# Avatar (James Cameron) [SPOILERS]



## The Octagon (Aug 20, 2009)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499549/

Cameron goes back to Sci-Fi, massively looking forward to this (particularly after reading about some of the new 3-D / motion-capture technology being used to render the alien worlds).

Basic plot seems to be about a military unit encountering indigenous life-forms on the far-flung planet of Pandora (although I've heard there's a lot more to it than that )

Footage expected to be released online in the next 5 hours, should be interesting.


----------



## kyser_soze (Aug 20, 2009)

Tease trailer goes out at 3pm this afternoon on the News Int websites. Nice example of internal cross promotion for Fox.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 20, 2009)

Somebody wake up Hicks.


----------



## Moggy (Aug 20, 2009)

Anyone actually manage to get tickets to the advance 15 minute screenings of footage from the film showing at the Imax tomorrow? Tried to get a pair 5 mins after the BFI emails went out last friday and all four showings were already fully booked


----------



## themonkeyman (Aug 20, 2009)

hmmm, been looking forward to this


----------



## elevendayempire (Aug 20, 2009)

Moggy said:


> Anyone actually manage to get tickets to the advance 15 minute screenings of footage from the film showing at the Imax tomorrow? Tried to get a pair 5 mins after the BFI emails went out last friday and all four showings were already fully booked


Yup, I managed to get one. Will report back with my findings. I'm pretty neutral on the film, tbh - all of the design work looks like leftovers from Aliens, and the plot is just Dances With Wolves with aliens. And all the 3D films I've seen to date made my eyes hurt.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 20, 2009)

elevendayempire said:


> Yup, I managed to get one. Will report back with my findings. I'm pretty neutral on the film, tbh - all of the design work looks like leftovers from Aliens, and th*e plot is just Dances With Wolves with aliens. And all the 3D films I've seen to date made my eyes hurt.*


*

Ouch *


----------



## isitme (Aug 20, 2009)

I think it'll be awesome, James Cameron is the tits at these sort of things


----------



## The Octagon (Aug 20, 2009)

Apple.com fail


----------



## themonkeyman (Aug 20, 2009)

yep, fuckers


----------



## themonkeyman (Aug 20, 2009)

ok, so it is there in the header, and i click on it, but none of the videos work.  CHOICE !!


----------



## kyser_soze (Aug 20, 2009)

Not working from timesonline either...just a big black screen with a big swirly arrow...


----------



## The Octagon (Aug 20, 2009)

I may have spoken too soon regarding the advanced technology.....


----------



## gabi (Aug 20, 2009)

Trailer works fine. 

Movie looks utterly shit.

http://avatar.substance001.info/


----------



## The Octagon (Aug 20, 2009)

http://specials.divertissements.fr.msn.com/cinema/avatar/default.aspx for a non-HD version


----------



## themonkeyman (Aug 20, 2009)

not much CGI in that then, fucking hell !


----------



## themonkeyman (Aug 20, 2009)

gabi said:


> Trailer works fine.
> 
> Movie looks utterly shit.
> 
> http://avatar.substance001.info/



I can't see how you can view the trailer from that link


----------



## gabi (Aug 20, 2009)

themonkeyman said:


> not much CGI in that then, fucking hell !



With all the CGI and all the money you'd think they could come up with some slightly more convincing looking aliens eh.


----------



## gabi (Aug 20, 2009)

themonkeyman said:


> I can't see how you can view the trailer from that link



Hmm... weird, well I got to that link from here..

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article6803770.ece


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 20, 2009)

Love the floating islands, reminds me of Roger Dean's stuff...


----------



## themonkeyman (Aug 20, 2009)

gabi said:


> With all the CGI and all the money you'd think they could come up with some slightly more convincing looking aliens eh.



I think they should rename it to:

Avasmurf

crap, total bloody let down.

Cheers for the link again, worked the 14th time


----------



## themonkeyman (Aug 20, 2009)

jer said:


> Love the floating islands, reminds me of Roger Dean's stuff...



yeah that bit was really good.


----------



## debaser (Aug 20, 2009)

hmmm, well, yes.

Still going to have to see in 3d when its out though.. I guess..

It's going to revolutionise the industry you see.


----------



## themonkeyman (Aug 20, 2009)

debaser said:


> hmmm, well, yes.
> 
> Still going to have to see in 3d when its out though.. I guess..
> 
> It's going to revolutionise the industry you see.



oh yeah, for sure, Will definitely go and see it, I mean you can't really be 100% from a 1:30 minute trailer lol


----------



## gabi (Aug 20, 2009)

themonkeyman said:


> oh yeah, for sure, Will definitely go and see it, I mean you can't really be 100% from a 1:30 minute trailer lol



It had a whiff of pocahontas/dances with wolves about it. Lets not forget this is the man who gave us Titanic. 

It looks horrendous.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Aug 20, 2009)

This is the one based on Joe Haldeman's "The Forever War" non?


----------



## Stigmata (Aug 20, 2009)

A Dashing Blade said:


> This is the one based on Joe Haldeman's "The Forever War" non?



The trailer doesn't resemble it in any way (although that means nothing I suppose).


My main problem is, if Cameron's gonna spend all this dosh on cutting-edge special effects and completely CGI aliens, why does he make them look essentially like actors in costumes? Waste of good creativity.


----------



## ajk (Aug 20, 2009)

A Dashing Blade said:


> This is the one based on Joe Haldeman's "The Forever War" non?



Nope, Ridley Scott's doing that, but using the same 3D technology as Avatar.

As for the Avatar trailer,


----------



## Echo Base (Aug 20, 2009)

10ft tall blue cats kissing each other. This is supposed to be revolutionary and instead it looks like an expensive episode of Thundercats.


----------



## Echo Base (Aug 20, 2009)

gabi said:


> It had a whiff of pocahontas/dances with wolves about it. Lets not forget this is the man who gave us Titanic.
> 
> It looks horrendous.



The plot is the exact same as DANCES WITH WOLVES. Its like every single 'white man saves the barbarians' movie out of Hollywood for the last 30 years.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 20, 2009)

Echo Base said:


> 10ft tall blue cats kissing each other. This is supposed to be revolutionary and instead it looks like an expensive episode of Thundercats.



It looks like it might actually make the Star Wars prequels look pretty impressive


----------



## mwgdrwg (Aug 20, 2009)

The Avatar reminded me Nightcrawler from the awful teen Xmen cartoon...


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 20, 2009)

mwgdrwg said:


> The Avatar reminded me Nightcrawler from the awful teen Xmen cartoon...


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Aug 20, 2009)

Hmm...not sure that trailed did much for me....looks like another expensive film with all the money spent on special effects that look like special effects.


----------



## Jorum (Aug 20, 2009)

elevendayempire said:


> Dances With Wolves with aliens.


accurate review in 5 words 
"Gone native" taken literally


----------



## elevendayempire (Aug 21, 2009)

Echo Base said:


> The plot is the exact same as DANCES WITH WOLVES. Its like every single 'white man saves the barbarians' movie out of Hollywood for the last 30 years.


This. It was written in the early 90s, and it reeks of that era's well-meaning but inept "Native Americans were all magical fairy beings in touch with Gaia" bollocks. Y'know, the stuff from Dances With Wolves and (to a lesser extent) Last of the Mohicans. I think Wes Studi even plays one of the Magical Native American Blue People.

I've seen the 15 minutes of footage. The CGI's very good, very photorealistic (and they'll never be able to turn off that switch in your head that tells you that 10ft tall Smurfs _cannot possibly be real_ so you're always aware that it's CG). All this talk about Avatar's 3D being the Future of Cinema is bollocks, though; looked okay when it's still, but as soon as it starts moving it goes all blurry/flickery. The design work's not that innovative; Colonial Marines from Aliens versus the tall Martians from John Carter of Mars (and they're called the Na'vi - FUCKING RANDOM APOSTROPHES, one of my Shit Sci-Fi bugbears).


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 24, 2009)

Last of the Mohicans wasn't like that actually.  It actually showed the Native Americans as just as raw and warlike as the whites.  Good film.

This looks dreadful though.  Cameron's past it.  The big directors of today are Nolan and Abrams...


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 24, 2009)

It looks fucking awful, like an Azimov book cover.


----------



## rhod (Aug 25, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> It looks like it might actually make the Star Wars prequels look pretty impressive



Now, that's a bit below the belt


----------



## likesfish (Aug 25, 2009)

hmm mysterious aliens with wierd powers what do we do now sarge?

orbital bombardment time init 
 then we kill anybody who's left.
  bit of an OCP unless you have some seriously hidden firepower or the culture turn up on your side


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 25, 2009)

rhod said:


> Now, that's a bit below the belt


----------



## Beanburger (Aug 25, 2009)

likesfish said:


> hmm mysterious aliens with wierd powers what do we do now sarge?
> 
> orbital bombardment time init
> then we kill anybody who's left.
> bit of an OCP unless you have some seriously hidden firepower or the culture turn up on your side


"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."


----------



## likesfish (Aug 25, 2009)

but your just a grunt  no offense
  would'nt make much of a movie Captain Blackadder leads a regiment that discovers a beutiful new planet populated by exotic aliens armed with a wide variety of alien fruit and uses them as railgun targets


----------



## Beanburger (Aug 25, 2009)

likesfish said:


> but your just a grunt  no offense


I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid.


----------



## fubert (Aug 26, 2009)

I think if we all look into our hearts, and think for a moment, we'll all come the conclusion that a couple of films aside, James Cameron is really pretty shit..


----------



## Beanburger (Aug 26, 2009)

fubert said:


> I think if we all look into our hearts, and think for a moment, we'll all come the conclusion that a couple of films aside, James Cameron is really pretty shit..


Heretic!


----------



## gsv (Aug 26, 2009)

The most optimistic spin I can put on this is that the CG still has a _lot_ of work to go.

GS(v)


----------



## gabi (Aug 26, 2009)

gsv said:


> The most optimistic spin I can put on this is that the CG still has a _lot_ of work to go.
> 
> GS(v)



Apparently it got a standing ovation at comic con. So the 3D must be REALLY good. Or they must have handed out a shitload of free booze before the screening.


----------



## PacificOcean (Aug 26, 2009)

What's different about this 3D than that is already in cinemas now with those Disney and Horror films in 3D?


----------



## gabi (Aug 26, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> What's different about this 3D than that is already in cinemas now with those Disney and Horror films in 3D?



He's developed a new camera.. Not sure about the technical details..


----------



## Santino (Nov 5, 2009)

Saw the trailer for this. It looks dreadful.


----------



## mwgdrwg (Nov 18, 2009)

There's an exclusive 3 minute clip available on the Xbox 360's new Zune marketplace.

It's unfathomably shit 

Avatar out-shouts an enormous beastie...then says something to the effect of "Yo Bitch, wanna piece of me"!  I was cringing. Also, there's a Sigourney Weaver alien and all I could do was look at it's Sigourney Weaver Teeth.


----------



## Chester Copperpot (Dec 7, 2009)

I'd love this to be good.


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 7, 2009)

fubert said:


> I think if we all look into our hearts, and think for a moment, we'll all come the conclusion that a couple of films aside, James Cameron is really pretty shit..



Not really:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000116/


----------



## 100% masahiko (Dec 7, 2009)

I'm so waiting for this...Avatar looks like my kinda film...then Cameron has had a major influence on my sci-fi childhood.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 7, 2009)

It's going to be unmitigated tosh, but I'm going to fucking LOVE it


----------



## g force (Dec 7, 2009)

I'm of this opinion...it will be shite and psuedo-intellectual preachy envrio shite at that. Still gonna go to the cinema to watch it


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 7, 2009)

It'll either do a Titanic (which everyone said was going to be shit, then went on to be the highest grossing film ever) or it'll sink without a trace.

I suspect it'll be the former - Cameron has a knack for being able to make genre films which appeal to a really wide demographic.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 7, 2009)

ChrisFilter said:


> It's going to be unmitigated tosh, but I'm going to fucking LOVE it



Thing is though, there's unmitigated tosh, and then there's cack-handed allegory.  This looks like being the latter...


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 7, 2009)

Ornithopters! Ornithopters!


----------



## Fruitloop (Dec 7, 2009)

Titanic _was _shit.


----------



## g force (Dec 7, 2009)

Very shit. The documentary he did at the same time was superb though.


----------



## Chz (Dec 7, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Not really:
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000116/



Whoah, whoah, wait... According to that, he's currently directing a feature film version of Battle Angel : Alita? OMFG! _*spooge*_

That's either going to be the worst film of the 21st century or the most awesome thing ever.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 7, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> Thing is though, there's unmitigated tosh, and then there's cack-handed allegory.  This looks like being the latter...



I'm ok with cack-handed allegory.


----------



## IMR (Dec 7, 2009)

First time I saw the posters for Avatar, I thought it was something to do with Terry Pratchett or Fantasy Games Workshop.


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 7, 2009)

Hopefully it'll see the dude who inhabits the giant smurf body actually seeing sense before the end and joining in the genocide with the heavy weaponry


----------



## The Octagon (Dec 7, 2009)

If nothing else, the CGI proves a Thundercats movie is not too far away


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 7, 2009)

The Octagon said:


> If nothing else, the CGI proves a Thundercats movie is not too far away


----------



## Reno (Dec 11, 2009)

The first reviews are out and they are universally postive. Quite excited now as I'm going to se this next Saturday. 

http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/avatar/


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 11, 2009)

Is it out this weekend in blighty?


----------



## Reno (Dec 11, 2009)

Comes out next week on Thursday.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Dec 11, 2009)

Hmmm, the positive reviews intrigue me. Fuck knows where the nearest 3D screen is to my location in the wildernesses of Scotland is though. I don't think this is one to watch on a shitty cam dl.


----------



## T & P (Dec 11, 2009)

Apparently every single frame took 47 hours of work, CGI wise. So for every hour of the movie around 4 million man hours of work have been employed.

Better be good...


----------



## Santino (Dec 11, 2009)

It all still has that CGI sheen to it though.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 11, 2009)

I'm expecting it to be the most trite elements of Dances with wolves married to Phantom Menace CGI wankery, so I will probably end up loving it...


----------



## T & P (Dec 11, 2009)

Even though Titanic was vomit-inducing, I still have to give Cameron the benefit of the doubt for _Aliens_ and _The Terminator_, so I'll probably check it out.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 11, 2009)

T & P said:


> Even though Titanic was vomit-inducing, I still have to give Cameron the benefit of the doubt for _Aliens_ and _The Terminator_, so I'll probably check it out.



Agreed. Titanic is a minor blip.


----------



## likesfish (Dec 11, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Hopefully it'll see the dude who inhabits the giant smurf body actually seeing sense before the end and joining in the genocide with the heavy weaponry




 that would upset the critics amazingingly humans arrive on exotic alien planet and use exotic alien species for target practice and rugs.
 murder and enslave the population for giggles


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 11, 2009)

Reno said:


> The first reviews are out and they are universally postive. Quite excited now as I'm going to se this next Saturday.
> 
> http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/avatar/



Ha! There's one in the eye for the naysayers and the contrarians 

Even more excited now. Booked in for next Wed, in 3D


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 11, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> It'll either do a Titanic (which everyone said was going to be shit, then went on to be the highest grossing film ever) or it'll sink without a trace.
> 
> I suspect it'll be the former - Cameron has a knack for being able to make genre films which appeal to a really wide demographic.



I reckon the best we can hope for is it to be about as good as Aliens. But I suspect it'll be more Abyss meets Titanic...don't think it looks that amazing (I watched the four minute preview in HD on a HD tv recently) tbh...


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 11, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> I'm expecting it to be the most trite elements of Dances with wolves married to Phantom Menace CGI wankery, so I will probably end up loving it...



Someone tweeted me yesterday: 'Dances with Smurfs?'


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 11, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Someone tweeted me yesterday: 'Dances with Smurfs?'



Two stars in the Guardian.

Mind you, Fellowship of the Ring had the same rating. 

That Peter Bradshaw sometimes plays devil's advocate.  So i'm starting to think it might be good.  On the other hand, he gave Star Trek 5 stars and acknowledged it was top drawer.  Never can tell with that fellow.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 11, 2009)

Real biggup from 6Musics film reviewer this arfternoon. Nigh on 3 hours long, that is loong for a sci fi film.

ORNITHOPTERS!!!!


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 11, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Real biggup from 6Musics film reviewer this arfternoon. Nigh on 3 hours long, that is loong for a sci fi film.
> 
> ORNITHOPTERS!!!!



It's a bit longer than the Aliens Special Edition and shorter than the LOTR films.

Who says sci-fi has to clock in at any particular time? 

The reviewer also mentioned the hordes of naysayers on the various forums but more or less dismissed their smurfs comments.

TBH, you could have yer actual bona fide UFO landing with alien contact for all to see and the naysayers would probably still yawn...


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 11, 2009)

jer said:


> It's a bit longer than the Aliens Special Edition and shorter than the LOTR films.
> 
> *Who says sci-fi has to clock in at any particular time?*
> 
> ...



Nobody. But the worst sci fi both in lit. and film runs well long and bogs itself down in pointless exposition. Done well, a long SF piece can be excellent.

And LOTR is not SF mate


----------



## The Octagon (Dec 11, 2009)

Bugger, just had a look on the IMAX website and the only showings left are at midnight or 3am (No trains running by the time I'll come out).

Suppose I could go for the 3am one and catch the first train home in the morning


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 11, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Nobody. But the worst sci fi both in lit. and film runs well long and bogs itself down in pointless exposition. Done well, a long SF piece can be excellent.
> 
> And LOTR is not SF mate



It comes under the umbrella of SF. "Fantasy" then, if you want to be pedantic 

And looking at those fetching aliens astride their mounts and those Roger Dean(ish) islands in the sky - Avatar does have a Fantasy look to it.

I imagine it will be the greatest film in the history of the universe and all you misery drones can gather in your darkened corners and have a collective moan about it, if you must.

But I for one, welcome it.


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 11, 2009)

> Roger Dean(ish) islands in the sky



This is the image that hooked me - floating islands! A trope of fantasy & sf art since the 70s, possibly earlier, yet no one has done it in a film until now!


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 11, 2009)

Did I mention ornithopters yet?

Imagine the sheer maneuverability and bird-like agility of a craft using both fixed and rotary wing tech in one craft. It would be FUCKING AWESOME. 

I'm looking forward to this film based solely on how epic the ornithopter gunships looked in the trailer.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 11, 2009)

I'm definitely catching this in the cinema while I have the chance.  One that must be seen in the cinema, I guess, as without the grand scale I suspect all that will be left is glossy cheesy and crass metaphor...


----------



## Reno (Dec 11, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> I'm definitely catching this in the cinema while I have the chance.  One that must be seen in the cinema, I guess, as without the grand scale I suspect all that will be left is glossy cheesy and crass metaphor...



...at home you also won't have the option to watch this proper 3D and that's what it was designed for.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 11, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> This is the image that hooked me - floating islands! A trope of fantasy & sf art since the 70s, possibly earlier, yet no one has done it in a film until now!



Didn't Flash Gordon (1980) have a bit of that? I was going to say Bespin from Empire Strikes Back but that's a city, not an island...

Here some lovely Roger Dean in the meantime


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 11, 2009)

Re: Flash...sort of, but that was bits of planet, Ming having generously blown Arboria into bits and then used his tech to string the bits back together, kinda like the world in Adam Roberts _Splinter_...


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 11, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Re: Flash...sort of, but that was bits of planet, Ming having generously blown Arboria into bits and then used his tech to string the bits back together, kinda like the world in Adam Roberts _Splinter_...



Arboria? Dammit, soze. You're good. Maybe too good with the miniscule details...


----------



## dylans (Dec 11, 2009)

More R D


----------



## TrippyLondoner (Dec 11, 2009)

I've seen clips of it on the news, doesn't look like the kinda movie i would want to watch but then again i don't like movies as much as most people. Getting abit sick of hearing how its 'the most expensive movie ever made', just leads me to think that's all there is to say about it!


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 11, 2009)

TrippyLondoner said:


> I've seen clips of it on the news, doesn't look like the kinda movie i would want to watch but then again i don't like movies as much as most people. Getting abit sick of hearing how its 'the most expensive movie ever made', just leads me to think that's all there is to say about it!



Ach, that's just the money hype. They said that about all of Cameron's later films...


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 11, 2009)

The four minutes I saw, admittedly there's no context plot wise, weren't that impressive in terms of action sequence, acting, or graphics. The Smurfs just look to computer graphicy...


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 11, 2009)

From the clips I have seen it looks terrible and the plot, though it sounds worthy, also sounds pretty boring. Has anyone seen it yet? 

All that CGI, uh. I just don't think it looks good enough yet. It looks like CGI which I guess is not what it is supposed to look like.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 11, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> From the clips I have seen it looks terrible and the plot, though it sounds worthy, also sounds pretty boring. Has anyone seen it yet?



Yes, and the reviews are all great.

You mean off here? No.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 11, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> The four minutes I saw, admittedly there's no context plot wise, weren't that impressive in terms of action sequence, acting, or graphics. The Smurfs just look to computer graphicy...



Could they ever look like a real species? Our minds would always associate them with CGI no mater how 'real'.

Stop moaning. Just enjoy it


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 11, 2009)

ChrisFilter said:


> Could they ever look like a real species? Our minds would always associate them with CGI no mater how 'real'.
> 
> Stop moaning. Just enjoy it



The Narn in Babylon 5 looked good and were believable as aliens and no CGI was used...what's to enjoy if it's shit?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 11, 2009)

ChrisFilter said:


> You mean off here? No.



Yes here. 

I wonder if it is one of those LOTR type things. All the reviews for that were that it was fantastic, when in fact it was a steaming pile of shit. 

IMO of course.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 11, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Yes here.
> 
> I wonder if it is one of those LOTR type things. All the reviews for that were that it was fantastic, when in fact it was a steaming pile of shit.
> 
> IMO of course.



HERESY 

I can watch LotR over and over again.

I love an epic, me.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 11, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> The Narn in Babylon 5 looked good and were believable as aliens and no CGI was used...what's to enjoy if it's shit?



I don't know what that is other than an Indian bread.

Have you read the reviews? They're very, very good - nearly to a man.


----------



## Fruitloop (Dec 11, 2009)

ChrisFilter said:


> Could they ever look like a real species? Our minds would always associate them with CGI no mater how 'real'.



Would help if they didn't look like pointy smurfs tbf.


----------



## TrippyLondoner (Dec 11, 2009)

I prefer not to listen to the reviews, they're usually full of shit.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 11, 2009)

ChrisFilter said:


> HERESY
> 
> I can watch LotR over and over again.
> 
> I love an epic, me.



yes.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 11, 2009)

There was something about this on Breakfast News this morning.  It looks dreadful.


----------



## TrippyLondoner (Dec 11, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> There was something about this on Breakfast News this morning.  It looks dreadful.



It really fucking does.


----------



## Reno (Dec 11, 2009)

How much longer will people on message boards keep whining on about CGI.  

It's here to stay, get used to it. 

By all accoutns the film looks breathtaking when seen where and how it should be seen:  on a huge screen in 3d, not on breakfast television.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 11, 2009)

Reno said:


> How much longer will people on message boards keep whining on about CGI.
> 
> It's here to stay, get used to it.
> 
> By all accoutns the film looks breathtaking when seen where and how it should be seen:  on a huge screen in 3d, not on breakfast television.



Indeed.

Seems the excellent reviews haven't put off the moaners.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 11, 2009)

Reno said:


> How much longer will people on message boards keep whining on about CGI.
> 
> It's here to stay, get used to it.
> 
> By all accoutns the film looks breathtaking when seen where and how it should be seen:  on a huge screen in 3d, not on breakfast television.



Probably the same people who moaned about CDs replacing vinyl...


----------



## Santino (Dec 11, 2009)

Reno said:


> How much longer will people on message boards keep whining on about CGI.


I suppose every time it is used badly.


----------



## TrippyLondoner (Dec 11, 2009)

Reno said:


> How much longer will people on message boards keep whining on about CGI.
> 
> It's here to stay, get used to it.
> 
> By all accoutns the film looks breathtaking when seen where and how it should be seen:  on a huge screen in 3d, not on breakfast television.



I'm not fussed about CGI, i'm used to it in doctor who now atleast. Its just that sort of film looks like overhyped rubbish.  Not my thing, is all.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 11, 2009)

Reno said:


> How much longer will people on message boards keep whining on about CGI.
> 
> It's here to stay, get used to it.
> 
> By all accoutns the film looks breathtaking when seen where and how it should be seen:  on a huge screen in 3d, not on breakfast television.


I'm not talking about its appearance.  I mean it doesn't look like the kind of thing I'd be interested in.


----------



## Reno (Dec 11, 2009)

Santino said:


> I suppose every time it is used badly.



Well, this is not the case where it's used badly. Go and whinge about _2012_ instead.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 11, 2009)

ChrisFilter said:


> I don't know what that is other than an Indian bread.
> 
> Have you read the reviews? They're very, very good - nearly to a man.



Pah reviews rarely mean anything...



Fruitloop said:


> Would help if they didn't look like pointy smurfs tbf.



Indeed.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 11, 2009)

They don't look like smurfs. Unless you think all blue people look the same


----------



## Fruitloop (Dec 11, 2009)

Fucking smurfs, coming over here, stealing our jobs etc etc.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 11, 2009)

What's wrong with Smurfs?


----------



## Fruitloop (Dec 11, 2009)

They're communists, that's what. They're only here for the free smurfberries, the little blue bastards.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 11, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> What's wrong with Smurfs?



They had no genitals.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 11, 2009)

So the objection is to alien characters then? Or that they're blue?

If fantasy/sci-fi isn't your thing then no, you're not going to like this.


