Who's getting the Avatar DVD?
- Thread starter Trekker4747
- Start date
You likely are biased.
I think it a VISUAL fantastic piece of cinema specifically in 3-D. After that its just a pretty colors picture in 2-D. It is not a fantastic total film, story suffers the most.
I know a variety of people 'offline' and some liked it, some did not. You've not met anyone he didn't find it not being the greatest thing since the wheel? Anyone?
Ergo, I'm not getting the DVD. Not cause it sucks, cause its overall mediocre, imo. Much worse films.
The greatest thing since the wheel? Even I don't think that.
Come to think of it, I know one person who thought "it was pretty good." Everyone else I've met thinks it's a great movie, yes.
And I doubt it's my bias, as the new people I've met, I haven't exactly mentally scanned them to ensure they like the film.
In regards to its merits as a film, I think it's funny that everyone compares it to Dances with Wolves as some insult. Dances with Wolves was an Oscar nominated, critically praised, excellent film!
Come to think of it, I know one person who thought "it was pretty good." Everyone else I've met thinks it's a great movie, yes.
And I doubt it's my bias, as the new people I've met, I haven't exactly mentally scanned them to ensure they like the film.
In regards to its merits as a film, I think it's funny that everyone compares it to Dances with Wolves as some insult. Dances with Wolves was an Oscar nominated, critically praised, excellent film!
I liked the movie, as far as plot and story goes it's very routine, uninspiring and pedestrian (and, yes, a bit recycled) but the production values and direction of it are top-notch. Which, really, is what I expected from Cameron at this point I just wish the script and story were just a bit stronger. But I think it'll be an interesting franchise afterall Episode 4 is hardly the most original or great story but the production designs (for the time), action (for the time) and characters were all so well done that it became a classic film that inspired a franchise that has lasted over 30 years.
So, with luck, Avatar 2 will be this frachise's "Empire" and will have a well done, more powerful, story.
Now, at the same time I think Avatar was a little bit over-hyped I don't see how it was "worth" a $3B box-office (even accounting for the higher ticket sales due to the 3D) because while it had good action and was technological achievement the story just didn't inspire me. But, that leads me back to my Episode 4 analogy.
But, in summation, I liked the movie. I think in my grading of it I gave it a low A. And I do plan on buying the BluRay Thursday. I've "outgrown" the need for special features so baring me buying a 3D TV in the next few months (unlikely) I won't double-dip in November when the SE comes out. Just the movie on BluRay will suit my needs for me for now.
Also, the Rifftrax for this, I'm sure, is going to worth listening too.
So, with luck, Avatar 2 will be this frachise's "Empire" and will have a well done, more powerful, story.
Now, at the same time I think Avatar was a little bit over-hyped I don't see how it was "worth" a $3B box-office (even accounting for the higher ticket sales due to the 3D) because while it had good action and was technological achievement the story just didn't inspire me. But, that leads me back to my Episode 4 analogy.
But, in summation, I liked the movie. I think in my grading of it I gave it a low A. And I do plan on buying the BluRay Thursday. I've "outgrown" the need for special features so baring me buying a 3D TV in the next few months (unlikely) I won't double-dip in November when the SE comes out. Just the movie on BluRay will suit my needs for me for now.
Also, the Rifftrax for this, I'm sure, is going to worth listening too.
If I could sum up my problem with the film it would be, you spent almost a decade on the visuals but slapped together a story that was basically the script of DWW set in space?!?
I don't know WHAT I expected but it wasn't the usual, old "guy goes native and helps nice Indians...err, indigenous people fight against BAD western....err, military force" trope.
Quite a few critics also had a problem with the story. Add to that it's about an hour too long and, in MY opinion, it was just an okay movie experience(for me). Certainly nothing I EVER feel the need to see again.
Like I said, NOTHING beats "Aliens" to see Cameron at his best.
I won't say I never compared this movie to DwW but it's interesting that comparisson so often gets made. That the story was so recycled that people instnatly saw that connection. Again, recycling stories is hardly anything new but when it's so blatant it's hard to ignore and then, yes, there's the fact that Cameron was working on this movie for a decade or more and that's the best story he could come up with.
