EPTThe storyline was also very well-presented. It was political, and none of the narratives were new, but it was very very well executed. I give it 5 arbiters.
James Cameron's AVATAR series - Page 38
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
|
love1another
United States1844 Posts
The storyline was also very well-presented. It was political, and none of the narratives were new, but it was very very well executed. I give it 5 arbiters. | ||
SiDX
New Zealand1975 Posts
| ||
|
Ancestral
United States3230 Posts
On December 27 2009 07:33 love1another wrote: Just saw it a few minutes ago. The cinematography was absolutely stunning. There was like one "cheesy" 3d effect the whole movie... the rest of it was very very well-placed. Not tacky at all. The storyline was also very well-presented. It was political, and none of the narratives were new, but it was very very well executed. I give it 5 arbiters. I think sometimes the ground texture looked a little old school (like, just a plane with foresty textures), same with the background sometimes when they were looking at all the trees and quadricorns and things. But still, it certainly has no parallel at this time. | ||
|
.heritage
United States30 Posts
I heard that the 3D experience is even better, so I'm excited to go watch Avatar again, but in 3D | ||
|
eMbrace
United States1300 Posts
On December 21 2009 11:56 eMbrace wrote: gonna go see this soon, looking forward to it. although I can't help but think all this "revolutionary" talk is coming primarily from old people who just discovered CGI. it looks nice -- cool, and I feel like I already know this plot line. i still expect a sweet action movie, but yeah. i doubt it tugs any heartstrings or will make me rethink my outlook on life. this is what I said last week, and now I've just come back from seeing it. yeah -- it's Pocahontas in space, and yet it really surprised me. you knew what was gonna happen, the characters all seemed familiar, and the message of the movie was spelled out for you several times -- but i dont think that made it any less powerful. dialogue wasn't bad, just a few lines here and there that were a bit off or cliche. iono, i think this is one of my favorite movies. i'll just have to wait a few weeks to clear my head before i make a final judgment though. it's always cool to hate on popular things though. this movie will gradually go down in hype with people coming out of the wood works bashing the characters, plot, and "science" behind the movie. "lol mountains can't float!!, stupid ass movie!" | ||
|
darktreb
United States3017 Posts
You have to see this movie in 3D because it is simply unbelievable. You don't need to "turn off" your criticism-center of your brain but just don't let it deprive you of what is an awe-inspiring experience. You don't watch an incredible sunset or go sit on the beach on a perfect day for surprises. You do it because it is an amazing feeling even if you know what you're getting yourself into. Again, you don't have to turn off your brain, but for your own sake try to alter the way you're looking at this movie because otherwise you're just some dude watching a magnificent sunset and going "this is how it looks every time". You're not wrong, but that wasn't the point, and you just deprived yourself of what could have been an incredibly enjoyable 2 1/2 hours. In the end, you're the only person who loses if that happens. After watching the movie I felt like I was actually on their planet, doing a tour in some magical invisible floating contraption for 2 1/2 hours. I've never even come close to actually feeling "I was actually there doing a tour" for any other movie - it's always been "it looked fantastic but I saw it on a screen". | ||
|
Shauni
4077 Posts
Very suggestive about the political views of the director and the whole environmentalism thing. Masks it as entertainment and 'visual orgasms' while still maintains a good deal of repulsive propaganda. It has clearly succeeded because 90% of all reviews do not even talk about the politics in the movie - and I don't think it's just because the themes are so simplistic. Black and white, good vs evil. Why do these blockbusters rarely portray things in a grayscale? It feels as if they try to make the audience relate to the characters in a stronger sense than how it works in reality*. Basically 'audience members! you're idiots! we'll tell you to like this character and hate this character so that you'll know how to enjoy the movie!' The whole fact that a 10 year old could have written the manuscript didn't bother me that much, except that the dialogues felt predictable. I would expect this kind of shit in a decent game, say, Mass Effect or Dragon Age. Simplistic american-styled plot without any provocative or memorable aspects. But the same thing for a movie? And a movie that everyone seem to rate "10/10 FUCKING MOVIE OF THE CENTURY?" And if the movie is told in 'visuals', why the fuck do they insist on the stupid dialogue? I grasped the whole concept, the world, the characters and would have thought it was an okay fantasy movie if it wasn't for all these embarrassing flaws. It was pretty bad, but not total shit. I was captivated the by Avatar the same way I'm captivated by stupid but funny comedies. I'm just aggravated by how people can enjoy this so much when it doesn't even try to be slightly intelligent. 