I watched it on Blu Ray last night, 2D of course.
Still thought it was a brilliant film.
Avatar - Welcome to the future of cinema!
- Thread starter RedSky
- Start date
I watched it on Blu Ray last night, 2D of course.
Still thought it was a brilliant film.
The problem is, why couldn't they do both? It's surely not that hard if your job is as a filmmaker to make a good film without it having to rely entirely on the effects. Cameron has managed to make genuinely well written and interesting films before...Even Nolan has been badgered to do both Inception and the new Batman in 3D but said no because he doesn't see the value it'll bring to the actual film. This seems to be something Cameron didn't even bother thinking about.
So the fact that it fails utterly as a movie to be seen out of the cinema, and thus by definition fails as a lasting piece of cinema in the way that even other groundbreaking SFX vehicles like Jurassic Park do, means it's a shite piece of consumerist cinema with no value beyond it's gimmick.
Saying a film is only brilliant if it's seen in the cinema is like saying a painting has no value seen out of a gallery...It only goes to show how weak the thing itself is.
In short, boooooooooooooooooooo.
Not sure where you're coming from with this. That Cameron should've abandoned 3D and just made a "well written" film? The whole point of Avatar was the 3D...
That is where I'm coming from....Not that he should've abandoned the 3D but that he shouldn't have abandoned the film for the sake of it. The fact it was so poorly written and plotted is not forgivable because of the great FX...As mentioned, things like Jurassic Park have managed to be lasting and entertaining films as well as technically ground breaking...Even the Star Wars films (which I don't like personally) I can see the merit, humour and entertainment in, and they've lasted as films well beyond their "wow" factor.
if Cameron was actually a "great film maker" this would've been higher on his agenda...rather than "feck it, it's 3D that's all that matters, make it as simplistic and colourful as possible"....That's not the mark of a great film maker.
I don't think it's "enough" to have just made it 3D. With all the money, and the epic running time and actors available, it wouldn't have been that hard to make it a proper, decent, stand alone film. Speilberg, for all the accusations of being Mr.Mainstream would've damn well made sure it was, and so would any decent, self respecting director...Making it so shit and cheesy was lazy, uninspired and downright bad film making IMO. And thus, shouldn't be celebrated as such.
I think it's a better film than you give it credit for, but everyone seems to differ in that regard. It sounds shitty to say it, but if Cameron had gone for an adventurous script such as Inception, then it never would've broken all the records, which is what he was setting out to do.
It's the most I've enjoyed a cinema experience in a long time, so classic plot or not, that counts for something as far as I'm concerned. I do agree though, I'd have no real want or urge to bother watching it on a TV.
It's the most I've enjoyed a cinema experience in a long time, so classic plot or not, that counts for something as far as I'm concerned. I do agree though, I'd have no real want or urge to bother watching it on a TV.
Avatar was a throw back to cinema as an experience ala the 50' b movies. It wasn't a great film, it was a theme park ride. It never made any allusions to being oscar worthy. The film was always intended to be made in 3D and to experiment the technology that Cameron had spent ages developing.
I loved it, the story has been done a hundred times before, but I didn't care, it made me feel like a kid again.
Inception was also shit.
I loved it, the story has been done a hundred times before, but I didn't care, it made me feel like a kid again.
Inception was also shit.
Neither do I, it would be a pointless waste of time.
I personally think that's not the case..I think that's a suffixed and very convenient excuse to be used to disregard the very valid criticisms of it's worth...The Expendables and Machete made no attempts to be anything other than pure fluffy entertainment...Avatar was made with a straight po face all the way through, complete with lazy allegories about the military and the noble savage thrown on the screen with all the subtlety of Mr Bloody rampaging through Harrods in an exploding vest...It WAS nominated for 9 Oscars. And it was triumph for the craft of film making that it only won 3.
"Oh yeah, well it was never meant to be anything else"....Well why wasn't it? A good director would've made sure it was still accessible once it's limited run at 3D cinemas was over. It's a completely valid and worthy criticism that it wasn't. Why even make it a 3 and a half hour film if that was the case? Why not just make a 20 minute short like Pixar do? Why spend 4 years making a film that's only worth seeing during the 4 months it's on cinema release?
