Author Topic: Avatar: Willco still hates it (Read 126993 times)

Diunx · « **Reply #420 on:** December 19, 2009, 01:16:14 AM »

Quote from: Willco on December 18, 2009, 09:39:49 PM

(Image removed from quote.)

I just saw this

It is true though, Cameron

Mr. Gundam · « **Reply #421 on:** December 19, 2009, 01:25:03 AM »

I was gonna go see this tonight with a friend, but it was sold out. Unless my father-in-law wants to see it while we're visiting them for Christmas, I'll probably wait until it's on TV.

Mandark · « **Reply #422 on:** December 19, 2009, 01:31:45 AM »

What's with everyone slagging off Ferngully? It had Tone Loc as a rapping lizard!

Howard Alan Treesong · « **Reply #423 on:** December 19, 2009, 01:46:49 AM »

Guess who likes Avatar? The answer is racists!

I reject James Cameron's hymn to White Power.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #424 on:** December 19, 2009, 01:47:11 AM »

Hey, I was the one who said I didn't know if I could handle a film that was better than Ferngully.

ToxicAdam · « **Reply #425 on:** December 19, 2009, 01:49:23 AM »

I might be gushing a little because I'm still buzzing off this movie, but what Cameron did was amazing. It sounds stupid typing it .. but the fucker made magic on that screen. He made me care about CGI characters. Not that bullshit furry love story he tried to wedge in at the end, but the palpable tension and fear of the main character dying or being in peril at certain points in the movie. It had my pulse going and completely buying into what I was watching was like an intense action movie from the 80's or 90's.

To me that's amazing. When I watch CGI, its often from the perspective of an amused observer. Watching a street magician perform parlor tricks, but never really making you believe in the magic. But this crazy son of a bitch pulled it off.

Don't get me wrong, there are 6 "groan worthy" moments in this film. But they are just that .. moments. They don't take you out of the movie and they don't lessen the overall experience. Personally, I think this movie is going to be lame as a rental. Without the effect of 3D, I doubt the world (and the Na'vi) really feel alive at all. It really sells the experience.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #426 on:** December 19, 2009, 01:53:08 AM »

I guess we know the test of a truly great film - does it suck without 3D?

Howard Alan Treesong · « **Reply #427 on:** December 19, 2009, 01:55:36 AM »

I watched It Happened One Night tonight. It was 2D. Hell, it was black-and-white. $:-\$

I think I liked it. But ... is it still a good movie? I don't know! Avatar has changed all the rules!

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #428 on:** December 19, 2009, 02:00:55 AM »

You might as well burn your DVD and Blu-ray collection.

Howard Alan Treesong · « **Reply #429 on:** December 19, 2009, 02:02:15 AM »

I just bought a second projector so I can properly enjoy Avatar on Blu-ray 3D in November 2010. Now I'm living in stereo!

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #430 on:** December 19, 2009, 02:06:40 AM »

The Blu-ray Disc Association just announced finalized specs for Blu-ray 3D yesterday. The PlayStation 3 was even confirmed as a compatible hardware device for playback of the MVC codec. You have a Blu-ray 3D device in your home and you didn't even know it!

Howard Alan Treesong · « **Reply #431 on:** December 19, 2009, 03:09:50 AM »

They have really nice abs, though. Especially Hugo Weaving. No homo.

brawndolicious · « **Reply #432 on:** December 19, 2009, 03:20:53 AM »

Quote from: Green Shinobi on December 19, 2009, 03:01:32 AM

Dinux and ToxicAdam know what's up.

And the Na'vi don't even have fur, so how can this movie be a furry-anything?

Hair doesn't matter. That one piano genius on GAF cybers while wearing a dragon suit and he's a self-confessed furry.

green man beat me.

Ichirou · « **Reply #433 on:** December 19, 2009, 05:57:32 AM »

You sound like you know a lot about this GAF piano genius, nintenho.

Tell me moar...

Solo · « **Reply #434 on:** December 19, 2009, 06:55:19 AM »

Quote from: Willco on December 18, 2009, 10:20:59 PM

Eh, I don't think Spielberg is that great of an action director. That said, he's a great director.