5/10 or so. *yes I know it is fiction but I don't know why Hollywood still sticks to this simplified concept of reality in most of their blockbusters. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On December 27 2009 09:21 darktreb wrote: My advice to viewers: You have to see this movie in 3D because it is simply unbelievable. You don't need to "turn off" your criticism-center of your brain but just don't let it deprive you of what is an awe-inspiring experience. You don't watch an incredible sunset or go sit on the beach on a perfect day for surprises. You do it because it is an amazing feeling even if you know what you're getting yourself into. Again, you don't have to turn off your brain, but for your own sake try to alter the way you're looking at this movie because otherwise you're just some dude watching a magnificent sunset and going "this is how it looks every time". You're not wrong, but that wasn't the point, and you just deprived yourself of what could have been an incredibly enjoyable 2 1/2 hours. In the end, you're the only person who loses if that happens. After watching the movie I felt like I was actually on their planet, doing a tour in some magical invisible floating contraption for 2 1/2 hours. I've never even come close to actually feeling "I was actually there doing a tour" for any other movie - it's always been "it looked fantastic but I saw it on a screen". Quoted for Truth On December 27 2009 10:40 Shauni wrote: I just came home from seeing it and I must say it was pretty disgusting. Very suggestive about the political views of the director and the whole environmentalism thing. Masks it as entertainment and 'visual orgasms' while still maintains a good deal of repulsive propaganda. It has clearly succeeded because 90% of all reviews do not even talk about the politics in the movie - and I don't think it's just because the themes are so simplistic. Black and white, good vs evil. Why do these blockbusters rarely portray things in a grayscale? It feels as if they try to make the audience relate to the characters in a stronger sense than how it works in reality*. Basically 'audience members! you're idiots! we'll tell you to like this character and hate this character so that you'll know how to enjoy the movie!' Quoted for Untruth By the way when did protecting the enviroment and not killing natives become a political view? | ||
|
Shauni
4077 Posts
| ||
|
keepITup
251 Posts
On December 27 2009 10:40 Shauni wrote: I just came home from seeing it and I must say it was pretty disgusting. Very suggestive about the political views of the director and the whole environmentalism thing. Masks it as entertainment and 'visual orgasms' while still maintains a good deal of repulsive propaganda. It has clearly succeeded because 90% of all reviews do not even talk about the politics in the movie - and I don't think it's just because the themes are so simplistic. Black and white, good vs evil. Why do these blockbusters rarely portray things in a grayscale? It feels as if they try to make the audience relate to the characters in a stronger sense than how it works in reality*. Basically 'audience members! you're idiots! we'll tell you to like this character and hate this character so that you'll know how to enjoy the movie!' The whole fact that a 10 year old could have written the manuscript didn't bother me that much, except that the dialogues felt predictable. I would expect this kind of shit in a decent game, say, Mass Effect or Dragon Age. Simplistic american-styled plot without any provocative or memorable aspects. But the same thing for a movie? And a movie that everyone seem to rate "10/10 FUCKING MOVIE OF THE CENTURY?" And if the movie is told in 'visuals', why the fuck do they insist on the stupid dialogue? I grasped the whole concept, the world, the characters and would have thought it was an okay fantasy movie if it wasn't for all these embarrassing flaws. It was pretty bad, but not total shit. I was captivated the by Avatar the same way I'm captivated by stupid but funny comedies. I'm just aggravated by how people can enjoy this so much when it doesn't even try to be slightly intelligent. 