----------



## Pingu (Dec 11, 2009)

epic trailer here

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/South-Park-Parodies-Avatar-With-The-Smurfs-15674.html


----------



## TrippyLondoner (Dec 11, 2009)

Fruitloop said:


> They're communists, that's what. They're only here for the free smurfberries, the little blue bastards.



Bunch of wankers then.


----------



## Santino (Dec 11, 2009)

Reno said:


> Go and whinge about _2012_ instead.



No.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 11, 2009)

ChrisFilter said:


> So the objection is to alien characters then? Or that they're blue?
> 
> If fantasy/sci-fi isn't your thing then no, you're not going to like this.


I imagine there is a number of different people, each with their own views. Some will fancy the films, some won't.  All will have their own tastes, and no two views will be entirely the same.

Mine is that it looks like a big budget blockbuster, and I generally find those vacuous and boring.


----------



## Santino (Dec 11, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> I imagine there is a number of different people, each with their own views. Some will fancy the films, some won't.  All will have their own tastes, and no two views will be entirely the same.
> 
> Mine is that it looks like a big budget blockbuster, and I generally find those vacuous and boring.



You don't get it Danny, the people complaining are doing so because it's the cool thing to do.


----------



## Fruitloop (Dec 11, 2009)

Dedicated followers of fashion.


----------



## TrippyLondoner (Dec 11, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> I imagine there is a number of different people, each with their own views. Some will fancy the films, some won't.  All will have their own tastes, and no two views will be entirely the same.
> 
> Mine is that it looks like a big budget blockbuster, and I generally find those vacuous and boring.



^ this


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 11, 2009)

Santino said:


> You don't get it Danny, the people complaining are doing so because it's the cool thing to do.


Are they?  Twats.


----------



## Santino (Dec 11, 2009)

Fruitloop said:


> Dedicated followers of fashion.



They seek us here 






















They seek us there ​


----------



## Santino (Dec 11, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> Are they?  Twats.



It's like ten thousand spoons.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 11, 2009)

Santino said:


> It's like ten thousand spoons.


Is it. I see.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 11, 2009)

Santino said:


> You don't get it Danny, the people complaining are doing so because it's the cool thing to do.



Surely it can only be that, given that no-one has seen it? Otherwise people are just complaining about the idea, and that's a bit sad.


----------



## Santino (Dec 11, 2009)

ChrisFilter said:


> Surely it can only be that, given that no-one has seen it? Otherwise people are just complaining about the idea, and that's a bit sad.



From the trailer, I drew the conclusion that 'it looks shit' and I stand by that. It _looks like it's going to be shit_. If I see it I may change my mind.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 11, 2009)

ChrisFilter said:


> Surely it can only be that, given that no-one has seen it? Otherwise people are just complaining about the idea, and that's a bit sad.


I'm not complaining, though.  I'm just saying I don't fancy the film.  I find I do that.  I see a trailer, and decide whether I fancy the film or not.  It saves me having to watch everything that's released before deciding whether it's something I think I might enjoy.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 11, 2009)

Reno said:


> ...at home you also won't have the option to watch this proper 3D and that's what it was designed for.



Ah right.  Cool.  Will all cinemas have it in 3D?


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 11, 2009)

ChrisFilter said:


> Surely it can only be that, given that no-one has seen it? Otherwise people are just complaining about the idea, and that's a bit sad.



But the allegory is so overbearing, just from the trailer.  It just seems to be done really heavy-handedly and I think it's nuts to waste so much good design and effets on a storyline a 15 year old would come up with.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 11, 2009)

Anyway Chris, it's the done thing o Urban to jump in and say a new big film looks shit.  I remember Wookey positively delighting in launching the Dark Knight thread with the title "The Dark Knight Review: Gutted!"

It was if he was desperate to jump in and say this top notch rarely intelligent blockbuster was shit.  So urban 

Avatar looks spectacular for sure, but so did the Star Wars prequels at times.

But, still, I'll try to reserve judgement cos usually it annoys me when these films are pre-slated on here.  I've seen trailers that looked shit and films that turned out great (the Negotiator) while the Phantom Menace had this feeling of 'Yay! Star wars is bacK!' with the trailer and we all know what happened there


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 11, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> the Phantom Menace had this feeling of 'Yay! Star wars is bacK!' with the trailer and we all know what happened there


I don't.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 11, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> I don't.



it wasn't as good as the trailer indicated.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 11, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> it wasn't as good as the trailer indicated.



Jesus.


----------



## TrippyLondoner (Dec 11, 2009)

ChrisFilter said:


> Surely it can only be that, given that no-one has seen it? Otherwise people are just complaining about the idea, and that's a bit sad.



No, i've seen bits of it on the news, and while i appreciate you need to see the whole of it, it doesn't look like what i would enjoy. Just accept it. I prefer not to waste money on overhyped films.


----------



## Santino (Dec 11, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> it wasn't as good as the trailer indicated.



It was better


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 11, 2009)

I have high hopes for Avatar. This may be the film that unites humanity.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 11, 2009)

TrippyLondoner said:


> No, i've seen bits of it on the news, and while i appreciate you need to see the whole of it, it doesn't look like what i would enjoy. Just accept it. I prefer not to waste money on overhyped films.



In all honesty, I think consumer cynicism has meant that this is underhyped in WOM terms. Which I like.

A lot of people on here don't seem to get the 'new 3D' thing on here. As a 2D concept it's a good idea, as a 3D concept it's apparently incredible.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 11, 2009)

I wouldn't want to watch a film I didn't fancy any more because it was in 3D.  

Pick a film you don't want to watch.  Do you want to watch it in 3D?


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 11, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> Jesus.



Thing is, I properly did get excited when i watched the Phantom Menace trailer.

sadly, I forgot that George Lucas doesn't know how to direct or write a film.  He should have created it and left it to someone like JJ Abrams to do the adult stuff, and the star wars prequels would have been immensely good.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 11, 2009)

Santino said:


> It was better



Fuck off 

I remember sitting with my housemates watching that trailer and we were all (metaphorically) wanking off as we watched it.

The problem with the film was the terrible pacing, and terrible script.


----------



## rikwakefield (Dec 11, 2009)

I will put up with the headache 3D films give me for this. Better be worth it.


----------



## sumimasen (Dec 13, 2009)

Anyone mentioned District 9 yet?


----------



## laptop (Dec 13, 2009)

sumimasen said:


> Anyone mentioned District 9 yet?



Dancing with prawns?


----------



## revol68 (Dec 13, 2009)

sumimasen said:


> Anyone mentioned District 9 yet?



District 9 was fantastic.


----------



## Clint Iguana (Dec 13, 2009)

Have seen a few 3D movies lately with my daughter and i have to say over all it does not really add anything to the film... apart from a hadful (at most) of WOW moments, it is generally a waste of time and not worth the extra dosh.

Despite this i am really looking forward to Avatar, but i have a horrible suspicion it is going to be a disapointment .. not cos it is rubbish, but becasue it has been hyped up too much and could not possibly live up to expectations.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 13, 2009)

Clint Iguana said:


> Have seen a few 3D movies lately with my daughter and i have to say over all it does not really add anything to the film... apart from a hadful (at most) of WOW moments, it is generally a waste of time and not worth the extra dosh.



It's _new_ 3D though!


----------



## Clint Iguana (Dec 13, 2009)

ChrisFilter said:


> It's _new_ 3D though!



what, like 3 and a bit D?


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 13, 2009)

Clint Iguana said:


> what, like 3 and a bit D?



No, new technique... and the reviews are very good.


----------



## Clint Iguana (Dec 13, 2009)

ChrisFilter said:


> No, new technique... and the reviews are very good.



another reason to lookforward to it then


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 13, 2009)

ChrisFilter said:


> No, new technique... and the reviews are very good.



2 Stars in the Grauniad though


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 17, 2009)

I pulled myself up off my sick bed to go and see this last night, and even suffering from man flu I thought it was brilliant. In fact, my Mrs, who normally hates sci-fi and action, left the cinema saying "one of the best trips to the cinema I've ever had".

The 3D is actually very subtle. No cheap "it's coming right at you!" tricks or the like. It just added a bit of depth to the screen - as obvious as that sounds. Some genuinely 'wow' moments from it that you wouldn't expect. Things like video monitors and rearview mirrors look incredible... minor details but they really caught my eye.

It was a little too cheesy in places, but let's not forget it's a big budget family-ish film.

Many, many cool as fuck moments. Some beautiful cinematography - breathtaking in a LotR way.

Overall a lot of fun. Recommended.

Back to my sickbed.


----------



## The Octagon (Dec 17, 2009)

ChrisFilter said:


> I pulled myself up off my sick bed to go and see this last night, and even suffering from man flu I thought it was brilliant. In fact, my Mrs, who normally hates sci-fi and action, left the cinema saying "one of the best trips to the cinema I've ever had".
> 
> The 3D is actually very subtle. No cheap "it's coming right at you!" tricks or the like. It just added a bit of depth to the screen - as obvious as that sounds. Some genuinely 'wow' moments from it that you wouldn't expect. Things like video monitors and rearview mirrors look incredible... minor details but they really caught my eye.
> 
> ...



Did you go IMAX or normal cinema?


----------



## Reno (Dec 17, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> 2 Stars in the Grauniad though



The Guardians has a long history of really poor film critics. On the whole this got very good reviews.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 17, 2009)

So was it just me who looked at the trailer and just immediately thought of this?


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 17, 2009)

The Octagon said:


> Did you go IMAX or normal cinema?



Normal cinema, but the 3D version. Quite snazzy glasses n' all. Not those scratched boxy things you get at the IMAX.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 17, 2009)

kabbes said:


> So was it just me who looked at the trailer and just immediately thought of this?



No, I thought the same, and ewoks, and elves, and dances with wolves, and lots of other things.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 17, 2009)

I actually think it'd be more enjoyable for those who don't play computer games in HD, or even better, on a high-end PC. All the magic of the scenery will be new to them.


----------



## The Octagon (Dec 17, 2009)

kabbes said:


> So was it just me who looked at the trailer and just immediately thought of this?



No, you are - at last count - the 45 millionth person to make that joke (including myself ).

Likewise any reference to giant Smurfs or Thundercats.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 17, 2009)

It wasn't a joke.  I really did think of that cartoon, in a "isn't this just the same but with better graphics?" kind of way.


----------



## Santino (Dec 17, 2009)

I hope this guy turns up in the sequel:


----------



## kabbes (Dec 17, 2009)

Santino said:


> I hope this guy turns up in the sequel:


TOTALLY my favourite bad guy as a kid!


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 17, 2009)

WTF? Mum-Rah would have owned him hard


----------



## Wonky (Dec 17, 2009)

84% (89% from Top Critics) on Rotten Tomatoes so far..
http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/avatar/

Looking forward to this!


----------



## Santino (Dec 17, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> WTF? Mum-Rah would have owned him hard



But only one of them represents the essentially combative (although ultimately self-destructive) nature of Advanced Capitalism.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 18, 2009)

Just seen this in 3D and it's pretty awesome, the CGI is really really impressive and whilst it can be a tad cheesey and veer towards new age shite, the plot is brilliantly paced and it doesn't cop out and go for some sort of compromise between the natives and the humans, nor does it humanise the military characters or present us with the 'other side of the story', instead the mining company are cunts and the only choice is to remain a cunt or fight them, there is no wanky middle ground.

Also the lead female character is hot as fuck despite being 12 foot and blue.


----------



## Santino (Dec 18, 2009)

revol68 said:


> Just seen this in 3D and it's pretty awesome, the CGI is really really impressive and whilst it can be a tad cheesey and veer towards new age shite, the plot is brilliantly paced and it doesn't cop out and go for some sort of compromise between the natives and the humans, nor does it humanise the military characters or present us with the 'other side of the story', instead the mining company are cunts and the only choice is to remain a cunt or fight them, there is no wanky middle ground.
> 
> Also the lead female character is hot as fuck despite being 12 foot and blue.



If only the plot had as many dimensions as the CGI.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 18, 2009)

Santino said:


> If only the plot had as many dimensions as the CGI.



it's an unshamed Hollywood blockbuster with a somewhat formuliac plot, yes, but it contains enough themes, issues and thought experiments to keep itself interesting and I was pleasantly suprised that it made it a balls to the wall fight with no wishy washy middle ground.

to be honest I think films like this and District 9 really have as many dimensions as the viewer brings to them or at least is open too.


----------



## mrs quoad (Dec 18, 2009)

ChrisFilter said:


> I actually think it'd be more enjoyable for those who don't play computer games in HD, or even better, on a high-end PC. All the magic of the scenery will be new to them.



Now... this was my problem with the trailer.

It all looked like a computer game.

I don't particularly _want_ to see a computer game at the cinema...?


----------



## revol68 (Dec 18, 2009)

mrs quoad said:


> Now... this was my problem with the trailer.
> 
> It all looked like a computer game.
> 
> I don't particularly _want_ to see a computer game at the cinema...?



the trailers don't do it justice at all, me and my girlfriend thought it would be shit based on the trailers but it's actually awesome and the 3D is implemented brilliantly, especially the small details like ash and amber flicking throught the scenes.


----------



## spacemonkey (Dec 18, 2009)

I saw this in 3d last night and thought it was fucking incredible. 

One step off a holodeck.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 18, 2009)

spacemonkey said:


> I saw this in 3d last night and thought it was fucking incredible.
> 
> One step off a holodeck.



So that's 100% of people who've seen it off here who thought it was great, and 89% of top critics. And yet still Santino will moan about the plot without having seen it


----------



## bi0boy (Dec 18, 2009)

I saw it in 2D yesterday and thought it was awesome.

I think the incredible colours come across better in 2D, and James Cameron said he didn't "design" it for 3D, just happened to have 3D cameras there IYKWIM.

I saw a trailer on TV later and it looked totally different... one of those that really must be seen on the big screen.


----------



## Pingu (Dec 18, 2009)

well going to see this tonight followed by watching dances with smurfs 

will let you know which one is the better


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 18, 2009)

Going to see it tonight. Hope it's good!


----------



## Reno (Dec 18, 2009)

bi0boy said:


> I think the incredible colours come across better in 2D, and James Cameron said he didn't "design" it for 3D, just happened to have 3D cameras there...



That's about as credible as "I was vacuuming in the nude, tripped and it just slipped in there"


----------



## gabi (Dec 18, 2009)

bi0boy said:


> I think the incredible colours come across better in 2D, and James Cameron said he didn't "design" it for 3D, just happened to have 3D cameras there IYKWIM.



Um, where did u read that? he's spent shitloads developing those cameras that 'just happened to be there'..


----------



## bi0boy (Dec 18, 2009)

Reno said:


> That's about as credible as "I was vacuuming in the nude, tripped and it just slipped in there"





gabi said:


> Um, where did u read that? he's spent shitloads developing those cameras that 'just happened to be there'..



I saw him being interviewed. He meant that he didn't design any gimmicks in that most 3D movies have, and if he'd done the movie in 2D only it would have come out exactly the same as the current 2D version.

Personally I think it's a more immersive experience in 2D as the glasses are like viewing it through a window and tend to darken some scenes and moderate the bright colours.


----------



## gabi (Dec 18, 2009)

bi0boy said:


> I saw him being interviewed. He meant that he didn't design any gimmicks in that most 3D movies have, and if he'd done the movie in 2D only it would have come out exactly the same as the current 2D version.



I was under the impression he'd written the script for this ages ago but was specifically waiting for the 3d technology to be developed before beginning filming. so either he was talking utter shit in the interview you saw or the journo in the story i read was writing utter utter shit.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 18, 2009)

Might go and see this this afternoon


----------



## bi0boy (Dec 18, 2009)

gabi said:


> I was under the impression he'd written the script for this ages ago but was specifically waiting for the 3d technology to be developed before beginning filming. so either he was talking utter shit in the interview you saw or the journo in the story i read was writing utter utter shit.



No, he was waiting for the animation technology...not the 3D tech. When he saw golem in Lord of the Rings he realised the technology was now available to animate the characters realisticly.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 18, 2009)

bi0boy said:


> No, he was waiting for the animation technology...not the 3D tech. When he saw golem in Lord of the Rings he realised the technology was now available to animate the characters realisticly.



But he developed the 3D tech himself, at great expense. You're right about the lack of 3D gimmicks, but it very much was developed with 3D in mind.  

I reckon it'd be fine in 2D, a spectacle in itself, but the 3D is very special so see it like that if you can.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 18, 2009)

Not as good as LOTR, new Batmans or new Star Trek, I'm afraid.  Nowhere close, in fact.

It is good, though 

I suspect that had I seen it as a 20 year old stoner, though, it would have been a different story.

In fact, this may well have created a whole new genre: stoner-fi.

I may have to procure some weed and get stoned and go and see it again, as I reckon it would then be an entirely different film.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 18, 2009)

Question - is it just 3d in IMAX or is it 3d in lots of cinemas?

I hear IMAX is booked out for aeons...


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 18, 2009)

It was 3D at my local Vue


----------



## debaser (Dec 18, 2009)

It was spectacular but I don't think I was anymore immersed than I would have had I watched a considerably better film in 2D.

Might go back and watch it stoned though 

unobtanium anyone?


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 18, 2009)

I seriously think it would be all kinds of awesome after some weed   In fact, I can't think of a film more suited to being mashed.  It was like the film version of a Pink Floyd album or something


----------



## Pingu (Dec 18, 2009)

visually stunning. a bit long and predictable in parts but if you like this sort of film its well worth going to see.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 19, 2009)

It was crap, boring as hell, saw it in 3D and it really wasn't amazing. So many missed opportunities story wise...boring action scenes.


----------



## TrippyLondoner (Dec 19, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> It was crap, boring as hell, saw it in 3D and it really wasn't amazing. So many missed opportunities story wise...boring action scenes.



Sounds like what i thought it would be.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 19, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> It was crap, boring as hell, saw it in 3D and it really wasn't amazing. So many missed opportunities story wise...boring action scenes.



Oh come on the action scenes are far from boring.

Anyway here's the Wall Street Journal's review.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 19, 2009)

TrippyLondoner said:


> Sounds like what i thought it would be.



To be honest it might be too advanced for you, or maybe you could watch it on semi pro.


----------



## TrippyLondoner (Dec 19, 2009)

revol68 said:


> To be honest it might be too advanced for you, or maybe you could watch it on semi pro.





*struggles..to..laugh*


----------



## revol68 (Dec 19, 2009)

TrippyLondoner said:


> *struggles..to..laugh*



You do seem to struggle with a lot of very basic things.


----------



## laptop (Dec 19, 2009)

revol68 said:


> Anyway here's the Wall Street Journal's review.



But what does _Exchange & Mart_ say?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 19, 2009)

revol68 said:


> Oh come on the action scenes are far from boring.
> 
> Anyway here's the Wall Street Journal's review.



They were far from good, I and my friends sat there bored. What can I say, I didn't suck the hype machine cock on this one...*shrugs*


----------



## revol68 (Dec 19, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> They were far from good, I and my friends sat there bored. What can I say, I didn't suck the hype machine cock on this one...*shrugs*



Like I said a film can only be as interesting as the person watching it. 

As for the hype, well actually the hype almost worked against it, there was a massive backlash in the two weeks running up to it's release and certainly me and my girlfriend went in expecting the worst, to be really pleasantly surprised by not only it's aesthetics but the not so "sub" political subtext that has a lot more balls than 99% of pseudo critical War movies.

Sure it has it's tripe Noble Savage, at one with nature cliches and predictably sticks to the standard "Hero" narrative and the inherent structural privileging that implies ie the "human" lead doesn't simply join the Na'vi but ends up leading them, but to focus on these obvious failings universal to almost every mainstream movie is to miss the many ways the film stands out, for example;

The typical role of the noble savage as providing another perspective on our societies, and in doing so acting to actually improve their functioning. Instead the role of the noble savage is total in this film, the lessons can't be simply be assimilated into our society by just taking a few platitudes from here or there and sticking them in a corporate mission statement or whatever, instead it requires a complete and violent break with our society, indeed the lead character gives up his crippled and alienated human body.

The film has the balls to totally pick a side, to reject any pathetic liberal handwringing, wavering or humanisation or justification for the individual motives of those on the companies side. Anyone used to American anti war movies knows that primarily they are about American tragedies, they we are meant to empathise primarily with the pain and anguish the war inflicts on the American pscyhe, with the hundreds and thousands of dead civilians and enemies a prop for indulging the self pity of the US.

Another thing in this film is the complete lack of 'civilians' as such, there are no good innocents who are caught up in a war between two sides, there are no good innocent peaceful Na'vi opposed to the violent, insurgent Na'vi.

Avatar is the closest Hollywood will ever let you get to cheerleading the US military getting it's fucking balls rolled and sure that doesn't make for perfect communist politics, after all I'm no big fan of third worldism, it certainly makes it more gutsy than 99% of films and pretty refreshing for a Hollywood block buster action sci fi.


----------



## Flashman (Dec 19, 2009)

Lots of folks I know on FB have come home singing its praises.

Which they also did about Twilight.

Which possibly asks more questions than it answers.

All this has happened before and will happen again, so.

And I can't chew anyway I love _Let Me Love You_ by Mario


----------



## revol68 (Dec 19, 2009)

Flashman said:


> Lots of folks I know on FB have come home singing its praises.
> 
> Which they also did about Twilight.
> 
> ...



LOl Avatar is great, Twilight is soo bad it's fucking hilarious, especially Ghost Edward's appearances.


----------



## Flashman (Dec 19, 2009)

revol68 said:


> LOl Avatar is great, Twilight is soo bad it's fucking hilarious, especially Ghost Edward's appearances.



I've been told to watch Twilight so many times by so many friends.

Fuck off! Cunts.

Avatar is blue aliens with boxer noses, quite fucking interested actually.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 19, 2009)

Flashman said:


> I've been told to watch Twilight so many times by so many friends.
> 
> Fuck off! Cunts.
> 
> Avatar is blue aliens with boxer noses, quite fucking interested actually.



Are you friends with lots of teenage girls and if so can I go partying with you?


----------



## Flashman (Dec 19, 2009)

revol68 said:


> Are you friends with lots of teenage girls and if so can I go partying with you?



Yeah I work with loads and they all fancy me 

And yes, but it'll cost you a fortune on flights 'cos I'm not shipping them to fucking stocious Ireland every fucking weekend.


----------



## Pingu (Dec 19, 2009)

revol68 said:


> Like I said a film can only be as interesting as the person watching it.
> 
> As for the hype, well actually the hype almost worked against it, there was a massive backlash in the two weeks running up to it's release and certainly me and my girlfriend went in expecting the worst, to be really pleasantly surprised by not only it's aesthetics but the not so "sub" political subtext that has a lot more balls than 99% of pseudo critical War movies.
> 
> ...


 

for the first time ever i think i am going to agree with revol

this may sound trite but i actually felt empathy for the smurfs when it all kicked off. not an easy thing for a film to make me do tbh and i was REALLY glad when the military dudes got their butts kicked. yeah a bit contrived and cliched in parts but an enjoyable film to watch. the visuals were really really good and the cgi very realistic. not a clasic blockbuster but worth an evening out. in parts it felt like an american guilt trip over the various indigenous populations that they have screwed over in their time and i can fairly easily swap out the smurfs for "red indians" in some scenes but it didnt really detract from the film.


----------



## Motown_ben (Dec 19, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> It was crap, boring as hell, saw it in 3D and it really wasn't amazing. So many missed opportunities story wise...boring action scenes.



totally agree with this. saw it thursday night and tho i was really looking forward to it i came out well disspointed. Too long and middle section is dull as hell.


----------



## Santino (Dec 19, 2009)

revol68 said:


> The film has the balls to totally pick a side, to reject any pathetic liberal handwringing, wavering or humanisation or justification for the individual motives of those on the companies side. Anyone used to American anti war movies knows that primarily they are about American tragedies, they we are meant to empathise primarily with the pain and anguish the war inflicts on the American pscyhe, with the hundreds and thousands of dead civilians and enemies a prop for indulging the self pity of the US.
> 
> Another thing in this film is the complete lack of 'civilians' as such, there are no good innocents who are caught up in a war between two sides, there are no good innocent peaceful Na'vi opposed to the violent, insurgent Na'vi.
> 
> Avatar is the closest Hollywood will ever let you get to cheerleading the US military getting it's fucking balls rolled and sure that doesn't make for perfect communist politics, after all I'm no big fan of third worldism, it certainly makes it more gutsy than 99% of films and pretty refreshing for a Hollywood block buster action sci fi.



What are all these Hollywood action blockbusters that indulge in liberal handwringing when it comes to the depiction of the bad guys? I can't think of any.

Star Wars - the Empire is just plain evil 
Matrix - evil computers controlling police and corporations with Men in Suits as the main heavies
Pirates of the Caribbean - evil East India company
Terminator - more evil computers
Alien/s - evil money-grabbing Company
Lord of the Rings - evil dark lord
Harry Potter - evil dark lord

Have I missed a whole subgenre of action film in which the bad guys are sympathetic and the good guys end up reaching a compromise with them instead of blowing them all up?


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 19, 2009)

Flashman said:


> Lots of folks I know on FB have come home singing its praises.
> 
> Which they also did about Twilight.
> 
> ...



All I can say is, smoke a fucking big reefer before you watch it and it will quite possibly feel like the greatest film ever made.

If you don't, it will all feel a bit meh.


----------



## live_jayeola (Dec 19, 2009)

Saw the trailer in 3D when I went to see Chrimbo Carrol at the Imax a few weeks ago. Going!


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 19, 2009)

Santino said:


> Have I missed a whole subgenre of action film in which the bad guys are sympathetic and the good guys end up reaching a compromise with them instead of blowing them all up?



I think he must be talking about Platoon, Deerhunter, etc.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 19, 2009)

revol68 said:


> stuff



That all makes it sound _even more_ Dances With Wolves / Last Samurai. It's actually put me off.


