Avatar

[Rombie]

Couldn't find a topic.

Anyone else seen it?

I honestly had my doubts that Cameron was really doing anything good with eight foot tall blue creatures and a butt load of CGI, but I've never ever seen anything else like it in my life.

3D is immersive rather than tacked on, the CG characters are the most real I've ever seen (so much so, that after so long you forget they're even CG for the most part). Story is... well, fairly generic, but designs are amazing and everything else is so great it's good just to go for the ride.

Awesome film.

[Corrin]

Looks to me like a rip-off of Pocahontas with Halo guys rather than white people and blue furries instead of Indians.

[aris13]

I saw it yesterday and I too was impressed by the visuals and the technical aspects of the film but the story was too predictable, that's my only complain. Overall it's a great cinematic experience.

[Carnivol]

Just came back from a 3D screening of it. Was quite literally blown away by it in many ways.

Looks to me like a rip-off of Pocahontas with Halo guys rather than white people and blue furries instead of Indians.

That's actually a rather curiously good comparison... in certain ways.

[Rombie]

To be fair, the whole movie play's out as a a clear concept of "The Hero With a Thousand Faces". Part of that is it's generic story because it's a narrative point everyone has grown up with. But thematically as well, a lot of it's concepts have been done. Pocahontas, Fern Gully, Dances with Wolves, and a 50's sci fi book called Call Me Joe have all been citied by people as showing simularities to parts or whole sections of Avatar.

Still as I said to people who I saw it with, I guess you kinda stop caring about how generic the plot is when the visuals more than make up for it.

I counted no less than a dozen effects houses who worked on the film too, but it was one of the most consistant effects films ever as well - even from movies where only one company worked on the whole thing. Seeing the rep Cameron has at being such a perfectionist, I'm not at all surprised.

The only thing else I took of note from seeing it here, and I'll assume it'll happen in a lot of places, but I had a lot of concern for the number of parents taking really young children to it, like 6, 7 and 8 year olds.

In the US it has a PG13, over here it's an M - which means it's recommended for those over 16 but you're not restricted to any age when accompanied by an adult. But I seriously think taking someone under the age of maybe 11 or 12 probably not so great, quite a bit of swearing and violence.

[aris13]

Still as I said to people who I saw it with, I guess you kinda stop caring about how generic the plot is when the visuals more than make up for it.

I guess that's the problem for me, I don't go to the movies for the visuals and special effects.

[Carnivol]

By the way, am I the only one who thought Jake Sully's avatar looked creepishly like Tahmoh Penikett (Like, to the point where I was kinda surprised to not see him in the credits)

I guess that's the problem for me, I don't go to the movies for the visuals and special effects.

But do you go to amusement parks?

[Sephiroth]

Well im planing on seeing Avatar when I go over to Texas for Christmas I caint wiat to see it considering the fact I've waited along time to see another one James Cameron's film I dout I will be dispointed his films never are.

[aris13]

But do you go to amusement parks?

Once every summer because of the water themed rides.

[Rombie]

I guess that's the problem for me, I don't go to the movies for the visuals and special effects.

You're kinda misquoting me on this. But to be fair, I don't think I explained it too well.

The point is the whole, not the part. No movie is ever perfect, but you're able to let go of some of the plot/story short comings due to the visuals. The overall package is better than just the effects or the story.

It's also like some times the best stories can happen in low budget films, with poor effects/acting. Yet because the story is so compelling, it's still worth watching. The combined whole makes up for it's weaker parts.

[Corrin]

You're kinda misquoting me on this. But to be fair, I don't think I explained it too well.

The point is the whole, not the part. No movie is ever perfect, but you're able to let go of some of the plot/story short comings due to the visuals. The overall package is better than just the effects or the story.

It's also like some times the best stories can happen in low budget films, with poor effects/acting. Yet because the story is so compelling, it's still worth watching. The combined whole makes up for it's weaker parts.

Actually "Blue Velvet" is perfect. QED. How do you like me now? How do you like me now?

[aris13]

but you're able to let go of some of the plot/story short comings due to the visuals. The overall package is better than just the effects or the story.

I agree with this.

It's also like some times the best stories can happen in low budget films, with poor effects/acting.

That's the type of movies that I usually watch, indie flicks but with good acting like In Bruges, 500 days of summer, brick, the wrestler, cashback......

Actually "Blue Velvet" is perfect. QED. How do you like me now? How do you like me now?

"Don't you fucking look at me"