Re: Avatar

by **BBJynne** on Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:40 am

Gauz wrote:Na'vi

hey, listen!

by Dud Doodoo on Sun Dec 20, 2009 5:33 am

Pocahontas in space with a battle at the end. Ground breaking and amazing? Hardly. The story line was dull and predictable, the movie had to rely on good CGI and testosterone pumping for appeal.

by **CivBase** on Sun Dec 20, 2009 5:43 am

Just saw it.

Movie of the year? Hands down.
Movie of the decade? I can't think of a decent competitor.
Best movie ever? Well... there's the original Star Wars trilogy... but that's still pretty good.

The movie was just about three hours long, but it could have easily been longer. They were so strapped for time that they had to cut two thirds of the time in the story into about ten minutes on screen. I wish it was five hours instead, but three is awful long as is, so I wont complain.

The visuals were simply breathtaking. The only problem I had was the Na'vi face, but there simply isn't technology to improve that (at least, not without quadrupling the movie's cost budget). This movie has definitely raised the bar for sci-fi and the like.

The story left very little out of place. Everything was etched in stone and it was simply amazing. You feel like an expert on the movie by the end. Every i was dotted and every t crossed. I'd like to say more, but you gotta see it for yourself.

10/10 from me, no contest.

by **Rasq'uire'laskar** on Sun Dec 20, 2009 6:24 am

Dud Doodoo wrote:Pocahontas in space with a battle at the end. Ground breaking and amazing? Hardly.

So... the CGI flew right by your head?

As for the story, I doubt there's another movie out there that was nearly as daring and audacious as this one. A lot of people compare it to Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves (Which James Cameron acknowledged as an influence) and Ferngully (I hope to GOD nobody else had to suffer through that) because of the story elements. Again, how many movies out there are 100% original? I'm looking at my shelf of favorite movies, and only a few stick out as completely original. Red Dawn, the Prestige, Forrest Gump, and the Final Cut... That's it. The reason Avatar is 'So unoriginal' is because it's based ON OUR OWN HISTORY. Hell, we can call it more original than most because, unlike so many of the events in history, the Natives WON the battle. Ala "Little Bighorn" and the battle of Isandlwana.

Apocalypse now, V for Vendetta, A Bridge Too Far, and Flags of Our Fathers have been disqualified because they borrow upon historic events or previous stuff that wasn't very original to begin with.

And, again, Avatar is completely incomparable when it comes to camera work, CGI, and scope of battle.

Dud Doodoo wrote:The story line was dull and predictable, the movie had to rely on good CGI and testosterone pumping for appeal.

Dull and predictable? I found myself drawn into it actually. As for predictable, while certain elements were predictable, (I mean, come on! You saw the preview and drew your own conclusions! And how many movies keep you guessing 100% of the time?) there was a lot of stuff that ended up surprising me when it happened.

by Gold Spartan on Sun Dec 20, 2009 6:32 am

Dud Doodoo wrote:Pocahontas in space with a battle at the end. Ground breaking and amazing? Hardly. The story line was dull and predictable, the movie had to rely on good CGI and testosterone pumping for appeal.

So Dud is part of the 1-100000 of the critics who were disappointed by Avatar. Razz

by ReconToaster on Sun Dec 20, 2009 6:35 am

Really Civ? It felt more to me like a glorified Fern Gully.

In Fern Gully, a lumber jack stumbles upon a tribe of nymphs who live in trees. He eventually becomes one of them, and falls in love with one of their women. Later into the movie, the Nymphs discover Red "X" marks some of the trees. The ex-lumber jack tells them what they mean, and they suddenly hate him. After that, he re-unites with the nymphs, and helps them fight back against the evil, Earth raping lumberjacks.

Sound familiar?

The movie "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" Also follows that same basic formula.

Aside from being entirely unoriginal, the movie was extremely predictable, the alien models were ugly, and most of the characters were... very typical. Could you ever have guessed that Michele Rodriguez would play a masculine female in a male dominated work force?

The visuals were pretty. Aside from that...

Movie of the year? No way
Movie of the Decade? Are you fucking kidding me?
Best movie ever? wat?