----------



## Pingu (Dec 19, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> That all makes it sound _even more_ Dances With Wolves / Last Samurai. It's actually put me off.


 
its true... but tbh it doesnt ruin the film. Go and watch it after a few and without preconceptions. its not a full on action film - which is waht i normally go for - and tbh its not a classic. but visually its beautiful in parts and the storyline is OK. best way to sum it up is its a great christmas afternoon film or maybe boxing day. Not one you will go out of your way to watch again but one that you wont mind watching again

dances with smurfs though is an awesome parody


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 19, 2009)

Santino said:


> What are all these Hollywood action blockbusters that indulge in liberal handwringing when it comes to the depiction of the bad guys? I can't think of any.
> 
> Star Wars - the Empire is just plain evil
> Matrix - evil computers controlling police and corporations with Men in Suits as the main heavies
> ...




There is that Viet Nam film where Michael J Fox refuses to take part in a gang rape and is thusly the face of Good Soldiers in Viet Nam.

Or Valkyrie where that sciontologist nob head is presented as the Good Face of Nazi


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 19, 2009)

New Age lar de dar crap - Strictly For Hippies.

The actual final battle scene - pretty cracking.  Even if it is about as plausible as the Ewoks beating the Empire's forces.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 19, 2009)

Santino said:


> What are all these Hollywood action blockbusters that indulge in liberal handwringing when it comes to the depiction of the bad guys? I can't think of any.
> 
> Star Wars - the Empire is just plain evil
> Matrix - evil computers controlling police and corporations with Men in Suits as the main heavies
> ...



hollywood blockbusters in which the bad guys are clearly meant to be the US military.


----------



## Santino (Dec 19, 2009)

revol68 said:


> hollywood blockbusters in which the bad guys are clearly meant to be the US military.



Like the Agents in the Matrix and the Company in Aliens then.


----------



## Santino (Dec 19, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> There is that Viet Nam film where Michael J Fox refuses to take part in a gang rape and is thusly the face of Good Soldiers in Viet Nam.
> 
> Or Valkyrie where that sciontologist nob head is presented as the Good Face of Nazi



I admire your commitment to spell Viet Nam as two words.


----------



## Reno (Dec 19, 2009)

I agree with revol in that it's quite amazing how resolutely anti-American this "most expensive blockbuster ever made" is and I'm surprised how more critics haven't picked up on this. 

In any case, I saw this today with my 13 year old nephew. Two thirds in there was a glitch in the digital projection which took five minutes to fix, but the boy and me just tuned to each other going "isn't this great!" I've mostly given up on US blockbusters and find the likes of Terminator Salvation, Transformers and 2012 incomprehensible, but this married classic film making with technical innovation and it was tremendously fun and exciting. 

What the film is ultimately about is it's meticulously worked out world, which is breathtaking in it's detail and imagination. As such it falls within a sub-genre of sciene fiction like Clarke's Rendezvous With Rama or Aldiss' Hothouse in immersing the viewer/reader in a perfectly worked out alien world. Neither of those stories had much plot, they were riveting because of the places they allowed you to explore and Avatar is in that same mode of sci-fi. The film does largely rely on Cameron stock characters, but I still found them much more engaging than what passes for characterisation in most current blockbusters. Zoe Sadana gives a great performance via this advanced form of motion capture as Neytiri and it's great to see Sigourney Weaver back in a Cameron film as the essence of (chain smoking) human decency and common sense.

The alien designs may have looked naff in photos, but within their context they work perfectly well, are utterly credible as living beings and are both graceful and wonderfully expressive.The scene where the aliens are finally attacked by the US army is genuinely heart wrenching.

It's also a credit to Cameron as a storyteller that neither me or the boy were ever bored during nearly three hours. It may be an old story, but at least it's well told. Apart from a few duff lines of Cameron's patented "salty" soldier talk the only thing I wasn't so keen on was Horner's self-cannibalising score. The slushy theme song made us rush for the exit sooner than I would have left otherwise. Still, it's a minor niggle. Anybody who enjoys a good Hollywood blockbuster and boycotts this simply to be to cool and contrary is a fool.


----------



## CJohn (Dec 20, 2009)

Hmmm, I felt it reflected a lot about personal identity. Particularly the sense in which, I think, we often feel very confused about who we are, and, as such, are confronted with questions about what is real, authentic and actual about us. I don't mean in some shallow conscious manner, but rather with respect to the way  in which our beliefs often don't sit well together, the split between our intentions and actions, the fact that we have conflictual desires, motivations and aspirations, and that these failures in cohesion are fragmented and unacknowledged . Whilst I can admire the film for picking a side, I felt that, at one level, it hinged upon a fantasy that we can triumph over our guilt, that we can get rid of the problematic parts of ourselves that we might otherwise feel ashamed of. It then hinges on idealization and denigration. The film, in this way, couldn't feel anything other than a caricature of either side, such that rather than difference being something to struggle with, it becomes something we're intolerably anxious about and afraid of; the solution being that its split-off, projected and attacked. For me, the fact that we seem unable to acknowledge, tolerate and deal with these ambivalences is very concerning. 

Anyhows, this was all a subtext and I'm only reflecting on that after the fact. My main impression was that, yeah, it was a good film. There was a lot to enjoy about it and it is worth just going with it for the ride.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 20, 2009)

Wow you guys got a lot out of what was basically 6th form level politics and spirituality.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 20, 2009)

revol68 said:


> hollywood blockbusters in which the bad guys are clearly meant to be the US military.



REALLY?! Holy fuck!!! I totally missed this! That means this is the most revolutionary film EVAH!


----------



## revol68 (Dec 20, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> REALLY?! Holy fuck!!! I totally missed this! That means this is the most revolutionary film EVAH!



Yes that is exactly what I said. 

Like I said a lot depends on what you bring to a film, you evidently bring fuck all and in the end this is your own loss.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 20, 2009)

CJohn said:


> Hmmm, I felt it reflected a lot about personal identity. Particularly the sense in which, I think, we often feel very confused about who we are, and, as such, are confronted with questions about what is real, authentic and actual about us. I don't mean in some shallow conscious manner, but rather with respect to the way  in which our beliefs often don't sit well together, the split between our intentions and actions, the fact that we have conflictual desires, motivations and aspirations, and that these failures in cohesion are fragmented and unacknowledged . Whilst I can admire the film for picking a side, I felt that, at one level, it hinged upon a fantasy that we can triumph over our guilt, that we can get rid of the problematic parts of ourselves that we might otherwise feel ashamed of. It then hinges on idealization and denigration. The film, in this way, couldn't feel anything other than a caricature of either side, such that rather than difference being something to struggle with, it becomes something we're intolerably anxious about and afraid of; the solution being that its split-off, projected and attacked. For me, the fact that we seem unable to acknowledge, tolerate and deal with these ambivalences is very concerning.
> 
> Anyhows, this was all a subtext and I'm only reflecting on that after the fact. My main impression was that, yeah, it was a good film. There was a lot to enjoy about it and it is worth just going with it for the ride.



Yuck, lets not move the subtext from one of real material conflict to some wanky examination of conflicts within our 'inner psyche'. Infact I thought Cameron made a good job of avoiding this by refusing any sort of middle ground and ambivalence but instead making it clear that one side are forces of nihilistic accumulation that's very existence can only be secured by militarist expansion and destruction of the other and on the other side (for all it's noble savage and new age hippy shit) there are a people who can only maintain their existence by destroying their enemy with no room for some sort of liberal synthesis or reconciliation even in some sort of balancing of conflicting tendencies way.

The central message is that we can only overcome our "guilt", actually I don't think guilt is at all useful or relevant, rather it is about self fufilment and escaping our stunted and meaningless existence (hence him leaving his crippled body behind) through a real and violent conflict in which we are forced to cut all material and ideological ties to our past is massively at odds with such an analysis.

Still I expect nothing more from a Star Wars fan boy


----------



## revol68 (Dec 20, 2009)

Reno said:


> I agree with revol in that it's quite amazing how resolutely anti-American this "most expensive blockbuster ever made" is and I'm surprised how more critics haven't picked up on this.
> 
> In any case, I saw this today with my 13 year old nephew. Two thirds in there was a glitch in the digital projection which took five minutes to fix, but the boy and me just tuned to each other going "isn't this great!" I've mostly given up on US blockbusters and find the likes of Terminator Salvation, Transformers and 2012 incomprehensible, but this married classic film making with technical innovation and it was tremendously fun and exciting.
> 
> ...



Yep!

I'd be tempted to say that how you view this film is a test of whether or not you have still managed to hold on to your soul in our oh so clever (read smug idiocy) and ironic world in which all sense of truth and justice is relativised into extinction. If you don't feel an almost child like sense of anger, empathy and revulsion at the attack on the Na'vi I think it's safe to say you are a lost cause who privileges their oh so knowing cynicist cool over anything else.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 20, 2009)

Santino said:


> Like the Agents in the Matrix and the Company in Aliens then.



Are you deluded? The Agents in the Matrix are enforcers of the Matrix, a system that enslaves all of humanity, they are not  representative of the US military and most certainly not equivalent to explicitness of the parallels in the Avatar.

In Aliens we are left in no doubt what abunch of shits the Company are but fundamentally the fight for survival is against the Aliens not them. It is more akin to traditional hollywood pseudo antiwar movies in which troops find themselves put in a shitty situation at the behest of corrupt policy makers but nonetheless must fight for their survival against the external other rather than turn their guns on their own military hierarchy in a fight to the death.


----------



## Santino (Dec 20, 2009)

revol68 said:


> Are you deluded? The Agents in the Matrix are enforcers of the Matrix, a system that enslaves all of humanity, they are not  representative of the US military and most certainly not equivalent to explicitness of the parallels in the Avatar.
> 
> In Aliens we are left in no doubt what abunch of shits the Company are but fundamentally the fight for survival is against the Aliens not them. It is more akin to traditional hollywood pseudo antiwar movies in which troops find themselves put in a shitty situation at the behest of corrupt policy makers but nonetheless must fight for their survival against the external other rather than turn their guns on their own military hierarchy in a fight to the death.



Sorry. I didn't realise you needed your parallels so explicitly spelled out.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 20, 2009)

revol68 said:


> Yep!
> 
> I'd be tempted to say that how you view this film is a test of whether or not you have still managed to hold on to your soul



Thought you were a materialist?


----------



## Paj (Dec 20, 2009)

Reno said:


> What the film is ultimately about is it's meticulously worked out world, which is breathtaking in it's detail and imagination. As such it falls within a sub-genre of sciene fiction like Clarke's Rendezvous With Rama or Aldiss' Hothouse in immersing the viewer/reader in a perfectly worked out alien world.



This was one of the things I enjoyed most about it as well. You really get the sense that each animal forms part of a larger ecosystem, or had evolved from common ancestors. Multiple sets of eyes, bright plumage, those weird gill things instead of lungs, and the fact that every animal has that 'neural-symbiosis-cord-thing', reinforcing the idea that all the life on the planet is connected, not just the plant life as explicitly stated. 

They took their time to work out what kind of animals occupied which niche, how they would look and act. One of my favourite scenes was when Sully spends his first night in the forest, where unseen liquid black panther things start chasing him.

Overall I loved it. I think I would need to see it again for a more objective criticism, not allowing the razzle and dazzle to overwhelm the bad points (simple characterisation, one dimensional villains, complete lack of subtlety, amongst others) as much as it did the first time.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 20, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Thought you were a materialist?



and I thought you were better than such retarded literalism.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 20, 2009)

revol68 said:


> and I thought you were better than such retarded literalism.



So when you say "soul," you actually mean.....?


----------



## revol68 (Dec 20, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> So when you say "soul," you actually mean.....?



to have a heart, to be alive, to feel wah wah wah.

honestly phil this is below you.


----------



## Mation (Dec 22, 2009)

Saw this last night and absolutely _adored_ it! 



			
				revol68 said:
			
		

> As for the hype, well actually the hype almost worked against it, there was a massive backlash in the two weeks running up to it's release and certainly me and my girlfriend went in expecting the worst, to be really pleasantly surprised by not only it's aesthetics but the not so "sub" political subtext that has a lot more balls than 99% of pseudo critical War movies.
> 
> Sure it has it's tripe Noble Savage, at one with nature cliches and predictably sticks to the standard "Hero" narrative and the inherent structural privileging that implies ie the "human" lead doesn't simply join the Na'vi but ends up leading them, but to focus on these obvious failings universal to almost every mainstream movie is to miss the many ways the film stands out, for example;
> 
> ...


Yes! This! Although... you make it sound as though our hero's human body was meant to be a metaphor for a crippled human society. Hadn't thought of it that way and I do hope it wasn't.


----------



## Reno (Dec 22, 2009)

f said:


> Saw this last night and absolutely _adored_ it! Yes! This! Although... you make it sound as though our hero's human body was meant to be a metaphor for a crippled human society. Hadn't thought of it that way and I do hope it wasn't.



That would have been so clumsily symbolic, not even the occasionally ham-fisted Cameron would have stooped that low. The reasons why the hero is a paraplegic have purely to do with the character and plot. Films aren't necessarily puzzles of hidden symbolism that is supposed to be figured out by the audience. Using disability as a metaphor for a sick society would have been  so crass and offensive it would have suited a Nazi propaganda film.


----------



## girasol (Dec 22, 2009)

I don't think that was the case either, and it certainly didn't occur to me. 

A lot of it was predictable but not in a bad way, it was so much better than I thought it would be!

Glad I went to see it, I started to think it was too long after about two hours but then it went bonkers! (in a good way)

The song at the end nearly ruined it though


----------



## revol68 (Dec 22, 2009)

Reno said:


> That would have been so clumsily symbolic, not even the occasionally ham-fisted Cameron would have stooped that low. The reasons why the hero is a paraplegic have purely to do with the character and plot. Films aren't necessarily puzzles of hidden symbolism that is supposed to be figured out by the audience. Using disability as a metaphor for a sick society would have been  so crass and offensive it would have suited a Nazi propaganda film.



But it was a body disabled by war, by the failings of human society, and the very first time the lead "steps into" the Avatar it is made massively clear that he is overjoyed to have found a freedom from his disabled body, I'm thinking especially on the shot that focuses on the Avatar's feet sinking into the soil
Furthermore it is made clear that the technology to give him legs exists in human society but that it is locked under an economic key, something which see's our leads hopes and aspirations chained to the brutal dictates of the Mining company. 

I don't see what is offensive about using such disability as a metaphor for capitalist society, I mean are we going to pretend that losing your legs isn't a negative thing.


----------



## girasol (Dec 22, 2009)

Did anyone notice the human avatars had 5 fingers but the real ones only had 4?


----------



## Mation (Dec 22, 2009)

Iemanja said:


> Did anyone notice the human avatars had 5 fingers but the real ones only had 4?


No.


----------



## Reno (Dec 22, 2009)

revol68 said:


> But it was a body disabled by war, by the failings of human society, and the very first time the lead "steps into" the Avatar it is made massively clear that he is overjoyed to have found a freedom from his disabled body, I'm thinking especially on the shot that focuses on the Avatar's feet sinking into the soil
> Furthermore it is made clear that the technology to give him legs exists in human society but that it is locked under an economic key, something which see's our leads hopes and aspirations chained to the brutal dictates of the Mining company.
> 
> I don't see what is offensive about using such disability as a metaphor for capitalist society, I mean are we going to pretend that losing your legs isn't a negative thing.



Cool, I misunderstood how it was meant. 

I was overcoffeinated when I wrote that.


----------



## likesfish (Dec 22, 2009)

so we've got this world full of really dangerous things and pissed off natives but theres a natural room tempraute superconductor

mmm we could try to fight them or we could just drop an smallish asteroid on them game over

not much of a story though

or slightly more sutble get the natives hooked on drugs/drink shiny things  and get them to work the mines


----------



## Pingu (Dec 22, 2009)

revol68 said:


> But it was a body disabled by war, by the failings of human society, and the very first time the lead "steps into" the Avatar it is made massively clear that he is overjoyed to have found a freedom from his disabled body, I'm thinking especially on the shot that focuses on the Avatar's feet sinking into the soil
> Furthermore it is made clear that the technology to give him legs exists in human society but that it is locked under an economic key, something which see's our leads hopes and aspirations chained to the brutal dictates of the Mining company.
> 
> I don't see what is offensive about using such disability as a metaphor for capitalist society, I mean are we going to pretend that losing your legs isn't a negative thing.


 

tbh that may be reading too much into it


----------



## revol68 (Dec 22, 2009)

Pingu said:


> tbh that may be reading too much into it



Whether Cameron explicitly meant it or not, it's still in there, we aren't transparent self contained entities, we always say more than we mean to. Or more to the point the overarching narrative will produce such subtexts organically even if the writer/director isn't fully aware of them.

Though having said all that I think the film is very explicit in it's subtext about the leads disability, infact the General says quite few times about 'getting his legs back' and the scene where he takes control over the Na'vi really beats it into us the fact he has found an empowerment in this body that he lacks in his own. I don't doubt for a second that Cameron was well aware of this.


----------



## girasol (Dec 22, 2009)

unobtainium


----------



## Mation (Dec 22, 2009)

revol68 said:


> But it was *a body disabled by war*, by the failings of human society, and the very first time the lead "steps into" the Avatar it is made massively clear that he is overjoyed to have found a freedom from his disabled body, I'm thinking especially on the shot that focuses on the Avatar's feet sinking into the soil
> Furthermore it is made clear that the technology to give him legs exists in human society but that it is locked under an economic key, something which see's our leads hopes and aspirations chained to the brutal dictates of the Mining company.
> 
> I don't see what is offensive about using such disability as a metaphor for capitalist society, I mean are we going to pretend that losing your legs isn't a negative thing.


Hmmm. Ok, yes I see and think I agree, specifically because of the part I've emboldened.





Iemanja said:


> unobtainium


 Bloke says that turned up first in the film, the name of which escapes me, where they have to pilot a shit into the earth to restart its core.

(spotted my typo but it's lolling me, so I'm leaving it )


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 22, 2009)

Iemanja said:


> unobtainium



That one name tells you everything about this film.


----------



## Reno (Dec 22, 2009)

Iemanja said:


> unobtainium




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium


----------



## revol68 (Dec 22, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> That one name tells you everything about this film.



It does sort of, afterall what at first appears to be a simplistic and one dimensional thing actually has a lot more going on. Unobtainium has been in use since the 50's and is something of an injoke within the Scientific community but in your ignorance, you assumed it was just a silly name made up for the film.


----------



## Mation (Dec 22, 2009)

revol68 said:


> It does sort of, afterall what at first appears to be a simplistic and one dimensional thing actually has a lot more going on. Unobtainium has been in use since the 50's and is something of an injoke within the Scientific community but in your ignorance, you assumed it was just a silly name made up for the film.


to be fair, it does sound like one. I hadn't noticed it before...


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 22, 2009)

Have you recently completed a module on film criticism perchance revvy?


----------



## Mation (Dec 22, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Have you recently completed a module on film criticism perchance revvy?


----------



## revol68 (Dec 22, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Have you recently completed a module on film criticism perchance revvy?



have i fuck.

The thing with Avatar is that it's all pretty much explicit as fuck, it wears it's admittedly cheesey heart on it's sleeve, there is no oh so hip self aware winks in it, no breaking of the 4th wall and it's soo much better for it.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 22, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Have you recently completed a module on film criticism perchance revvy?





Have you watched the Star Wars review yet?


----------



## revol68 (Dec 22, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> Have you watched the Star Wars review yet?



Avatar is the film George Lucas might of made if he wasn't a no neck piece of shit.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 22, 2009)

Someone needs to make an alternative set of Star Wars prequels.  Call the first one prototyping.


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 22, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> Have you watched the Star Wars review yet?



Is the the 70 minute rant against TPM? No, not yet, and I'm unlikely to do so I suspect...unless it's piss your pants funny, anyway.


----------



## girasol (Dec 22, 2009)

Reno said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium



yep, I checked that out too...  what will we do without wikipedia?



> Unobtainium is a humorous name for any extremely rare, costly, or physically impossible material needed to fulfill a given design for a given application.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 22, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Is the the 70 minute rant against TPM? No, not yet, and I'm unlikely to do so I suspect...unless it's piss your pants funny, anyway.



It's one of the funniest things I've ever found on the internet.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 22, 2009)

revol68 said:


> Avatar is the film George Lucas might of made if he wasn't a no neck piece of shit.



Agreed.  I still say that things like the Batman films are much better, but at the same time, Avatar was a far bigger success than Phantom Menace etc


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 22, 2009)

I still haven't seen it yet (probably a boxing day special) but JSF:

Avatar claims worldwide opening of $232 million 

So even if, as it's rumoured, the film cost $300m+ to make, JC and Fox are still gonna be in the money (much like Titanic, in fact...so my prediction about it being panned but making $$$s was bang on ) from the theatrical release...


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 22, 2009)

It's got about 83% on RT, which doesn't really represent Panneration.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 22, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> I still haven't seen it yet (probably a boxing day special) but JSF:
> 
> Avatar claims worldwide opening of $232 million
> 
> So even if, as it's rumoured, the film cost $300m+ to make, JC and Fox are still gonna be in the money (much like Titanic, in fact...so my prediction about it being panned but making $$$s was bang on ) from the theatrical release...



Have you not noticed a trend yet, y'know that the vast majority of people who have actually seen it have said it is very good to excellent, infact the only person I can think of who thought it was crap is Kid Eternity but he's a muppet.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 22, 2009)

revol68 said:


> Have you not noticed a trend yet, y'know that the vast majority of people who have actually seen it have said it is very good to excellent, infact the only person I can think of who thought it was crap is Kid Eternity but he's a muppet.



KE didn't like Final Fantasy VII either. He doesn't have a soul


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 22, 2009)

Yes, much like Titanic - serious reviews marked it down, popular reviews said it was good, public absolutely adored it.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 22, 2009)

I do fear for Avatar if Jefe is let loose on it though 

Can you imagine how scathing he would be


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 22, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> So my prediction about it being panned but making $$$s was bang on



As others have already said, it's got 89% on rottn tomatoes fom top critics. That's exceptionally high, so very little panning indeed, which makes your prediction bang off


----------



## revol68 (Dec 22, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Yes, much like Titanic - serious reviews marked it down, popular reviews said it was good, public absolutely adored it.




The serious reviews have been very positive for Avatar, I mean I'm pretty certain the Wall Street Journal is a pretty serious publication.

And it's not just the mainstream publications like Empire, Little White Lies rated it highly too.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 22, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Yes, much like Titanic - serious reviews marked it down, popular reviews said it was good, public absolutely adored it.



But the serious reviews live it as well 

It's a spectacle. Enjoy it a such.


----------



## bi0boy (Dec 22, 2009)

It's in the top 6 films ever on IMDB ratings with 8.9, along with The Godfather, Pulp Fiction and Shawshank Redemption.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 22, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> I do fear for Avatar if Jefe is let loose on it though
> 
> Can you imagine how scathing he would be



that's cos he's a middle brow snob, the kind of cunt who rates Wes Anderson.


----------



## Mation (Dec 22, 2009)

bi0boy said:


> It's in the top 6 films ever on IMDB ratings with 8.9, along with The Godfather, Pulp Fiction and Shawshank Redemption.


Of those I'd only agree with Pulp Fiction, but reckon Avatar deserves top top marks, despite its flaws.


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 22, 2009)

ChrisFilter said:


> But the serious reviews live it as well
> 
> *It's a spectacle. Enjoy it a such*.



No need to tell me this. I've got a blockbuster movie bar set somewhere nea the bottom of the mid-Atlantic rift


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 22, 2009)

bi0boy said:


> It's in the top 6 films ever on IMDB ratings with 8.9, along with The Godfather, Pulp Fiction and Shawshank Redemption.



New films always do well on imdb. In fact, I don't bother with imdb for the reviews anymore. Still useful for cast lists though, and filmogrpahies.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 22, 2009)

The worst thing of all are the forums on IMDB


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 22, 2009)

Internet forums are the worst things in the world, generally speaking.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 22, 2009)

Yeah I think Urban has fooled me about the wider reality...


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 22, 2009)

revol68 said:


> It does sort of, afterall what at first appears to be a simplistic and one dimensional thing actually has a lot more going on. Unobtainium has been in use since the 50's and is something of an injoke within the Scientific community but in your ignorance, you assumed it was just a silly name made up for the film.



Your arrogance is outstanding. You're literally the biggest tool on the whole internet!


----------



## revol68 (Dec 22, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Your arrogance is outstanding. You're literally the biggest tool on the whole internet!



You're the arrogant (albeit ignorant) twat making the snidey comments, comments that certainly convey a sense of 'intellectual' snobbery towards a film that you obviously didn't get.


----------



## CJohn (Dec 22, 2009)

revol68 said:


> Yuck, lets not move the subtext from one of real material conflict to some wanky examination of conflicts within our 'inner psyche'.




Eh? I'm not though, I'm not separting things up into 'inner' conflicts that can be compared or contrasted to 'outer' conflicts. But more just looking at how the structuring of experience reflects the ways in which we _are_ in the world, and vice versa. Anyhows....


----------



## revol68 (Dec 22, 2009)

CJohn said:


> Eh? I'm not though, I'm not separting things up into 'inner' conflicts that can be compared or contrasted to 'outer' conflicts. But more just looking at how the structuring of experience reflects the ways in which we _are_ in the world, and vice versa. Anyhows....



Well whatever you are doing it castrates the most refreshing and interesting part of the film, it's unqualified side taking, the fact that it draws the battle lines clearly and whilst it allows characters to move between them, they have to move totally themselves.


----------



## CJohn (Dec 22, 2009)

revol68 said:


> Well whatever you are doing it castrates the most refreshing and interesting part of the film, it's unqualified side taking, the fact that it draws the battle lines clearly and whilst it allows characters to move between them, they have to move totally themselves.



