It was a run of the mill CG movie but the fat Eastern European bloke reminded me of Berbatov, and for this reason it was cooler than most other CG animated movies. Naturally.
Avatar - Welcome to the future of cinema!
- Thread starter RedSky
- Start date
It was a run of the mill CG movie but the fat Eastern European bloke reminded me of Berbatov, and for this reason it was cooler than most other CG animated movies. Naturally.
Pretty much agree. I did like the waves as fish bit though. Rewatched Mononoke the other day, so very bloody brilliant.
Yeah, brilliant. Spirited Away is a masterpiece as well.
Yup. It was decent but not as creepy as I'd hoped...think I liked Gozu and Ichi more.
The last Miyazaki film I saw was Castle of Cagliostro. It was enjoyable, perfect blend of action and adventure.
Yet to see that. Laputa doesn't get the credit it deserves for me. I can't make my mind up on Porco Rosso. I wonder how much of it was lost in the dub translation.
Bloody subjectivism.
I believe there are objective grounds for claiming that Avatar was stuffed with platitudes and poorly concealed allusions to real life concerns about the environment... I like subtlety myself, instead of being force fed meaningfulness.
I'll quote Stewart Lee: great art should be mysterious, great art should be opaque.
I believe there are objective grounds for claiming that Avatar was stuffed with platitudes and poorly concealed allusions to real life concerns about the environment... I like subtlety myself, instead of being force fed meaningfulness.
I'll quote Stewart Lee: great art should be mysterious, great art should be opaque.
I liked the WWI setting with the planes and the Italian back drop but other than that...yeah, not really a patch on some of his best work.
Mockers still fighting the good fight when it comes to Avatar. It could have been so much more. He was guaranteed a huge audience turn out; he could have afforded to deviate from formula. But then again, he's on record saying he had to "save" things for the sequels...
The first draft of the scriptment contained far more biodiversity: swarming giant mosquitos, asexual unicorn/leopards that fired their poisonous head-dart to kill their prey, giant vertical venus fly traps, and huge floating jellyfish the size of blimps, with ten-story electrified tentacles. (And can most of us perhaps anticipate how all these creatures would come into gleefully bloody play during the final fight against the humans? Methinks we can...)
The Na'vi are described as more cat than humanoid, capable of walking upright but preferring to go on all fours, with jointless fingers/toes that terminate in flat pads. One can understand why they decided to anthropomorphize them.
A couple of things I may have left out in the previous 459-page analysis of that first-draft script:
The filmmakers really messed up getting rid of the environmental liaison officer character, the one who compiles a weekly TV show of sorts to send back to Earth - (Hey, folks, here's what's happening on Pandora!) - and who was being bribed by the corporation to be sure to paint a rosy picture for the humans on their dying home planet. The triumvirate of him, the Giovanni Ribisi corporate hound, and the bloodthirsty general worked to perfection in the third act as they picked sides and acted like real people, driving the story on.
The general, for example, who really means it when he says his job is to keep the humans alive, doesn't really want to go all genocidal. He gets ordered to. And he gets battle-rage during the battle as he sees his men - that he's sworn to protect - dying in terrible ways.
IIRC the final battle was comprised of a two-pronged attack, one on the main human force and one on the central human compound. Basically insurgent Avatars being controlled from within the main link chamber helping to attack the base, and human forces not figuring this out for a while, and then mounting an assault on the scientists holed up in the science building. The Michele Rodriguez character helps the scientists and eco-officers get into the armory in the base. And of course, them being puny civilians, they all get in deep deep trouble before Mother Pandora answers Jake's "prayer" and sends swarms of critters to help.
The first draft of the scriptment contained far more biodiversity: swarming giant mosquitos, asexual unicorn/leopards that fired their poisonous head-dart to kill their prey, giant vertical venus fly traps, and huge floating jellyfish the size of blimps, with ten-story electrified tentacles. (And can most of us perhaps anticipate how all these creatures would come into gleefully bloody play during the final fight against the humans? Methinks we can...)
The Na'vi are described as more cat than humanoid, capable of walking upright but preferring to go on all fours, with jointless fingers/toes that terminate in flat pads. One can understand why they decided to anthropomorphize them.