4/10 woooot

by PiEdude on Sun Dec 20, 2009 6:41 am

ReconToaster wrote:Really Civ? It felt more to me like a glorified Fern Gully.

In Fern Gully, a lumber jack stumbles upon a tribe of nymphs who live in trees. He eventually becomes one of them, and falls in love with one of their women. Later into the movie, the Nymphs discover Red "X" marks some of the trees. The ex-lumber jack tells them what they mean, and they suddenly hate him. After that, he re-unites with the nymphs, and helps them fight back against the evil, Earth raping lumberjacks.

Sound familiar?

The movie "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" Also follows that same basic formula.

Aside from being entirely unoriginal, the movie was extremely predictable, the alien models were ugly, and most of the characters were... very typical. Could you ever have guessed that Michele Rodriguez would play a masculine female in a male dominated work force?

The visuals were pretty. Aside from that...

Movie of the year? No way
Movie of the Decade? Are you fucking kidding me?
Best movie ever? wat?

4/10 woooot

I haven't understood a single word Toaster has said since he stuck Ken Kutaragi's cock in his mouth.

by ReconToaster on Sun Dec 20, 2009 6:45 am

lawl, I've been blowing Kutaragi since 2006. Guess you've never understood my posts. Razz

by Gauz on Sun Dec 20, 2009 6:46 am

ReconToaster wrote:Really Civ? It felt more to me like a glorified Fern Gully.

More people would rather watch Avatar over "Fern Gully", so I don't think that matters.

ReconToaster wrote:Sound familiar?

So like Rasq said, all movies have to be totally original?

ReconToaster wrote: the movie was extremely predictable,

I would hardly say 'extremely predictable'.

ReconToaster wrote:the alien models were ugly,

1) Thats your opinion, I thought they looked exotic.
2) When you think of aliens, do you think of beautiful beings?

ReconToaster wrote:and most of the characters were... very typical.

How?

by ReconToaster on Sun Dec 20, 2009 6:59 am

Gauz wrote:More people would rather watch Avatar over "Fern Gully", so I don't think that matters.

Which is why I called it "glorified." Be that as it may, I thoroughly enjoyed Fern Gully as a child.

Gauz wrote:So like Rasq said, all movies have to be totally original?

Not at all. Halo, for example, completely took the idea of "halo's" from Larry Niven. That's okay. Reusing an entire story line on the other hand, is not okay.

I would hardly say 'extremely predictable'.

Really? When they first introduced that giant flying thing, did you not immediately know that he would end up flying it? When they first introduced the military general guy, did you not immediately know that he was going to be a heartless ass hole? When wheelchair man first met that girl, did you not immediately predict that they were going to fall in love, and that he was going to switch sides and help them fight back?

I did. Both of my friends who I saw it with did. That makes a movie extremely predictable.

Gauz wrote: 1) Thats your opinion, I thought they looked exotic.
2) When you think of aliens, do you think of beautiful beings?

1) of course it's my opinion....
2) I shouldn't say ugly. I mean to say that they looked... silly. When you think of Aliens, do you think of perfectly humanoid beings with blue pigments and flat ass noses? It's not a matter of what we imagine aliens to look like. I just think the ones in Avatar look dumb.

by Gauz on Sun Dec 20, 2009 7:09 am

ReconToaster wrote:
Not at all. Halo, for example, completely took the idea of "halo's" from Larry Niven. That's okay. Reusing an entire story line on the other hand, is not okay.

While they may be similar stories, I don't think that it is an exact copy, or was intended to be. It really isn't fair, that Fern Gully made a movie with that plot first, because now it'll be compared to that movie. I think Avatar does the plot more justice, rather than Fern Gully.

ReconToaster wrote:
Really? When they first introduced that giant flying thing, did you not immediately know that he would end up flying it? When they first introduced the military general guy, did you not immediately know that he was going to be a heartless ass hole? When wheelchair man first met that girl, did you not immediately predict that they were going to fall in love, and that he was going to switch sides and help them fight back?

I think most of that was unavoidable... This happens a lot in stories, predictability. I don't think matters so much. Its nice to be suprised, but the movie was still really good.

