|
On December 25 2009 05:09 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2009 04:26 Pifualkd wrote:
I saw Avatar at an Imax in 3d.
I'm kind of surprised at how negative so many people are being about this movie although I probably shouldn't be. I really enjoyed the movie throughout its two and a half hours and I enjoyed the story too. A lot of people are picking on the simplicity of the plot but I don't think filling it with plot twists and making it difficult to follow would have improved the movie at all. I would rather have a simple archetypal story told well than have an original (how many stories are original now-a-days?) and complicated story told poorly.
Avatar was gorgeous to look at, it kept me thoroughly entertained for its duration and it made me feel good at the end. It did what I want a movie to do for me! I can't wait to go see it again. I liked Avatar, but your argument is a logical fallacy. Plots aren't a choice of simple+good versus complicated+bad.
I never said that plots are a choice between simple and good versus complicated and bad. I did say that I would prefer a simple story told well to a complicated story that wasn't told well. I don't believe that Avatar's story would have been improved by plot twists or 'surprises'.
I was trying to say that to be good a story does not need to be complicated, it just needs to be well told.
|
The terrible truth is that Star Wars Episode 4 could have come out today and people would be talking about how shitty the plot and action were.
People insulting this movie are utterly baffling to me. The plot was clean, extremely well-executed, and for the utterly massive amount of exposition that needed to happen, it all happened in a very logical, well-written sequence. The characterization was strong and made me cheer for the protagonist as any movie should. Drama comes from having someone you can identify with face a challenging obstacle and your mind internally rooting for this character.
If I hear someone say that the use of the word 'Unobtainium' somehow broke their suspension of disbelief, I'm going to seriously question their imagination. I'm almost insulted by how stupid some people are. It's like people who get pissed off because you don't find out what's in the brief case in Pulp Fiction. The answer is: it doesn't matter. How relevant is it to the story why Unobtainium is worth "20 Million a kilo"? All that matters is that a greedy corporation is there on Pandora for the sole purpose of harvesting its mineral wealth.
And for the people who complained about the floating mountains or the bonding between animals, why don't you grow up (or maybe, grow down) and learn to dream a little? It's a movie, and in Science Fiction sometimes there are phenomena which are unexplained even by the science of the particular universe you're in. Science isn't about making everything we see fit with what we know, it's about making what we assume to be the laws of physics fit the data of the world we see around us.
Some people like to complain that the corporation is some kind of strawman argument or that Colonel Quaritch is an unrealistic character. Ever seen Star Wars? Pretty much any westerns?
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest? Shindler's List? The Lord of the Rings? Raiders of the Lost Ark? Almost all of them have a very 'unrealistic' character or two, and one of them is almost always the villain. Why then do so many of the best movies of all time manage to attain that title without realistic characters? Because it doesn't matter. What matters is drama.
Learn what makes a movie good before you go and complain about them. Unfortunately I think I'm more saddened that people can't just go see and enjoy a movie thats easily the most fun I've had in a theater since Indiana Jones or Ghostbusters. Fun is dead.
|
On December 25 2009 05:10 Hot_Bid wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2009 21:49 Judicator wrote:So saw this last night, first I had low expectations, then decent expectations from word of mouth which was a huge mistake. This movie sucks horribly, the dialogue was george lucas quality, there were plot holes that were never resolved (aka outright ignored) or resolved by some bullshit, then there were the cameron's take on the ewoks on endor final fight. The love story was below pearl harbor's quality and you literally had to turn your brain off to miss the massive fucking discrepancies in the movie. 30 mins in I was like man I hope they don't go down the environment versus coporate greed path, 30 mins later I was cursing at myself for going to the movie. Shit's been done before, except better, the story telling sucked, the dialogue sucked, the action was so-so, the only good thing was that the CG was very well done. Cameron made this movie in the literally most simplified and dumbed down way possible. semi-spoiler below: + Show Spoiler +
for example, when we are first introduced to pandora, it's portrayed as a place worse than hell, but the fucking regulars were pretty damned happy and overall morale seemed pretty good for an isolated base with everything around it trying to kill whats in it. this kind of shit is repeated multiple times in the movie, and really just insults me as a movie watcher that my intelligence is that low to not notice shit like this.