A couple of things I may have left out in the previous 459-page analysis of that first-draft script:
The filmmakers really messed up getting rid of the environmental liaison officer character, the one who compiles a weekly TV show of sorts to send back to Earth - (Hey, folks, here's what's happening on Pandora!) - and who was being bribed by the corporation to be sure to paint a rosy picture for the humans on their dying home planet. The triumvirate of him, the Giovanni Ribisi corporate hound, and the bloodthirsty general worked to perfection in the third act as they picked sides and acted like real people, driving the story on.
The general, for example, who really means it when he says his job is to keep the humans alive, doesn't really want to go all genocidal. He gets ordered to. And he gets battle-rage during the battle as he sees his men - that he's sworn to protect - dying in terrible ways.
IIRC the final battle was comprised of a two-pronged attack, one on the main human force and one on the central human compound. Basically insurgent Avatars being controlled from within the main link chamber helping to attack the base, and human forces not figuring this out for a while, and then mounting an assault on the scientists holed up in the science building. The Michele Rodriguez character helps the scientists and eco-officers get into the armory in the base. And of course, them being puny civilians, they all get in deep deep trouble before Mother Pandora answers Jake's "prayer" and sends swarms of critters to help.
Succinctly, this is the problem yes. We all know the 3D was pretty good. But so what?
I've been saying it for a year, this film is fecking shit.
I stand on that, and I agree with many of you, if Cameron were actually a good filmaker, he'd have gone for something actually good.
I stand on that, and I agree with many of you, if Cameron were actually a good filmaker, he'd have gone for something actually good.
The amount of people who have said that the story is generic and the acting is lacklustre means I have no desire at all to watch it. When films start to move away from telling a good story and telling it well something is going wrong somewhere.
Not only a piss poor movie but fecking pretentious as well.
Pretentious? Goes for some of you lot too, why all the hate... I've never understood why people get all bent out of shape about seemingly unimportant shite....
I'm struggling to find a film that has wound me up to the same extent (as you lot) but I'm drawing a blank....
Another thing, everyone's a critic nowadays, if some of the classics/cult movies of the past were released today I think the majority would be savaged by some of you lot and the online army of knowitall nerds that reside at places like imdb. I think we're spoilt I know I am, the amount of times I've switched off a film after five minutes because I couldn't recognise any of the cast or the credits looked low budget... how shit is that?
I'm struggling to find a film that has wound me up to the same extent (as you lot) but I'm drawing a blank....
Another thing, everyone's a critic nowadays, if some of the classics/cult movies of the past were released today I think the majority would be savaged by some of you lot and the online army of knowitall nerds that reside at places like imdb. I think we're spoilt I know I am, the amount of times I've switched off a film after five minutes because I couldn't recognise any of the cast or the credits looked low budget... how shit is that?
Bravo sir, bravo.
While I agree with that "everybody is a critic nowadays", I don't with the fact that you are pointing it out. It's like "everybody is a manager" in football, they/we have all been since football has critics, but now there's the internet, and the fact that out opinions happen to be the same, and the fact that you have access to all those opinions who people you don't find at the pub (because they live on other cities/countries) have.
Having said that, Avatar is shit. I'm not the only one saying it, people qualified enough (people who study this and are experts) have said it too. Now, it doesn't take a genious to figure out that the movie is shit, it doesn't have a good story and is nothing more than hype to sell and some (tbf above decent) effects. It doesn't take a genious to contrast and compare some of the movies released during this era with Avatar. Some people do not have the money, but they have the brains to develop entertaining and/or complex stories. It's not like we haven't watches Matrix, V for Vendetta, Fight Club, etc. etc. etc. and all we can think about is re-writing a pretentious Pocahontas. Really, is not rocket science.
How long did you take to figure out the story of Avatar? How long did you take to understand Matrix? How many times can you watch Inception without noticing something new? Do you see where I'm going?
Avatar is shit, it doesn't take an expert to realize it (although some have, in case you want real experts and critics to say it rather than 'normal people' opinions, in which case, you should be in a professional football manager's forum to discuss football, 'cause we're following the same logic here).
and yet there are just as many people who think it's great. Also who are these experts who are saying it, none of them are on the caf. If anything the reviews by professionals tended on the favourable side. A lot said it wasn't a brilliant story but a fun film.