Gauz wrote:

I shouldn't say ugly. I mean to say that they looked... silly. When you think of Aliens, do you think of perfectly humanoid beings with blue pigments and flat ass noses? It's not a matter of what we imagine aliens to look like. I just think the ones in Avatar look dumb.

It'd be hard for a human to fall in love with the squid face of a elite. And because i've never seen an alien, I wouldn't know how they looked. Just like how we don't know what color dinosaurs were.

by **CivBase** on Sun Dec 20, 2009 7:17 am

ReconToaster wrote:Really Civ? It felt more to me like a glorified Fern Gully.

Never seen Fern Gully. However, is it fair to say the movie sucks because a kids movie from 15 years ago had a similar story at the very basic level? Are you suggesting that Avatar's story has the same effect on you as Fern Gully's? Even if the basic idea is similar, nothing else about it is.

ReconToaster wrote:In Fern Gully, a lumber jack stumbles upon a tribe of nymphs who live in trees.

In Avatar, a guy who has nothing to do with the people who are killing the natives becomes part of a research team. They can control bodies that are the same as that of the natives and intend to use them to negotiate.

ReconToaster wrote:He eventually becomes one of them, and falls in love with one of their women. Later into the movie, the Nymphs discover Red "X" marks some of the trees.

In Avatar, Jake initially helps figure out how to destroy the natives. He eventually becomes one of the natives and falls in love with one of their women. The brother fights him at every turn, and Jake is also racing against the clock to negotiate.

ReconToaster wrote:The ex-lumber jack tells them what they mean, and they suddenly hate him. After that, he re-unites with the nymphs, and helps them fight back against the evil, Earth raping lumberjacks.

In Avatar, when negotiations can't be done, the natives found out that Jake had not told them about the plan to destroy them and they hate him (for an actual reason). He is then put in jail, but breaks out and returns to try and help. Unfortunately, the natives still hate him and he gets abandoned as the natives are attacked. He then does something big, earns their trust back, and unites them to fight back.

ReconToaster wrote:Sound familiar?

Not really. But who knows, maybe all of that is in Fern Gully.

ReconToaster wrote:The movie "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" Also follows that same basic formula.

Huh, this seems like a reoccurring theme in stories...

Romeo and Juliet...
Eragon...
Atlantis...
Fern Gully...
Pocahontas...

Maybe it's because you're being a little too basic? Nah, that's crazy talk.

duddoodoo wrote:Pocahontas in space with a battle at the end.

Pocahontas? They fought for different reasons and John never became a native. The only thing similar was the fact that the English were invading for resources (why else would they invade?) and characters from each side fell in love (cuz that's never happened before...)

duddoodoo wrote:The story line was dull and predictable, the movie had to rely on good CGI and testosterone pumping for appeal.

Testosterone pumping? There were two very short kissing scenes, and it was pretty obvious that there wouldn't be any actual nudity a few minutes after seeing the first Na'vi.

by ReconToaster on Sun Dec 20, 2009 7:19 am

Gauz wrote:It'd be hard for a human to fall in love with the squid face of a elite. And because i've never seen an alien, I wouldn't know how they looked. Just like how we don't know what color dinosaurs were.

That's my point. You were trying to suggest that my opinion of what Aliens should look like are unrealistic, when the idea of a humanoid alien is pretty unrealistic as it is.

It's not a matter of what's realistic. It's a matter of what looks good, and I don't think the aliens in Avatar look good.

Gauz wrote:I think most of that was unavoidable... This happens a lot in stories, predictability. I don't think matters so much. Its nice to be suprised, but the movie was still really good.

I think it's a sign of un-clever dialog.

Rasq wrote:The technology exhibited by the humans, the complex morality and characterization, the superb dialogue, and the irreproachable camerawork make this an instant favorite of mine, perhaps my most favorite movie of all.

Complex morality and characterization? Killing indigenous people is bad. Saving them is good. The natural world is more important than money. Avatar hardly send any complex messages. It's a movie about how corporatism is greedy and evil. We've all heard it countless times before.

I'm disappointed that you would consider this to be on par with your other favorites. I'd say the opening to Apocalypse Now alone is 100x better than Avatar.