Hehe I'm not saying the dialogue in Avatar was super great or Oscar worthy or something, but please don't compare it to the prequel Star Wars, because throughout those movies the writing and dialogue was SO BAD that it actually took you out of the story. In Avatar you felt immersed the whole time (ie the dialogue couldn't have been that bad). the one exception was when they said "shock and awe" and "fight terror with terror" which obviously led to everyone thinking of Bush and getting taken out of the story. i don't think they needed to do that (even if i agree with it) because its pretty obvious the parallels without such heavy handed words.
The funny part is that at this moment,
Avatar is winning the Best Picture Oscar Race.
Its a very very close race between "Up in the Air", "Hurt Locker" and "Avatar".
Avatar is 2nd place, but Up in the Air is losing momentum (currently 1st) and expected to go behind Hurt Locker.
|
On December 25 2009 05:56 SirKibbleX wrote:
The terrible truth is that Star Wars Episode 4 could have come out today and people would be talking about how shitty the plot and action were.
People insulting this movie are utterly baffling to me. The plot was clean, extremely well-executed, and for the utterly massive amount of exposition that needed to happen, it all happened in a very logical, well-written sequence. The characterization was strong and made me cheer for the protagonist as any movie should. Drama comes from having someone you can identify with face a challenging obstacle and your mind internally rooting for this character.
If I hear someone say that the use of the word 'Unobtainium' somehow broke their suspension of disbelief, I'm going to seriously question their imagination. I'm almost insulted by how stupid some people are. It's like people who get pissed off because you don't find out what's in the brief case in Pulp Fiction. The answer is: it doesn't matter. How relevant is it to the story why Unobtainium is worth "20 Million a kilo"? All that matters is that a greedy corporation is there on Pandora for the sole purpose of harvesting its mineral wealth.
And for the people who complained about the floating mountains or the bonding between animals, why don't you grow up (or maybe, grow down) and learn to dream a little? It's a movie, and in Science Fiction sometimes there are phenomena which are unexplained even by the science of the particular universe you're in. Science isn't about making everything we see fit with what we know, it's about making what we assume to be the laws of physics fit the data of the world we see around us.
Some people like to complain that the corporation is some kind of strawman argument or that Colonel Quaritch is an unrealistic character. Ever seen Star Wars? Pretty much any westerns?
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest? Shindler's List? The Lord of the Rings? Raiders of the Lost Ark? Almost all of them have a very 'unrealistic' character or two, and one of them is almost always the villain. Why then do so many of the best movies of all time manage to attain that title without realistic characters? Because it doesn't matter. What matters is drama.
Learn what makes a movie good before you go and complain about them. Unfortunately I think I'm more saddened that people can't just go see and enjoy a movie thats easily the most fun I've had in a theater since Indiana Jones or Ghostbusters. Fun is dead.
Couldn't have said it better. It saddens my heart to see people who take watching movies so seriously, that they become overly cynical and do not even enjoy the film. Some people in this thread were saying that this film was an insult to their intelligence. This isn't a documentary, or a portrayal of real life. It is a story with a simple message about the negative consquences of war and not respecting and loving nature. It is a story of a possible world, if you use your imagination. Honestly if you come and watch this movie with an open-minded and loving attitude then I think anyone could not have a negative perception of this movie.
As much as i like low budget independent movies, there is a bit of a snobbish attitude behind that whole scene. Where many movie-elitists insist that these low budget movies with unknown casts are more artistic. Limiting yourself to one degree of how a movie should be made is unoriginal. Especially when people argue that Avatar was unoriginal, honestly how could one say that, they must be mad. This movie obviously was a movie that has not been done before on so many levels. Sure the basic plot has been used numerous times, but there is only so much that you can make a movie about. The plot was basic sure, but the way the movie presented the plot and all the factors and use of imagination that went into it definitely makes it original. Movies are all about the perception of the viewer, and to claim that there is a standard "good movie" and a standard "bad movie" is really lame.
Overall i enjoyed this movie very much. It captured my heart and my emotions. And honestly I feel that if you look at this movie as being cheesy, having a poor plot and you are being overly cynical and negative about the film; then i feel that you're a person that is taking your life too seriously and limiting your imagination.
|
On December 25 2009 05:56 SirKibbleX wrote:
The terrible truth is that Star Wars Episode 4 could have come out today and people would be talking about how shitty the plot and action were.
