James Cameron's AVATAR discussion thread

[LOTRFan]

I thought some of the backgrounds were really ????ty even when the movie came out. Some of that ???? looked like they weren't even trying.

TPM had the worst CG by far though, when the droid tanks roll over the grass hills, they didn't even finish giving texture to the metal.

 

[agen_kolar]

TPM had the worst CG by far though, when the droid tanks roll over the grass hills, they didn't even finish giving texture to the metal.

Really? I always thought TPM had better CG than AOTC.

 

[Gruson]

I agree, TPM's CG was much better than AOTC and ROTS.

 

[Sithlord1975]

TPM had the worst CG by far though, when the droid tanks roll over the grass hills, they didn't even finish giving texture to the metal.

TPM's cgi and visuals shouldn't even really be compared to Avatar, since we're talking about a 10 year gap and new technology created just for Avatar.
But back then I thought it was pretty bad ass and I'm sure still looks ok and does its job of creating a whole other world that doesn't even exist.
And Jar Jar, love em or hate em, really helped start this trend with CGI acting characters in lead roles. I remember Lucas sounding so proud of that and what he created on screen, when it was first screened and he was interviewed. And it was amazing back then.

 

[plasmid303]

Saw this again today. Can't say it gets better with repeated viewings. The CGI novelty wears off and when the story, characters and performances aren't strong the experience just wears thin.

Still, very fun, especially when watching it with non-nerds.

 

[Dusty]

Still have yet to see it. Waiting until the holiday crowds die down...don't want to have to sit in the front or on the sides (with a baby, it's really hard to plan ahead and get there early, even with advanced ticket sales) - we went to go see a movie tonight and both Avatar and Sherlock Holmes were sold out - on a Monday! This year at the theater has been STELLAR - that's what happens in a depression I guess, more people want entertainment. So much for theater attendance going down - and James Cameron's Avatar, if nothing else, has done a lot for that in the future! Keep getting those butts in seats, because there's nothing quite like seeing an amazing film in the theater.

 

[Khev]

Re: I saw AVATAR in 3D!

As for the previous tales it has borrowed its story and themes from... some have already been mentioned:

The Story Pocahontas/Jamestown (I was half expecting them to scrawl "Croatoan" onto Hometree)
Dances With Wolves/The Last Samurai
Ferngully (Yes, I'm serious)

To me, the natives look like a cross between Night Elves from World of Warcraft, and humanoid felines. Nothing wrong with it, just that I don't think its the most original movie with all that in mind.

The Last Samurai? World of Warcraft? You guys might want to do a little research as to when Cameron actually wrote Avatar. His 1994 script treatment predated many of his so-called "inspirations" by years, some by a full decade.

Cameron has admitted the similarities between Avatar and Dances with Wolves but what some of you are apparently failing to realize (or choosing not to realize) is that the core themes of his story are really quite archetypical. Moses was raised in a high society that oppressed another culture only to later step down, join the oppressed culture, take one of them for his wife, and eventually become their "savior." Then you have the theme of a person who takes on the flesh of a more "primitive" people to better relate with them, interact with them, and again act as their "savior," originating from none other than the story of Christ himself.

Yes there are tons of references and homages to not only earlier Cameron films but a wide range of films (both live-action sci-fi and animated) and novels. He obviously put almost everything he ever loved as a kid in this movie, which is exactly what George did with Star Wars and Steven did with Raiders. Did he execute as well as the aforementioned directors? That's obviously for each person to decide on their own. But Avatar is certainly more, much more, than "Dances with Wolves in Space," and any real film buff who takes a moment to think about it objectively should know that.

 

[Khev]

U think that maybe we'll be saying that about Avatar in like 10 years?? I hope not.

I doubt it. Good CG is good CG. The dinos in Jurassic Park still look fantastic and that movie is 16 years old! AOTC was subpar even in its day. Gollum (who also debuted in 2002) was light years ahead of it.

 

[CAhobbit]

Re: I saw AVATAR in 3D!

I think the problem (for some of us at least) is not so much that the story of 'Avatar' comes across as 'Dances with Wolves', 'Pocahontas' with a sprinkle of 'Ferngully', but that it's a story that just wasn't presented in such a way that we could forget that we've already seen the tale before. Does that make sense?

I think it's clear that films aren't original with stories (each genre/category of movie does follow a certain formula for the most part, etc.) but with a well told tale the audience doesn't really see (at least at face value) that they've seen a story a million times before. At least this is my feeling about it.

For me, 'Avatar' failed horribly in the story department. Obviously the route to go was a safe route, which meant a highly predictable story that seemed too familiar to many viewers and left me (and some others it seemed) a very bland feeling with what unfolded in front of our eyes.

Obviously there are those that had no issues with the story, which IMO is great. When you find a film that is a winner all around in your book that's always fantastic. But I think some people have to realize that there are folks that did not like the plot of 'Avatar'. While those that didn't like 'Avatar' have to realize that there are those that did like it.

 

[Khev]

Re: I saw AVATAR in 3D!

I think the problem (for some of us at least) is not so much that the story of 'Avatar' comes across as 'Dances with Wolves', 'Pocahontas' with a sprinkle of 'Ferngully', but that it's a story that just wasn't presented in such a way that we could forget that we've already seen the tale before. Does that make sense?

Absolutely!

 

[KneelBeforrSmallville]

Re: I saw AVATAR in 3D!

