James Cameron's AVATAR

How would you rate Avatar?

  • Total voters
    20
I loved it. This is the first time I've seen a movie that the director wanted to wait until the technology was ready before making it that I beleived them. I'm going to go see it again tonight in iMax 3d. It will be awesome.
 
Friday said:
I loved it. This is the first time I've seen a movie that the director wanted to wait until the technology was ready before making it that I beleived them.
Click to expand...

Star Wars prequels?
 
I liked it and the scope of it was pretty mindblowing, although similar to Planet-Man, I didn't really connect with it a whole lot on an emotional level.

I loved the score and the actors did a fine job (nice to see Sam Worthington get a decent role, after Terminator endangered his career). I liked the score and the recurring themes were nice. Might even buy it.

I also considered it to be similar to Star Wars in terms of it being a high concept film with huge production values and just generally looking bigger than anything that's come before it.

4/5

Friday said:
I loved it. This is the first time I've seen a movie that the director wanted to wait until the technology was ready before making it that I beleived them. I'm going to go see it again tonight in iMax 3d. It will be awesome.
Click to expand...

Terminator 2?
 
Last edited:
I think the Star Wars comparisons won't hold up in a few years' time(speaking strictly about visual effects here; in terms of having characters and story that permeates pop-culture I don't think they hold up now).

The effects in Star Wars(or Superman: The Movie) never really became dated. If you watch them today, they're blatantly not as advanced as modern stuff, but I don't think they ever look disappointing or unrealistic(there are one or two specific exceptions, but overall). The Death Star battle scene and it exploding still looks real. There's nothing that pulls me out of it despite watching it in 2009.

Avatar is just the most advanced CGI we have right now. We think it looks great because it's a good few inches ahead of everything else they're currently doing. But it's not perfect, and still doesn't look completely real, so in five and certainly ten years, it'll look dated and unrealistic because CGI will have progressed much further. In Star Wars/Superman's 32 years I think it'll be about as effective as a Ray Harryhausen film is today.
 
Gothamite said:
Terminator 2?
Click to expand...
I was something like 12 when that came out. I really wasn't following things then.

Planet-man said:
I think the Star Wars comparisons won't hold up in a few years' time(speaking strictly about visual effects here; in terms of having characters and story that permeates pop-culture I don't think they hold up now).

The effects in Star Wars(or Superman: The Movie) never really became dated. If you watch them today, they're blatantly not as advanced as modern stuff, but I don't think they ever look disappointing or unrealistic(there are one or two specific exceptions, but overall). The Death Star battle scene and it exploding still looks real. There's nothing that pulls me out of it despite watching it in 2009.

Avatar is just the most advanced CGI we have right now. We think it looks great because it's a good few inches ahead of everything else they're currently doing. But it's not perfect, and still doesn't look completely real, so in five and certainly ten years, it'll look dated and unrealistic because CGI will have progressed much further. In Star Wars/Superman's 32 years I think it'll be about as effective as a Ray Harryhausen film is today.
Click to expand...

My Star Wars comment was focused at the Prequels because they didn't look real. They looked bright, shiny and CGIed to hell. Avatar was as close to real as I've seen since they stopped actualy building things and started using computers.

I miss them making things...
 
Oh yeah, I just mean the Star Wars(New Hope) comparisons in general.

I thought Phantom Menace looked pretty great the time and was definitely the closest to real CGI for it's day too, but even now I think a lot of it looks relatively hokey. It'll be the same with Avatar.
 
I read somewhere that the motion capture devices they used are much more advanced than anything that's been used before, and could capture something like 90% of the facial muslc emovements of the actors.
 
bluebeast said:
the plot was basically Pocahontas
Click to expand...

hahaha, YES! I thought the exact same thing.

the part just after Jake and the chick first meet when she is telling him he's a child and he doesn't understand the life of the forest, the music swells up there and I honestly expected her to start singing 'colors of the wind'

The story has been done and most of the plot was predictable but it was still excellent and visually stunning. 4 stars.
 
Definitely siding with Planet-Man here. Enjoyed the movie, but it isn't a classic... It's not even a good movie by Cameron's standards, unless you focus on the technology they used to make the film. I had fun watching it, but this is only going to be remembered as a landmark for the tools they built to make the movie. I mean, hell, its not even the best Sci-Fi movie to come out this year.

If it wins Best Picture, I will start breaking things.
 
This movie is closer to the cartoon than M. Night Shyamalan's movie will be.

I'm kidding!
 
Re: Avatar: The Last Airbender Movie

I never realized that such a huge part of this movie is centered around rape. They use the head plug-in things during sex but also to force horses and birds to submit.

They even rape trees.

What kind of movie is this?
 
Re: Avatar: The Last Airbender Movie

E said:
I never realized that such a huge part of this movie is centered around rape. They use the head plug-in things during sex but also to force horses and birds to submit.

They even rape trees.

What kind of movie is this?
Click to expand...
I'm sure you're making a joke, but I don't get the reference at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top