What Spielberg has (and Cameron too) is the ability to tie action to the narrative in a way that makes what you're seeing on the screen carry some kind of emotional weight and further the story along. I think a lot of directors simply come from a microscopic school of thought, and go out to film the most elaborate, frantic action scenes possible, without once thinking about how those shots can further the story along. We're an MTV generation; we want YouTube clips, not slow, meticulous set pieces setup by long stretches of tension.

I mean, I know younger people that think the chase sequence in the first half of Terminator 2 is boring. That's right, boring.

Perfect example of this is The Matrix. The original is incredible, and the Wachowski's don't waste a single action sequence that doesn't connect to or move the story along. The subway duel is fantastic because it marks a significant turning point in Neo's character arc, combining both well-choreographed action and a compelling story. The sequels blow - hard - because all they are is a series of disconnected action sequences.

I find the primary factor behind of all this is just what Solo said, that a lot of younger directors cut their teeth with music videos and try to bring those sensibilities to feature-length productions. The other factor is the short attention span of mainstream audiences.

We might think long, character-focused action sequences built up with long stretches of tension to be awesome (and it is), but I don't think we (as in myself, Ichirou, Solo, etc.) represent the mainstream at large.

Well said, Feder! Agreed with everything you mentioning with the caveat of Spielberg. I DO think he constructs wonderfully action sequences when properly motivated (see Indy IV if you're looking for Spielberg on autopilot though - not a pretty scene).

Solo · « **Reply #435 on:** December 19, 2009, 06:57:14 AM »

Quote from: Willco on December 19, 2009, 01:53:08 AM

I guess we know the test of a truly great film - does it suck without 3D?

You know what, I honestly dont think it would suffer too much without it. After about 20 minutes or so I stopped noticing the 3D gimmicks and started getting more engaged with Pandora itself. Its the setting that is the real achievement here, not the technology and gimmicks.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #436 on:** December 19, 2009, 08:03:08 AM »

Quote from: Willco on December 18, 2009, 08:41:05 PM

Quote from: EvilBoris on December 18, 2009, 08:25:33 PM
they will soon

I look forward to Solo's review after he rewatches this at home, after the high of watching it with an anxious opening night crowd wears off.

Like Paranormal Activity? :p

edit: after reading Manabyte's post...fuck, I guess my $300mil bet is gonna be off

Mandark · « **Reply #437 on:** December 19, 2009, 08:23:14 AM »

I agree with Solo. Very good post there, Willco.

That reminds me, there was this giant blockbuster a couple years back which did a terrible job of incorporating the action scenes into the movie as a whole, something with giant robots...

Diunx · « **Reply #438 on:** December 19, 2009, 09:14:21 AM »

Transformers did a terrible job incorporating anything into the movie as a whole.

Jansen · « **Reply #439 on:** December 19, 2009, 09:28:44 AM »

Quote from: Bebpo on December 18, 2009, 09:59:22 PM

The art style and story felt like James Cameron played FFVII-FFX and decided he wanted to make a movie like that and hired all the jrpg artists and writers from Japan to make his film with him. The film felt kinda like an 80s stereotypical big action movie x 90s stereotypical jrpg.

and just like that, i am no longer interested in seeing this movie!

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #440 on:** December 19, 2009, 09:40:37 AM »

Quote from: Mandark on December 19, 2009, 08:23:14 AM

That reminds me, there was this giant blockbuster a couple years back which did a terrible job of incorporating the action scenes into the movie as a whole, something with giant robots...

$:-\$

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #441 on:** December 19, 2009, 09:50:18 AM »

You will never, ever live down your Bayformers apologism Federwang. It's like the Swiss holding Nazi gold during WWII... or more appropriately Maurice's review of Unforgiven, I guess.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #442 on:** December 19, 2009, 10:37:02 AM »

I fail to see how my opinion of Transformers, which is that it's a very mediocre movie buoyed by my own wanton desires to see robots fight other robots, is the equivalent of saying Unforgiven is awful. Again, you make it sound like I called Transformers the best film of the year (or the decade), but I didn't even call it the best popcorn flick I saw that summer!