Well i Just got back My Local movie theatre, saw avatar in 3D again for the 3rd time (what can i say i love the movie) and i have to say..its awesome..i mean it was sold out and everyone was loving it. I think now that the movies been out for weeks people have started to critisize it and w.e. its fine but the movie is awesome. No one can tell me that they didnt enjoy some part of this movie..But the negative reviews dont really bother a big avatar fan like me cause i kno alot of people love this movie..its already got a great fanbase..and there pretty hot at the boxoffice to..so for me..avatar = A+

 

[darthviper107]

I doubt it. Good CG is good CG. The dinos in Jurassic Park still look fantastic and that movie is 16 years old! AOTC was subpar even in its day. Gollum (who also debuted in 2002) was light years ahead of it.

Well, The Two Towers did win the VFX Oscar that year.

BTW, extra info--despite the extreme amount of CG in this film, it still doesn't have the highest amount of effects shots---that would still go to King Kong with around 3,000

 

[willocrew]

 

[IrishJedi]

Re: I saw AVATAR in 3D!

The Last Samurai? World of Warcraft? You guys might want to do a little research as to when Cameron actually wrote Avatar. His 1994 script treatment predated many of his so-called "inspirations" by years, some by a full decade.

Logan's initial spec script for THE LAST SAMURAI was written in 1989. That said, I never intimated that AVATAR's story was "stolen" from any of these mentioned works... just that it points out how derivative the basic story is and how many others have told almost the same exact thing, and recently.

And I'm aware of the comparisons to STAR WARS and how that was essentially the oldest most basic story ever told, just done in a new way. But what some people seem to overlook is that SW came out at a time when there was almost no spectacle in movies and nothing that truly transcended the medium to inspire young people. And you just can't say that about 2009/2010 and AVATAR. The analogy doesn't hold, because it's not a fresh, groundbreaking beacon that will change entire generations and usher in a new age of cinema. It's just another event film with amazing visual FX.

I think the problem (for some of us at least) is not so much that the story of 'Avatar' comes across as 'Dances with Wolves', 'Pocahontas' with a sprinkle of 'Ferngully', but that it's a story that just wasn't presented in such a way that we could forget that we've already seen the tale before. Does that make sense?

It makes perfect sense to me, and I agree.

And I reiterate that it's a solid film made by an obvious visionary, but that other than its technical conceit it's really nothing that unique or special at all. I'm not sure I'd even rank it in Cameron's 5 best films, actually.

Some folks, however, appear to see the hand of God in the movie or something. And that's fine. Just don't imply that those of us who do not see this film as a groundbreaking masterpiece don't "get it". That kind of tact is why some film snobbish circles have already coined the diehard AVATAR fanboys, "Avatards". I'd hate to see it degenerate into that here.

 

[Darren Carnall]

OK, after researching -- or trying -- to get a straight answer about about seeing this in RealD 3D or IMAX 3D experience, I can't seem to tell which is better. RealD is the newer technology, but IMAX is bigger. More headaches with IMAX apparently, but you get "that pop-out" effect while RealD is more about depth of field.

Is all that true? Has anyone here seen it in both formats, and if so can you recmmend the best experience?

It's quite hard to get a straight answer from anybody who's actually seen both. Usually you just get someone who's seen one type and liked it telling you "see xxx3D it's aweeesomereeeer "

...or something

but yeah, what you say is what I've managed to read online too. I've seen it in realD and it was incredible. very clear with no problems whatsoever. The glasses made the image every so slightly darker than what it was without... but it didn't make it bad in any way.These use circular polarising lenses apparantly, so it doesnt matter if you tilt your head or anything.

Imax aparantly uses the straight polarising type, which means if you move your head too much you can lose the 3D effect. Usually people (who know about this stuff) say that realD is the better 3D of the two.... clearer and with less problems (and more about depth, as opposed to things poking out at you), but IMAX is more immersive because of the screen size. (but imax gives more headaches after longer viewing because of the difficulties our eyes/brain have with objects 'coming right at us' in that style of 3D)

I'll be going to an IMAX soon, as I loved seeing Star Trek there (2D, purely because of the screen size) .... but I suspect I'll be going back to the digital readD showing again for the third time to have the super-clear experience.

 

[EVILFACE]

Really? I always thought TPM had better CG than AOTC.

TPM is pretty weak for FX. The battle shots in the dust cloud in AOTC owned anything in TPM.

ROTS had some great FX shots, including the opening battle when the ships peak and dive showing all the star destoyers.

Avatar blew ROTS, Transformers 2, Terminator Salvation and Star Trek away by far.

 

[the dude person]

Re: I saw AVATAR in 3D!

I too saw it in 3D last night. I think there is a strong anti-war message in it, but some people seem to be actually enjoying the war part of it, and maybe rooting for the wrong people.

I am certainly no "avatard", but overall I think this is one of the best movies I've seen in years. It had both a good (if somewhat unoriginal) story, and excellent special effects (I don't know if any of you noticed, but all the Iclan flappy creatures were totally unique, as were the blue people. No repeated faces or texture maps), but most of all, it had heart, and it had a message.


Although I'm sure what some people will take away from this movie is "I can use computer avatars in games like WOW and shun my real life!"

10.5/10 for me

 

[Morbach]

I think the thing that kinda made my score a little lower than I wanted was the story.

Spoiler

You knew he was going to join with the natives and turn his marines. And at the end when he opened his eyes you knew that was coming.

So the fact that it was so predictable hurt it and if I watch it without the 3d I'm sure it'll drop lower in points. I can't judge a movie based on the experience regarless of how awesome. I have to judge it as a movie. Good movie, not great.

 

[Obongo]

Re: I saw AVATAR in 3D!

I watched this movie the other night. The story line is entertaining, the graphics are amazing. The movie is long so half way through it I was about to crap my pants ( drinking milk, along with a portuguese spicy bean dish as well as rice,scallops, lobster). I felt like I was about to die, and the smell of dirty diapers in the theator didnt help either.

 

[jackyonfire]

Re: I saw AVATAR in 3D!

I think this film's story was petty good.