No, bollocks, it was meant to be a great, sprawling epic film, and was in Cameron's head. Saying it wasn't reeks of Tommy Wiseau claiming the Room was actually meant to be bad IMO.
The criticisms are, it's not a great film, it's storyline is rehashed yadda yadda, I don't care, it was a great experience. People over analyse things at times. It's worth was what it was, Cinema as an experience. I went there and was entertained throughout the film. The plots only purpose was to move the film between the visuals. I also got the Imax auditorium laughing when I shouted Snoo Snoo at a certain point in the film. For me it belongs in the category of films like, It Came from Outer Space and Them!
Because a 20 minute short would not have pulled in the money it did. Camerons made some great films, and none of them have had incredible stories or plots, they are action movies. He creates franchise action films, they are what they are. He's never made any films that are worthy of being classed as incredible movies with twists and turns of plot that get you thinking, he creates popcorn flicks that are great to see. Terminator was stolen from a story by Harlan Ellison. Aliens which is my mind his greatest film was pretty much a rehash of vietnam movies that had none of their emotional punch but still superb. Terminator 2 was just a vehicle to try and make the biggest bad ass action film they could with the technology available at the time and make as much dough as they do. Titanic was a rip off of classic disaster movies and didn't deserve it's best picture oscar.
I'm sure it was in his head. He's never been able to shake off his limitations as a film maker but what he does well, he does brilliantly.
Oh come on, Cameron is a genius, Wiseau hasn't a brain cell in his head, I know it's meant as a bit of a joke comparison but still, I think Cameron knew exactly what he was doing, on the back of a story like Titanic which made more money than anything ever before, he wrote a film that he knew would appeal to the masses, there's a reason it was so simple, and like it or not if it wasn't so simple and he'd tried to make the thing clever and complicated, there's no way it would've made what it did.
...Except they weren't nominated for 9 Oscars, or take 4 years to develop. Your very valid opinions of the film aren't what Cameron envisaged, nor what everyone who saw it thought....You can't just dismiss criticisms of it because "hey, I thought it was fun". ..Especially when you know they're perfectly valid ones.
And it's people saying "Cameron is a genius" that is precisely why I rail against it....The content of Avatar was hardly of much more value to film than Simon Cowell's output has been to music. Making something to be big and make money rather than to actually be "great"...I find it very hard to call anyone a genius if they start with that basic premise and intent
Though I don't believe he did do that. I genuinely believe he wanted it to be a great film, but failed. Thus criticisms of it as a film are entirely valid...and people saying "well you can't do that because he never meant it to be critiqued as a film" is nonsense and suffixed excuse making...IMO of course.
I found the whole experience dull after the first 20 minutes (in the Imax) so being told I can't criticise it cos you lot didn't is a load of sweaty bull
And it's people saying "Cameron is a genius" that is precisely why I rail against it....The content of Avatar was hardly of much more value to film than Simon Cowell's output has been to music. Making something to be big and make money rather than to actually be "great"...I find it very hard to call anyone a genius if they start with that basic premise and intent
Though I don't believe he did do that. I genuinely believe he wanted it to be a great film, but failed. Thus criticisms of it as a film are entirely valid...and people saying "well you can't do that because he never meant it to be critiqued as a film" is nonsense and suffixed excuse making...IMO of course.
I found the whole experience dull after the first 20 minutes (in the Imax) so being told I can't criticise it cos you lot didn't is a load of sweaty bull
I'm not dismissing any criticisms, I can see where criticisms do come from with the film, it is simple, a bit cheesy and doesn't exactly have the best writing and characters around, but I personally didn't really mind all that stuff, I did enjoy it a lot. If you didn't then fair enough, you don't think it's as good as I do. Nobody will agree on how good Avatar is or isn't because of its nature and the impact the 3D has on it. My only real gripe with what you've said is that you think Cameron thought he was making a truly great, classic, epic film, which I highly doubt was the case, he knew exactly what to do in order to make as much money as possible.