Yeah and it made for a really good film! I suppose I'm just saying that this premise involves the fantasy that we can get rid of those aspects of our (individual or collective) selves that we feel shameful or guilty about.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 22, 2009)

CJohn said:


> Yeah and it made for a really good film! I suppose I'm just saying that this premise involves the fantasy that we can get rid of those aspects of our (individual or collective) selves that we feel shameful or guilty about.



See this is where you are turning it into some wanky psyche thing, it's not about that, it's not about guilt or whatever. The military aren't up to their antics because of some sort of mental issues, they are doing it for pure economic compulsion, it is an impersonal juggernaut, it works independent of the whims of the people in it, which is why it was great that he didn't waste time trying to humanise the military side or making them anything but cartoon villians, because in the end capitalism is a cartoonesque villian, it really does strive for total domination, for accumulation for accumulation's sake. It comes down to the fact that their can be no middle ground between, no harmonious synthesis or even temporal balances arising between conflicting interests, it is all or nothing.

Capitalism and the human and environmental destruction it entails can and must be purged, it must be got rid of totally, they aren't guilty parts of ourselves. If we start thinking of the two opposing sides as representing internal parts of our own psyche we completely miss the point. 

Cameron has essentially made a millenarian movie and whilst it obviously contains a lot of new age Gaia inspired nonsense, it makes up for it by making clear that there are battle lines being drawn and we will be forced to pick sides.


----------



## CJohn (Dec 22, 2009)

It _is_ crucially important to pick a side and commit oneself to action, taking a stand or whatever. No of course I don't want Cameron humanising the military and having some nice harmonious relationship between the naa'vi and the invaders, that would likely make for a very boring film. I'm just saying that we can still pick sides without having to turn the enemy into some sort of caricatured cartoon version of everything we can't tolerate about ourselves. Taking a stand, whether it be violent or not, then becomes something inherently tragic, thus curbing the sadistic excesses that result from dehumanizing the other (turning them into objects as opposed to subjects). And my point is that the film presents a somewhat fragmented view of the human condition, reflecting the fluidity of identity in this age, and that I feel this splitting of the self is basically an unheathy thing for us individually and collectively.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 22, 2009)

CJohn said:


> It _is_ crucially important to pick a side and commit oneself to action, taking a stand or whatever. No of course I don't want Cameron humanising the military and having some nice harmonious relationship between the naa'vi and the invaders, that would likely make for a very boring film. I'm just saying that we can still pick sides without having to turn the enemy into some sort of caricatured cartoon version of everything we can't tolerate about ourselves. Taking a stand, whether it be violent or not, then becomes something inherently tragic, thus curbing the sadistic excesses that result from dehumanizing the other (turning them into objects as opposed to subjects). And my point is that the film presents a somewhat fragmented view of the human condition, reflecting the fluidity of identity in this age, and that I feel this splitting of the self is basically an unheathy thing for us individually and collectively.



But it's not about some shit we can't tolerate in ourselves, to loath capitalism and US militarism isn't born out of some sort of need to externalise something within ourselves, such notions are a lot of liberal wank. I don't want to see Tony Blair hanging by his entrails because of some sort of sublimated self loathing, I want to see it because he is a lying piece of shit who should pay for his sins, it's not like it's some acting out to maks the fact that deep down I really wanted to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.

The role of humanisation in modern 'anti war' films has been fundamentally one of grasping moral victory out of the jaws of defeat, the brutality of war and the crimes US soldiers carry out are played out as American tragedies (Deer Hunter is the ultimate piece of disgusting shit in this regard) rather than what they primarily are, murderous acts on others, others who rarely figure other than a props for the playing out of emotions within the American forces.

Also you're talk of guilt etc implies some sort of equality of guilt that all humanity carries, this is liberal humanist bullshit, I'm afraid I simply am not guilty for capitalism in the same sense that a CEO or a leading politician are, nor are the charred victims of US cruise missiles. There is no universal human condition in this regard, capitalism etc aren't universal tragedies for us all, we don't all suffer the same, infact some people do very well out it and fight tooth and nail to uphold.

This film was so refreshing because it avoided all this bollocks and boiled it down to two sides and choices, it gladfully spared us any long winded agnst ridden scenes where the characters wrestled with their thoughts and emotions, because it was about something at a level above such banalness (that masquerades as depth), it was primarily about Politics.


----------



## CJohn (Dec 22, 2009)

Yeah I do see what you're getting at - good post. And I would hate to run the risk of looking to turn everything into some sort of ultimately meaningless internal 'drama'. I stand by my last post, and Hollywoods poor representation of 'tragic commitment to action' (as I put it) shouldn't have any real bearing on my argument that; yes we need to choose, but we must do so in a way that preserves our own humanity. 

Or something. I'm off to get pissed!!


----------



## live_jayeola (Dec 23, 2009)

Great flick! Only worth it if you see it in 3D. "Cinematography" is excellent. According to the entry on wikipedia Cameron waited for  few years until the "technology caught up". I can see why.


----------



## Gromit (Dec 23, 2009)

live_jayeola said:


> Great flick! Only worth it if you see it in 3D. "Cinematography" is excellent. According to the entry on wikipedia Cameron waited for few years until the "technology caught up". I can see why.


 
Loved the Cinematography but could do without the 3D tbh.

A good film puts you into a trance state where you immerse yourself in the film.

The 3D in Avatar kept pulling me out of that state due to the concious noticing of said 3D effects.

The best effects affect you sub-conciously so that you remain lost in the film.


----------



## likesfish (Dec 23, 2009)

avatar 2 set in a court where evil corporation tries to defend itself from allegations that it was invovled in the comet strike that wiped out all life on pandora


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 23, 2009)

You don't half overanalyse things Revol


----------



## revol68 (Dec 23, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> You don't half overanalyse things Revol





But seriously it's all pretty explicit in Avatar.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 23, 2009)

likesfish said:


> avatar 2 set in a court where evil corporation tries to defend itself from allegations that it was invovled in the comet strike that wiped out all life on pandora



Holy shit! Is that a spoiler?


----------



## revol68 (Dec 23, 2009)

jer said:


> Holy shit! Is that a spoiler?



I would doubt it, I thinks it's just a crap joke.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 23, 2009)

revol68 said:


> But seriously it's all pretty explicit in Avatar.



Yeah but you do it with everything.  

I still don't think it's wholly unique.  I mean apart from Vader's conciliation with Luke, Star Wars still portrays the Empire as unrepentently evil.  My mate reckoned Star Wars was about guilt over Vietnam.  Perhaps cos the baddies are English that confuses everyone so they got away with it?

I do think Palpatine was based on Nixon though


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 23, 2009)

revol68 said:


> I would doubt it, I thinks it's just a crap joke.


----------



## gaijingirl (Dec 23, 2009)

Fell asleep in this today too - last week I fell asleep in A Serious Man.    Any recommendations of what to fall asleep to next?

In seriousness, I thought it was pretty cheesy, way too long and I wasn't overly keen on the 3D tbh... it looked very beautiful though.  I felt it could have done with being half the length because by the 2nd half it was one big bag of cliche I thought....


----------



## likesfish (Dec 23, 2009)

tbf 

  one side has interstellar travel the other rides around on big flying lizards.
 even if the savages run a tactical victory.
 the evil capatalists  can just drop rocks on them from orbit. I'd go for a comet strike they happened on earth and deniable.
 when bluepeace or space shepard turn up asking akward questions
 be bit of a shit film though


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 23, 2009)

likesfish said:


> tbf
> 
> one side has interstellar travel the other rides around on big flying lizards.
> even if the savages run a tactical victory.
> ...



Yes, you may be able to defeat militarily. But the opposing force simply has to make the resource desired so expensive that the bigger boys give up.

Sometimes though, that resource is worth all power to obtain. At this point the natives have only one option. The power to destroy that resource utterly. Then they have leverage.


----------



## Gromit (Dec 23, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Yes, you may be able to defeat militarily. But the opposing force simply has to make the resource desired so expensive that the bigger boys give up.
> 
> Sometimes though, that resource is worth all power to obtain. At this point the natives have only one option. The power to destroy that resource utterly. Then they have leverage.



Dune fan boi?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 23, 2009)

Gromit said:


> Dune fan boi?



Key logs mate, key logs. He who controls the spice...


----------



## likesfish (Dec 23, 2009)

not really  if you have intersteller travel ability dropping a comet on a planet got to be cheaper than arsing about setting a military force.
 tea and porn mags transmitted across hundred of light years has go to cost a fair packet.
 inca's aztecs american indians maoris etc had no leverage


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 23, 2009)

Gromit said:


> Loved the Cinematography but could do without the 3D tbh.
> 
> A good film puts you into a trance state where you immerse yourself in the film.
> 
> ...



See for me the beauty of the 3D was that it didn't distract me from the film, it just enhanced what was already there.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 23, 2009)

gaijingirl said:


> Fell asleep in this today too - last week I fell asleep in A Serious Man.    Any recommendations of what to fall asleep to next?
> 
> In seriousness, I thought it was pretty cheesy, way too long and I wasn't overly keen on the 3D tbh... it looked very beautiful though.  I felt it could have done with being half the length because by the 2nd half it was one big bag of cliche I thought....



I normally struggle with long films but didn't with this. 

I didn't mind the cheese, on the whole, but it did jar a little in a couple of places. 

Is it just me who thought Sigourney Weaver was a bit shit?

And what kind of name is Sigourney anyway?


----------



## Reno (Dec 23, 2009)

ChrisFilter said:


> Is it just me who thought Sigourney Weaver was a bit shit?



I thought she was great. I wasn't so sure about her wig though.



ChrisFilter said:


> And what kind of name is Sigourney anyway?



Sigourney Howard was a character in Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby. She adopted it as her stage name.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 23, 2009)

Yeah, I liked Sigourney too.  The bit where she goes 'Run! Definitely run!' is quality

Revol might find this interesting

http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/1...ertion-treason-and-anti-capitalist-rebellion/


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 23, 2009)

i went and spent over £20 on a ticket for a seat in the front middle of the royal circle at the odeon leicester square as james cameron had personally recommended that cinema to an acquaintance as the best one to view avatar in the country. 
the 3d was pretty amazing in places but i nodded off a couple of times as i found a lot of it dull, even some of the action scenes. the less said about the dialogue the better. the acting is universally appalling, even weaver's is shocking, but the script is mostly to blame for that. the music is horridious and really distracting.
the end battle is undoubtedly awesome and very gratifying to watch, but most of the film felt like apocalypto and the jungle scenes in king kong. running. lots of running. running and chasing and weird creatures running and chasing. although the na'vi and their environment are expertly realised and vivid, none of the sights you are greeted with are singular enough to be surprising or novel to really capture my imaginarion. it was all too familiar - 70s/80s fantasy art kinda familiar.
you should still go see it cos it is still quite an experience. i don't see how it's gonna work on dvd. it would just be a very dull and long cut scene from a crap fantasy video game.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 24, 2009)

Jesus shitting christ

'These people need to learn that we don't stop'

And there it is, In a nutshell. Not the noble savage aspect, not the bribed marine and his science obsessed handlers. 

Very good film, visually and plotwise.


----------



## spacemonkey (Dec 24, 2009)

I like this geeky explanation of the floating mountains (from reddit)



> About the floating mountains: From a Condensed Matter physicist.
> The reason humans are on Pandora is to mine a mineral, Unobtainium. I speculate that this is a high-temperature superconductor. First, I will review a few facts about High Tc superconductors. In the second paragraph I will point out several pieces of evidence that support my conclusion.
> 
> Type 2 superconductors were discovered in the 1980s, by accident. After over 20 years of theoretical and experimental study, we still cannot explain exactly how they work. There is no theoretical limit to the temperature at which materials can superconduct. No one knows if there are more than 2 types of superconductors. A very peculiar behavior (of a substance we discovered by accident) is that when lowered from above the superconducting critical temperature in the presence of a magnetic field, they trap the magnetic flux inside the superconducting region. If the magnetic field has a gradient, the superconductor will remain locked in place and float. Here is a pic. If we were able to find a high temperature superconductor, it would be extremely valuable, possibly millions of dollars per pound.
> ...


----------



## revol68 (Dec 24, 2009)

spacemonkey said:


> I like this geeky explanation of the floating mountains (from reddit)


----------



## spacemonkey (Dec 24, 2009)

revol68 said:


>



What? 

I thought the science of Avatar was brilliant.


----------



## Biglittlefish (Dec 24, 2009)

Utter shit. Predictable from start to finish. I was sitting there thinking, o heres the bit where he decides he likes the locals, o here's the bit where he fights the military guy, etc. Yawn. Yawn, fucking yawn.

The 3d looked good though and make up for the piss poor computer generated effects.


----------



## Gromit (Dec 24, 2009)

spacemonkey said:


> I like this geeky explanation of the floating mountains (from reddit)



The mountains float due to a Magritte field provided by Rene trees.


----------



## girasol (Dec 24, 2009)

ChrisFilter said:


> I normally struggle with long films but didn't with this.
> 
> I didn't mind the cheese, on the whole, but it did jar a little in a couple of places.
> 
> ...



Sigourney is never shit! 

She's 60 years old!  You don't often get good roles for 60 year old women!  She's one of the strongest female role models for my generation   (Her real name is Susan)

And although the story is totally predictable, in this case it's not what the story is that matters, it's how it's told


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 24, 2009)

i personally think that's bollocks - it all matters - acting, script, story etc - it's lazy to think you can get away with shoddiness if just one element of your presentation is amazing and nothing else.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 24, 2009)

Biglittlefish said:


> Utter shit. Predictable from start to finish. I was sitting there thinking, o heres the bit where he decides he likes the locals, o here's the bit where he fights the military guy, etc. Yawn. Yawn, fucking yawn.
> 
> The 3d looked good though and make up for the piss poor computer generated effects.



There were moments where the animal design looked quite nice and then they moved and it was like some stop motion out of clash of the titans...the 3D bits were not consistent enough to really hold attention. And unobtainium? Seriously I couldn't give a fuck if it's some wanky injoke it's a stupid fucking name!!


----------



## Reno (Dec 24, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> There were moments where the animal design looked quite nice and then they moved and it was like some stop motion out of clash of the titans...



I think you watched a different film from me there.


----------



## bi0boy (Dec 24, 2009)

What's wrong with predictable stories?


----------



## little_legs (Dec 25, 2009)

What a load of brown tripe! Appalling.


----------



## Intastella (Dec 28, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> i personally think that's bollocks - it all matters - acting, script, story etc - *it's lazy to think you can get away with shoddiness if just one element of your presentation is amazing and nothing else.*



This ^^

Good visually but the story was transparent and weak IMO. Looked like he'd taken his fave bits out of other films and cobbled them together in parts. 

Dialogue...urgh 

All style over substance...which is a shame, coz i was really looking forward to it. Good for watching off your head, but that's about it.


----------



## Stigmata (Dec 28, 2009)

I quite enjoyed it, but I can't see it working on the small screen.

Sigourney Weaver 

Michelle Rodriguez


----------



## Stigmata (Dec 28, 2009)

Also I know this guy who's a sci fi nerd, a rainforest/environment nut and a former US Marine with an arse fetish. He declared it the greatest film he'd ever seen.


----------



## cliche guevara (Dec 28, 2009)

Right, sorry for not reading the thread, but do you have to wear glasses to watch this film in 3D? And if so, how does that work for people who have to wear glasses to see?


----------



## spacemonkey (Dec 28, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> Right, sorry for not reading the thread, but do you have to wear glasses to watch this film in 3D? And if so, how does that work for people who have to wear glasses to see?



Yes. You have to wear special 3d glasses, they're polarised (so not like the old red & green glasses).

They can be worn over regular glasses easily.


----------



## Cadmus (Dec 28, 2009)

yes but it still uses the red and blue technology.

i have a mate who can't see 3D cos she's got a dodgy left eye. she sees on it but when she covers her right eye the left one starts shaking left-right (it's some muscle issue). her right eye has therefore taken over the function of the left and she sees eveything with that eye so in order to watch this movie she had to use two sets of 3D glasses to combine the red and blue image on her right eye and all that went on top of regular glasses!!


----------



## Reno (Dec 28, 2009)

Cadmus said:


> yes but it still uses the red and blue technology.



No, it doesn't.


----------



## cliche guevara (Dec 28, 2009)

spacemonkey said:


> Yes. You have to wear special 3d glasses, they're polarised (so not like the old red & green glasses).
> 
> They can be worn over regular glasses easily.



Thanks


----------



## audiotech (Dec 28, 2009)

I've just watched this on my laptop and despite the slow start I think the film deserves merit. The, Avatars, despite overwhelming odds, destroy those who use military might to defend corporate greed. Alway's good to see.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Dec 28, 2009)

watching it on your laptop and watching it on 3d at a big screen don't compare tbh. it's awesome in a cinema and the glory of the visuals completely overcomes the paucity of the story telling.

looking at the audience at the vue looked like a roy orbison night on  the x-factor or something....


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 28, 2009)

MC5 said:


> I've just watched this on my laptop and despite the slow start I think the film deserves merit. The, Avatars, despite overwhelming odds, destroy those who use military might to defend corporate greed. Alway's good to see.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 28, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> the glory of the visuals completely overcomes the paucity of the story telling.



I really bet they don't though. I'm prepared to give it a shot but I've never seen a film that's looked _so good_ it could get away with having a shit story - or been anywhere near that.

I've seen films which have _tried_.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Dec 28, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I really bet they don't though. I'm prepared to give it a shot but I've never seen a film that's looked _so good_ it could get away with having a shit story.


this may be that movie tbh. you spend the first 30 mins or so getting used to bits of the film appearing over your shoulder, and the rest of it marvelling at how you feel so close to what's happening. it is very very good visually and it does make up for a "dancing with wolves" story, (similarly drawn out too).


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 28, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I really bet they don't though. I'm prepared to give it a shot but I've never seen a film that's looked _so good_ it could get away with having a shit story - or been anywhere near that.
> 
> I've seen films which have _tried_.



Don't listen to him, this film isn't good.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Dec 28, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Don't listen to him, this film isn't good.


oh yes it is....


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 28, 2009)

I have very little to do and it's showing down the road from me. Can I ban you if it's shit?


----------



## audiotech (Dec 28, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


>



What's your problem? I needed cheering up after spending xmas eve and xmas day in an acute hospital ward and this did the job.


----------



## Reno (Dec 29, 2009)

People keep going on about Avatar being just "images" as if this was a slide show. Apart from the intricate way this world is designed and worked out, something that makes Avatar work for me is that unlike most directors working in big budget blockbusters today (Michael Bay, Stephen Sommers, Roland Emmerich, McG, Zach Snyder) Cameron is a director who can pull you into a story, invests a little bit in his characters and who can direct complex action sequences where you can actually see who does what to whom. Cameron may not be much of a writer (he really should co-write with someone else), but he is an old school director who knows how to structure a sequence and a film so it creates some tension and pays off on an emotional level. 

With exception of the likable Star Trek and the smaller scale District 9 and Moon, every other sci-fi blockbuster this year was total dross and whatever Avatars flaws may be, it's still head an shoulders above Terminator Salvation, X-Men Wolverine, Transformers 2, GI Joe. Something like Watchmen may look pretty, but it really felt like filmed, disconnected comic book panels and not like a film to me.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 29, 2009)

MC5 said:


> What's your problem? I needed cheering up after spending xmas eve and xmas day in an acute hospital ward and this did the job.


there wasn't anything on telly, granted. BUT you're missing the entire point of the film if you're watching it on a laptop.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 29, 2009)

I thought Watchmen was surprisingly good - and also an example of something that was visually quite spectacular (I saw it at the IMAX) but didn't rely on that to make up for other flaws. There *were* flaws but they were separate to the appearance.

Honestly, fuck GI Joe. The fact that there have been lots of shit films out recently, and I'd not argue with that, doesn't really alter whether this one is too.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Dec 29, 2009)

Reno said:


> People keep going on about Avatar being just "images" as if this was a slide show. Apart from the intricate way this world is designed and worked out, something that makes Avatar work for me is that unlike most directors working in big budget blockbusters today (Michael Bay, Stephen Sommers, Roland Emmerich, McG, Zach Snyder) Cameron is a director who can pull you into a story, invests a little bit in his characters and who can direct complex action sequences where you can actually see who does what to whom. Cameron may not be much of a writer (he really should co-write with someone else), but he is an old school director who knows how to structure a sequence and a film so it creates some tension and pays off on an emotional level.
> 
> With exception of the likable Star Trek and the smaller scale District 9 and Moon, every other sci-fi blockbuster this year was total dross and whatever Avatars flaws may be, it's still head an shoulders above Terminator Salvation, X-Men Wolverine, Transformers 2, GI Joe. Something like Watchmen may look pretty, but it really felt like filmed, disconnected comic book panels and not like a film to me.


yes, i know what you mean, you get sucked into the world of Pandora pretty effectively don't you and the story is simple but it's there. i liked it as much/maybe more than District 9 tbh.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 29, 2009)

Reno said:


> People keep going on about Avatar being just "images" as if this was a slide show. Apart from the intricate way this world is designed and worked out, something that makes Avatar work for me is that unlike most directors working in big budget blockbusters today (Michael Bay, Stephen Sommers, Roland Emmerich, McG, Zach Snyder) Cameron is a director who can pull you into a story, invests a little bit in his characters and who can direct complex action sequences where you can actually see who does what to whom. Cameron may not be much of a writer (he really should co-write with someone else), but he is an old school director who knows how to structure a sequence and a film so it creates some tension and pays off on an emotional level.
> 
> With exception of the likable Star Trek and the smaller scale District 9 and Moon, every other sci-fi blockbuster this year was total dross and whatever Avatars flaws may be, it's still head an shoulders above Terminator Salvation, X-Men Wolverine, Transformers 2, GI Joe. Something like Watchmen may look pretty, but it really felt like filmed, disconnected comic book panels and not like a film to me.


cameron can at least present a coherent narrative, granted. transformers and star trek are impossible to follow - so much is sacrificed in the name of spectacle.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 29, 2009)

also, i got much more emotionally involved with the characters in district 9 than in any other sci-fi spectacles i've seen in recent years.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Dec 29, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> also, i got much more emotionally involved with the characters in district 9 than in any other sci-fi spectacles i've seen in recent years.


you fecking prawn....


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 29, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> you fecking prawn....



i was rooting for the afrikaan middlemanagement fella all along


----------



## Cadmus (Dec 29, 2009)

Reno said:


> No, it doesn't.


It is much more discrete but it's there, I had a carefull look at the glasses and it's still two different colours.


----------



## Reno (Dec 29, 2009)

Cadmus said:


> It is much more discrete but it's there, I had a carefull look at the glasses and it's still two different colours.



The shimmer slightly in various colours but what is being used for modern 3-D is a circular polarization system, which has nothing to do with seperating the two images with blue and red.


----------



## Reno (Dec 29, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> also, i got much more emotionally involved with the characters in district 9 than in any other sci-fi spectacles i've seen in recent years.



_District 9_ is considered the underdog film and it keeps being brought up as superior to _Avatar_ in many discussions about the films. I enjoyed it well enough, but it's just as derivative as _Avatar_. It's _Alien Nation _meets Cronenberg's _The Fly_, given the _Cloverfield_ treatment. It has more of a sense of humor about itself, but its apartheid allegory is just as clunky as the "tree hugging" sentiments in _Avatar_.

In both films I thought the main alien character (Christopher 'the prawn', Netytiri) were pretty engaging.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 29, 2009)

MC5 said:


> *I've just watched this on my laptop *and despite the slow start I think the film deserves merit. The, Avatars, despite overwhelming odds, destroy those who use military might to defend corporate greed. Alway's good to see.



If true, you deserve a slap for that! 

I'm too broke to do much at all at the moment and I still paid to see it in the cinema



Seriously though, go and see it on the big screen if you can


----------



## revol68 (Dec 29, 2009)

Reno said:


> _District 9_ is considered the underdog film and it keeps being brought up as superior to _Avatar_ in many discussions about the films. I enjoyed it well enough, but it's just as derivative as _Avatar_. It's _Alien Nation _meets Cronenberg's _The Fly_, given the _Cloverfield_ treatment. It has more of a sense of humor about itself, but its apartheid allegory is just as clunky as the "tree hugging" sentiments in _Avatar_.
> 
> In both films I thought the main alien character (Christopher 'the prawn', Netytiri) were pretty engaging.



District 9 is much more than the obvious apartheid subtext, infact it's more to do with post Apartheid and the contradictions of liberalism.

District 9 is my movie of the year.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 29, 2009)

As much as I enjoyed District 9, Avatar impressed me more visually. Although suppose it really is a different aesrhetic. A shanty=town on a rubbish dump filmed by handcam-style, or those virulent green smooth forests.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 29, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> As much as I enjoyed District 9, Avatar impressed me more visually. Although suppose it really is a different aesrhetic. A shanty=town on a rubbish dump filmed by handcam-style, or those virulent green smooth forests.



Yeah Avatar is fucking awesome visually but in a really spectacular way, District 9 is visually brilliant in it's dusty shanty setting.

I also liked Il Divo, it has the best opening sequence in years.


----------



## Reno (Dec 29, 2009)

revol68 said:


> District 9 is much more than the obvious apartheid subtext, infact it's more to do with post Apartheid and the contradictions of liberalism.
> 
> District 9 is my movie of the year.



I liked District 9 more or less the same as Avatar and Star Trek. For a sci-fi action film it was pretty good, but I've seen quite a few films this year which I thought were far better.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 29, 2009)

Reno said:


> I liked District 9 more or less the same as Avatar and Star Trek. For a sci-fi action film it was pretty good, but I've seen quite a few films this year which I thought were far better.