For the questions in bold. 20 minutes for the Matrix. Inception once. No I don't see where you are going, 2 action films do not make incredible stories.
Avatar Reviews, Ratings, Credits, and More at Metacritic - 84/100 Metacritic
Avatar Movie Reviews, Pictures - Rotten Tomatoes - 83% Rottentomatoes
Avatar (2009) - IMDb - 8.3 IMDB
Obviously everyone thinks its shit.
Avatar Movie Reviews, Pictures - Rotten Tomatoes - 83% Rottentomatoes
Avatar (2009) - IMDb - 8.3 IMDB
Obviously everyone thinks its shit.
This whole line is silly, they're all completely different films that go down completely different routes, and try to deliver to the audience in altering ways. Just because Avatar doesn't try and mindfeck the viewer like the other 2 makes it a much lesser film does it?
Hell, if we're going by that regard, Donnie Darko is better than all 3 combined due to the fact that it tries to constantly confuse the viewer at every single possible opportunity, when in reality it's a load of nonsense that never knows where it's actually going and just fools the viewer into thinking there's some glorious hidden meaning which NOBODY fully understands.
I'd rather not even get into Inception, there's just so much wrong with the basic concept of that film. I remember watching it the 2nd time and thinking "Actually what the feck was the point of figuring out all this dream within a dream within a etc etc etc when the whole concept behind the fecking dreams is never even touched upon or tried to be explained, it's just skipped as if we're supposed to believe that it's just there and just can happen and all this can be done to dreams. feck that.
It really took you 20 minutes to understand the Matrix? Wow, you really have a gifted mind. Inception once what? My question was "how many times can you watch Inception without noticing something new?" and the answer is "once"? So you can watch Inception once without noticing something new. That makes sense. Do you really have a gifted mind then?
Don't get me wrong, I sometimes agree with you on the football forums.
You both got me on that one. People I have spoken to, who are experts on cinema and the genre especifically, talked about why it ain't what it is said it is. This is not online, so I can't obviously get that one. So alright, I'll give you those since I can't prove that point.
Having said that, I didn't think we were counting the imdb ratings.
I don't know about silly, but maybe misleading. I wasn't comparing them in genre and in message, I was trying to compare them in other matters, like a complex story which says something new. I gave the best examples I could thought of, since they are movies everybody knows, aren't they? I'm not trying to say a movie is good because of the surprising ending, or its lack of, but because of how it is developed and how it tells you something new/good/actually entertaining, it's not like you can escape Aristotle's Poetic either and write beyond the 30+ themes there are.
So the fact that Avatar does not try to mindfeck you is not indeed what I guess makes it a "lesser" film, but the lack of effort story-wise does, unlike the other films I mention. Now that I come to this, there's is a whole concept about what you mention from Inception: it doesn't matter how they do what they do (get in to a person's deam with a strange machine, etc.Ç) it doesn't matter; Chris Nolan is saying Imagine this is possible, I'm gonna tell you a story in a world in which it is. He doesn't want to explain you dreams, that'd be impossible, really, it would. In Avatar the case is Imagine we can go to this planet, I'm gonna tell you Pocahontas. The lack of creativity, script, story development, character's psychology development are no better than basic, and that is why it can't be compared to movies in which there is an actual effort of communicate something new, or at least make a story one which can entertain you for the three hours they show you nice colours in 3D.
I don't really see why it has to be a "complex" story though, it's meant to be a fun popcorn flick that you go to the cinema to for to simply enjoy, I just don't buy into the concept that a film has to try bring something new to the table to be good nowadays. Avatar got great reviews for a reason, and the general consensus was that it didn't need to try create something new, it just reinvented some old stories and cliches but did them so well and kept you so immersed (well, most people including myself) that for all its predictability you're still sitting there going "holy shit, this is amazing", and sure that's largely down to the glorious effects and 3D, but so what? If a film like Inception can use its crazily complex plot and mindfecks to make the viewer think its a great film then why can't Avatar use its SFX and 3D?
Inception is a good film, I'm not disputing that, and I can see why people would think it's a great film, but it's not flawless, it has no original characters, or particularly likable characters apart from the English guy and the 3rd Rock from the Sun guy. It's very long and it tries too hard to keep the user guessing and confused and always wondering what will happen next, and ultimately fails a little, because it didn't really do that to me. Sure the little bits here and there that make you go "oh yeah that is so true about a dream" are good, but I just don't like how they never try to explain any of the concepts behind the dream. This film ain't set in the distant future like Avatar is, it's set in the current world.