5/10 or so. *yes I know it is fiction but I don't know why Hollywood still sticks to this simplified concept of reality in most of their blockbusters. The "political message" is very basic and spelled out for you, sure. It's a movie anyone can understand and take value from it. I took a lot more from it than "save the rainforest." I thought it was a really cool clash between evolution and technology. the simplicity of this movie is what makes it beautiful IMO. Not sure why people talk so badly about the dialogue. There's some cliche lines and the typical marine chatter. But what exactly did you want? The natives don't speak advanced English and the main character isn't some philosophical nut job. I'm glad I didn't have come to a forum after watching this movie to "analyze" it's meaning. Dark Knight is loved by nearly everyone including most critics (currently has a higher score than Avatar) -- what exactly makes it so much more wonderful? It had terrible dialogue, it had a ridiculous story. Its themes were obvious. | ||
|
love1another
United States1844 Posts
On December 27 2009 10:56 Shauni wrote: It becomes a political view when it is suggestive and do not just portray the things 'as they are' in the movie. Environmentalism is definitely a part of political ideology. It doesn't matter if 99% of the world population agrees with the underlying morals of the movie, in fact, it just makes things more disgusting as it shows how easy it is to manipulate and reach out to the audience. Don't you think the movie came in a very timely fashion as it recently became popular to 'care' about the environment in USA (and other countries)? Film expects a certain suspension of disbelief and should not be judged poorly if you refuse to partake in its self-consistent diegesis. (lol I used a big word and that made my day!) Black and white, overly simplistic, thematically, and LIBERAL it may be... but I don't think the movie seeks to mask Mr. Cameron's ideals in any way shape or form. That man did a hell of a job. AND YOU SHOULD DO TSL3 MISTER SHAUNI! Dark Knight is loved by nearly everyone including most critics (currently has a higher score than Avatar) -- what exactly makes it so much more wonderful? It had terrible dialogue, it had a ridiculous story. Its themes were obvious. These are completely different movies. Dark Knight was good because it was groundbreaking. A superhero movie centered not around the fantastic but around realism. The main character is dark, and the world it created was dark, but dark in a very believable way. Avatar is pure fantasy. It may have a clear political message, but the narrative is simple, almost disney-like. But then again, you can hardly criticize Bollywood movies for being "too morally simple" with a proper lack of a "grayscale." DDLJ will still make me tear up every time! So in conclusion.... these are two very very different movies. I think Avatar did a very very good job at what it was supposed to do. Do I think its narrative/acting was as stunning as the "visual orgasm?" Certainly not. Did I think they detracted from the experience? Not at all. | ||
|
Shauni
4077 Posts
| ||
|
CoL_Drake
Germany455 Posts
watched it later on computer was bad so WATCH IT IN 3D CINEMA ! | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On December 27 2009 10:56 Shauni wrote: It becomes a political view when it is suggestive and do not just portray the things 'as they are' in the movie. Environmentalism is definitely a part of political ideology. It doesn't matter if 99% of the world population agrees with the underlying morals of the movie, in fact, it just makes things more disgusting as it shows how easy it is to manipulate and reach out to the audience. Don't you think the movie came in a very timely fashion as it recently became popular to 'care' about the environment in USA (and other countries)? yah this is obviously a plot to make people care about the environment.... Seriously did I miss something? What kind of world do we live in where messages of protecting the enviroment are met with political conspiracy theories? When did one party become the pro-destruction-of-enviroment party? Everyone should care about protecting the environment. Democrate, Republican, Communist, Libertarian, Totalitarian. Why? CAUSE ITS A GOOD THING! In the same vein, and I feel ridiculous that this is even up for debate but KILLING INNOCENT NATIVES IS A BAD THING. Not a democrate thing or a liberal thing.....a bad thing! | ||
|
love1another
United States1844 Posts