EDIT: I wrote this before you decided to go and edit your post with another 3 paragraphs Mockney
EDIT: I wrote this before you decided to go and edit your post with another 3 paragraphs Mockney
But what's the point in making a film that can't exist beyong the 4 month cinema run then?....This is what I find so odd. People saying "yeah well it's rubbish if you watch it at home!"....But Jurassic Park or Star Wars or any number of other groundbreaking cinema experiences aren't...thus for me it's a huge failure as a film. His intention surely must have been to have some replay value?...and if not then that's not just hugely cynical, but very lazy and shitty of a film maker too IMO. I can't quite comprehend the attitude that "well yeah, it's shit if you don't see it in 3D, but that doesn't make it shit"...well, yes it bloody well does!!!..Cos it means the film itself wasn't remotely entertaining enough to hold your attention without things whizzing at your face surely?
I thought Avatar was very disappointing visually, given the money and the hype. Some bits were good, like the floating rocks, but a lot of it looked like they'd gone down Camden Market, bought some day-glo tubes and hung them on some trees.
I'm always amazed by how uncreative Hollywood is when it comes to aliens and alien worlds. Fair enough this was an allegory so it had to look somewhat like a rainforest, but where was the invention? The plants, apart from that cool retracting shellfish-like one, looked like plants. The animals were basically horses, rhinos, dogs and dragons, with a few little twists. They had close to carte blanche, why couldn't they come up with some totally original stuff, that wasn't even a plant or animal at all?
Also, given how they were all super-sensitive and tuned in to nature, the aliens had very crude features. The hair thing was good, though a bit too like dreadlocks, again it should have been more delicate to fit their natures.
Given that the dialogue was execrable and the acting, apart from the girl, average, all that remained was the story, which was pretty good I thought.
Cnuts
I'm always amazed by how uncreative Hollywood is when it comes to aliens and alien worlds. Fair enough this was an allegory so it had to look somewhat like a rainforest, but where was the invention? The plants, apart from that cool retracting shellfish-like one, looked like plants. The animals were basically horses, rhinos, dogs and dragons, with a few little twists. They had close to carte blanche, why couldn't they come up with some totally original stuff, that wasn't even a plant or animal at all?
Also, given how they were all super-sensitive and tuned in to nature, the aliens had very crude features. The hair thing was good, though a bit too like dreadlocks, again it should have been more delicate to fit their natures.
Given that the dialogue was execrable and the acting, apart from the girl, average, all that remained was the story, which was pretty good I thought.
Cnuts
If I can ever afford a 3D TV at home then by all means I'll happily watch the film again. It's meant as a 3D film, of course it won't be as enjoyable in 2D. You can't bring in films like Jurassic Park because they were made for 2D, it's basically the same home experience as cinema experience, only not as loud.
So you're all soppy for the noble savage then Plech?...You big soft hippie you.
cina, I know what you're saying...But again, that's not good enough for me. It WAS a film. Why make a film if you just want to show off 3D? Why not make a short? Why spend 4 years (2 of them writing it apparently) just to disregard it as any kind of artistic endevor. Trying to downplay it as a film to avoid criticism just seems mental to me. It was a very (very) very long film. It surely deserves to live or die at least in some way by it's content.
cina, I know what you're saying...But again, that's not good enough for me. It WAS a film. Why make a film if you just want to show off 3D? Why not make a short? Why spend 4 years (2 of them writing it apparently) just to disregard it as any kind of artistic endevor. Trying to downplay it as a film to avoid criticism just seems mental to me. It was a very (very) very long film. It surely deserves to live or die at least in some way by it's content.
Didn't like in 3D, let alone 2D. But I can see why people are going ga ga over it.
What you mean the concept of them, or the actual girl?
I wasn't mad about the concept, but given that's what he wanted to do, he did it well story-wise I thought. Though you can tell the blowing the tree up bit gave him a hard-on more than the message stuff that he thinks he's all about.
The actual girl was fit, for an alien weirdo with a blunt nose. I thought the actress did brilliantly given all the retarded whooping and stuff she had to do. And she had a nice arse.
I thought it was okay enough visually but everything else about it was so 'middle of the road popcorn flick...give us your money thickos'. A bit like everything at the flicks. It's all a kin to pop music. So complaining is a bit futile.
Apichatpong Weerasethakul, Spoons. Except the latest one, which is average.
Oh, and I loved The Hurt Locker. Definitely deserved to pip Avatar at all those awards. I'd even rate it as one of the best war movies.