I've never championed Transformers as a purveyor of fine cinema, and I've even remarked that most of Mandark's complaints are valid. If being an apologist means defending against the claim that it is "the worst film of all-time", then I am guilty as charged - because it's not the worst film of all-time. I've also defended against such hyperbole when directed at similar tent pole flicks, like Star Trek, which I didn't even really like.

And I would do the same for Avatar!

... but how can I expect compassion and reason from a man who wants to see James Cameron's attempt to dethrone Ferngully. As ~~a wise man~~ some guy said to me over AIM yesterday, see it in 3D... or not at all!

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #443 on:** December 19, 2009, 10:43:31 AM »

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #444 on:** December 19, 2009, 10:44:58 AM »

And to honestly reply to Mandark's snarky post: not all action films are created equal.

The most memorable action films have their action beats interwoven into the story, and are memorable for their characters, not necessarily for their explosive yields. But it is possible to create action sequences with disposable characters that can be enjoyed due to personal preference (see: any Godzilla film, any Shaw Bros. film, etc.).

Those are almost guilty pleasures and are rarely rattled off in order when discussions of "greatest action films of all-time" come up online, however.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #445 on:** December 19, 2009, 12:45:09 PM »

Quote from: Green Shinobi on December 18, 2009, 08:47:43 PM

Lastly, the scope of this film is unreal. Remember the moment when the Titanic went down? There are moments in this film that blow that away. I'd say without any reservations that this is the biggest film of all time.

ManaByte · « **Reply #446 on:** December 19, 2009, 03:20:44 PM »

People are starting to compare Avatar to Watchmen.

Fanboys got all worked up over Watchmen, blew their load opening weekend, and the next week Race to Witch Mountain knocked it out of the top spot.

TakingBackSunday · « **Reply #447 on:** December 19, 2009, 03:26:34 PM »

Quote from: Willco on December 19, 2009, 12:45:09 PM

Quote from: Green Shinobi on December 18, 2009, 08:47:43 PM
Lastly, the scope of this film is unreal. Remember the moment when the Titanic went down? There are moments in this film that blow that away. I'd say without any reservations that this is the biggest film of all time.

(Image removed from quote.)

jesus christ, that's amazing

Barry Egan · « **Reply #448 on:** December 19, 2009, 04:12:55 PM »

But the point is we have all seen the film. A million times already. Since we were like 5.

Solo · « **Reply #449 on:** December 19, 2009, 06:55:11 PM »

Quote from: ManaByte on December 19, 2009, 03:20:44 PM

People are starting to compare Avatar to Watchmen.

Fanboys got all worked up over Watchmen, blew their load opening weekend, and the next week Race to Witch Mountain knocked it out of the top spot.

Watchmen was a pretentious piece of drivel masquerading as art though. Avatar isnt hiding what it is.

fistfulofmetal · « **Reply #450 on:** December 19, 2009, 06:59:27 PM »

8/10

I don't know if this is normal but my IMAX theater only displayed the film on about three quarters of the screen. It sat at the bottom of the screen and there was black spaced on the sides and top. I have no issue with black bars but could they have at least centered the fucking movie?

The 3D was ok. This is my first 3D movie and the concept didnt really blow me away. It was cool to see and it never got in the way, but I would have been perfectly fine seeing it in 2D. I would like to see what the differences between IMAX 3D and RealD are, tho.

I'm not gonna try to articulate all the good and bad about the movie because I'm terrible at it. Instead I'll just point out that Neytiri was sexy. Long athletic body

.

fistfulofmetal · « **Reply #451 on:** December 19, 2009, 07:11:34 PM »

also what the fuck?

that is NOT what my IMAX 3D glasses looked like. Mine where shitty small yellow glasses. Lame sauce.