I'm really not getting the Star Trek love fest, sure it was entertaining enough but instantly forgettable.


----------



## Reno (Dec 29, 2009)

revol68 said:


> I'm really not getting the Star Trek love fest, sure it was entertaining enough but instantly forgettable.



I'm not sure that liking Star Trek while also mentioning that there were quite a few better films this year, qualifies as a "love fest".


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 29, 2009)

I loved Star Trek, thought it was better than Avatar or District 9 by a distance


----------



## revol68 (Dec 29, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> I loved Star Trek, thought it was better than Avatar or District 9 by a distance


----------



## dlx1 (Dec 29, 2009)

_as of other post_

to see Avatar will cost 30 quid £9.00 ticket and train far to iMax. Think is it worth going to see in 3d ?


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 29, 2009)

dlx1 said:


> _as of other post_
> 
> to see Avatar will cost 30 quid £9.00 ticket and train far to iMax. Think is it worth going to see in 3d ?



If you can spare the dosh, yes.  This is one film you have to see in this format


----------



## free spirit (Dec 29, 2009)

dlx1 said:


> _as of other post_
> 
> to see Avatar will cost 30 quid £9.00 ticket and train far to iMax. Think is it worth going to see in 3d ?



yes.


----------



## Gromit (Dec 29, 2009)

dlx1 said:


> _as of other post_
> 
> to see Avatar will cost 30 quid £9.00 ticket and train far to iMax. Think is it worth going to see in 3d ?



I've paid that just to see 2d films in the iMax before now. If you love super big screen experiences then hell yeah treat yerself.


----------



## audiotech (Dec 29, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> there wasn't anything on telly, granted. BUT you're missing the entire point of the film if you're watching it on a laptop.



That it's in 3D? That's not a point, it's a technical process. As in every other film I've watched, I was interested in the story it tells, 3D, or no 3D.


----------



## Reno (Dec 29, 2009)

MC5 said:


> That it's in 3D? That's not a point, it's a technical process. As in every other film I've watched, I was interested in the story it tells, 3D, or no 3D.



Fair enough, you were in hospital and nothing else was on.

Still, films are a visual experience, some more than others and this one more than most. If they weren't then you might just as well read a book. I suppose it's the same as watching a film which takes particular care with it's colour cinematography on a B&W telly. Watching Avatar on a laptop, you still get the story (which is no great shakes in this case), but you don't really get why the film is considered a technical milestone.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Dec 30, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I really bet they don't though. I'm prepared to give it a shot but I've never seen a film that's looked _so good_ it could get away with having a shit story - or been anywhere near that.
> 
> I've seen films which have _tried_.



I thought it looked fab but the story was dreadful. 

I left after Michelle Rodriguez busted them out of jail - what happened after?


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 30, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> I left after Michelle Rodriguez busted them out of jail - what happened after?



All the good bits


----------



## 5t3IIa (Dec 30, 2009)

ChrisFilter said:


> All the good bits



Which were? 

Was that about halfway through? I couldn't face anymore


----------



## audiotech (Dec 30, 2009)

Reno said:


> Fair enough, you were in hospital and nothing else was on.
> 
> Still, films are a visual experience, some more than others and this one more than most. If they weren't then you might just as well read a book. I suppose it's the same as watching a film which takes particular care with it's colour cinematography on a B&W telly. Watching Avatar on a laptop, you still get the story (which is no great shakes in this case), but you don't really get why the film is considered a technical milestone.



Despite not viewing it on a format with cutting edge technical detail I still was amazed at the technical detail. If that makes sense.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 30, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Which were?
> 
> Was that about halfway through? I couldn't face anymore



So you did all the boringer bits and missed all the good bits. Gutted. The last hour was the pay-off for the iffy story during the first bits.

It's not a film for cynics. You have to let yourself get carried away by it.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Dec 30, 2009)

ChrisFilter said:


> So you did all the boringer bits and missed all the good bits. Gutted. The last hour was the pay-off for the iffy story during the first bits.
> 
> It's not a film for cynics. You have to let yourself get carried away by it.



I assumed that they were going to fight and win and that would be it.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 30, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> I assumed that they were going to fight and win and that would be it.



Well, yeah. But that's the pay-off.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Dec 30, 2009)

ChrisFilter said:


> Well, yeah. But that's the pay-off.



A predictable ending is the pay off for the rest of the predictable story? 

I liked Giovanni Ribisi


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 30, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> A predictable ending is the pay off for the rest of the predictable story?
> 
> I liked Giovanni Ribisi



Of course. Before going, did you really expect anything other than a big fight at the end with the goodies winning? Have you not seen a film before?


----------



## 5t3IIa (Dec 30, 2009)

ChrisFilter said:


> Of course. Before going, did you really expect anything other than a big fight at the end with the goodies winning? Have you not seen a film before?



Well, I did avoid reviews and this thread as I didn't want any spoilers so I didn't really know what the plot was. So I was disappointed, yeah.

Amazing new tech and the _possibilities_ and James Cameron!!!!11!! But now the Dancing with Smurfs gag makes sense.


----------



## Reno (Dec 30, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> A predictable ending is the pay off for the rest of the predictable story?
> 
> I liked Giovanni Ribisi



I can't believe the fuss people make now over the "predictable story". It seems to be the thing to say about Avatar on the Internets. I don't think it the story was any worse that those for most blockbuster movies and Cameron at least knows how to tell it reasonably well. You missed the most jaw-droppingly amazing battle scene ever shot. Some films just aren't about what happens, but how it happens and this is one of those.


----------



## Gromit (Dec 30, 2009)

TBH I'm kinda glad he kept the story predictably straight. Instead of a predictable twist which can be worse.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 30, 2009)

Reno said:


> I can't believe the fuss people make now over the "predictable story". It seems to be the thing to say about Avatar on the Internets. I don't think it the story was any worse that those for most blockbuster movies and Cameron at least knows how to tell it reasonably well. You missed the most jaw-droppingly amazing battle scene ever shot. Some films just aren't about what happens, but how it happens and this is one of those.



Action films are meant to be predictable, we go to them to see our underdog protaganist overcome impossible odds and they always do.

For all the predictablility and cheeseiness of Avatar no action film has had me so filled with a sense of raging injustice when the Na'vi are attacked or made me this >< close to pumping my fist in the air when they hit back. 

The only bit I groaned at was the mini twist where the animals join in on the attack, it could really have done without that new age wank.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 30, 2009)

Reno said:


> Fair enough, you were in hospital and nothing else was on.
> 
> Still, films are a visual experience, some more than others and this one more than most. If they weren't then you might just as well read a book. I suppose it's the same as watching a film which takes particular care with it's colour cinematography on a B&W telly. Watching Avatar on a laptop, you still get the story (which is no great shakes in this case), but you don't really get why the film is considered a technical milestone.



Word


----------



## revol68 (Dec 30, 2009)

Gromit said:


> TBH I'm kinda glad he kept the story predictably straight. Instead of a predictable twist which can be worse.



There really is nothing worse than the whole predictable mental twist that hit it's retarded golden age just after "The Sixth Sense".


----------



## 5t3IIa (Dec 30, 2009)

Reno said:


> I can't believe the fuss people make now over the "predictable story". It seems to be the thing to say about Avatar on the Internets. I don't think it the story was any worse that those for most blockbuster movies and Cameron at least knows how to tell it reasonably well. You missed the most jaw-droppingly amazing battle scene ever shot. Some films just aren't about what happens, but how it happens and this is one of those.



Hmm, I said I didn't read any reviews about this. I can come to an independant conclusion you know. I also said it looked amazing.

'Reasonably well', eh? Wow


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 30, 2009)

revol68 said:


> Action films are meant to be predictable, we go to them to see our underdog protaganist overcome impossible odds and they always do.
> 
> For all the predictablility and cheeseiness of Avatar no action film has had me so filled with a sense of raging injustice when the Na'vi are attacked or made me this >< close to pumping my fist in the air when they hit back.
> 
> The only bit I groaned at was the mini twist where the animals join in on the attack, it could really have done without that new age wank.



Nah, the animal bit was where I cheered the loudest 

I might go and watch it again when my meph comes 

*considers that wanking in the cinema, particularly over a pixellated, cinematic creation, might not be an outstanding career move at this juncture*

*Decides not to*

*Formulates plan to give meph to neighbour til tomorrow*


----------



## revol68 (Dec 30, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Hmm, I said I didn't read any reviews about this. I can come to an independant conclusion you know. I also said it looked amazing.
> 
> 'Reasonably well', eh? Wow



Like I said before peoples response to Avatar pretty much gives you a clue to whether they have managed to keep some sort of soul in an epoch of universal cynicism and irony.

I mean I'm a cynical twat and I was still sucked in by it, the only people who are bashing it tend to be try hard middle brow twats, taking easy pot shots at mainstream hollywood blockbusters.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 30, 2009)

I'm cynical too, I like blockbusters with a dark cynical edge - this was why I liked the X Men films and the new Batman films, they weren't typical Hollywood, and LOTR to an extent


----------



## 5t3IIa (Dec 30, 2009)

revol68 said:


> Like I said before peoples response to Avatar pretty much gives you a clue to whether they have managed to keep some sort of soul in an epoch of universal cynicism and irony.
> 
> I mean I'm a cynical twat and I was still sucked in by it, the only people who are bashing it tend to be try hard middle brow twats, taking easy pot shots at mainstream hollywood blockbusters.



I have a soul! I cried at _Casper_!!! He was only alive for one party and wasn't allowed to stay up til midnight 

I honestly don't think getting carried away with this film is anything to shout about. It was, as mentioned, noble savage v mindless militrial progress with gaia shit. It was hippy nonsense and a waste of nu tech talent.

 I am middle brow - I don't watch Harry Hill.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 30, 2009)

But avatar really overwhelmed me.  In fact i'm starting to like it more now I haven't seen for a bit.

Oh, here's the ultimate one: My brother is a bit of a Jefe when it comes to films, never likes mainstream blockbusters (thought Batman Begins was good but didn't like Dark Knight so much, generally doesn't like them), and he LOVED Avatar.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 30, 2009)

Harry Hill IS middlebrow!  He's proper "I'm an Alien!" Colin Hunt student-wacky.

Although I concede I am mostly basing that on his old programme, I accept he has become more mainstream


----------



## revol68 (Dec 30, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> Nah, the animal bit was where I cheered the loudest
> 
> I might go and watch it again when my meph comes
> 
> ...



No the animals bit was shit from every possible angle and undermined the heroism of fighting a military machine against impossible odds, of dignified rage in the face of an immoral universe and it made it to predestined and in doing so makes nearly worthless the Na'vi resistance.


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 30, 2009)

Well I'm not going to see it til the end of Jan, but have decent BFI IMAX seats booked.


----------



## Gromit (Dec 30, 2009)

revol68 said:


> The only bit I groaned at was the mini twist


 
I wouldn't even go so far as to call it a mini twist. They took so long to set it all up.

Hey the planet has a hive mind, all the plants and creatures are part of it, we killed our earth mother, let me pray to you to beseech your help.

Was there any concievable way that the planet wasn't going to unleash a horde of nature's fury?


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 30, 2009)

> Was there any concievable way that the planet wasn't going to unleash a horde of nature's fury?



A real twist would have been natures fury up against some properly heavy ordnance, maybe a crust buster...


----------



## revol68 (Dec 30, 2009)

Gromit said:


> I wouldn't even go so far as to call it a mini twist. They took so long to set it all up.
> 
> Hey the planet has a hive mind, all the plants and creatures are part of it, we killed our earth mother, let me pray to you to beseech your help.
> 
> Was there any concievable way that the planet wasn't going to unleash a horde of nature's fury?



Well I was praying it wouldn't end up in that and actually did semi buy into the bit where the Na'vi girl says the planet doesn't take sides.

I was hoping that was a split from the new age shit and a call to existentialist arms.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 30, 2009)

Yeah but it was alien animals battering robots.

It wasn't an Ewok style bit, was pure fucking nature's rage.  It does happen in real life - earthquakes, etc


----------



## Reno (Dec 30, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Hmm, I said I didn't read any reviews about this. I can come to an independant conclusion you know. I also said it looked amazing.
> 
> 'Reasonably well', eh? Wow



Ah, the always eloquent rolleyes smiley that is autmoatically supposed to discount what anybody else is saying.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 30, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> Yeah but it was alien animals battering robots.
> 
> It wasn't an Ewok style bit, was pure fucking nature's rage.  It does happen in real life - earthquakes, etc



But there is no direction or meaning to earthquakes and natural disasters, nature is a cruel immoral beast, it's only us that brings meaning to the world.

If the planet could have done that from the start then why did it let the Na'vi get fucked up? This new age mother earth shit leaves itself open to same accusations since The Book of Job.

And I don't care what anyone says the Ewoks were fucking cool!


----------



## 5t3IIa (Dec 30, 2009)

Reno said:


> Ah, the always eloquent rolleyes smiley that is autmoatically supposed to discount what anybody else is saying.



I do apologise and take the rolleyes back. I certainly don't want to argue on the internet about  art


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 30, 2009)

revol68 said:


> And I don't care what anyone says the Ewoks were fucking cool!





Come on, where the fuck is my meph


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 30, 2009)

Stop spoilering it you cocks.  Fuck's sake. The _one even vaguely surprising plot twist_ and you've now ruined it.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 30, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Stop spoilering it you cocks.  Fuck's sake. The _one even vaguely surprising plot twist_ and you've now ruined it.



go see it already ffs!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 30, 2009)

I was thinking of going to see it this afternoon but I think I'll play Dragon Age instead now.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Dec 30, 2009)

Yeah, go and see it. You're not a hard hearted nu urban groover and will get like totally swept up in the poetry of it, I bet.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 30, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> I have a soul! I cried at _Casper_!!! He was only alive for one party and wasn't allowed to stay up til midnight
> 
> I honestly don't think getting carried away with this film is anything to shout about. It was, as mentioned, noble savage v mindless militrial progress with gaia shit. It was hippy nonsense and a waste of nu tech talent.
> 
> I am middle brow - I don't watch Harry Hill.



Brave women, my respect for you knows no bounds, expressing a less than stella opinion about Avatar on here with the film snob tweedle dee and tweedle dum about!


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 30, 2009)

Come on, what possible spoilers could there be to a Dances With Giant Smurfs Vs Aliens movie? I'm looking forward to having a treat for the senses, but not too fussed about spoilers.

Unless Zoe Saldana changes into a human body. I'd like that information to remain a surprise.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Dec 30, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Brave women, my respect for you knows no bounds, expressing a less than stella opinion about Avatar on here with the film snob tweedle dee and tweedle dum about!





Not so brave. I apologised for rolling my eyes at Reno


----------



## revol68 (Dec 30, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Brave women, my respect for you knows no bounds, expressing a less than stella opinion about Avatar on here with the film snob tweedle dee and tweedle dum about!



Liking Avatar is a strange definition of a film snob.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Come on, what possible spoilers could there be to a Dances With Giant Smurfs Vs Aliens movie? I'm looking forward to having a treat for the senses, but not too fussed about spoilers.
> 
> Unless Zoe Saldana changes into a human body. I'd like that information to remain a surprise.



The Na'vi scat orgy scene was a bit of a twist, especially when their technicolour shit specks were flying towards you.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Dec 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Come on, what possible spoilers could there be to a Dances With Giant Smurfs Vs *Aliens *movie? I'm looking forward to having a treat for the senses, but not too fussed about spoilers.
> 
> Unless Zoe Saldana changes into a human body. I'd like that information to remain a surprise.



Hey! Careful with comparing  stuff to Aliens  Just cuz it was Cameron doesn't mean he made anything like the same effort with plot and dialogue in this HIPPY NONSENSE. 

I have the biggest urge to say something about the magical negro but tbh I'm too scared to.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 30, 2009)

revol68 said:


> Liking Avatar is a strange definition of a film snob.



The pathetic attitude to those who dare not to follow the group is.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 30, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> The pathetic attitude to those who dare not to follow the group is.



you mean the contempt for would be middle brow film snobs trying to look cool and edgy by making tideous and banal criticisms of a sci fi blockbuster.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 30, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> I have the biggest urge to say something about the magical negro but tbh I'm too scared to.



Why? I thought that myself. 

A black couple in front of me at the cinema expressed a few times that they thought it was slightly racist.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Dec 30, 2009)

revol68 said:


> you mean the contempt for would be middle brow film snobs trying to look cool and edgy by making tideous and banal criticisms of a sci fi blockbuster.



You're on about how transendent it is though, not that it was a half decent blockbuster. How you don't expect people to diagree with that is surprising. 



ChrisFilter said:


> Why? I thought that myself.
> 
> A black couple in front of me at the cinema expressed a few times that they thought it was slightly racist.



It was my first thought on seeing/hearing the Na'vi. Cheap lazy ffs, really shittly annoying and I got proper turned off.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 30, 2009)

ChrisFilter said:


> Why? I thought that myself.
> 
> A black couple in front of me at the cinema expressed a few times that they thought it was slightly racist.



Yeah but I thought it was closer to the 'magical native' and the one good thing in the end wasn't that the human society learned to reform and enlighten itself from this encounter with the "irrational other" but instead actually gets fucking destroyed in a fuck off fight to the death.

Usually the magical negro character gives some insight to our hero and then smuffs it.

Also has Forrest Whittaker played the most magical negro roles, I think he has.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 30, 2009)

My point was that the obvious criticisms that are so easy to make for any middle brow nob miss the bigger picture, mainly what is soo refreshing about it.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 30, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> It was my first thought on seeing/hearing the Na'vi. Cheap lazy ffs, really shittly annoying and I got proper turned off.



Yeah, it annoyed me as well.


----------



## Combustible (Dec 30, 2009)

Thought it was pretty entertaining even if it was too long and predictable.  Tbh I thought it had more similarities to Dune (but with 'noble savages') than Pocahontas.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 30, 2009)

revol68 said:


> Also has Forrest Whittaker played the most magical negro roles, I think he has.



ghost Dog is a bit of a magical negro antihero though.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 30, 2009)

Combustible said:


> Tbh I thought it had more similarities to Dune (but with 'noble savages') than Pocahontas.



Except that, to be fair to it, it wasn't total shite.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 30, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> ghost Dog is a bit of a magical negro antihero though.



Ghost Dog is brilliant, it's more about the breakdown of honour and any sort of moral code in the face of capitalism.

Also he probably gets more of those roles because of his funny eye, y'know with the whole cliche of developing other senses wah wah.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Dec 30, 2009)

revol68 said:


> My point was that the obvious criticisms that are so easy to make for any middle brow nob miss the bigger picture, mainly what is soo refreshing about it.



What was 'so refreshing' about it?


----------



## Reno (Dec 30, 2009)

The Na'vi weren't "noble savages." It turns out that anything that could be considered as superstition or religion (that means primitive) turns out to be hard scientific fact in Avatar, which makes the Na'vi highly civilised. They just don't have a machine based civilisation, they have one that uses plants and animals to the same degree of sophistication that humans use machines. 

It really helps to look at things within context of a film rather than just imposing a first term cultural criticism onto a text and throwing around terms like "magical negro", a stereotype the film actually manages to subvert. 

Mind, it's always handy to have a "black couple" sitting nearby to guide one as ones moral compass.


----------



## Reno (Dec 30, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> What was 'so refreshing' about it?



The intricate and detailed world it creates which looks and feels completely different from anything else that's out now. The fact that it is a milestone in film making technology.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Dec 30, 2009)

Reno said:


> The Na'vi weren't "noble savages." It turns out that anything that could be considered as superstition or religion (that means primitive) turns out to be hard scientific fact in Avatar, which makes the Na'vi highly civilised. They just don't have a machine based civilisation, they have one that uses plants and animals to the same degree of sophistication that humans use machines.
> 
> It really helps to look at things within context of a film rather than just imposing a first term cultural criticism onto a text and throwing around terms like "magical negro", a stereotype the film actually manages to subvert.
> 
> Mind, it's always handy to have a "black couple" sitting nearby to guide one as ones moral compass.



I didnt' throw the term! But thanks, I learned something.



Reno said:


> The intricate and detailed world it creates which looks and feels completely different from anything else that's out now. The fact that it is a milestone in film making technology.



Film making technology! Yes! Not plot.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 30, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> What was 'so refreshing' about it?



To be a wanker and quote myself.



> As for the hype, well actually the hype almost worked against it, there was a massive backlash in the two weeks running up to it's release and certainly me and my girlfriend went in expecting the worst, to be really pleasantly surprised by not only it's aesthetics but the not so "sub" political subtext that has a lot more balls than 99% of pseudo critical War movies.
> 
> Sure it has it's tripe Noble Savage, at one with nature cliches and predictably sticks to the standard "Hero" narrative and the inherent structural privileging that implies ie the "human" lead doesn't simply join the Na'vi but ends up leading them, but to focus on these obvious failings universal to almost every mainstream movie is to miss the many ways the film stands out, for example;
> 
> ...


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 30, 2009)

Reno said:


> Mind, it's always handy to have a "black couple" sitting nearby to guide one as ones moral compass.



Easy tiger, I loved the film. In fact, I was joining you in getting excited about if you look back. But I did think the pretty obviously black 'natives' was a little lazy. 

And are you suggesting I fabricated the people around me in the cinema? That's a bit sad.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 30, 2009)

ChrisFilter said:


> Easy tiger, I loved the film. But I did think the pretty obviously black natives was a little lazy.
> 
> And are you suggesting I fabricated the people around me in the cinema? That's a bit sad.



If the black couple were seeing it as a 'black natives' I reckon they should widen their grasp of history and cop onto the fact that if anything the Na'vi are closer to the Native American noble savage myth.

Fuck sure Chris Rock does a sketch about it.

"That ain't Pocahontas, that's Jennifer fucking Lopez!"


----------



## Reno (Dec 30, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Film making technology! Yes! Not plot.



It's incredibly reductive to define the quality of a film entirely by "plot". I'd have to dismiss a lot of my favourite films if I judged them just by the quality of their plot. It's a uniquely Britsh view that films should be entirely judged by the quality of their writing, like books or the theatre, instead of looking at them as a medium that should be visually pleasurable and that often works best in its most intangible qualities. 

My all time favourite film is Vertigo. Its plot makes next to no sense and yet it's one of the most profound cinematic experiences I can think of. Dario Argento's Suspira has next to no plot and yet it is a film whose world I like to visit again and again.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 30, 2009)

revol68 said:


> If the black couple were seeing it as a 'black natives' I reckon they should widen their grasp of history and cop onto the fact that if anything the Na'vi are closer to the Native American noble savage myth.
> 
> Fuck sure Chris Rock does a sketch about it.
> 
> "That ain't Pocahontas, that's Jennifer fucking Lopez!"



I'm not talking about their culture (which I agree, was very native American or Amerindian), I'm talking about the actors, the language and the accents. They're black, there's no two ways about it.


----------



## Combustible (Dec 30, 2009)

Reno said:


> The Na'vi weren't "noble savages." It turns out that anything that could be considered as superstition or religion (that means primitive) turns out to be hard scientific fact in Avatar, which makes the Na'vi highly civilised. They just don't have a machine based civilisation, they have one that uses plants and animals to the same degree of sophistication that humans use machines.



Noble Savages is perhaps the wrong term because as you say what appear to be rituals are in fact not.  But by making the Na'vi an almost perfectly harmonious and non destructive race does feel a bit of a moral cop out especially as they never face any real dilemmas about it.  This in comparison to the Fremen in Dune for example.  

It's quite understandable why this would be done for a mainstream film however and as Revol68 says in many ways it was pretty uncompromising in a way you might not expect for a blockbuster.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 30, 2009)

ChrisFilter said:


> I'm not talking about their culture (which I agree, was very native American or Amerindian), I'm talking about the actors, the language and the accents. They're black, there's no two ways about it.



There is some sort of universal black accent and language now is their?

I'd tell that black couple to be less self obsessed afro centric nobs.


----------



## Gromit (Dec 30, 2009)

Tsu'tey & Neytiri are played by black actors.

Guy who plays Eytukan is Cherokee.


----------



## Reno (Dec 30, 2009)

Gromit said:


> Tsu'tey & Neytiri are played by black actors.
> 
> Guy who plays Eytukan is Cherokee.



I only recently noticed that Moat, Neytiri's mother was played by the always excellent CCH Pounder. She's one of my favourite character actresses and probably most famous as Claudette Wyms in The Shield.


----------



## laptop (Dec 30, 2009)

Gromit said:


> Tsu'tey... played by black actor...



And that was the character of whom I thought: "yep, he blaaack".


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 30, 2009)

ChrisFilter said:


> Easy tiger, I loved the film. In fact, I was joining you in getting excited about if you look back. But I did think the pretty obviously black 'natives' was a little lazy.
> 
> And are you suggesting I fabricated the people around me in the cinema? That's a bit sad.



I didn't even think of them as black though.  More as Native American or Asian indiginous tribes (Thailand etc)


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 30, 2009)

The main woman reminded me of my wife when she was constantly telling him how stupid and clumsy he was.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 30, 2009)

laptop said:


> And that was the character of whom I thought: "yep, he blaaack".



He reminded me more of like Tibetan or Chinese youths...


----------



## Badgers (Dec 30, 2009)

Booked up a bit at the IMAX!!!


----------



## Ceej (Dec 30, 2009)

Saw this in 3D yesterday - clearly there is something to be said for being a fossil and not doing the gaming thing, as I thought this film was stunning -  visually superb. Loved the gorgeous world Cameron created and although the story was nothing new (what is?) it was just brilliant - 10 yr old nephew was transfixed throughout, and he usually has the attention span of a flea.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 30, 2009)

revol68 said:


> There is some sort of universal black accent and language now is their?
> 
> I'd tell that black couple to be less self obsessed afro centric nobs.