And as much of an "environmentalist" that I am, the "message" in this movie I think is over-read by the media and the public and then releasing the movie on Earth Day?
Yeah, technology is so evil and devious. We should all just pony-tail fuck nature and live like savages who pray for the animals we kill for food and sleep on leaf-hammocks suspended between old-growth trees like a bunch of freaking hippy Ewoks.
And as much of an "environmentalist" that I am, the "message" in this movie I think is over-read by the media and the public and then releasing the movie on Earth Day?
Yeah, technology is so evil and devious.
We should all just pony-tail fuck nature and live like savages who pray for the animals we kill for food and sleep on leaf-hammocks suspended between old-growth trees like a bunch of freaking hippy Ewoks.But we were never sold SW/ANH like it was going to "fuck our eyeballs" and be THE NEXT BIG THING or that it would change Hollywood.
The fact that it did is part of the magic of that long time ago summer of 1977.
Personally, as much as I used to like and respect Cameron(I saw "Titanic" five times in the cinema), I think the whole "King of the world" schtick has gone to his head.
Nope, there isn't anything original in ANH it's just as guilty of that as Avatar. I think what hurts Avatar's "unoriginality" a bit more is that it's so similar to a movie that came out only a decade or so piror. ANH was simply similar to an entire genre of films with similar plot points to them. Avatar is more similar to a single, specific, movie that came out a short time before. (Maybe ANH is too, my knowledge of movies int he 70s is limited.)
I agree, but at least Lucas openly acknowledged this back when it came out - that the film was basically a remake of Seven Samurai (or was it Magnificent Seven?) with the Death Star battle copied move for move from World War II dogfight footage.
And the difference with ANH was also that, at least in my case, I didn't find myself being distracted by the similarities. With Avatar, I actually found myself removed from the story as I noticed how similar the plot was not only to Dancing With Wolves, but he also borrowed characters and props from his own Aliens movie. I'm not just talking about Signourney Weaver here. That battle suit at the end? Same was Ripley's. Paul Reiser's character from Aliens was also copied almost note for note. And the way the avatar idea was handled was so close to Poul Anderson's "Call Me Joe" that, while I usually laugh when I see authors claiming "they stole my idea" when they sue after a film hits it big, I would be hard pressed to criticize someone taking umbrage from Anderson's camp. (Anderson's story is about a disabled man using an avatar to regain lost mobility and explore an alien world. Gee, sound familiar?)
It's one thing to reuse tropes. It's another to get caught doing it.
Back on original point, I'm debating about getting the Blu-Ray on Thursday. First, as I ranted on QSF, that damn noisy ad on this board really has turned me off it to a degree. But I also, being a hog for Extras, don't really want to double-dip with a vanilla now and the special edition later.
On the other hand, I am not interested in the 3-D and I found it interesting that James Cameron himself was quoted in the Canadian Sun Media newspapers this past weekend as saying Avatar looks better in 2-D! (Not making that up - use Google). I didn't expect him to say what I personally believe. From what I hear from advance reviews the Blu-Ray looks incredible, much better than the 3-D version, and due to aspect ratio shenanigans there's apparently more of the original image than was seen in the theatres, too.
So I'm curious to see the film without the distractions of 3-D. So part of me wants to buy this to, in a sense, vote with my wallet in favor of 2-D. I have no intention of seeing another 3-D movie, personally. I could see the 3-D effects fine (despite earlier concern I wouldn't be able to due to my astigmatism) but it was an uncomfortable, distracting experience and the 3-D had dick all to do with the story.
Someone make a 3-D movie where the 3-D is part of the story, then let's talk. Otherwise I don't see the point other than it being a cash grab.
So I might just buy this Blu-Ray and forget the extended version later. Or I might wait till November and get the extended version (which I assume will be available in 2-D as well). I'll probably make up my mind in the shop.
I'd still be choosing the pretty pictures instead of the story. So I might just say nuts to it and buy a copy of Young Victoria instead. Or the Drawn Together movie!