People insulting this movie are utterly baffling to me. The plot was clean, extremely well-executed, and for the utterly massive amount of exposition that needed to happen, it all happened in a very logical, well-written sequence. The characterization was strong and made me cheer for the protagonist as any movie should. Drama comes from having someone you can identify with face a challenging obstacle and your mind internally rooting for this character.
If I hear someone say that the use of the word 'Unobtainium' somehow broke their suspension of disbelief, I'm going to seriously question their imagination. I'm almost insulted by how stupid some people are. It's like people who get pissed off because you don't find out what's in the brief case in Pulp Fiction. The answer is: it doesn't matter. How relevant is it to the story why Unobtainium is worth "20 Million a kilo"? All that matters is that a greedy corporation is there on Pandora for the sole purpose of harvesting its mineral wealth.
And for the people who complained about the floating mountains or the bonding between animals, why don't you grow up (or maybe, grow down) and learn to dream a little? It's a movie, and in Science Fiction sometimes there are phenomena which are unexplained even by the science of the particular universe you're in. Science isn't about making everything we see fit with what we know, it's about making what we assume to be the laws of physics fit the data of the world we see around us.
Some people like to complain that the corporation is some kind of strawman argument or that Colonel Quaritch is an unrealistic character. Ever seen Star Wars? Pretty much any westerns?
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest? Shindler's List? The Lord of the Rings? Raiders of the Lost Ark? Almost all of them have a very 'unrealistic' character or two, and one of them is almost always the villain. Why then do so many of the best movies of all time manage to attain that title without realistic characters? Because it doesn't matter. What matters is drama.
Learn what makes a movie good before you go and complain about them. Unfortunately I think I'm more saddened that people can't just go see and enjoy a movie thats easily the most fun I've had in a theater since Indiana Jones or Ghostbusters. Fun is dead.
+1
|
On December 25 2009 05:56 SirKibbleX wrote:
Some people like to complain that the corporation is some kind of strawman argument or that Colonel Quaritch is an unrealistic character. Ever seen Star Wars? Pretty much any westerns?
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest? Shindler's List? The Lord of the Rings? Raiders of the Lost Ark? Almost all of them have a very 'unrealistic' character or two, and one of them is almost always the villain. Why then do so many of the best movies of all time manage to attain that title without realistic characters? Because it doesn't matter. What matters is drama.
There's nothing unrealistic about Quaritch. Minus the military background, my boss's husband is Colonel Quaritch.
|
On December 24 2009 21:01 Butigroove wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2009 20:59 Promises wrote:
Ok I just have to ask, do people think it was the best movie ever just because the visuals were so good and they made up for the rest, or did people actually think the dialogue and storytelling was top knotch aswell?
edit: notch? knotch? dont know. Two words. Fern Gully.
Omfg I loved that movie. Disney movies ftw.
|
What it lacked in the wanton genocide of an indigenous people and originality it more than made up for in pure eye candy
I think people who criticize the movie based solely on plot are ignoring how sexy Pandora looks in 3D
|
On December 25 2009 05:56 SirKibbleX wrote:
If I hear someone say that the use of the word 'Unobtainium' somehow broke their suspension of disbelief, I'm going to seriously question their imagination. I'm almost insulted by how stupid some people are. It's like people who get pissed off because you don't find out what's in the brief case in Pulp Fiction. The answer is: it doesn't matter. How relevant is it to the story why Unobtainium is worth "20 Million a kilo"? All that matters is that a greedy corporation is there on Pandora for the sole purpose of harvesting its mineral wealth.
The funny thing is, this might be one of the more realistic parts of the movie. Do the complainers know how we name new elements? People just get to make up whatever name they want.
"Dude, califonium/berkelium/americium/europium are totally fake names. My suspension of disbelief in our universe is gone, why can't we live somewhere believable!"
