|
Post by jakesully on Dec 19, 2019 17:59:08 GMT
Damn time fucking flies by doesn't it? I want to know your thoughts on one of the biggest films of all time (whether it be good or bad). I should add that I wasn't on IMDB back in 2009 when it first came out so I am curious to what the build up / hype/ reaction was like.
Personally, I thought it was a cinematic triumph and game changer. One for the ages imo and I really can't wait for the sequel(s).
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Dec 19, 2019 18:07:30 GMT
It was bad then, it's bad now. Nothing's changed.
|
|
The-Havok
Badass
Doing pretty good so far
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 552
|
Post by The-Havok on Dec 19, 2019 19:23:47 GMT
People who say stuff like 'hure the auteur has no say on his movie' obviously will have a negative opinion on the movie but the thing is, it was one of the most significant cinematic experiences of the 21st Century.
It just lacked the longevity ig given people watched it for its effects, not the hollow characters. The opening sequence is still majestic and back then if you saw it on IMAX, it was like reliving movie wonder. Which is scarce nowadays
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,556
Likes: 1,388
|
Post by Film Socialism on Dec 19, 2019 19:29:27 GMT
best cinema of attractions in a while only Goodbye to Language really comes close
|
|
|
Post by stinkybritches on Dec 19, 2019 19:50:15 GMT
it was really cool to see upon release in the cinema. haven't watched it at home, and don't see the point really.
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Dec 19, 2019 19:53:09 GMT
I didn't like it then, I probably wouldn't like it now.
|
|
|
Post by jimmalone on Dec 19, 2019 19:56:34 GMT
Visually one of the most impressive films ever, which makes up for some flaws and this alone is reason enough to see it. It's my favourite James Cameron film.
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Dec 19, 2019 21:00:06 GMT
I saw it twice when it came out, once in 2D, once in 3D, and... I've not seen it since. If I see it on TV it doesn't demand to be instantly watched the way fucking Titanic does every time I happen upon it. It's such an ordinary movie on every level but the technical.
I think in a couple of generations when we tell our children and our childrens children about Avatar they'll think these movies that made all this money that they've never heard of or seen that have left basically zero impact on pop culture are made up. Even the game changing 3D fad it tried to bring back with a vengeance hasn't lasted.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Dec 19, 2019 21:16:46 GMT
I don't think it's a great film, and I've never felt the urge to rewatch it in full, but I'll be damned if it wasn't one of my most memorable movie-watching experiences, in IMAX 3D. It was incredibly immersive and a real innovation. If you asked Scorsese, he'd probably call it the best theme park ride ever made.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Dec 19, 2019 22:24:52 GMT
It's a terrific cinematic adventure. Its story is familiar yet classical, visually it's of course spectacular and I think it's really quite spellbinding with beaming with an inner sense of wonder, awe and imagination. Even if it operates under an umbrella of a familiar tale. I love it.
|
|
|
Post by pendragon on Dec 20, 2019 1:16:31 GMT
Hardly any.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,556
Likes: 1,388
|
Post by Film Socialism on Dec 20, 2019 2:42:29 GMT
i do kinda wonder why people latched onto this movie as being a uniquely predictable blockbuster as if you can't guess the plot outline to like 95% of those fuckers anyways. at least unlike most of them, this one actually attempts to go for some level of immersion and spectacle instead of half-assing it in that department. like yeah, i don't remember any of the characters in it, i remember the moments and the grandeur - which is what genre flicks of this sort should be focusing on. if you want good drama and characters you can watch breillat films on a millionth of the budget
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Dec 20, 2019 2:49:38 GMT
I saw it in theaters once and then I think twice afterwards. That was more than enough.