I mean the whole idea that
you can have a dream within a dream WITHIN a dream in which the final dream lasts a week and you remember every single little part of the thing even though it only occurs for 10 seconds in real life is just fecking absurd to the extreme.
I don't think it has to be a complex storyline. Inception for example was pretentious....it was trying to be something it wasn't..and the majority of the population were wanking themselves after watching it because they thought they had just watched something cerebral, when in fact they'd been totally spoonfed. And to think Nolan made Following and Memento, but that's the price you pay when you're making a blockbuster. I actually think Avatar was a decent watch because films aren't just about good storylines...sure Avatar was bland, lacked creativity and had been done to death, but visually it was interesting...not least because it was in the 3D. I suspect it's just a gimmick, though....but I think it's the best 3D film I've seen thus far, and only time will tell if it will be remembered as anything other than a gimmick. That said, I hate 3D. It makes my head hurt. And dulls the colours.
I'm not sure what your saying here? Could you explain/rephrase?
The rest seems to have been answered by the posts following it... Cheers caftards
I'm not sure what your saying here? Could you explain/rephrase?
The rest seems to have been answered by the posts following it... Cheers caftards
Basically, why the feck are you on a football forum debating football....and talking about stupid formations. Are you a coach? Everyone's a crictic thesedays. I have an idea...how about we not talk about anything. Books? feck that. Films? feck that and all. Football? yep that as well. But yeah, Scot Pilgrim was a film...I'm not saying whether I liked it or not. Nevermind explain why I liked it or not. We shouldn't be doing that. That'd be wrong.
That's what really got to me. They were truly great mindfeck films, but apparently he had the script for Inception written around the time he actually made those, which sort of makes me wonder if he HAD to go and change it due to the huge budget, and had to make it more of a spoonfeed that it was originally supposed to be. Who knows.
I preferred Avatar.
He plagiarised Paprika. Have you seen Paprika? it's a brilliant anime, I think it's one of his faves and all... and unlike Inception it doesn't spoonfeed the viewer. It's also more surreal, but dreams should be surreal, that is unless they're not dreams. But if anyone wants to watch a mindfeck or a complex storyline or films with many different interpretations, you can't beat the likes of Lynch, Miike, Coen Brothers et al.
Can't see I have seen it Spoony, though I've watched very little Anime in truth. Maybe I'll give it a go.
Erm.... I'm just going to assume your sleep typing again.
No he makes sense. You and Gambit can cry foul of the annoying people criticising things when it suits your sensibilities, but ignore it the next minute when there's something you actually deem worthy of criticism. Basically, if you're going to be the paragan of virtue (and of course the impartial observer almost always has the moral high ground) then you're going to have to shut up and forgo your opinion on anything else on this forum, or in real life, for fear of being a massive smelly hypocrite. It's a non-argument, and a diversionary tactic if anything, used to stop rather than engage in debate.
People only do things when it suits them. People who liked this film will try and tell people criticising it they're idiots for doing so...and use any argumentative technique to place them in the winning circle. 'Tis life. But you can't play the "everyone's a critic" card on a forum....a medium built, constructed and maintained by that very same exact principle.
Bangerang.
Also, with regards to Inception, I thought some people were guilty of a dually unfair (and opposing) level of expectation. Some thought it was too clever and convoluted for them (though I've no idea who these incredibly thick people are) and some thought it wasn't clever and convoluted enough for them (Spoony) so it was stuck in the middle of both, with the high art wankers and the low brow wankers both lamenting it not being good enough for them. Wankers. To be honest I commend it for at least trying to do something interesting for a mass audience, which Avatar didn't do, and for being far more entertaining to my sensibilities. But meh. Subjective, opinions etc. It's undoubtedly a better "film" than Avatar since it can be watched on the merit of it's content in any medium. Whether it was a better experience or not?...I couldn't give a shit.
Opinions are like children. Some people have retarded ones.
People only do things when it suits them. People who liked this film will try and tell people criticising it they're idiots for doing so...and use any argumentative technique to place them in the winning circle. 'Tis life. But you can't play the "everyone's a critic" card on a forum....a medium built, constructed and maintained by that very same exact principle.