TakingBackSunday · « **Reply #452 on:** December 19, 2009, 07:23:59 PM »

Emma

Brehvolution · « **Reply #453 on:** December 19, 2009, 07:31:44 PM »

I'll probably rent ferngully and grab avatar as my freebie for renting ferngully.

chronovore · « **Reply #454 on:** December 19, 2009, 08:18:42 PM »

Quote from: Willco on December 17, 2009, 04:35:45 PM

AV Club comes with the real talk: C

Quote from: AV Club
Look past the New Age beauty of Cameron’s Pandora—and whenever the camera swoops through its verdant, psychedelic wonders, that isn’t easy to do—and Avatar is a weak patchwork of his other films: the leaden voiceover from Terminator 2 here, the military/civilian conflict from Aliens there, even a Jack-and-Rose-style forbidden love story cued to adult-contempo soundtrack. And if that weren’t enough, Cameron tacks on ham-handed environmental messages and a one-size-fits-all anti-war metaphor that references Native Americans, Vietnam, and the current oil-fueled quagmires. In the past, charismatic actors (Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sigourney Weaver, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Kate Winslet) have usually covered for Cameron’s weaknesses as a screenwriter, but Worthington can do nothing to animate his stock warrior. On a story level, Cameron has invested the bare minimum necessary to call Avatar into existence, and while there’s no doubting his meticulousness, the film is more demo than drama.

"(...) a Captain EO for our time."

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #455 on:** December 19, 2009, 08:51:37 PM »

It has begun :'(

fistfulofmetal · « **Reply #456 on:** December 19, 2009, 08:55:09 PM »

not gonna lie. she has an awesome bod. and she looked like zoe saldana kinda too which is a plus

Jansen · « **Reply #457 on:** December 19, 2009, 08:55:19 PM »

i KNEW the point of this movie was an attempt to make furries socially acceptable!

damn you james cameron.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #458 on:** December 19, 2009, 08:57:32 PM »

Quote from: Genghis Cohen on December 19, 2009, 08:49:51 PM

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=18959970&postcount=4604
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=18960020&postcount=4608
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=18960048&postcount=4610
$:-\$ $:-\$ $:-\$ $:-\$

Are you fucking kidding me? This is up there with gamers that want to bang Lara Croft.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #459 on:** December 19, 2009, 09:07:14 PM »

Quote from: BrandNew on December 19, 2009, 03:26:34 PM

Quote from: Willco on December 19, 2009, 12:45:09 PM
Quote from: Green Shinobi on December 18, 2009, 08:47:43 PM
Lastly, the scope of this film is unreal. Remember the moment when the Titanic went down? There are moments in this film that blow that away. I'd say without any reservations that this is the biggest film of all time.

(Image removed from quote.)

jesus christ, that's amazing

plz update

with this

fistfulofmetal · « **Reply #460 on:** December 19, 2009, 09:09:16 PM »

shrug. hot chick is a hot chick. digital or not

fistfulofmetal · « **Reply #461 on:** December 19, 2009, 09:16:38 PM »

really the only animal features are on the face. obscenely animal features is obviously going over the line. hooves, paws, actual fur, etc.

recursivelyenumerable · « **Reply #462 on:** December 19, 2009, 09:21:10 PM »

Quote

He's a good storyteller, but he's rarely the sole screenwriter on most of his films, and that's because he recognizes his limitations as a writer - unlike Lucas.

Huh? Lucas has said in numerous interviews that he thinks he's a terrible writer.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #463 on:** December 19, 2009, 09:24:19 PM »

Could have fooled me!

(And anyone else who has worked with Lucas, who usually forces them to do what he wants.)

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #464 on:** December 19, 2009, 09:32:43 PM »

Quote from: Willco on December 19, 2009, 08:57:32 PM

Quote from: Genghis Cohen on December 19, 2009, 08:49:51 PM
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=18959970&postcount=4604
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=18960020&postcount=4608
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=18960048&postcount=4610
$:-\$ $:-\$ $:-\$ $:-\$

Are you fucking kidding me? This is up there with gamers that want to bang Lara Croft.