|
|
|
Post by cheesecake on Dec 20, 2019 6:07:55 GMT
For something that was so massive upon release, it really isn't talked about much anymore. It's a tired story and nothing new was done to liven it up, save for the effects at the time. Not a fan of the cinematography win at all and District 9 should have won visuals. At least Abadar didn't win best picture. Blegh.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2019 6:26:23 GMT
Really odd movie. I don't have any strong feelings on it one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Dec 20, 2019 8:53:18 GMT
i do kinda wonder why people latched onto this movie as being a uniquely predictable blockbuster as if you can't guess the plot outline to like 95% of those fuckers anyways. at least unlike most of them, this one actually attempts to go for some level of immersion and spectacle instead of half-assing it in that department. like yeah, i don't remember any of the characters in it, i remember the moments and the grandeur - which is what genre flicks of this sort should be focusing on. if you want good drama and characters you can watch breillat films on a millionth of the budget But what spectacle? This movie might be the absolute paramount example of one of the principle problems with modern day blockbusters - if the entire thing is computer generated how awe inspiring a work of spectacle can it really be? There is no real grandeur to remember, is there? I remember liking those floating islands, but they barely feature. As for moments, that's exactly my problem with it. There are no real moments to remember! What to die for, must watch scenes are there in it? I can think of literally zero, and that hasn't ever happened in a Cameron movie for me before (except maybe The Abyss) I also think you don't need good characters as such, but quality, big, charismatic, whatever, movie star turns help. This movie didn't have that either. I know at the time everyone wanted to make Zoe Saldana happen, but that performance has left basically zero impact too.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,556
Likes: 1,388
|
Post by Film Socialism on Dec 20, 2019 12:59:28 GMT
i do kinda wonder why people latched onto this movie as being a uniquely predictable blockbuster as if you can't guess the plot outline to like 95% of those fuckers anyways. at least unlike most of them, this one actually attempts to go for some level of immersion and spectacle instead of half-assing it in that department. like yeah, i don't remember any of the characters in it, i remember the moments and the grandeur - which is what genre flicks of this sort should be focusing on. if you want good drama and characters you can watch breillat films on a millionth of the budget But what spectacle? This movie might be the absolute paramount example of one of the principle problems with modern day blockbusters - if the entire thing is computer generated how awe inspiring a work of spectacle can it really be? There is no real grandeur to remember, is there? I remember liking those floating islands, but they barely feature. As for moments, that's exactly my problem with it. There are no real moments to remember! What to die for, must watch scenes are there in it? I can think of literally zero, and that hasn't ever happened in a Cameron movie for me before (except maybe The Abyss) I also think you don't need good characters as such, but quality, big, charismatic, whatever, movie star turns help. This movie didn't have that either. I know at the time everyone wanted to make Zoe Saldana happen, but that performance has left basically zero impact too. uhh no lol, cgi spectacle is still entirely spectacle. it's another form of it than what was around in the old days of attractions but the idea is the same. i remember when jake is harnessing all the other tribes and the frantic and almost overwhelming nature of his first visit and his weariness with his first Avatar etc, and i haven't seen the movie since it came out. seeing it in high def is a crazy experience that isn't going to be matched by a blockbuster that goes for development in most cases, bc the concept of blockbusters in my eyes should be capitalizing on the unreality aspect. idk why animated spectacle wouldn't count here though
|
|
|
Post by Pavan on Dec 20, 2019 13:37:49 GMT
Was blown away in my first viewing in theaters. After that I've seen twice it in TV/Laptop. Now i don't really care for it and not really interested in the upcoming sequels.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Dec 20, 2019 14:33:58 GMT
Visually very impressive and groundbreaking back then.
As for the sequels, I'm not so sure. They really delayed, this technology is no longer novel.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Dec 20, 2019 23:43:51 GMT
The effects were a monumental achievement and Cameron knows action filmmaking as well as anyone in the business, but the film is hampered horribly by having little to no real character to it. Cameron, for all his limitations as a writer, still had a great eye for how to color in characters to make them pop and draw the audience into their worlds both through his writing and sharp eye for talent to fill in the gaps he leaves.