On December 27 2009 11:11 Shauni wrote: I wasn't saying the Dark Knight was better, they are both on the same level. And as for the dialogue I had hoped for more silence. The movie would have improved a lot by actually being told WITH the visuals and body language instead of disturbing you with cliché lines every damn second. I'm not really trying to analyze its meaning from a deeper perspective, I realized this was simple entertainment before I went to watch this, but some things still disgusted me.  Well YOU, sir, disgust me. JK  I agree with you. The movie could have done with a LOT less dialogue. If Mr. Cameron had been so bold as to run the first 10 minutes of Schully's encounters with the Blue people in the pandoran language and not provided subtitles, I would've definitely appreciated the exquisite power of that experience... The self-reflexivity that forces the audience to undergo the same mental re-evaluation as the protagonist would have been a great talking point for film theorists on 2nd 3rd and 4th viewings... but not for the first screening. People don't want to think when watching movies! | ||
|
Ganfei
Taiwan1439 Posts
| ||
|
mainerd
United States347 Posts
On December 27 2009 10:56 Shauni wrote: It becomes a political view when it is suggestive and do not just portray the things 'as they are' in the movie. if you want view the movie from a political standpoint, i don't see how avatar could be very offensive. i think everyone agrees that hurting the environment is a bad thing. | ||
|
fAnTaCy
United States893 Posts
On December 27 2009 09:21 darktreb wrote: My advice to viewers: You have to see this movie in 3D because it is simply unbelievable. You don't need to "turn off" your criticism-center of your brain but just don't let it deprive you of what is an awe-inspiring experience. You don't watch an incredible sunset or go sit on the beach on a perfect day for surprises. You do it because it is an amazing feeling even if you know what you're getting yourself into. Again, you don't have to turn off your brain, but for your own sake try to alter the way you're looking at this movie because otherwise you're just some dude watching a magnificent sunset and going "this is how it looks every time". You're not wrong, but that wasn't the point, and you just deprived yourself of what could have been an incredibly enjoyable 2 1/2 hours. In the end, you're the only person who loses if that happens. After watching the movie I felt like I was actually on their planet, doing a tour in some magical invisible floating contraption for 2 1/2 hours. I've never even come close to actually feeling "I was actually there doing a tour" for any other movie - it's always been "it looked fantastic but I saw it on a screen". QFT this is what people need to do not go to find what is wrong with a movie and waste then ten bucks because your spending time looking at the negative parts of the movie rather than enjoying the movie for what it is | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On December 27 2009 11:31 fAnTaCy wrote: QFT this is what people need to do not go to find what is wrong with a movie and waste then ten bucks because your spending time looking at the negative parts of the movie rather than enjoying the movie for what it is the story and characters and dialog are all terrible, you really do have to turn off your brain to enjoy it. if it was more mindless action and about an hour shorter i would have enjoyed it for what it was, but i was bored out of my mind | ||
|
keepITup
251 Posts
On December 27 2009 11:16 love1another wrote: Well YOU, sir, disgust me. JK I agree with you. The movie could have done with a LOT less dialogue. If Mr. Cameron had been so bold as to run the first 10 minutes of Schully's encounters with the Blue people in the pandoran language and not provided subtitles, I would've definitely appreciated the exquisite power of that experience... The self-reflexivity that forces the audience to undergo the same mental re-evaluation as the protagonist would have been a great talking point for film theorists on 2nd 3rd and 4th viewings... but not for the first screening. People don't want to think when watching movies! I came into this movie expecting a 300-esque type experience -- sweet looking action. to my surprise, the action didn't come until the end of the movie (after nearly 2 hours). everything before that, all I was doing was thinking, because this movie honestly kick started my imagination and my gave me a new, fascinating outlook on life. the movie is purely emotional on a primitive level -- that was kind of the point. so to have people on here acting all superior and telling others that they just "dont think" when they watch movies -- well, i just don't agree with that at all. | ||
| ||