Bangerang.
Also, with regards to Inception, I thought some people were guilty of a dually unfair (and opposing) level of expectation. Some thought it was too clever and convoluted for them (though I've no idea who these incredibly thick people are) and some thought it wasn't clever and convoluted enough for them (Spoony) so it was stuck in the middle of both, with the high art wankers and the low brow wankers both lamenting it not being good enough for them. Wankers. To be honest I commend it for at least trying to do something interesting for a mass audience, which Avatar didn't do, and for being far more entertaining to my sensibilities. But meh. Subjective, opinions etc. It's undoubtedly a better "film" than Avatar since it can be watched on the merit of it's content in any medium. Whether it was a better experience or not?...I couldn't give a shit.
Opinions are like children. Some people have retarded ones.
I thought Identity was quite a good mindfcuk film, as was 'nines' (I think that's what it was called), good more for the level of mindfcuking than the overall film)
This is what make me laugh, it's a forum... we're here to chat about stuff in our spare time, what's with all these rules and stipulations you are trying to lay out here Mocks?
Anyway, the funny thing is I never once said don't criticise, all I did was query why some including you felt the NEED to do so in such a way as to come across a bit menstrual.... I have no problem with people ripping this film to shreds based on their own perceptions of what a film should be like, but its your own perception, therefore not everyone is going to agree...
It seems that you have all gone off on one due to some perceived meaning of the term 'everyone's a critic' in my post?
FFS Mocks what's with you and your editing?
All I'll add is that you are going off on one, why would mentioning that phrase get blown out of proportion? only on the caf...
'you can't play the "everyone's a critic" card on a forum' ... seriously, what's the EACC and what's it supposed to get me out of anyway?
All I'll add is that you are going off on one, why would mentioning that phrase get blown out of proportion? only on the caf...
'you can't play the "everyone's a critic" card on a forum' ... seriously, what's the EACC and what's it supposed to get me out of anyway?
Well there is only really one meaning of that term (unless you're addressing an international conference of critics)...but fair enough. It just seemed like an extension of the conversation I was having with Gambit and cina. I've got little desire to carry it on now anyhow.
bangerang
bangerang
No, re read your post and then read mine again. You're the only one stipulating what can be said or not. Or what's important or unimportant. Or what's pretentious or not. It's a forum, people can talk about anything they want. And if they want to laud or criticise a film or anything, so let them be. Because that's what people do.
Pretentious? Goes for some of you lot too, why all the hate... I've never understood why people get all bent out of shape about seemingly unimportant shite....
er...because people have opinions. That's folk for you!
Another thing, everyone's a critic nowadays, if some of the classics/cult movies of the past were released today I think the majority would be savaged by some of you lot and the online army of knowitall nerds that reside at places like imdb. I think we're spoilt I know I am, the amount of times I've switched off a film after five minutes because I couldn't recognise any of the cast or the credits looked low budget... how shit is that?
OMG! evil people. Again, people with opinions eh.
I actually thought it was shite.
Was that your way of apologizing? Accepted....
Okay, take a deep breath, do my posts actually say what you think they say? the part underlined is fabrication and should directed elsewhere...
First bold statement: I have an opinion, I'm not bent out of shape about it... a lot of people would have had an opinion about this film, good or bad, I cant see many of them going on about how great or how bad this film is.
Most have commented and moved on...
Second bold statement: What was your disagreement on this? I'm talking about (criticising) myself here ffs, have you not realised that? Or are you now defending me from myself?
The Cusack film? Fair enough (see how this works? acceptance of your differing opinion)
Anyway, nice chat...
And that's what people do... talk in depth about things. That's basically what fans do. Just look at the football forums, for example. I don't think it's got out of hand on here...it's not like this forum is littered with threads criticising Avatar. So if someone wants to say it was okay and 'move on'...or if others like Mockers or Cina want to review or criticse it in depth - so what?!
Anyway, I don't think it's difficult to grasp what's been said... it's not exactly David Lynch-like or a post by Hungrwing, Afro.
Baberdong.
Works? ahhh the rules eh.
Yup, Mocks got a few as well...
Ok, wats with the weird sigs? Or is this a Mockneyism?