did what it promised.
Therefore the better film and for me a true landmark in cinema history.
Really? I lasted about an hour.
Some of the scenes were pretty spectacular. Even the simplistic ones, like the sleeping hall thing inside the spaceship, or when you're in the front of the spaceship looking over Pandora for the first time.
After a while though it just became normal, and I started to pay more attention to the film, which was to be honest, dull and incredibly drawn out. and some of the characters were just ridiculously bad/stereotypical. I wasn't expecting a masterpice by any means, but really, the 3D was literally the only thing Avatar had going for it, and at over two hours (for most of which, nothing actually happened) even that was a bit of a stretch. I enjoyed it enough I guess but I hardly left thinking "wow, that was amazing"
It was more like a demo along the lines of "this is how cool 3D can be, now, someone use it to make a proper film please"
I enjoyed Inglorious Basterds, though it's not the sort of film I'd see at the cinema. Was also slightly let down by how Hans Landa suddenly went from a sadistic, evil genius, to a brainless, retarded loon, for no apparent reason.
No all the way throughout for me, every moment i was watching 3d and being amazed.
Just seen it. At times the 3d is really good, at other times it's really crap.
Often I was surprised how good the picture looked. When used to add depth to the image it was very impressive. However I've been similarly impressed with 2d images, when contrast and black levels have been at their best.
I never felt that it was an immersive effect and the edges became extremely distracting when any 3d object appearing to be coming out from the screen had it's head/tail/edge/etc abruptly chopped off. This is much more a composition and framing issue than a problem with the 3D technology. Cameron and his team should have been more aware of this limitation because far from immersing me, it instead was taking me out of the movie.
It's main problem though is depth of field. 2d photography leads the viewer with focus, we understand that it's a still image from 1 point of view (the camera shutter). The 3d in Avatar ignores this rule and will force a false perspective, allowing the illusion of multiple dimensions without the ability to properly view them. For example when the depth of field is say 10 feet in front of the camera, something in the foreground will be out of focus - the real world 3rd dimension would allow us to change the focus. The result is a 3d illusion with 2d limitations. I found this very irritating and more like having a cataract than viewing a 3d image.
Also fast movement often seemed problematic, although some of the slower pans looked great. I couldn't work out why though. Perhaps they were judder enhanced problems (was it shot at 24 frames or a faster speed?). Also colour loss (glasses) doesn't impress me too much.
So overall I personally thought the 3d was not only largely superfluous but actually didn't work.
Often I was surprised how good the picture looked. When used to add depth to the image it was very impressive. However I've been similarly impressed with 2d images, when contrast and black levels have been at their best.
I never felt that it was an immersive effect and the edges became extremely distracting when any 3d object appearing to be coming out from the screen had it's head/tail/edge/etc abruptly chopped off. This is much more a composition and framing issue than a problem with the 3D technology. Cameron and his team should have been more aware of this limitation because far from immersing me, it instead was taking me out of the movie.
It's main problem though is depth of field. 2d photography leads the viewer with focus, we understand that it's a still image from 1 point of view (the camera shutter). The 3d in Avatar ignores this rule and will force a false perspective, allowing the illusion of multiple dimensions without the ability to properly view them. For example when the depth of field is say 10 feet in front of the camera, something in the foreground will be out of focus - the real world 3rd dimension would allow us to change the focus. The result is a 3d illusion with 2d limitations. I found this very irritating and more like having a cataract than viewing a 3d image.
Also fast movement often seemed problematic, although some of the slower pans looked great. I couldn't work out why though. Perhaps they were judder enhanced problems (was it shot at 24 frames or a faster speed?). Also colour loss (glasses) doesn't impress me too much.
So overall I personally thought the 3d was not only largely superfluous but actually didn't work.
I'd expect it was shot at 24fps using two cameras, and is replayed at 48. That's just a guess though, it could be much faster (I'd expect so to reduce the flicker effect). The 3D TVs do 120 or 240hz - obviously it's not a coincidence that 120 is dividable by 24.
The feck?
Dunno about your other points but regarding this one it's more to do with your viewing distance/angle and size of the screen. I've seen 2 full 3d films now. For the first one (Monsters vs Aliens?) I watched it on Imax and was sat right in front of the screen so I never had a problem with the edges, in fact the screen is so large that I would have had to actually look left, right, up, down to see the edge problems you mention. I loved it...
I saw avatar on a normal 3d screen and was not sat right in front so I know what you mean, and because of the fact that I know what it can be like it did wind me up a bit as it seems to have done to you. So to summarise... the 3d technology used in your theatre of choice does make a difference.
I watched it from row 4, and I was impressed with the 3D. Maybe it would have been different in row 40.
To be fair it would have looked like a punch and judy puppet show....
Random connection to Manchester United but John O'Shea and Wayne Rooney are amongst the sucessful investors to benefit from James Cameron's film here, as well as Stevie G and David Beckham. 
The money invested in the scheme was used to back a number of movie ventures, including Avatar.
Other investments included X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Hairspray and Die Hard 4.0.
.....All of those movies were shit, well I didnt catch Hairspray but with a title like that it sounds as though it would be a load of shit. That said all of them were always gonna make money so a fairly wise investment
Other investments included X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Hairspray and Die Hard 4.0.
.....All of those movies were shit, well I didnt catch Hairspray but with a title like that it sounds as though it would be a load of shit. That said all of them were always gonna make money so a fairly wise investment
I definitely concure, Hairspray was always going to attract a Broadway musical fanbase, Wolverine the Marvel fanboys, Die Hard would live off the sucess of previous movies and Avatar from the media attention surrounding its special effects. I have to give it to the production staff though they managed to undo some of the rubbish writing from Kevin "Daredevil" Smith who worked with Bruce Willis on Live Free/Die Hard and David "Troy" Benioff who worked on Wolverine. Better to look at than to watch so to speak.