I think of Titanic, where he so effectively not only brings us into Rose's world, but gives us peeps into Thomas Andrews (Victor Garber is so lovely), Captain Edward Smith, Molly Brown, and takes the time to have us explore each deck. The class divides are clear, stark, and built within the characters with enough moments afforded to them to build audience investment so that I care about even some broad caricature like Fabrizio. Shit, the engine room even gets some shine and invites me to feel for those workers for their backbreaking labor even before tragedy strikes. All of those pieces come together so that when the ship is sinking, I cry at the band or the mother with her children or the old couple in bed because even if they're barely in the film, they are at least present in the moments afforded to them and feel distinguishable.
I bring up Titanic because it feels like such a clear benchmark for Cameron here, being his grand showcase of epic filmmaking and bringing us into a fully formed world. Avatar was supposed to be that but also a return to the action and sci-fi genres he also owned, should've been a grand slam of awesome. But instead we get stuck with human characters with little to no sense of humor and hardly any time spent contextualizing why anyone does anything they do. Even the main character is stuck with being as boring as Sam Worthington. The Na'vi hardly fare any better, being so unified in their design as to make them hardly distinguishable, and the only one given much of anything to work with is Saldana's Neytiri and she's just a tour guide for most of the film or given the unenviable task of trying to play off chemistry with walking milquetoast Sam Worthington. I care more about Fabrizio than I care about Jake Sully.
Okay, so the characters are two-dimensional but at least the world isn't, so what's it look like when Cameron's imagination goes wild? Giant blue Native Americans, a glowing tree, and a slight variation of the same mech suits from Aliens that have been copied in every sci-fi video game to ever exist. Well, that glowing tree could be neat, do we see it do much of anything? Nope, we're just told it connects to the Na'vi deity. Sounds cool, so do we see anything cool happen with it? Well, they kinda gather 'round and sway a bit, they can also connect to it through their hair but we don't really see what that feels like for them or anything. The only time Cameron decides to dive into Jake Sully's subjective experience when he is exploring Na'vi culture is the flight with Toruk, the same kind of shit we've seen before with the Hippogriff in Harry Potter or fucking Falkor in The Neverending Story. Wouldn't it have been great to really feel like the Na'vi were their own fully developed, unique culture and to feel like a part of it? Wouldn't that have been infinitely more cinematically interesting than just distanced observations in service of a white guilt fantasy?
|
|
|
Post by jakesully on Dec 21, 2019 0:05:55 GMT
Visually very impressive and groundbreaking back then. As for the sequels, I'm not so sure. They really delayed, this technology is no longer novel. James Cameron has hinted in some interviews that they'll be exploring the oceans of Pandora so expect some jaw dropping under water sequences this time around. Shit is going to be mind blowing! Plus Kate Winslet is gonna be in it:iloveu:
|
|
|
Post by jakesully on Dec 21, 2019 0:16:22 GMT
I appreciate all the feedback and discussion folks (whether its positive or very negative lol).
|
|
avnermoriarti
Badass
Friends say I’ve changed. They’re right.
Posts: 2,388
Likes: 1,271
|
Post by avnermoriarti on Dec 21, 2019 5:47:21 GMT
I only saw it once in 3d, I was mostly on board, even with Sam Worthington, which as I recall was seen as a piece of wood, but I like his Joe attitude. But as the film was progressing I was thinking who the f_ck comes with ideas like the Pandora connection, the tales and that whole thing, I thought it was gross, and Sigourney with her 20 year-old naked body, lol. By the end I thought it was an ugly film.
|
|
|
Post by themoviesinner on Dec 21, 2019 6:38:47 GMT
The film is certainly visually impressive but, other than that, it features nothing else that interested me. It was an extremely hollow film experience.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Dec 21, 2019 14:06:36 GMT
I also saw it only in 3D. Visually it was very impressive stuff!
|
|