Sheesh. That name, while dumb, is totally believable, and I can totally imagine that happening. People are dumb, and we do dumb things. I'd even go so far as to say such a name is likely! Some scientist was trying to be clever, and there you go.
|
On December 25 2009 06:00 ShcShc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2009 05:10 Hot_Bid wrote:On December 24 2009 21:49 Judicator wrote:So saw this last night, first I had low expectations, then decent expectations from word of mouth which was a huge mistake. This movie sucks horribly, the dialogue was george lucas quality, there were plot holes that were never resolved (aka outright ignored) or resolved by some bullshit, then there were the cameron's take on the ewoks on endor final fight. The love story was below pearl harbor's quality and you literally had to turn your brain off to miss the massive fucking discrepancies in the movie. 30 mins in I was like man I hope they don't go down the environment versus coporate greed path, 30 mins later I was cursing at myself for going to the movie. Shit's been done before, except better, the story telling sucked, the dialogue sucked, the action was so-so, the only good thing was that the CG was very well done. Cameron made this movie in the literally most simplified and dumbed down way possible. semi-spoiler below: + Show Spoiler +
for example, when we are first introduced to pandora, it's portrayed as a place worse than hell, but the fucking regulars were pretty damned happy and overall morale seemed pretty good for an isolated base with everything around it trying to kill whats in it. this kind of shit is repeated multiple times in the movie, and really just insults me as a movie watcher that my intelligence is that low to not notice shit like this.
Hehe I'm not saying the dialogue in Avatar was super great or Oscar worthy or something, but please don't compare it to the prequel Star Wars, because throughout those movies the writing and dialogue was SO BAD that it actually took you out of the story. In Avatar you felt immersed the whole time (ie the dialogue couldn't have been that bad). the one exception was when they said "shock and awe" and "fight terror with terror" which obviously led to everyone thinking of Bush and getting taken out of the story. i don't think they needed to do that (even if i agree with it) because its pretty obvious the parallels without such heavy handed words. The funny part is that at this moment, Avatar is winning the Best Picture Oscar Race. Its a very very close race between "Up in the Air", "Hurt Locker" and "Avatar". Avatar is 2nd place, but Up in the Air is losing momentum (currently 1st) and expected to go behind Hurt Locker.
If I had to pick between these three movies, I would put Up in the Air > Avatar > The Hurt Locker. I wasn't too impressed with The Hurt Locker, but I was very impressed with Up In The Air.
Avatar should not win Best Picture however. It should win all the visual effects categories for sure.
And as for this entire story/plot debate about the "shutting off your brain" and "taking it as it is" concept, this sums it up. http://www.racialicious.com/2009/12/21/and-we-shall-call-this-moffs-law/
|
On December 25 2009 06:00 ShcShc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2009 05:10 Hot_Bid wrote:On December 24 2009 21:49 Judicator wrote:So saw this last night, first I had low expectations, then decent expectations from word of mouth which was a huge mistake. This movie sucks horribly, the dialogue was george lucas quality, there were plot holes that were never resolved (aka outright ignored) or resolved by some bullshit, then there were the cameron's take on the ewoks on endor final fight. The love story was below pearl harbor's quality and you literally had to turn your brain off to miss the massive fucking discrepancies in the movie. 30 mins in I was like man I hope they don't go down the environment versus coporate greed path, 30 mins later I was cursing at myself for going to the movie. Shit's been done before, except better, the story telling sucked, the dialogue sucked, the action was so-so, the only good thing was that the CG was very well done. Cameron made this movie in the literally most simplified and dumbed down way possible. semi-spoiler below: + Show Spoiler +
for example, when we are first introduced to pandora, it's portrayed as a place worse than hell, but the fucking regulars were pretty damned happy and overall morale seemed pretty good for an isolated base with everything around it trying to kill whats in it. this kind of shit is repeated multiple times in the movie, and really just insults me as a movie watcher that my intelligence is that low to not notice shit like this.
Hehe I'm not saying the dialogue in Avatar was super great or Oscar worthy or something, but please don't compare it to the prequel Star Wars, because throughout those movies the writing and dialogue was SO BAD that it actually took you out of the story. In Avatar you felt immersed the whole time (ie the dialogue couldn't have been that bad). the one exception was when they said "shock and awe" and "fight terror with terror" which obviously led to everyone thinking of Bush and getting taken out of the story. i don't think they needed to do that (even if i agree with it) because its pretty obvious the parallels without such heavy handed words. The funny part is that at this moment, Avatar is winning the Best Picture Oscar Race.
How do you know?
|
On December 25 2009 05:56 SirKibbleX wrote:
The terrible truth is that Star Wars Episode 4 could have come out today and people would be talking about how shitty the plot and action were.