No, this is way worse. At least Lara Croft is supposed to be a human.

brawndolicious · « **Reply #465 on:** December 19, 2009, 09:38:00 PM »

Lucas just doesn't care what comes out of the actors mouths though. He considers himself a "visual storyteller" (and he can often pull that off).

Jansen · « **Reply #466 on:** December 19, 2009, 09:40:59 PM »

Quote from: fistfulofmetal on December 19, 2009, 09:16:38 PM

really the only animal features are on the face. obscenely animal features is obviously going over the line. hooves, paws, actual fur, etc.

fistfulofmetal · « **Reply #467 on:** December 19, 2009, 09:45:02 PM »

IMO the movie sits at around 15-20%. i'm perfectly comfortable with that.

Mandark · « **Reply #468 on:** December 19, 2009, 09:59:34 PM »

Quote from: Green Shinobi on December 19, 2009, 09:53:27 PM

The furry label doesn't apply because the Na'vi features aren't modeled after any kind of animal. Wanting to bang Neytiri doesn't make you a furry. It's pretty much the same as wanting to bang one of the Star Trek aliens.

It's like you're trolling for a spot in the newsfeed.

fistfulofmetal · « **Reply #469 on:** December 19, 2009, 10:01:59 PM »

GS's problem is that he keeps trying to rationalize the feelings he gets when he watched the movie. Straight up. the tall skinny blue alien in the movie was hot. I would bang her. Release your fear and admit it.

brawndolicious · « **Reply #470 on:** December 19, 2009, 10:14:52 PM »

[youtube=560,345]tPjTqx18ISU[/youtube]

Mandark · « **Reply #471 on:** December 19, 2009, 10:18:11 PM »

I think we can applaud James Cameron not only for his groundbreaking innovations in CGI and visual storytelling, but also for bringing a completely new direction to porn drift.

Himu · « **Reply #472 on:** December 19, 2009, 10:58:16 PM »

This movie melted my balls off. Really enjoyed it.

Himu · « **Reply #473 on:** December 19, 2009, 11:02:29 PM »

Quote from: Green Shinobi on December 19, 2009, 10:58:57 PM

I love how fluid and coherent the action scenes are in this film. Such a relief after all the shaky-cam shit we've been getting these last few years. There are so many amazing shots during the final battle that I could just gush over for hours.

Cameron = King Richard
Michael Bay = Prince John

Oh I fucking know. I was having a total eyegasm.

In fact, the entire movie is crazy in terms of visuals. I haven't said,"Damn that's a nice shot." "Wow, look at that!" so much while watching a film all year.

fistfulofmetal · « **Reply #474 on:** December 19, 2009, 11:08:08 PM »

I'm gonna try to see it again next weekend with my dad at a normal digital 3D showing.

Tucah · « **Reply #475 on:** December 19, 2009, 11:49:53 PM »

Saw this earlier today, liked it a lot more than I thought I would. Story sucked but the visuals were the real reason to see the film anyway.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #476 on:** December 20, 2009, 12:07:02 AM »

We can only hope.

The film cost $380 million. It wasn't like it was going to make that back anyway. I have no idea what Fox was thinking with that budget. When your film is all spectacle, and everyone thinks the story and characters are disposable at best, you're not talking about anything with legs.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #477 on:** December 20, 2009, 12:19:00 AM »

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

... Seriously, how do you greenlight a non-franchise (science fiction at that!) involving colorful furries for $380 million and expect it to come close to that total? Especially when the story is so mediocre?

Mandark · « **Reply #478 on:** December 20, 2009, 12:26:26 AM »

Quote from: Green Shinobi on December 20, 2009, 12:20:50 AM

It'll make that back and then some. I'll make a perma-ban bet that Avatar does over $500 million worldwide.

Good lord man, stop inviting ridicule on yourself.

Mandark · « **Reply #479 on:** December 20, 2009, 12:31:49 AM »

Quote from: Green Shinobi on December 20, 2009, 12:28:41 AM

You really don't think it'll hit 500 mill?

Oh dear. Somehow I knew you were gonna miss the point and post something like this.

News:

Author Topic: Avatar: Willco still hates it (Read 126993 times)