There's always an element of risk in these things, it is the worst recession for three generations and consumers (by which I mean viewers) in theory should be wiser with spending their money and they all seem to be big budget productions.
I resisted all temptations to watch this on an inferior (i.e. small) screen or from a side seat. I wanted to watch this in Waterloo IMAX at the back in the middle. Booked weeks in advance for the seat and finally watched it yesterday having taken a half day off work to do so.
Though the film was not original, and at times cliched, the overall movie experience I gained was amazing. As the screen was massive it wasn't like watching puppets in a box. The bit where the corporal is giving the Shock and Awe speech felt like you were in a room of rows of people who were staring back at you. Fantastic!!
Strangely, the other bit I really noticed was the floor of the jungle when they ran over it at night. It appeared as though I could actually put my feet on it as well. And there were two scenes when I got mild vertigo but that's because I'm scared of heights.
Though the film was not original, and at times cliched, the overall movie experience I gained was amazing. As the screen was massive it wasn't like watching puppets in a box. The bit where the corporal is giving the Shock and Awe speech felt like you were in a room of rows of people who were staring back at you. Fantastic!!
Strangely, the other bit I really noticed was the floor of the jungle when they ran over it at night. It appeared as though I could actually put my feet on it as well. And there were two scenes when I got mild vertigo but that's because I'm scared of heights.
Found this post that seemed to explains the problems I was having and the possible limitations of the technology: Avatar 3D headaches: Look at this! Don't look at this! - scanners
Beautiful and original style. Horribly cliched (not even two dimensional) plot - almost offensive to one's intelligence. I was constantly listing other movies in my head (Dances With Wolves, The Day The Earth Stood Still, Gorillas In The Mist,District 9, Princess Mononoke, Toy Soldiers)
I hate being told when to feel sympathy, distrust. For me it was like being baby-fed some exquisite dessert
I hate being told when to feel sympathy, distrust. For me it was like being baby-fed some exquisite dessert
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- James Cameron is sending audiences on an extended tour of "Avatar" as his blockbuster returns to theaters next month with eight minutes of extra footage.
Distributor 20th Century Fox announced Thursday that Cameron's special edition of "Avatar" will debut exclusively in digital 3-D and IMAX 3-D theaters on Aug. 27.
Cameron said he has heard repeatedly from fans asking to see more of the science-fiction sensation, which centers on a conflict between greedy humans and the noble blue-skinned warriors who inhabit a distant moon.
The filmmaker says the added footage includes new creatures and action scenes.
The biggest modern blockbuster, "Avatar" has rung up $2.7 billion in box-office revenue worldwide.
Good, 'cos I never did get round to seeing it!
Distributor 20th Century Fox announced Thursday that Cameron's special edition of "Avatar" will debut exclusively in digital 3-D and IMAX 3-D theaters on Aug. 27.
Cameron said he has heard repeatedly from fans asking to see more of the science-fiction sensation, which centers on a conflict between greedy humans and the noble blue-skinned warriors who inhabit a distant moon.
The filmmaker says the added footage includes new creatures and action scenes.
The biggest modern blockbuster, "Avatar" has rung up $2.7 billion in box-office revenue worldwide.
Good, 'cos I never did get round to seeing it!
8....bloody...minutes?!
Could it really not wait for the DVD/Blu Ray release?
Edit:
Wait, its already out on DVD/Blu Ray isnt it?
The feck...
Could it really not wait for the DVD/Blu Ray release?
Edit:
Wait, its already out on DVD/Blu Ray isnt it?
The feck...
I've never watched it. And I'll never watch it, 8 extra minutes or not.
Good for you Junior, you arent missing much other than Pochantas in Space
Watched it last night, average film with great special effects/graphics.
Finally got round to watching this last night. It was on DVD, no fancy graphics. I thought it was a good movie. Some of you guys are just really picky.
You are an idiot, I might be one too, but come on....
Everyone knows I'm an idiot, and I love it 
I'll be going back to the cinema to watch it, no doubt.
I'll be going back to the cinema to watch it, no doubt.
Special Edition out 27th August in cinemas. Milking it?
I thought space jam was far more ground breaking...
I can honestly say it's one of the worst films I've ever paid to see. The 3D was entertaining for about an hour. I'm not usually picky, and can see why people like it, but it just bored me to tears for whatever reason. The characters were so stereotypically bland I found it impossible to get into.
This and Transformers 2. Transformers was easily worse but at least had that factor of being so ridiculously bad you could laugh at it.
This and Transformers 2. Transformers was easily worse but at least had that factor of being so ridiculously bad you could laugh at it.
Fully agreed with Transformers 2. At least in the first one we had the effects to marvel at, which could excuse the awful, awful story. But the second was the same effects, but with the worst plot I've ever seen. Also, 60% of the film was in slow motion.
I thought space jam was far more ground breaking...
Ahh Space Jam. Now that's a real film. None of this avatar shite.
Just watched Avatar for the first time the other day. What a pile of old shite. How was it so successful? Crappy, recycled story + blue computer game aliens = bollocks. I don't think I was supposed to be laughing at some of the stupid scenes in it (such as the look on Sigourney Weaver's face as she was carried to the tree), but I couldn't help it. I just couldn't buy into it for a second.
Avatar is definitely a cinema experience not so good watching it on Sky Movies on your 20inch tv in your room. Its more Pocahontas 3 meets the Smurfs
I agree , started to watch it last night on Sky (not on a 20" screen) and I lasted 30 mins and turned it off.
How this was so successfully is beyond me , maybe I missed something.
Over hyped IMHO
It's a film made for 3D and the cinema, not 2D televisions.