And I'd respect their opinions and want to find out more about why it made them a bit uncomfortable. But then I'm not weirdly obsessed with the film, I just enjoyed for what it is


----------



## Stigmata (Dec 30, 2009)

Guys they're not black, they're fucking blue. Was there something wrong with your 3D glasses or what


----------



## audiotech (Dec 30, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Hey! Careful with comparing  stuff to Aliens  Just cuz it was Cameron doesn't mean he made anything like the same effort with plot and dialogue in this HIPPY NONSENSE.
> 
> I have the biggest urge to say something about the magical negro but tbh I'm too scared to.



You should be, because you know it to be a piss-poor comparison and clearly amateur trolling.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 30, 2009)

There is an element of truth to it, it's sort of reverse racism in the film, or to be more exact, reverse society-ism.  The idea that western societies are inherently more evil than any other when in truth they've just been doing what people have been doing for centuries, just been better at it at points.  that only they can be in harmony with nature.

The navi tribes are never in conflict with each other, for instance, which is a classic failing of 'noble savage' misleadings about the Native Americans.  They were at war with each other for thousands of years.

And just for instance, the native american way of life was actually quite destructive in terms of nature - this bloke who works with a lot of progressive type things said that quite a lot of species went extinct due to them, it wasn't this harmony with nature thing, that's just as condescending as the 'savage' thing, it's putting people on a pedestal, making them into something they aren't, and liking them because of that thing, rather than as people.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 30, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> There is an element of truth to it, it's sort of reverse racism in the film, or to be more exact, reverse society-ism.  The idea that western societies are inherently more evil than any other when in truth they've just been doing what people have been doing for centuries, just been better at it at points.  that only they can be in harmony with nature.
> 
> The navi tribes are never in conflict with each other, for instance, which is a classic failing of 'noble savage' misleadings about the Native Americans.  *They were at war with each other for thousands of years.*
> 
> And just for instance, the native american way of life was actually quite destructive in terms of nature - this bloke who works with a lot of progressive type things said that quite a lot of species went extinct due to them, it wasn't this harmony with nature thing, that's just as condescending as the 'savage' thing, it's putting people on a pedestal, making them into something they aren't, and liking them because of that thing, rather than as people.



The sort of summer-wars and raids common to tribalist groupings though. Not proper 'kill all the men, rape the women and enslave the children' war. Almost ritualised AFAIK


----------



## david dissadent (Dec 30, 2009)

Great piece of cinema. Sat back and had a proper sci fi comic book block buster. Personaly I think there is a strong hint of Americas Iraq and Afghanistan catastrophy in the film, but Im sure that is so obvious most people picked up on it. Parts of the films back story could practicly be lifted from any number of confrontations in places like the Amazon, Papua New Guinea or Niger Delta. 

Alot of big budget visual fests have flopped over the years, I think perhaps one of the reasons that Avatar is not flopping is that it is hitting a target for a fantasy film, to offer a reflection of our current societies. The journey of the film allows US and UK audiances the opertunity of going from being crippled by war to finding redemtion in fighting against a millitirarised resource grab. It allows us to attack our own recent history. Interesting that this film is succeeding at the box office when so many films about Iraq or the war on terror have failed.

Cameron did let me down though on the tactics at the battle at the end. You could see it was planned by a corperal.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 30, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> The sort of summer-wars and raids common to tribalist groupings though. Not proper 'kill all the men, rape the women and enslave the children' war. Almost ritualised AFAIK



Hmm.  I suspect even that varies according to the tribe.

I mean look at what the Middle east used to be like with the all the different tribes.  If you want a good satire of that, Asterix and the Black Gold is proper top notch.


----------



## Dandred (Dec 31, 2009)

They are obviously meant to represent a tribe/tribes from the amazon.

The life force that the film tries to protect is the trees there, are people so short sighted?  

Cities of gold........ The gold is unobtainium because it means nothing compared to the life that is so important.  


17 pages and still talking about racism.


----------



## Dandred (Dec 31, 2009)

dp


----------



## Beanburger (Jan 4, 2010)

Reno said:


> Mind, it's always handy to have a "black couple" sitting nearby to guide one as ones moral compass.


True, that is. I've found black couples are always spot on the fucking nail when it comes to issues of race. Same as I can always trust white couples to give me moral guidance on English nationalist issues.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 4, 2010)

the military bad guy looks like victor meldrew's wife


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Jan 4, 2010)

david dissadent said:


> Cameron did let me down though on the tactics at the battle at the end. You could see it was planned by a corperal.


----------



## Kanda (Jan 5, 2010)

Probably been posted already:


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jan 5, 2010)

Dandred said:


> 17 pages and still talking about racism.



The racism discussions only started a page ago


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jan 5, 2010)

Like many others, it seems, I thought this film was rubbish, and was disappointed, because I was looking forward to it, and had tried really hard to avoid spoilers.

I thought it was far too long, with a rubbish story/script, indfferent acting and that the special effects/CGI were not that good. It was just like a cartoon or other animation - not at all convincing. It might have been okay if it had been an hour long but, as it was, I was desperate for it to finish, and was even tempted to get up and walk out half way through.


----------



## Combustible (Jan 5, 2010)

Kanda said:


> Probably been posted already:



I know it's a joke and all but the ending really is nothing like Pocahontas.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 7, 2010)

I finally saw the film yesterday and enjoyed it a lot, partly because it is such an immersive experience.

A couple of flies in the ointment - firstly the bullshit hippy philosophy of the aliens, culled from shallow western interpretations of various cultures around the globe, with a dash of californication. 

Secondly, the happy ending, which was expected, this being Hollywood, but unfortunately it completely undermines the rest of the film. Assuming it is meant to be an allegory of racist, rampant capitalism destroying traditional tribal cultures, we all know the real ending: the culture is destroyed by disease, murder, threats, theft of land etc, and those few remaining largely succumb to desperate poverty, alcoholism etc due to the loss of everything they hold dear. 

The bogus happy ending wouldn't matter so much if it was just about the past, but of course it is still happening today (check out http://www.survivalinternational.org/ if you don't generally follow the latest in cultural destruction and genocide) and what the happy ending says is, yes, capitalism is nasty but great courage and a nice philosophy can triumph in the end, so it's all okay. But great courage can't triumph in the end. It doesn't have the weaponry. Capitalism triumphs every time, and it is still happening today. Which makes the feel-good happy ending a little bit offensive really, even though I knew it was going to happen.

Still, a generally enjoyable experience until the stupid fightback of the tribes, and it was the first CGI-heavy film where I didn't get distracted by the CGI. Although it was still recognisable as CGI it seemed well integrated into the film. Overall quite an impressive achievement.


----------



## embree (Jan 8, 2010)

Guineveretoo said:


> Like many others, it seems, I thought this film was rubbish, and was disappointed, because I was looking forward to it, and had tried really hard to avoid spoilers.
> 
> I thought it was far too long, with a rubbish story/script, indfferent acting and that the special effects/CGI were not that good. It was just like a cartoon or other animation - not at all convincing. It might have been okay if it had been an hour long but, as it was, I was desperate for it to finish, and was even tempted to get up and walk out half way through.


----------



## embree (Jan 8, 2010)

Just read the last few pages after seeing it this week

Jesus shitting Christ, is it not possible to watch a film and just take the fucking thing at face value? They're not black, they're blue 9 foot tall aliens with nerve endings growing out of their heads so they can plug into the local wildlife. They're not superstitious savages/hippies, they're more clued up on the biology ie science of their homeworld than the invader which is why they win. The plot is pretty predictable but I've seen Hollywood blockbusters before and I don't blinking care, it was well executed and I enjoyed it.

And as singled out above - CGI 'not that good'?! You did see the 3D version right? It was so good I forgot I was watching it in 3D, I forgot I was in a cinema, I took barely any notice of anything or anyone around me because I was utterly immersed in this fantastic, well crafted and visually stunning world. 'Not at all convincing'?! did you watch the same film as me? It was the most beautiful thing I've seen at the pictures in a very long time, if not ever. It overwhelmed me.

I may well go and see it again. Sometimes I like to watch films because they transport me somewhere else, not because I want to compare it to the social issues and difficulties that surround me every fucking day of my life.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 9, 2010)

embree said:


> Sometimes I like to watch films because they transport me somewhere else, not because I want to compare it to the social issues and difficulties that surround me every fucking day of my life.



That argument is fine for a film that doesn't attempt any political commentary, but once you start on the politics (and Avatar does) then people are going to get pissed off if you don't get it right.

If you didn't notice the political aspect of the film, see if you find any of this familiar:
http://www.survivalinternational.org/tribes/penan


----------



## embree (Jan 9, 2010)

Yes, I noticed it, no I don't really care if it was 'right' or not. I enjoyed myself for three hours, I'll probably go again.

I'm involved enough in politics elsewhere not to be bothered if my entertainment is 'correct' or not


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 9, 2010)

That's fine embree, but it's silly to have a go at people for having political discussions about a film that sets itself up as a political allegory.

I commented that the political allegory is destroyed by the happy ending. It didn't stop me enjoying the film overall, and while you might see a comment like that as being a kill-joy comment, I'm not going to apologise for having a brain that works and notices things like that.


----------



## embree (Jan 9, 2010)

'Brain that works'

nice bit of snobbery


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 9, 2010)

embree said:


> 'Brain that works'
> 
> nice bit of snobbery



I think you're missing the point of what I said. The point is, I noticed the political allegory, and I noticed the way it failed. My brain notices this whether I give it permission or not. What am I meant to do? Switch my brain off? Choose to censor myself for fear of appearing a kill-joy? I noticed it, whether I wanted to or not, so I commented on it.

What you seem to be suggesting is that everyone should watch the film in the same way you do, or if they do see it in a different way, they shouldn't talk about it because it's not fun enough.


----------



## embree (Jan 9, 2010)

I just think a lot of people on this thread have missed out on a fun experience and are reading far too much into it.

I mean, the race discussion. Really.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 9, 2010)

embree said:


> I just think a lot of people on this thread have missed out on a fun experience and are reading far too much into it.
> 
> I mean, the race discussion. Really.



Different people have different ideas of fun though don't they? For instance, some people think political discussions are fun. Not you maybe, but then you don't have to take part, so that's fine. 

I had fun watching the film, then I had fun picking it apart afterwards. A double dose of fun where you only got one


----------



## 100% masahiko (Jan 12, 2010)

Saw this in 2D and 3D.
I found the 3D experience amazing - but the cinema screen...just wished it was bigger.

The hippie lingo in the movie reminded me of Final Fantasy more than Pocahontas. 

If anything, it was more Last Samauri meets Final Fantasy.

Slightly disappointed that Avatar was so mainstream. I was expecting more fantasy and less talk on eco-living. Still, I'd recommend it.


----------



## mhendo (Jan 15, 2010)

Just got back from seeing this. Saw it in 3D on an IMAX screen.

Basically, it was exactly what i expected.

Hamfisted allegory? Check.
Depressingly predictable storyline? Check.
Embarrassing dialog? Check.
By-the-numbers acting? Check.
Great creatures and settings? Check.
Lots of fun? Check.




100% masahiko said:


> Slightly disappointed that Avatar was so mainstream.


Really?

You're disappointed that a James Cameron film that cost $230 million to make was "mainstream"? I'm going to disappoint you again by revealing that Santa and the Tooth Fairy are not real.


----------



## Pat24 (Jan 17, 2010)

I saw it at the Imax last night. It was mindblowing! Don't read too much into it, and just fricking enjoy the film.


----------



## Pie 1 (Jan 17, 2010)

embree said:


> I just think a lot of people on this thread have missed out on a fun experience



This is the problem though isn't it. As far as I can see that's all there is to Avatar - the 'experience'.

Just like gobbling strong acid, I know I'll have an 'experience'. But it will no doubt also go on far to long & I'll just be wishing it would stop.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 17, 2010)

Pat24 said:


> Don't read too much into it, and just fricking enjoy the film.



it really annoys me when people say that


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 17, 2010)

Brainaddict said:


> That's fine embree, but it's silly to have a go at people for having political discussions about a film that sets itself up as a political allegory.
> 
> I commented that the political allegory is destroyed by the happy ending. It didn't stop me enjoying the film overall, and while you might see a comment like that as being a kill-joy comment, I'm not going to apologise for having a brain that works and notices things like that.



For your average sod though b.a. , especially the average american it probably is a hard-hitting political allegory.

I seen it the other week, it's very unsubtle in places, bordering on laugh out loud cringeworthy but it is still good entertainment and I was hugely impressed by the 3D.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 17, 2010)

embree said:


> I just think a lot of people on this thread have missed out on a fun experience and are reading far too much into it.
> 
> I mean, the race discussion. Really.



 really


----------



## mk12 (Jan 17, 2010)

DELETED: posted already.


----------



## Pie 1 (Jan 17, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> it really annoys me when people say that



Yep. Me too.
Usually heard from LOTR bores.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 17, 2010)

Kanda said:


> Probably been posted already:



The same could be done with a Dances With Wolves script.


----------



## story (Jan 17, 2010)

Yeah, but what's wrong with re-telling the same story over and over again? That's what we've have always done: Gilgamesh - Noah's Ark, Orpheus in the Underworld - Star Wars, Psyche & Eros - Tristan & Isolde etc. The list is endless really.

If a story's true then it's worth reframing it for a new sensibility. 

I enjoyed the film a lot. Maybe cos I wasn't expecting anything remarkably innovative.

I pretty much agree with everything said by Brainaddict.


----------



## mhendo (Jan 17, 2010)

Pat24 said:


> I saw it at the Imax last night. It was mindblowing! Don't read too much into it, and just fricking enjoy the film.


Just out of interest, have you enjoyed every single film you've ever seen? Are there any films at all that you dislike?


----------



## dessiato (Jan 17, 2010)

Just seen this 3D locally. Enjoyed the film and effects. But we had a badly timed interval which spoiled the flow of the film.


----------



## fen_boy (Jan 20, 2010)

Guineveretoo said:


> I thought it was far too long, with a rubbish story/script, indfferent acting and that the special effects/CGI were not that good.



Saw this last night in 3D and I agree that as a story it was pretty poor, but the CGI and effects were amazing, totally unlike anything I've ever seen. I don't understand how you can think otherwise - it's so far ahead of anything else.


----------



## Kanda (Jan 20, 2010)

dessiato said:


> Just seen this 3D locally. Enjoyed the film and effects. But we had a badly timed interval which spoiled the flow of the film.



An interval???? 

I didn't think cinemas had intervals anymore...


----------



## og ogilby (Jan 20, 2010)

Kanda said:


> An interval????
> 
> I didn't think cinemas had intervals anymore...


I don't think cinemas ever had intervals in the middle of a film. Just between two different films.


----------



## Reno (Jan 20, 2010)

og ogilby said:


> I don't think cinemas ever had intervals in the middle of a film. Just between two different films.



Until the 80s films that were longer than 2 1/2 hours had an interval. Some DVDs and Blu-rays, like the one for Kubrick's _2001_ even observe that as to re-create the theatrical experience.


----------



## joustmaster (Jan 20, 2010)

og ogilby said:


> I don't think cinemas ever had intervals in the middle of a film. Just between two different films.



when i went to see spiderman 2 (free tickets, not that i would have paid) at a small independent cinema, they had an interval and sold icecream. 

they seemed to choose the break point by stopping the film exactly half way through, mid sentence.


----------



## dessiato (Jan 20, 2010)

Here in Portugal they have a break, because films are 'too long to watch all at once'. Strange people the Portuguese.


----------



## Kanda (Jan 20, 2010)

dessiato said:


> Here in Portugal they have a break, because films are 'too long to watch all at once'. Strange people the Portuguese.



Are the cinemas dated? Maybe they're still on old Reel systems?


----------



## og ogilby (Jan 20, 2010)

I'm glad Avatar didn't have an interval. I was in the cinema for 3 hours.


----------



## dessiato (Jan 20, 2010)

Kanda said:


> Are the cinemas dated? Maybe they're still on old Reel systems?



The cinema is really quite new, most of the ones local to me are less than five years old, and multi screens. All in modern shopping centres. Whether or not the actual equipment is dated I don't know. Would this be the case if they are showing movies in 3D?


----------



## Pat24 (Jan 21, 2010)

mhendo said:


> Just out of interest, have you enjoyed every single film you've ever seen? Are there any films at all that you dislike?



what a bizarre question..of course not!  take a chill pill, it's only a forum


----------



## fractionMan (Jan 21, 2010)

Well I enjoyed it.  Forgot it was CGI pretty quickly tbh.

You can't beat a bit of space elves with dragons vs men with mechs can you?



A Dashing Blade said:


> This is the one based on Joe Haldeman's "The Forever War" non?





ajk said:


> Nope, Ridley Scott's doing that, but using the same 3D technology as Avatar.



Cool.  I've just read that trilogy.


----------



## TAE (Jan 21, 2010)

Watched Avatar yesterday in Real3D on a big screen - loved it.

Ok, the plot was pretty standard, but oh the technology! 

The camera work, the CGI, the use of 3D, all blew me away. It was a real joy to watch this film.


----------



## elevendayempire (Jan 21, 2010)

I really enjoyed it. And writing a _well-crafted_ "standard" plot is actually really hard - look at a lot of the dross that makes it into cinemas, Avatar is streets ahead of bloody Transformers 2. The Si'lly A'lien Na'mes got a bit wearing after a while, though. On the other hand, Michelle Rodriguez in combat gear and warpaint... does things to me.


----------



## mhendo (Jan 21, 2010)

Pat24 said:


> what a bizarre question..of course not!  take a chill pill, it's only a forum


Yeah, and it's only a film. Why do you care if people want to criticize it?

You said that people should not read too much into it, and just enjoy the film. But the point is that some people don't enjoy the film, precisely because of what they read in it, and your stupid exhortation isn't going to change that.

What if i took a film that you really don't like, and told you that you had no business disliking it, and that you should just enjoy it? Sort of a pointless request, isn't it? Because if you don't like it, you don't like it.


----------



## PacificOcean (Jan 21, 2010)

I saw it in IMAX and was less than impressed.  Indeed, I had to give up after about an hour as it was giving me a banging headache.

Proper IMAX usually means things floating out of the screen, but this just seemed regular cinema 3D blown up for IMAX - everything was on planes if you know what I mean (ie the cast are on one level, then the background is on another).

It went all blurry whenever the camera panned.  

And after paying a shocking £15 for ticket, I wasn't too happy.


----------



## mhendo (Jan 21, 2010)

PacificOcean said:


> And after paying a shocking £15 for ticket, I wasn't too happy.


15 quid? Fuck me! I paid $US16.50 and i thought that was bad.


----------



## Pat24 (Jan 21, 2010)

mhendo said:


> Yeah, and it's only a film. Why do you care if people want to criticize it?
> 
> You said that people should not read too much into it, and just enjoy the film. But the point is that some people don't enjoy the film, precisely because of what they read in it, and your stupid exhortation isn't going to change that.
> 
> What if i took a film that you really don't like, and told you that you had no business disliking it, and that you should just enjoy it? Sort of a pointless request, isn't it? Because if you don't like it, you don't like it.




blahhh blahhh blahhhhh *snores*


----------



## mhendo (Jan 21, 2010)

Pat24 said:


> blahhh blahhh blahhhhh *snores*


Well, at least you have the attention span and intellectual complexity to be a fan of James Cameron plots.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 21, 2010)

PacificOcean said:


> And after paying a shocking £15 for ticket, I wasn't too happy.


£10.10 up here.

I enjoyed it, the night forest scene was exceptionally nice visually, the 3d effects throughout were reasonable and never intrusive.  (I liked the bit early on where he was waving a burning torch and _didn't_ thrust it at the camera.)

I'm wondering if it's worth going to see again in an IMAX.

btw plot-lines?   from the man who brought us Aliens and Terminator/TII ?   No, he can get Oscars without plots and coin in the most money as well, it seems.   The plots usually write themselves with Cameron.

Let's put it this way..who would you rather have doing stuff like this...Cameron or Michael Bay?

He does what Spielberg used to do.


----------



## PacificOcean (Jan 22, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> I'm wondering if it's worth going to see again in an IMAX.



Having seen things made for Imax I wouldn't bother.  It wasn't a true Imax film just Cineworld/Odeon style 3D blown up for a bigger screen - It was really blurry.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 22, 2010)

Thanks for that.


----------



## STFC (Jan 22, 2010)

I'm going to see it tonight. It's not really 'my sort of film', but I'm interested in seeing whether the 3D is as good as it's cracked up to be.


----------



## DRINK? (Jan 22, 2010)

looks like a series of Yes album covers bought to life...


----------



## MightyAphrodite (Jan 22, 2010)

I went to sleep during Avatar.


----------



## elevendayempire (Jan 22, 2010)

DRINK? said:


> looks like a series of Yes album covers bought to life...


You say that like it's a _bad_ thing.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 22, 2010)

dessiato said:


> Here in Portugal they have a break, because films are 'too long to watch all at once'. Strange people the Portuguese.



Yes, there was an interval here in Turkey too.

Pretty basic story and script, heavy-handed political allegory, amazing effects.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 22, 2010)




----------



## MightyAphrodite (Jan 22, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


>



thats funny 


mainly because i keep getting the james cameron and david cameron threads confused


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 22, 2010)

MightyAphrodite said:


> mainly because i keep getting the james cameron and david cameron threads confused


Me too.


----------



## paimei01 (Jan 23, 2010)

"Avatar" is based on real events:



> “ notwithstanding the French Commissioners took all the Pains possible to carry Home the French, that were Prisoners with the Five Nations, and they had full Liberty from the Indians, few of them could be persuaded to return. “Nor, he has to admit, is this merely a reflection on the quality of French colonial life, “for the English had as much Difficulty” in persuading their redeemed to come home, despite what Colden would claim were the obvious superiority of English ways:
> 
> *No Arguments, no Intreaties, nor Tears of their Friends and Relations, could persuade many of them to leave their new Indian Friends and Acquaintance; several of them that were by the Caressings of their Relations persuaded to come Home, in a little Time grew tired of our Manner of living, and run away again to the Indians, and ended their Days with them. On the other Hand, Indian Children have been carefully educated among the English, cloathed and taught, yet, I think, there is not one Instance, that any of these, after they had Liberty to go among their own People, and were come to Age, would remain with the English, but returned to their own Nations, and became as fond of the Indian Manner of Life as those that knew nothing of a civilized Manner of Living. And, he concludes, what he says of this particular prisoner exchange “has been found true on many other Occasions.”*
> 
> ...


http://paimei01.blogspot.com/2009/08/prisoner-exchange.html




> *This message is the catalyst for an intellectual awakening among the population, accompanied by the feeling that something old and familiar has been uncovered.
> 
> The power of this message to move an individual is due to the psychological fact that, although repression shuts down deep thinking, tribal ideas continue to push for entrance into consciousness.*


http://www.primitivism.com/machine-heads.htm


----------



## The Octagon (Jan 27, 2010)

Surpasses Titanic as the most succesful film of all time - $1.859 billion (Titanic took $1.853bn).

http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/01/26/avatar-beats-titanic/


----------



## TAE (Jan 27, 2010)

Kind of hypocritical of me as I went to see the film myself, but what are we doing spending 1.8 B on 3 hours of fun when it would go a long way if donated to Oxfam or other charities in Haiti and around the world.


----------



## Reno (Jan 27, 2010)

TAE said:


> Kind of hypocritical of me as I went to see the film myself, but what are we doing spending 1.8 B on 3 hours of fun when it would go a long way if donated to Oxfam or other charities in Haiti and around the world.




I think I'll just go and flagellate myself now.


----------



## Dr. Furface (Jan 27, 2010)

TAE said:


> Kind of hypocritical of me as I went to see the film myself, but what are we doing spending 1.8 B on 3 hours of fun when it would go a long way if donated to Oxfam or other charities in Haiti and around the world.


It's more than likely that many of those of have seen the film have also made donations to Haiti, as well as to many other worthy causes. Yes, some people really do have enough money that they can do that! And even if they haven't - well, it's their money (and their conscience) to do what they like with. 

And who the hell is this 'we' of which you speak?


----------



## TAE (Jan 27, 2010)

Dr. Furface, yes I agree with what you say, but every extra bit of money helps. 

The problem of course is where do you stop? Never get take-aways? Never have any fun at all? Clearly that cannot be right.

It's just when I see that kind of money being spent on seeing a film ... well it makes me wonder. Not meant in a heavy way, just makes me think.

Oh and 'we' is obviously those of us who went to see the film.


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2010)

just back from seeing this...what a crock of crap.

that really isn't a good film, the entire plot being completely predictable from five minutes in, totally uninspired dialogue, less character development than in an episode of the teletubbies. 

but it did look bloody impressive, the 3d generally worked and wasn't used too gratuitously, almost made it worth the tenner. Alice in Wonderland definitely looked good


----------



## Reno (Jan 31, 2010)

Watched it for the second time yesterday and if anything I liked it even better. Not following the plot so much this time, I just kept looking around the frame to take in the world of Pandora and the film just looks absolutely fantastic at any given moment. While not actually my favourite film of the year, this is still the only film in a long time that I wanted to see at the cienma for a second time so soon after, because it is a film to be experienced rather than to be merely watched and these types of films are few and far between.

I still don't have a problem with the much complained about derivative storyline, because Cameron is a great storyteller and I felt involved with the characters and situations in a way I rarely do in this type of movie. There are just too many great individual set pieces and adventures within the film for it to ever get bogged down by the cliches of the overall plot.

My only real complaint, apart from some flat dialogue (mostly to do with the marines) is Horner's unimaginative, slushy score. All the ethnic chanting is terribly obvious for a "going native" film like this and when he isn't aping his Aliens score during the action scenes, he seems to want to burst into the theme from Titanic at any moment.