I'm not disregarding it as a film Mockney, I think it's in essence a good popcorn flick, as I said before it's cheesy and doesn't have the most original or unpredictable plot going, but it's still enjoyable. I don't expect every film I watch to have some hidden meanings and keep me guessing throughout. The last blockbuster to do that was Inception and after watching that twice I realized it was actually just a steaming pile of shit that tries manipulating the viewer into thinking it's supremely clever.
OK so the film was meant to be in 3D , but that would be just for the special effects , not the acting or the plot of the film , which I though was poor.
I'm not starting the same fecking debate with you too, me and Mockney have basically covered all this already, no need to rehash it.
The concept, cos that was all that the story was wasn't it? Nasty human man come and hurt pretty blue primitives who aren't at all contradictory and savage in their primitive ways (despite allusions to arranged marriage and an almost entirely cruel and macho hunter male population) with all their nice spiritual tree thingys and leaf hammocks and blah blah blah... humans are so nasty nasty mr sully, despite the human actually ending up being by far the best primitive out of any of them and saving them single handedly with his flying dragon....I mean my fecking God!
The girl IS awesome, and I agree, she did a good job with what she was given...I still prefer her in human skin though.
I'll give you all a minute...
I thought that given that it was all about defusing bombs, The Hurt Locker was a bit boring.
Finally saw the Facebook film the other day... also boring. At least Avatar, for all its faults, wasn't boring.
Mockers said:
Inception was another visually really disappointing one. I mean, it was all set in dreams, but it didn't have any of the dreaminess of dreams, the texture, the weird light and colours, the strange things that can happen or characters that can appear... it was basically a bunch of cnuts running round a largely dull corporate world, with one James Bond snow lair and a beach. What a waste.
I'm quite hard to please.
I've just Googled his name. I've seen some decent and not so decent stuff lately. Finally saw Metropolis and thought it was very good...on the other end of the spectrum - Despicable Me, and I really enjoyed it despite thinking it be totally gay. But there you go.
Never thought it deserved a single one, it also took longer than 4 years to develop as Cameron was busy creating the 3d technology which he owns and created the perfect showcase for what it could do, which now has become the new fad to have every big movie release using these techniques and equipment. This guy is going to end up richer than Lucas by the end. There was also the challenge of doing the whole thing in CGI which takes a lot of time.
He is a genius in that he developed the technology himself and has added a different dimension to making films that is still awaiting a real masterpiece to completly utilise it, so I'd say the Cowell comparison is a bit unfair. His actual ability as a filmmaker and storyteller has never been great in elevelating the art of the medium. He's basically Roger Corman for the modern times.
Being told that it's a shit film because you didn't like it every other post and then you defending your right to criticise the film when nobody has actually said you can't. I personally am just disagreeing with you. It was what it was. I loved it and I never go to see a James Cameron film expecting Citizen Kane. I expect explosions and action and it gives it by the barrel full.
Wow, that alien lesbian girl is really fecking nice
Metropolis is brilliant, Spoons
Metropolis is brilliant, Spoons
the anime Metropolis?
What were you expecting out of it? The Hurt Locker, that is.
The Social Network to me strikes as another one of those movies after Avatar, Dark Knight and Inception wherein I'm expected to buy the ticket, know it's a celestial work of art, and just appreciate its awesomeness. All three were overhyped in my book. Some of those quite bad, even.
Yes indeed, it's brilliant. Anyway The Trial wasn't bad(you've read the book, I'm certain). And I'm trying to hold of The Castle by Haneke, I've heard it's a pretty faithful adaptation. Funny, but you can get a bit gay when you watch a movie adaptation of a book that you loved reading. Oh and watch Max and Mary - brilliant stop gap animation flick from Wibbleland.
Nah the camp silent one. I've got the anime and all but I've yet to see it.
I saw it on Blu-ray and thought it was a nice experience, obviously average in terms of story and all that but it looked fantastic on my big screen TV.
Not as good as the original but entertaining. Never thought Ray Charles 'I can't stop loving you' would work so well in a big action piece for a japanese sci fi anime.
Have seen Audition yet?
Masterpiece. You need to get Aguirre watched, stop whinging about the quality.
A mate made me watch Despicable Me...hated it from start to finish tbh.
Watched Ponyo the other week. Not as good as Miyazaki's other stuff - by this I thought it was for kids.