People insulting this movie are utterly baffling to me. The plot was clean, extremely well-executed, and for the utterly massive amount of exposition that needed to happen, it all happened in a very logical, well-written sequence. The characterization was strong and made me cheer for the protagonist as any movie should. Drama comes from having someone you can identify with face a challenging obstacle and your mind internally rooting for this character.
If I hear someone say that the use of the word 'Unobtainium' somehow broke their suspension of disbelief, I'm going to seriously question their imagination. I'm almost insulted by how stupid some people are. It's like people who get pissed off because you don't find out what's in the brief case in Pulp Fiction. The answer is: it doesn't matter. How relevant is it to the story why Unobtainium is worth "20 Million a kilo"? All that matters is that a greedy corporation is there on Pandora for the sole purpose of harvesting its mineral wealth.
And for the people who complained about the floating mountains or the bonding between animals, why don't you grow up (or maybe, grow down) and learn to dream a little? It's a movie, and in Science Fiction sometimes there are phenomena which are unexplained even by the science of the particular universe you're in. Science isn't about making everything we see fit with what we know, it's about making what we assume to be the laws of physics fit the data of the world we see around us.
Some people like to complain that the corporation is some kind of strawman argument or that Colonel Quaritch is an unrealistic character. Ever seen Star Wars? Pretty much any westerns?
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest? Shindler's List? The Lord of the Rings? Raiders of the Lost Ark? Almost all of them have a very 'unrealistic' character or two, and one of them is almost always the villain. Why then do so many of the best movies of all time manage to attain that title without realistic characters? Because it doesn't matter. What matters is drama.
Learn what makes a movie good before you go and complain about them. Unfortunately I think I'm more saddened that people can't just go see and enjoy a movie thats easily the most fun I've had in a theater since Indiana Jones or Ghostbusters. Fun is dead.
agree 100%, this movie sent shivers down my back a few times which hasn't truly happened to me in a movie theatre in years.. imo people panning the story for its simplicity and questioning the science behind it kinda missed the point. each to their own i guess. gonna see it again on sunday with my house mates, can't wait.. :D
|
i couldn't make myself read through 33 pages of comments so if anyone could answer this question for me i would greatly appreciate it -- would you recommend avatar in 3d? or is it just as epic either way?
|
I would personally recommend 3D. Doesn't need to be IMAX. Just any 3D.
But if you can't, 2D will do.
Its kind of like watching HDTV and Standard TV.
There's a noticeable difference, but not to a point where it makes/breaks the movie.
|
United States47024 Posts
Saw it today. Liked it. Not as good as people told me it was, but not as bad as people are bashing it in this thread.
I think a lot of it is relative, though. If people are told something is good, and it isn't as good as they expect, they'll say its bad, even if they would have said it was good had they not been given those expectations.
|
On December 25 2009 11:24 heygk wrote:
i couldn't make myself read through 33 pages of comments so if anyone could answer this question for me i would greatly appreciate it -- would you recommend avatar in 3d? or is it just as epic either way?
I would go for 3D. We just saw it yesterday in 3D, my first movie I've seen in this medium in the theater. it cost $3.50 more per ticket. Critics have noted that James Cameron doesn't use 3D in cheap ways (i.e. knives coming at the audience) but in subtle ways to augment the movie. I found this to be true.
For me, 3D made the movie even more immersive and involving. In general, I thought "Avatar" was pure pleasure in the form of a totally escapist movie experience.
|
On December 25 2009 11:24 heygk wrote:
i couldn't make myself read through 33 pages of comments so if anyone could answer this question for me i would greatly appreciate it -- would you recommend avatar in 3d? or is it just as epic either way?
Definatly 100% see it in 3D. Its a whole diffferent experience.
|
Just saw the cam version (parts of it).
Its funny how it really doesn't do justice.
e.g: "Almost falling down" in cam 2D = Awkwardly done.
"almost falling down" in 3D = Brilliant scene/acting
|
Just watched it in 3D! Was great (:
i want to watch it again in IMAX...hmm..
|
SirKibbleX, agree with you! Took the words out of my mouth 
I saw the 3d version and have seen it also on the computer.......go watch the 3d or Imax, its much much better!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