----------



## FiFi (Jan 31, 2010)

I took 7 11yr olds to see it yesterday. 
They loved it, I felt like I'd seen the story about 50 times before. 
It just felt unoriginal, and a bit predictable.

As for the 3D stuff, I'm distinctly underwhelmed.
Everything other than the foreground looks out of focus despite the fact I wore the 3D glasses over my normal distance glasses.

I thought mordern 3D was supposed to be better than it used to be in the 80's. This felt like a backward step.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jan 31, 2010)

FiFi said:


> I took 7 11yr olds to see it yesterday.
> They loved it, I felt like I'd seen the story about 50 times before.
> It just felt unoriginal, and a bit predictable.
> 
> ...



This.


----------



## Biglittlefish (Jan 31, 2010)

So dull. It felt like it was written by a computerised screenwriting program. Painfully by the numbers. 

Which would be ok if there was any way to get swept up by the story or characters. But there wasn't.


----------



## revol68 (Jan 31, 2010)

TAE said:


> Dr. Furface, yes I agree with what you say, but every extra bit of money helps.
> 
> The problem of course is where do you stop? Never get take-aways? Never have any fun at all? Clearly that cannot be right.
> 
> ...



Whilst we live in a world ruled by money we will never have enough.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 1, 2010)

Reno said:


> Watched it for the second time yesterday and if anything I liked it even better. Not following the plot so much this time, I just kept looking around the frame to take in the world of Pandora and the film just looks absolutely fantastic at any given moment. While not actually my favourite film of the year, this is still the only film in a long time that I wanted to see at the cienma for a second time so soon after, because it is a film to be experienced rather than to be merely watched and these types of films are few and far between.
> 
> I still don't have a problem with the much complained about derivative storyline, because Cameron is a great storyteller and I felt involved with the characters and situations in a way I rarely do in this type of movie. There are just too many great individual set pieces and adventures within the film for it to ever get bogged down by the cliches of the overall plot.
> 
> My only real complaint, apart from some flat dialogue (mostly to do with the marines) is Horner's unimaginative, slushy score. All the ethnic chanting is terribly obvious for a "going native" film like this and when he isn't aping his Aliens score during the action scenes, he seems to want to burst into the theme from Titanic at any moment.



The film is beautiful, and is a great cinematic experience for that reason alone. It's what CG was meant to be.

But imo, the plot starts out thin, but then narrows to the point where one is forced to chuckle while watching the characters trying to maintain their balance on it.

As I said in the 'last night's film' thread, it's Pocahontas with blue people instead of red.

I think I laughed out loud when the great earth mother tree telekinetically commanded the great horned beasts to wipe out the evil marines in the mech suits. The cavalry has arrived, sans riders.

I'm not totally sure why this will become the biggest movie of all time. Last night I expressed hope that it was some sort of sign that the culture is changing back to something that us Seventies reprobates might recognize and approve of. But it might be something as simple as the power of advertising, hype and suggestion.


----------



## Reno (Feb 1, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> As I said in the 'last night's film' thread, it's Pocahontas with blue people instead of red.



So it was you who was the first who make the connection and who inspired thousands of people to spam their friends and collegues with this in emails and forums:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10148492&postcount=451


----------



## IMR (Feb 1, 2010)

Saw this at the Beckenham Odeon on Saturday. The film is very simple in its plot but a lot of fun to see nonetheless.

Individually, the Na'avi are impressive to watch, and Neytiri is the kind of superb being that you would fall hopelessly in love with if you were about five or six years old.

Unfortunately, their society didn't seem at all intriguing - such is the fate of utopian depictions in general. Particularly weak were the portrayals of their spiritual customs, at times verging on the laughable as the Na'avi all linked arms and swayed together under their sacred tree. The ghost of Mel Brooks threatened to intrude at any second.

What was striking was the extent of James Cameron's self-promotion worked into the film, with obvious references to _Aliens_, luminous plants and creatures not unlike those in _Abyss_, and the appearance of some familiar faces from some of his other films. Cameron seems to see himself as a cross between a modern-day Cecil B DeMille and some engineer-hero from a Robert Heinlein short story.

The 3D effects are mostly unobtrusive, and in fact the sense of depth came across more strongly in the trailers for some 3D CGI cartoons coming out later this year - one involving a Viking boy making friends with a dragon, the other some kind of space opera. Perhaps it works better with the simpler forms and textures of non-realistic images.


----------



## belboid (Feb 1, 2010)

the aboce is pretty much right, imo.  It's a fucking great shame that Cameron didn't bother to think about making his movie more than just a bloody long advert for the 3D process. The plot, such as it is, is third hand gobbledegook, that wasn't particularly consistent or logical, the right on eco message is bland liberal tosh the kind of which we've seen over and over and over, and which offers nothing new, certainly not any kind of 'culture shift' (uhh, its pretty much the same message as wall-e, most recently), and I got bored for the penultimate twenty minutes.

What saves it is looking good, and it does, it looks kinda great, definitely _wow_.  But a good film?  My arse.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Feb 1, 2010)

IMR said:


> luminous plants and creatures not unlike those in _Abyss_



To be fair, luminous plants and creatures not unlike those in the actual Earth sea. Cameron is very fond of undersea exploration in real life - an expensive hobby!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 1, 2010)

Reno said:


> So it was you who was the first who make the connection and who inspired thousands of people to spam their friends and collegues with this in emails and forums:
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10148492&postcount=451



Never said any such thing. What happened is that walking out of the theater and discussing it, the notion re: Pocahontas came to me. If, as apparently is the case, many others have done the same thing, it's because, imo, the comparison is so obviously and readily made.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 1, 2010)

belboid said:


> the aboce is pretty much right, imo.  It's a fucking great shame that Cameron didn't bother to think about making his movie more than just a bloody long advert for the 3D process. The plot, such as it is, is third hand gobbledegook, that wasn't particularly consistent or logical, the right on eco message is bland liberal tosh the kind of which we've seen over and over and over, and which offers nothing new, certainly not any kind of 'culture shift' (uhh, its pretty much the same message as wall-e, most recently), and I got bored for the penultimate twenty minutes.
> 
> What saves it is looking good, and it does, it looks kinda great, definitely _wow_.  But a good film?  My arse.



The difference is that Wall E, and the other similar eco-message movies, haven't grossed 600 million, and didn't remain the most popular movie by far, after seven weeks in the theatres.


----------



## DarthSydodyas (Feb 1, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> The difference is that Wall E, and the other similar eco-message movies, haven't grossed 600 million, and didn't remain the most popular movie by far, after seven weeks in the theatres.


  not much on, atm.  plus the hype.


----------



## Reno (Feb 1, 2010)

DarthSydodyas said:


> not much on, atm.  plus the hype.



A hyped movie just guarantees a big opening. If people don't like a film then the admissions will drop off pretty fast after the first week. For a film to become this huge it needs good word of mouth and many people who want to go and see a film several times.


----------



## DarthSydodyas (Feb 1, 2010)

Reno said:


> A hyped movie just guarantees a big opening. If people don't like a film then the admissions will drop off pretty fast after the first week. For a film to become this huge it needs good word of mouth and many people who want to go and see a film several times.


  it certainly has the former, but i've not met anyone who fits the latter.   still, its Cameron-success for you (t2, titanic).


----------



## Reno (Feb 1, 2010)

DarthSydodyas said:


> it certainly has the former, but i've not met anyone who fits the latter.   still, its Cameron-success for you (t2, titanic).



Whether you know anybody personally who went to see the film repeatedly is besides the point. It's a fact that a film needs massive repeat business for it to become this huge.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Feb 1, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Never said any such thing. What happened is that walking out of the theater and discussing it, the notion re: Pocahontas came to me. If, as apparently is the case, many others have done the same thing, it's because, imo, the comparison is so obviously and readily made.



I've heard it dubbed "Dancing with Smurfs".  There's some truth in that, as it does rip it's plot off mercilessly from other films.  

I have to be honest in saying that I didn't go to the movie for the plot.  I went to see the technical innovation in CG that it promised to be.  In that respect I was not disappointed.  I tend to judge a movie based on what goal it sets for itself.  I didn't see an attempt to be anything other than a thin plot propping up spectacular CGI so I was happy with how my money was spent.  I like 2012 because it didn't try to be anything other than a "lets see what we can blow the tits off next" movie.  Sometimes I'm in the mood for is a "lets blow the tits off of everything" movie.

Movies that have the functional minimum to prop a movie on, devolve into nonsense when it comes to finding an ending.  This one certainly did.  It's the natural evolution of such a thin plot, and maybe they should have set the bar a bit higher for themselves.


----------



## belboid (Feb 1, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> The difference is that Wall E, and the other similar eco-message movies, haven't grossed 600 million, and didn't remain the most popular movie by far, after seven weeks in the theatres.



no, it merely did incredibly well and was number one for four weeks or something. it is not the 'message' that keeps this at the top, its the 'aah' factor.


----------



## gosub (Feb 1, 2010)

I reckon Wall E has higher DVD sales than Avatar will have.

only went to see it for the effects, which were good but did make my eyes stream


----------



## Reno (Feb 1, 2010)

gosub said:


> I reckon Wall E has higher DVD sales than Avatar will have.



I very much doubt that, considering Wall-E isn't even in the top 50 of the most successful films ever made. It's not even the most successful Pixar film ever made.


----------



## gosub (Feb 1, 2010)

Only Batman and Pirates of the Caribbean are in both box office and sales, people want diffent things out of a tv 

Mamma Mia wasn't top of the box office

eta that said LOTR has sales too anyother effects film, surprises me


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Feb 1, 2010)

gosub said:


> eta that said LOTR has sales too anyother effects film, surprises me



The LOTR sales include the Extended editions with loads of new/recut scenes so that's not so surprising.


----------



## Reno (Feb 1, 2010)

gosub said:


> Only Batman and Pirates of the Caribbean are in both box office and sales, people want diffent things out of a tv
> 
> Mamma Mia wasn't top of the box office
> 
> eta that said LOTR has sales too anyother effects film, surprises me



Mamma Mia is the best selling DVD in UK, where it was also the highest grossing film ever at the box office, so there goes your theory. It's not the best selling DVD in the US or world wide.

All the other films that are in the top box office are also well represented in the DVD sales, as long as they were released in the last decade. DVD as a home video format is only just over a decade old and when Titanic was released on DVD, VHS was still the the main home video medium. 

Avatar will be the first film that has become "highest grossing film ever" since DVD became the main home video format and even if it doesn't become the top selling DVD ever, it will still sell a lot more than Wall-E did.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Feb 1, 2010)

gosub said:


> I reckon Wall E has higher DVD sales than Avatar will have.
> 
> only went to see it for the effects, which were good but did make my eyes stream



I think this might have been the way it would be in the past.  Now everyone has 32" (or 50") flat panels, Blue-ray, and home theatre so there isn't as much loss of the "wow" factor any more.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 2, 2010)

I saw this at the IMAX last night.

It was thoroughly enjoyable but I wasn't that impressed with the 3D.

Also, the whole tone of the movie reminded me of the early 90s.

I wonder if Cameron actually wrote the script back then.

All this pretentious twaddle over the subtext is laughable.

The most interesting aspect of the story and the most relevant in a 2010 environment was the idea of an avatar system but it wasn't really explored at all because the man clearly had other priorities (such as an astonishing visual world).


----------



## internetstalker (Feb 2, 2010)

Watched this last night

Thought it was very good

3D was as 3D is

visually amazing, a predictable plot, but it was well delivered

some likeable characters and some great action



I'm not even gonna bother reading this thread coz it'll be full o bullshit


I'd recomend you go see this film if you haven't


----------



## Ranbay (Feb 4, 2010)

Avatar.DVDScr.XviD-IMAGiNE 

if you like have to and stuff..


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 4, 2010)

Great review here. This guy is great.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Feb 4, 2010)

Haha that guy is great!


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 4, 2010)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Haha that guy is great!



And right. I don't think I can ever really fault his critique. His crazy voice is slipping though, he sounded half normal in some of that review.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Feb 4, 2010)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> And right. I don't think I can ever really fault his critique. His crazy voice is slipping though, he sounded half normal in some of that review.



It's true, his Phantom Menace series was fantastic. Great reviewer...


----------



## El Sueno (Feb 15, 2010)

Watched this at the weekend. On acid. It was a pretty spectacular way to spend three hours; totally predictable but a joy to behold nonetheless.

And it was sold out - I was expecting to be sat in a practically empty cinema I'd left it so long, how long has it been out now? Still packing the theatres.


----------



## BlackArab (Feb 16, 2010)

El Sueno said:


> Watched this at the weekend. On acid. It was a pretty spectacular way to spend three hours; totally predictable but a joy to behold nonetheless.
> 
> And it was sold out - I was expecting to be sat in a practically empty cinema I'd left it so long, how long has it been out now? Still packing the theatres.



I saw it this weekend and was surprised how busy it still was. Fuck me, wish I'd had a sick bag after listening to all that new age bollocks for 3 hours. Did look good though.


----------



## rover07 (Feb 16, 2010)

Im looking forward to the sequel where the humans return in force and blast the fuck out of the Blueys. 

Avatar vs Starship Troopers


----------



## laptop (Feb 16, 2010)

Palestinian activists take 'Avatar' analogy to heart: LA Times


----------



## purplex (Mar 7, 2010)

laptop said:


> Palestinian activists take 'Avatar' analogy to heart: LA Times



That protest achieved its objective (getting publicity) even if it was a bit silly.
Just watched this, very enjoyable movie, hope it wins something tonight.


----------



## belboid (Mar 7, 2010)

The Razzies were last night


----------



## purplex (Mar 7, 2010)

belboid said:


> The Razzies were last night



I have bought Razzle for many years, is it even still on sale?


----------



## pboi (Mar 8, 2010)

really enjoyed the spectacle of going to see this in Imax.  Not been to the cinema in a long time and it was my first Imax/3D experience.

Very enjoyable, and I am a sucker for all the tech/robots/flying machines that existed in the universe.  Also the little touches al over the movie.


----------



## Ranbay (Mar 8, 2010)

purplex said:


> I have bought Razzle for many years, is it even still on sale?



oh yes


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 8, 2010)

Very happy Avatar didn't win big last night!


----------



## T & P (Mar 8, 2010)

Me too. All too often the Oscars have sucked up to populist bullshit (see Cameron's previous effort about the boat that sinks). Good to see this year they have decided box office takings and aggressive PR campaigning by News International does not equate artistic merit.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 8, 2010)

T & P said:


> Me too. All too often the Oscars have sucked up to populist bullshit (see Cameron's previous effort about the boat that sinks). Good to see this year they have decided box office takings and aggressive PR campaigning by News International does not equate artistic merit.



Well said!


----------



## pboi (Mar 8, 2010)

and the wave of sentiment towards the war effort is not some form of sucking up?


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Mar 8, 2010)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Very happy Avatar didn't win big last night!



It won what it should have won -- technical awards.  The script and the plot left something to be desired, but the art direction and CGI was fab.


----------



## mwgdrwg (Mar 8, 2010)

T & P said:


> Me too. All too often the Oscars have sucked up to populist bullshit (see Cameron's previous effort about the boat that sinks). Good to see this year they have decided box office takings and aggressive PR campaigning by News International does not equate artistic merit.



Sandra Bullocks.

I bet she's not as good as the woman that played the female lead in Avatar...I thought she was great.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 8, 2010)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> It won what it should have won -- technical awards.  The script and the plot left something to be desired, but the art direction and CGI was fab.



I didn't think the CGI was that great, there were times where it looked fairly average and the less said about some of the animation the better.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Mar 8, 2010)

Kid_Eternity said:


> I didn't think the CGI was that great, there were times where it looked fairly average and the less said about some of the animation the better.



The scenes with the tree were definitely laughable.


----------



## mwgdrwg (Mar 8, 2010)

Kid_Eternity said:


> I didn't think the CGI was that great, there were times where it looked fairly average and the less said about some of the animation the better.





How can anyone say that the CGI in Avatar was anything other that phenomenal!?


----------



## revol68 (Mar 8, 2010)

Kid_Eternity said:


> I didn't think the CGI was that great, there were times where it looked fairly average and the less said about some of the animation the better.



you are on a wind up.

name one film with superior CGI, name one with better animation?

your taste in everything is shit, you don't like the first Resident Evil games or FFVII.

Oh and Avatar is popular but it is not populist, it's politics are far explicitly against US militarism, the overrated piece of pseudo intelligent middle brow crap called The Hurtlocker is pro US shit. The Hurtlocker is this generations The Deer Hunter, a film lauded for dealing with 'the war' which in truth does no such thing, rather it white washes the role of the US and turns it into an american tragedy.

Oh and that scene with the British mercenaries was embarrassing gung ho shit , no better than any Rambo movie.


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2010)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> It won what it should have won -- technical awards.  The script and the plot left something to be desired, but the art direction and CGI was fab.



it should never have won the cinematography award - cinematography requires cameras, not computers


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 8, 2010)

mwgdrwg said:


> How can anyone say that the CGI in Avatar was anything other that phenomenal!?



It's the best out there right now. In a year or two's time, though, it will look silly. That's the trouble with trying for photorealistic CGI, it ages very badly.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 8, 2010)

belboid said:


> it should never have won the cinematography award - cinematography requires cameras, not computers


----------



## mwgdrwg (Mar 8, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It's the best out there right now. In a year or two's time, though, it will look silly. That's the trouble with trying for photorealistic CGI, it ages very badly.



Yes, but right now it looks eye-poppingly gorgeous!


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Mar 8, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It's the best out there right now. In a year or two's time, though, it will look silly. That's the trouble with trying for photorealistic CGI, it ages very badly.



Had a great time watching Tron not long ago!


----------



## mwgdrwg (Mar 8, 2010)

belboid said:


> it should never have won the cinematography award - cinematography requires cameras, not computers



Shouldn't you be sending in your comments on a bit of paper? Hmmm?


----------



## pboi (Mar 8, 2010)

saw the Tron trailer at Imax in 3D.

Moist.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Mar 8, 2010)

belboid said:


> it should never have won the cinematography award - cinematography requires cameras, not computers



There's room for technical innovation in the cinematography category.


----------



## mwgdrwg (Mar 8, 2010)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> Had a great time watching Tron not long ago!



Seen the Tron Legacy trailer? Absolutely amazing!


----------



## revol68 (Mar 8, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It's the best out there right now. In a year or two's time, though, it will look silly. That's the trouble with trying for photorealistic CGI, it ages very badly.



I don't think it will ever look silly, it will be superseded but there can be no doubting that Avatar represents a qualitative leap forward in CGI and animation.


----------



## mwgdrwg (Mar 8, 2010)

revol68 said:


> I don't think it will ever look silly, it will be superseded but there can be no doubting that Avatar represents a qualitative leap forward in CGI and animation.



I agree...everyone said that the Matrix would look shit in a few years...still looks good 10 years on to me.


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2010)

revol68 said:


>



Cinematography (from Greek: kinema - κίνημα "movement" and graphein - γράφειν "to record"), is the making of lighting and camera choices when recording photographic images for the cinema. 

Look words up before trying to comment upon them, dumbo


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 8, 2010)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> The scenes with the tree were definitely laughable.



Some of the bits when they're riding animals is terrible animation.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 8, 2010)

revol68 said:


> you are on a wind up.
> 
> name one film with superior CGI, name one with better animation?
> 
> ...



It's a racist film for westerners to feel good about their neo colonial pasts.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 8, 2010)

mwgdrwg said:


> I agree...everyone said that the Matrix would look shit in a few years...*still looks good 10 years on to me.*



I rest my case.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 8, 2010)

belboid said:


> Cinematography (from Greek: kinema - κίνημα "movement" and graphein - γράφειν "to record"), is the making of lighting and camera choices when recording photographic images for the cinema.
> 
> Look words up before trying to comment upon them, dumbo



yes because language and terminology are Platonic forms and definitely not in any shape or form fluid labels whose actual meaning stems from there common use and understanding.

Anyway you undermine your own retarded point because as you say it comes from the greek to record movement and I'm afraid that would apply to the recording of movements created by CGI.


----------



## mwgdrwg (Mar 8, 2010)

Kid_Eternity said:


> I rest my case.



*I object!*

I've seen bullet time in hundreds of adds and music videos, but none look as cool as they do in The Matrix.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 8, 2010)

Kid_Eternity said:


> It's a racist film for westerners to feel good about their neo colonial pasts.



except this isn't about neo colonial pasts it's about whats going on now and into the future. 

It's easy for films like Dancing with Wolves to be made 200 years after the events it's about, it's completely different to make an explicitly anti US imperialist film when US troops are in the middle of their occupations. Like I said in my earlier posts on this thread, Avatar is the only film you will get to see on general release that actually encourages you to cheer US marines getting fucked up.

Ofcourse you prefer to take the easy middle brow snob approach and belittle a film because it's mainstream and massively popular.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Mar 8, 2010)

belboid said:


> Cinematography (from Greek: kinema - κίνημα "movement" and graphein - γράφειν "to record"), is the making of lighting and camera choices when recording photographic images for the cinema.
> 
> Look words up before trying to comment upon them, dumbo



I'm not certain why you're fixated on outmoded technology.  Computers are just another method of capturing the image for cinema.  The same choices go into production of the film  with a computer as it does with a camera. 

BTW, Wikipedia?


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 8, 2010)

revol68 said:


> except this isn't about neo colonial pasts it's about whats going on now and into the future.
> 
> It's easy for films like Dancing with Wolves to be made 200 years after the events it's about, it's completely different to make an explicitly anti US imperialist film when US troops are in the middle of their occupations. Like I said in my earlier posts on this thread, Avatar is the only film you will get to see on general release that actually encourages you to cheer US marines getting fucked up.
> 
> *Ofcourse you prefer to take the easy middle brow snob approach and belittle a film because it's mainstream and massively popular.*



Or just massively overhyped and an absolute victory of style over content.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 8, 2010)

revol68 said:


> I don't think it will ever look silly, it will be superseded but there can be no doubting that Avatar represents a qualitative leap forward in CGI and animation.



I think it is quite likely to look crude eventually. It's wonderful now, sure; even my cynical brain enjoyed it, though mostly because of the _design_ rather than the implementation. But given how dodgy lots of older big-CGI films look now, I think in a few years' time we will be saying "yeah it was great then, dated now though, look at how X moves or what the detail on Y is".

I spend a lot of time on Uncanny Valley issues and I can certainly say that Avatar hits a few. There are two things that I think people still don't do properly: firstly, bone/musculature and skin, skin's never proper and what's supposed to be underneath it doesn't help. Skin is not PVC and even very sophisticated skeletons don't properly simulate how fibres and muscles look. To me, they look like rubber still.

Secondly, the animations still aren't as good as they could be - which is an artistic issue, not a technological one. There's a certain sort of overly fluid movement that animated animals have that just feels wrong. You can mocap humans, but for organic things where you can't it's incredibly hard to do - this isn't calling people rubbish, this is very very tricky stuff, but it's still not right.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 8, 2010)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> I'm not certain why you're fixated on outmoded technology.  Computers are just another method of capturing the image for cinema.  The same choices go into production of the film as it does with a camera.
> 
> BTW, Wikipedia?



as a supposed Marxist he should be ashamed of his reactionary approach to such matters.


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2010)

ooh, revols been back to school to learn two new words!

It is very clearly NOT cinematography, because the CGI removes ALL need for camera choices. It is predetermined. Same reason no cartoon has ever won a cinematography award. Because it doesnt involve cinematography.  At the most generous one would say it involves no complex cinematography, because it simple points and shoots.  The DP has no choices to make.  Hence, even if we are generous to the utmost, it should never ever win any kind of award for the skill.


----------



## pboi (Mar 8, 2010)

nice post Fridge.

Can I ask you to point out better examples of Skin/Animations?  Its something I like to look out for and thought Avatar was really rather good. ( ?I studied Comp Sci) but I dont work in animation professionally.

are you getting at its more about execution and pitch vs the computing power put behind the animation, as uncanny valley plays a part here?


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2010)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> Computers are just another method of capturing the image for cinema.


No they're not, they _creat_ the images, cameras dont.



> The same choices go into production of the film  with a computer as it does with a camera.


Not entirely true - you can  create any world so you dnt have to manipulate it in the same way.  But that isnt even the point, I'm not saying there was no skill in creating that look, nor that what Avatar did wasnt very good. But it _isn't_ cinematography.  In the main its Art Direction. And it was a worthy winner of that award. 



> BTW, Wikipedia?


quick n easy.  And, in this case, entiely accurate.


----------



## mwgdrwg (Mar 8, 2010)

belboid said:


> ooh, revols been back to school to learn two new words!
> 
> It is very clearly NOT cinematography, because the CGI removes ALL need for camera choices. It is predetermined. Same reason no cartoon has ever won a cinematography award. Because it doesnt involve cinematography.  At the most generous one would say it involves no complex cinematography, because it simple points and shoots.  The DP has no choices to make.  Hence, even if we are generous to the utmost, it should never ever win any kind of award for the skill.



You do know they filmed the actors using a camera beforehand?


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2010)

revol68 said:


> as a supposed Marxist he should be ashamed of his reactionary approach to such matters.


and your approach is as ill-informed and ill-formed as i would expectg from an actual reactionary like you


----------



## revol68 (Mar 8, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> Or just massively overhyped and an absolute victory of style over content.



This film has more political content than 99% of the shit released in the cinema, if you can't pick up on it's non too subtle subtext then that's your own failings.

I'll paypal you a tenner if you can name one major cinema release this year that is as explicitly anti US imperialism than Avatar. 

The best thing about the film was that it didn't chicken out and go for some reconciliation shit.

The fact that such a film was the biggest grossing and most expensive film in cinema history and that it was used to promote McDonald's Happy Meals makes it all the better, it shows that a sense of resistance and moral indignation can capture the popular imagination, that it isn't just something for middle brow wankers cramming into art house cinemas. 