Civ wrote:Testosterone pumping? There were two very short kissing scenes, and it was pretty obvious that there wouldn't be any actual nudity a few minutes after seeing the first Na'vi.

He wasn't being literal. He was talking about all the explosions and fight scenes.

As for everything else you said... congratulations. There are small details which differentiate Avatar from Fern Gully.

And my point isn't that a movie should be critically punished for not having an entirely original story line. My point is that Avatar should not be praised for originality in storytelling, as it has none.

by Dud Doodoo on Sun Dec 20, 2009 7:49 am

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:
Dud Doodoo wrote:Pocahontas in space with a battle at the end. Ground breaking and amazing? Hardly.

So... the CGI flew right by your head?

No, but I don't consider visuals to be a huge influence on the quality of the movie. I say that storyline accounts for at least 50 percent of the movie. Visuals, presentation, characters, and everything else get shoved together in the other 50 as I don't consider any one of them to be significant factors that determine the quality of the movie.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:
As for the story, I doubt there's another movie out there that was nearly as daring and audacious as this one. A lot of people compare it to Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves (Which James Cameron acknowledged as an influence) and Ferngully (I hope to GOD nobody else had to suffer through that) because of the story elements. Again, how many movies out there are 100% original? I'm looking at my shelf of favorite movies, and only a few stick out as completely original. Red Dawn, the Prestige, Forrest Gump, and the Final Cut... That's it.

I don't see how you interpret my statement of Avatar being completely unoriginal as me saying that a movie has to be absolutely original to be good. I am not against movies using elements from others, but I am against movies completely reusing an existing, generic storyline, with hardly any alterations.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:
The reason Avatar is 'So unoriginal' is because it's based ON OUR OWN HISTORY. Hell, we can call it more original than most because, unlike so many of the events in history, the Natives WON the battle. Ala "Little Bighorn" and the battle of Isandlwana.

Apocalypse now, V for Vendetta, A Bridge Too Far, and Flags of Our Fathers have been disqualified because they borrow upon historic events or previous stuff that wasn't very original to begin with.

When it comes to historical movies, for obvious reasons I don't count the story as a factor. However, Avatar is a movie portraying a fictional future even, and in no way should it be considered historical.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:
And, again, Avatar is completely incomparable when it comes to camera work, CGI, and scope of battle.

As I said above, I don't think this is a deciding factor of a good movie.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:
Dud Doodoo wrote:The story line was dull and predictable, the movie had to rely on good CGI and testosterone pumping for appeal.

Dull and predictable? I found myself drawn into it actually. As for predictable, while certain elements were predictable, (I mean, come on! You saw the preview and drew your own conclusions! And how many movies keep you guessing 100% of the time?) there was a lot of stuff that ended up surprising me when it happened.

Like? I can't think of any major event in the plot that I didn't already know would happen. Again, I don't argue that a good movie has to keep you 100% unpredictable and keep you guessing 100% of the time, I argue that you can't accurately guess exactly what will happen next 100% of the time in a good movie.

by LeafyOwNu2 on Sun Dec 20, 2009 8:22 am

So dud, you are saying that this movie was a waste of your ten dollars? If not then why the hell are you complaining. I loved the movie. It was great.

The way they had you switch sides was a good point. You start the movie on the humans side and the Na'vi are bad, then you somehow end up on the Na'vi's side and the humans are bad.

Give it up with the "we have seen this before". Every movie EVERY movie uses elements from other movies and historical events. This one did the same. It pulled elements from different areas of history and it made a great story. Just because it was similar to a few other movies that makes it bad? NO. I though it was original taking into consideration how EVERY SINGLE OTHER MOVIE IS MADE.

I loved the movie, I thought it was a great worth of the 20 dollars I spent to see it with a friend. I would greatly pay to watch it again. Just accept that fact that the movie was good and stop trying to pick apart everything or making the movie so general you could compare it to the nightmare before christmas.

Also, by just watching the previews you can determine how a movie will play out. Thats what a preview is for. Get a friend who has never seen a preview for Avatar watch the movie, then ask him the same questions.