Alex
You should visit Universal's Islands of Adventure in Orlando and ride the Spiderman attraction.
When a senior Disney Imagineer tells you it is better than ANYTHING the Rat has done for YEARS, you KNOW you HAVE TO ride it!!!
Oh, okay. I was under the mistaken impression that a movie should be evaluated on its own merits, not by it's marketing.
First of all, it was AICN that started that "fuck our eyeballs" thing, it had nothing to do with the marketing originally. That was a meme that caught on that some of the producers and possibly Cameron himself, quoted. It wasn't part of the marketing. As for the next big thing...well, it has been. Because when they were talking about the revolution, they weren't really talking about the film itself, but 3D and how it was made. And they were obviously right about that.
I wish people would quit bringing that up as a sleight against the guy. His character in the movie screamed that because he was happy, and Cameron was merely quoting his own movie because he was happy! It had nothing to do with some literal, thinking he's the king BS. To this day I think anything who thinks that is being fairly obtuse.
Cameron is fairly egotistical, yes. But time and again, he's kinda' earned the right to be.
I believe I(and others)have listed, in detail what we thought of the movie, pro and con.
I was simply responding to a specific point made by T'Baio.
And that's fine, but it doesn't make that specific comment any less silly. You essentially said that it's okay for ANH to reuse archetypes based themes and not Avatar, because one was hyped up and the other wasn't.
Arrgh - Read Dennis's post.
He talked about drawing broadly from cultural archetypes. "Avatar" simply used DWW as a template and changed the names and locales.
If you cannot understand THAT then think of it this way; it's be the same as if Lucas wrote SW as a story about the protocol droid C-3PO who leaves his factory and comes to work for the large Skywalker family, whose mother recently died. They have a stern patriarch, Dark Father, who is retired from the Imperial Navy and rules his house with an iron fist. Through songs and gay romps across the verdant mountains of Alderaan, the perky governess 3PO teaches the Skywalker children about happiness and gay abandon. He eventually melts the heart of Dark Father and they all flee when the Emperor decides he will re-start the war and call all retired officers back to service.
One movie broadly cherry picks from archetypal tropes. The other plagiarizes an acclaimed cinematic work and claims it's going to revolutionize how Hollywood makes movies.
He talked about drawing broadly from cultural archetypes. "Avatar" simply used DWW as a template and changed the names and locales.
If you cannot understand THAT then think of it this way; it's be the same as if Lucas wrote SW as a story about the protocol droid C-3PO who leaves his factory and comes to work for the large Skywalker family, whose mother recently died. They have a stern patriarch, Dark Father, who is retired from the Imperial Navy and rules his house with an iron fist. Through songs and gay romps across the verdant mountains of Alderaan, the perky governess 3PO teaches the Skywalker children about happiness and gay abandon. He eventually melts the heart of Dark Father and they all flee when the Emperor decides he will re-start the war and call all retired officers back to service.
One movie broadly cherry picks from archetypal tropes. The other plagiarizes an acclaimed cinematic work and claims it's going to revolutionize how Hollywood makes movies.
Well, first and again, it has so far made quite a stamp on how Hollywood wants to do business. So they weren't wrong, there.
Secondly, did Avatar plagiarize Dances With Wolves? Because you might want to go back into the Avatar thread and see how many other movies people claimed it did the same thing to. Ferngully and Pocahontas were two big ones that came up, amongst others. Some even from the 50's. Maybe Dances With Wolves was playing on those tropes, as well?
As far as I'm concerned, Avatar is equal to Star Wars in fun, cinematic revolution and talent involved. Neither were trying to change story conventions or tried and true storytelling techniques...they were just damned well made and entertaining.
How does one make "being 3D" part of the story? Unless your story is about characters living in a 2D universe finding themselves in our, normal, 3D universe.
You do realize that "3D" means that depth is involved what the audience is seeing rather than the video having no depth at all, right? Saying to "make 3D part of the story" makes about as much sense as putting on a pair of 3D glasses and expecting to see the real world in "3D" through the glasses.
Similar threads