You should read some Ernst Bloch, son.


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2010)

mwgdrwg said:


> You do know they filmed the actors using a camera beforehand?



yes, in front a blue screen (or was it a green now?). But no one is seriuosly suggesting those were the bits that looked impressive are they?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 8, 2010)

pboi said:


> nice post Fridge.
> 
> Can I ask you to point out better examples of Skin/Animations?  Its something I like to look out for and thought Avatar was really rather good. ( ?I studied Comp Sci) but I dont work in animation professionally.



The thing is, no, I can't - I don't want to slag the people who made Avatar off really, because it's so bloody tricky to do. I've seen a few shorts I think which have really nice animations of living creatures but actually, they tend to be hand drawn.


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2010)

revol68 said:


> This film has more political content than 99% of the shit released in the cinema, .



   

only if you're a fucking ten year old.  It's pathetic liberal pseudo-politics were as naff as the godawful script.  There's as much politics in High School Musical as there is in Avatar.


----------



## mwgdrwg (Mar 8, 2010)

belboid said:


> yes, in front a blue screen (or was it a green now?). But no one is seriuosly suggesting those were the bits that looked impressive are they?



You were seriously suggesting that the DP had no choices to make, so I can't take anything in this discussion seriously.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Mar 8, 2010)

belboid said:


> No they're not, they _creat_ the images, cameras dont.



You're still fixated on the means rather than the image itself and the choices that go into it.  They're still making all the same choices.  The technolgy used is meaningless.  They're just taking part of the image created with a camera and merging it with other images.  Every single movie made today gets a going over with CGI, even your basic comedy.  Get with the 21st century, man.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 8, 2010)

belboid said:


> and your approach is as ill-informed and ill-formed as i would expectg from an actual reactionary like you



you're an idiot, for a start if you wish to use your literal definition based on two greek words for capturing movement, then I would like to point out that there was huges amount of work put into Avatar to capture movement, afterall the whole basis of it's animation was about accurately capturing how the actors move and translating that into the CGI.


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2010)

fine, you lot want  to go back and give cinematography awards to cartoons too. Fair enough, but you're all wrong.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 8, 2010)

revol68 said:


> This film has more political content than 99% of the shit released in the cinema, if you can't pick up on it's non too subtle subtext then that's your own failings.
> 
> I'll paypal you a tenner if you can name one major cinema release this year that is as explicitly anti US imperialism than Avatar.
> 
> ...



You said all this before I saw it, and I thought it was balls then, and I think it's even more balls now I've seen it  It's a horrible conglomeration of every existing "noble savage" concept imaginable, mixing up every "tribal" trope in cinema to make the Na'avi mishmash. Every character is a stereotype and the entire plot is predictable from the first time anything is even hinted at - oh she's the daughter of the chief how surprising, oh they get it on, oh look there's a myth about riding a big dragon thing _I wonder if the hero will do that_. The bad guys are basically mailed through from the first time you see them.

It's considerably less anti-imperialism/militarism than Starship Troopers for a start, if you want a comparison aliens-and-stuff film.


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2010)

revol68 said:


> you're an idiot, for a start if you wish to use your literal definition based on two greek words for capturing movement, then I would like to point out that there was huges amount of work put into Avatar to capture movement, afterall the whole basis of it's animation was about accurately capturing how the actors move and translating that into the CGI.



And your a fucking idiot because I have never denied the 'huges'  work. But it is a totally different thing to 'cinematography', it is a technical not artistic achievement.


----------



## mwgdrwg (Mar 8, 2010)

belboid said:


> fine, you lot want  to go back and give cinematography awards to cartoons too. Fair enough, but you're all wrong.



Man, someone give this guy some Studio Ghibli 'cartoons' as an education.


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2010)

mwgdrwg said:


> Man, someone give this guy some Studio Ghibli 'cartoons' as an education.



have you done a degree in missing the point?


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 8, 2010)

revol68 said:


> This film has more political content than 99% of the shit released in the cinema, if you can't pick up on it's non too subtle subtext then that's your own failings.
> 
> I'll paypal you a tenner if you can name one major cinema release this year that is as explicitly anti US imperialism than Avatar.
> 
> ...



Yes I got the mesasage, not difficult after it was beaten into my head by the rather fuelled Steven Lang character. Yes I got the 'schtick', but it's still a massively overhyped film. The two aren't mutually incompatible you do realise don't you?


----------



## revol68 (Mar 8, 2010)

belboid said:


> only if you're a fucking ten year old.  It's pathetic liberal pseudo-politics were as naff as the godawful script.  There's as much politics in High School Musical as there is in Avatar.



Christ, the politics are the precise opposite of liberal, infact it's the almost childlike manner in which the film articulates the moral and political choices that allow it to escape liberal handwringing bullshit.

I would argue that this simplicity is actually more interesting and compelling, cutting away all the various banalities of the particular infavour of fidelity to a universality that overrides petty individual morality and instead forces us to make an outright choice. Basically what I'm saying is that instead of going through alot of shit trying to contextualise the motives and predicaments of the individuals carrying out the work of the mining corporation or even fighting for the Na'vi it cuts away all this essentially inane dross and gets to the heart of the matter. I'm fed up seeing films where US soldiers are personalised, where we are treated to seeing how 'human' some cunt general is and how torn he is in carrying out his acts of barbarism, that my friend is liberal shit.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 8, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> Yes I got the mesasage, not difficult after it was beaten into my head by the rather fuelled Steven Lang character. Yes I got the 'schtick', but it's still a massively overhyped film. The two aren't mutually incompatible you do realise don't you?



well actually it wasn't massively hyped when I went to see it at a preview showing, it was if anything facing a massive backlash from internet film nerds. The hype that came after that was born of the fact people really fucking loved it, rightly too.


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2010)

I hope that arguent gets you a decent mark in your Film Studies A level.  But its complete bollocks.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 8, 2010)

belboid said:


> I hope that arguent gets you a decent mark in your Film Studies A level.  But its complete bollocks.



You just don't understand it you left liberal prick.

Now fuck off and vote for RESPECT.


----------



## mwgdrwg (Mar 8, 2010)

belboid said:


> have you done a degree in missing the point?



Wasn't your point that animations don't require a DP and were simply to be derided as cartoons?

I apologise if I got that wrong.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 8, 2010)

belboid said:


> And your a fucking idiot because I have never denied the 'huges'  work. But it is a totally different thing to 'cinematography', it is a technical not artistic achievement.



oh fuck, a Marxist upholding the mythology of the artist versus the technician.

Actually I forgot you were/are an SWP sympathiser/member/groupie or whatever, you have no doubt never read fuck all of Marx's or any decent Marxist's writings.


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2010)

revol68 said:


> You just don't understand it you left liberal prick.
> 
> Now fuck off and vote for RESPECT.



oh dear, you've totally lost it.


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2010)

mwgdrwg said:


> Wasn't your point that animations don't require a DP and were simply to be derided as cartoons?
> 
> I apologise if I got that wrong.



Not saying that at all, certainly not deriding them. The technical requirements for a DP in animation is reduced. There are a few exceptions, but there is no evidence that Avatar is one of them.


----------



## mwgdrwg (Mar 8, 2010)

belboid said:


> Not saying that at all, certainly not deriding them. The technical requirements for a DP in animation is reduced. There are a few exceptions, but there is no evidence that Avatar is one of them.



Hmmm, well for _me_ there is no artistic difference between a DP's vision for  a jungle on Pandora, or a DP's take on the Texas landscape in No Country For Old Men.

Technically they are worlds apart (no pun intended), but both have artistic merit that deserve to be recognised.

eta, No Country For Old Men didn't win the Oscar for cinematography...though it should have!


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2010)

But there is. The former is created specifically to fit the films needs. The latter isn't.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 8, 2010)

belboid said:


> But there is. The former is created specifically to fit the films needs. The latter isn't.



But doesn't that make the work on Avatar more classically 'artistic' if anything since it is less limited by technical constraints of traditional cinematography.


----------



## mwgdrwg (Mar 8, 2010)

belboid said:


> But there is. The former is created specifically to fit the films needs. The latter isn't.



Capturing a landscape as your basic building block is no different to capturing the performance of an actor in front of a green screen. Imagine the Paris of Amelie without lighting, filters, post-processing...


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2010)

revol68 said:


> But doesn't that make the work on Avatar more classically 'artistic' if anything since it is less limited by technical constraints of traditional cinematography.


No. It's pointing and shooting. The artistry is carried out beforehand, primarily in the Art Direction (as already stated)


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2010)

mwgdrwg said:


> Capturing a landscape as your basic building block is no different to capturing the performance of an actor in front of a green screen. Imagine the Paris of Amelie without lighting, filters, post-processing...



absolutely. Indeed, precisely.  That is most of my point.

But the filming in front of the green screen is very obviously _not_ what won the award.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 8, 2010)

mwgdrwg said:


> Capturing a landscape as your basic building block is no different to capturing the performance of an actor in front of a green screen. Imagine the Paris of Amelie without lighting, filters, post-processing...



Yeah most people would see the art stemming from the lighting, filters, post processing, that is the application of imagination.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 8, 2010)

revol68 said:


> well actually it wasn't massively hyped when I went to see it at a preview showing, it was if anything facing a massive backlash from internet film nerds. The hype that came after that was born of the fact people really fucking loved it, rightly too.



You're a hermit aren't you? It was massively hyped.


----------



## IMR (Mar 8, 2010)

tbh I thought the artwork in _Savage Planet_, another scifi film with big blue beings, was actually better. And that was bound up with pretty basic Captain Pugwash style animation. It looked more weird, admittedly in a flarey 1970s way.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 8, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> You're a hermit aren't you? It was massively hyped.



It was hyped to fuck prior to it's release but this actually nearly backfired as there was a massive backlash in the two weeks leading up to it's actual release, with lots of people predicting it would bomb, once it was released there was a second wave of hype based largely on the fact people thought it was pretty awesome.

I mean me and my girlfriend went into it expecting the worst and came away brilliantly surprised.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 8, 2010)

revol68 said:


> It was hyped to fuck prior to it's release but this actually nearly backfired as there was a massive backlash in the two weeks leading up to it's actual release, with lots of people predicting it would bomb, once it was released there was a second wave of hype based largely on the fact people thought it was pretty awesome.
> 
> I mean me and my girlfriend went into it expecting the worst and came away brilliantly surprised.



So first you deny the hype you now actually admit that it was massively hyped, ie 'hyped to fuck'? ho hum.....


----------



## revol68 (Mar 8, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> So first you deny the hype you now actually admit that it was massively hyped, ie 'hyped to fuck'? ho hum.....





don't act stupid, you exactly what I'm talking about, it was hyped to fuck, then it got hit by a massive backlash about two weeks before it's actual release, so the film became almost anti hyped before a new wave of head of hype built up on the back of people actually going to see it and thinking it was awesome.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 8, 2010)

revol68 said:


> don't act stupid, you exactly what I'm talking about, it was hyped to fuck, then it got hit by a massive backlash about two weeks before it's actual release, so the film became almost anti hyped before a new wave of head of hype built up on the back of people actually going to see it and thinking it was awesome.



Roughly translated as revol can't remembner his own rantings and has fucked up ergo call someone a simpleton for pointing out your fuck up..... Not over hyped/hyped to fuck at all....


----------



## Reno (Mar 8, 2010)

IMR said:


> tbh I thought the artwork in _Savage Planet_, another scifi film with big blue beings, was actually better. And that was bound up with pretty basic Captain Pugwash style animation. It looked more weird, admittedly in a flarey 1970s way.



_La Planete Sauvage_, French animated sci-fi cult film which is called _Fantastic Planet_ in English. In terms of plot it's certainly no more sophisticated than Avatar, but it does look very cool and it has a great progrock soundtrack by Alain Goraguer.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 8, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> Roughly translated as revol can't remembner his own rantings and has fucked up ergo call someone a simpleton for pointing out your fuck up..... Not over hyped/hyped to fuck at all....



Really is it too hard for you to grasp that the hype turned into an anti hype backlash in the two weeks leading up to it's release, ergo at the time the first wave of cinema goers and critics saw the film it was if anything anti hyped.

it's not exactly Hegelian dialectics ffs.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 8, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Really is it too hard for you to grasp that the hype turned into an anti hype backlash in the two weeks leading up to it's release, ergo at the time the first wave of cinema goers and critics saw the film it was if anything anti hyped.
> 
> it's not exactly Hegelian dialectics ffs.



I can see plenty, I can see you wriggling like the prick you are..... 

The 'backlash', whatever there was given the massive numbers who saw it wasn't exactly huge was it.... Or is that a tad difficult for you to get?


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2010)

All the trailers were massively well received and it was generally predicted that it would be a very big hit.  A fair few critics did say it wouldn't  do well enough to cover all its real costs (once distribution and advertising were factored in) but they were always the minority from what I recall.


----------



## T & P (Mar 8, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> You said all this before I saw it, and I thought it was balls then, and I think it's even more balls now I've seen it  It's a horrible conglomeration of every existing "noble savage" concept imaginable, mixing up every "tribal" trope in cinema to make the Na'avi mishmash. Every character is a stereotype and the entire plot is predictable from the first time anything is even hinted at - oh she's the daughter of the chief how surprising, oh they get it on, oh look there's a myth about riding a big dragon thing _I wonder if the hero will do that_. The bad guys are basically mailed through from the first time you see them.



You've just reminded me of something that's appeared on the internets in the last few weeks...











Is the script original and challenging? No

Is the acting outstanding? No

Are the characters three dimensional (and not in the 3D sense)? No

Then why the fuck should Avatar merit winning Oscars for anything other than the technical aspects?

If there was an Oscar to Most Entertaining Film, then award it to it by all means. But it certainly did not deserve Best Movie or Director.

That doesn't mean it was a shit film at all- the movie is good fun and good at what it does. What it does mean is that for once the Oscars have been about what it used to be: rewarding acting and directing excellence.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 8, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> I can see plenty, I can see you wriggling like the prick you are.....
> 
> The 'backlash', whatever there was given the massive numbers who saw it wasn't exactly huge was it.... Or is that a tad difficult for you to get?



Why would a hype backlash in the two weeks leading up to it's release necessarily mean no one goes to see it, the film was always going to be 'an event' the issue of the hype and anti hype was whether it was going to be shit or not, once the critics and public saw the film the backlash went into retreat.

I saw the film on the Wednesday prior to it's weekend release and like I said I me and the girlfriend went in not expecting much at all in large part because of the backlash that had set in against the film, happily the backlash turned out to be unjustified.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 8, 2010)

T & P said:


> You've just reminded me of something that's appeared on the internets in the last few weeks...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And the best Satire award goes to....

The Oscars are a joke and always have been.

Shakespeare in Love anyone?

p.s. that Pocahontas gag has been out for a good bit longer than a few weeks, infact it and all the jokes about Dancing with Smurfs were doing the works before the film was released.


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2010)

Repeating the same point doesn't make it any more true.


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2010)

revol68 said:


> And the best Satire award goes to....
> 
> The Oscars are a joke and always have been.
> 
> Shakespeare in Love anyone?



lol, point marvellously ignored


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 8, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Why would a hype backlash in the two weeks leading up to it's release necessarily mean no one goes to see it, the film was always going to be 'an event' the issue of the hype and anti hype was whether it was going to be shit or not, once the critics and public saw the film the backlash went into retreat.
> 
> I saw the film on the Wednesday prior to it's weekend release and like I said I me and the girlfriend went in not expecting much at all in large part because of the backlash that had set in against the film, happily the backlash turned out to be unjustified.



This is getting funnier, at first you denied any hype now after saying there was a huge anti backlash saying itn wouldn't have had an effect. Untie yourself and get back to my original point. It was massively overhyped and a victory of style over content. Visually remarkable content wise it's Pocahontas ripped off.


----------



## T & P (Mar 8, 2010)

revol68 said:


> And the best Satire award goes to....
> 
> The Oscars are a joke and always have been.
> 
> Shakespeare in Love anyone?


 That might or might not be true, but you'd be very hard pressed indeed to find a year in which Avatar could have seriously and truthfully be considered as the best film or best directed film out there.


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2010)

even Cameron admits its a crappy rip off storywise, tho he named Dances With Wolves - probly cos that won an Oscar too


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2010)

T & P said:


> That might or might not be true, but you'd be very hard pressed indeed to find a year in which Avatar could have seriously and truthfully be considered as the best film or best directed film out there.



the year Titanic won?


----------



## T & P (Mar 8, 2010)

belboid said:


> the year Titanic won?


   Indeed.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 8, 2010)

T & P said:


> That might or might not be true, but you'd be very hard pressed indeed to find a year in which Avatar could have seriously and truthfully be considered as the best film or best directed film out there.



I think it could be considered for best Directed when you think of how much of a leap it is in the art of actual film making and the ground breaking techniques Cameron brought to fruition with it.

Should it get best screenplay or whatever, of course not, it's a simple (all the better for it) contemporary retelling of an age old story.
People make the Pochantas gag but anyone with wit can see how it differs greatly in it's core and it's political role, likewise Dancing with Wolves would have been a radical movie if it had been made (impossible I know) in the time it was set, or even if it had come out during the Vietnam war, however coming out when it did, it was little more than a piece aimed at easing liberal guilt.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 8, 2010)

belboid said:


> the year Titanic won?



titanic was shite.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 8, 2010)

revol68 said:


> titanic was shite.



I doubt anyone will dispute that.... Or at least I hope not.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 8, 2010)

Also I'd have given District 9 a ton of awards, certainly more than shite like 'An Education' and 'The Hurtlocker'.


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2010)

revol68 said:


> titanic was shite.


You sure it wasn't an a masterpiece of class war cinema, where everyone cheered the iceberg?


----------



## revol68 (Mar 8, 2010)

belboid said:


> You sure it wasn't an a masterpiece of class war cinema, where everyone cheered the iceberg?



oh there was plenty of rather crude cliched class antagonisms in the film, you'd be blind to miss them but they were nothing new, radical or subversive, rather it was an articulation of a class war that is very safe, quaint and mawkish.

Avatar on the other hand represented quite a departure for Hollywood blockbusters in terms of it's politics.


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Avatar on the other hand represented quite a departure for Hollywood blockbusters in terms of it's politics.



despite the fact that those 'politics' were copied from Dances With Wolves?  Would you care to defend this claim, or are you happy to simply repeat it over and over and over in the belief that doing so somehow makes it so?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 9, 2010)

No, to be fair it wasn't Dances With Wolves - also The Last Samurai, lots of Westerns, H Rider Haggard....


----------



## revol68 (Mar 9, 2010)

belboid said:


> despite the fact that those 'politics' were copied from Dances With Wolves?  Would you care to defend this claim, or are you happy to simply repeat it over and over and over in the belief that doing so somehow makes it so?



here's an idea, how about you read what I posted.





> Should it get best screenplay or whatever, of course not, it's a simple (all the better for it) contemporary retelling of an age old story.
> People make the Pochantas gag but anyone with wit can see how it differs greatly in it's core and it's political role, likewise Dancing with Wolves would have been a radical movie if it had been made (impossible I know) in the time it was set, or even if it had come out during the Vietnam war, however coming out when it did, it was little more than a piece aimed at easing liberal guilt.


----------



## Reno (Mar 9, 2010)

It now seems to be Internet law that whenever _Avatar_ is discussed, Pocahantas and smurfs must immediately be mentioned and should still be considered they height of originality, satire and a well articulated argument against the film. It's kind of boring how people just repeat whatever they read and think they are actually voicing their opinion.

This makes me wonder, how many films do people go to see ? I mean when is a major blockbuster not derivative of something else ? People keep going on about how much better _District 9_ was, but that film is no more original, ripping off both Alien Nation and David Cronenberg's The Fly wholesale, not just in plot, but also in imagery.


----------



## belboid (Mar 9, 2010)

revol68 said:


> here's an idea, how about you read what I posted.



here's an idea, you read what I wrote.  That isn't a defence, its another repetition.  It does not in any way justify your assertion. 

To be generous, one could say it is a recognition that you are talking utter _utter_ shit, but are making a weak as fuck attempt to save face (again).  It aint working.


----------



## belboid (Mar 9, 2010)

Reno said:


> This makes me wonder, how many films do people go to see ? I mean when is a major blockbuster not derivative of something else ? People keep going on about how much better _District 9_ was, but that film is no more original, ripping off both Alien Nation and David Cronenberg's The Fly wholesale, not just in plot, but also in imagery.



well, D9 is at least a thought through political allegory that makes sense and isn't sickly patronising. Even tho it's not exactly the most subtle allegory ever.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 9, 2010)

also people seem to have missed the point that Avatar isn't about the genocide of the Native Americans per se, even if it uses many of the tropes, mechanisms and signifiers related to it and it's cultural articulation. Avatar is not about looking back at historical wrongs and easing white america's guilt 200 years after the fact, it's (for all it's flaws) about now, about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and about the brutal nihilism of capitalist accumulation that literally does threaten the whole planet. Sure it's simplistic, almost childlike, sure it suffers from the inherent structural flaw of main protagonist centrism (our human lead can't just join the Na'vi he has to lead them wah wah) and yes it indulges some cringe worthy New Age wank (though there is a half hearted attempt to avoid that when Weaver's character is trying to explain that this shit is not magic mumbo jumbo but very complex science) but despite that or on the case of it's simplicity almost because of it, the film has more political balls and backbone than any other Hollywood release I can remember since maybe Three Kings and even it only came out years after the fact.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 9, 2010)

oh and it's also just a really fucking amazing looking, fun film, something that seems to get overlooked by middle brow cunts trying to flex their intellectual inferiority over 'popular culture'.


----------



## belboid (Mar 9, 2010)

ooh, revols learnt the word 'tropes' and 'signifiers'.  Not quite correctly used within a sentence but nevermind.

Do tell us just how his film - first written before 9/11 - is all about Iraq & Afghanistan tho. Tell us, dont just repeat the claim.  Show us where and how it is done in the film.  Otherwise it simply sounds like you have chosen to interpret it that way. Which is fair enough, but then millions of people _haven't_ chosen to interpret it that way too, or have not given a toss about the supposed politics cos they are so vague, woolly and a bit of a diversion from the pretty pictures.


----------



## belboid (Mar 9, 2010)

revol68 said:


> oh and it's also just a really fucking amazing looking, fun film,


no one has said anything else. It's cretins like you trying to claim it is something more than that that is being laughed at.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 9, 2010)

belboid said:


> well, D9 is at least a thought through political allegory that makes sense and isn't sickly patronising. Even tho it's not exactly the most subtle allegory ever.



I loved District 9 but to claim it made more sense than Avatar is bollocks, it required far more leaps of faith to fill in plot oversights, no bad thing to my mind but then I'm not one of those aspy fucks who fixates on tiny details and misses the bigger picture.

Avatar was a very compact, self contained simple story (again not necessarily a failing) that if anything made too much sense, leaving very little in the way of narrative gaps.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 9, 2010)

belboid said:


> ooh, revols learnt the word 'tropes' and 'signifiers'.  Not quite correctly used within a sentence but nevermind.
> 
> Do tell us just how his film - first written before 9/11 - is all about Iraq & Afghanistan tho. Tell us, dont just repeat the claim.  Show us where and how it is done in the film.  Otherwise it simply sounds like you have chosen to interpret it that way. Which is fair enough, but then millions of people _haven't_ chosen to interpret it that way too, or have not given a toss about the supposed politics cos they are so vague, woolly and a bit of a diversion from the pretty pictures.



The story might of been written in broadstrokes before 9-11 but there can be no doubt that by the time it was made and released Cameron was not to subtly making a point about Iraq etc, I mean for ffs, the 'shock and awe' references, the 'either with us or with the terrorists' speech delivered to the Marines and many other not so subtle nods.

Also even if Cameron had written the thing in it's entirety prior to the war on terror, the very fact that he would have released it unchanged in such a context should tell you something.

p.s. please explain to me how I used 'tropes' and 'signifiers' incorrectly, afterall I only learnt them and wouldn't wish to make a fool of myself in front of superior intellects like yourself again.


----------



## belboid (Mar 9, 2010)

Again, that's not a defense of your argument. Other than mentioning two lines which are applicable to any kind of conflict, and no one is denying that it's about conflict being generally, like, bad.


----------



## Reno (Mar 9, 2010)

revol68 said:


> I loved District 9 but to claim it made more sense than Avatar is bollocks, it required far more leaps of faith to fill in plot oversights, no bad thing to my mind but then I'm not one of those aspy fucks who fixates on tiny details and misses the bigger picture.



True. It just seemed a bit too handy to have the space ship fuel, which it took "Christopher" twenty years too collect to get confiscated on the very day that his quest is complete, but that it also conveniently enough transforms the "racist" main character Wikus to teach him the lesson of making him walk in the enemies shoes. The allegory of District 9 was no less patronising or clumsy than that of Avatar.

At least there was an internal logic to the world and plot of Avatar that wasn't quite so reliant on convenient accidents and co-incident.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 9, 2010)

belboid said:


> Again, that's not a defense of your argument. Other than mentioning two lines which are applicable to any kind of conflict, and no one is denying that it's about conflict being generally, like, bad.



you utter cretin, how on fucking earth did you take the message that conflict is generally bad from it? 

Did the film come to a happy ending through the marines and the Na'vi coming to some agreement, to somehow mutually co-exist?

No it didn't, the film comes it's happy ended because the Na'vi kick the shit out of the Marines and send them packing.

The message anyone with a bit of wit would take from that is that the conflict wasn't avoidable that rather it was inevitable and the real choice to be made was one between fighting or not fighting but on what side you would fight for.

The film is about deserting and insurrection and for that alone it has ten times the balls of any other supposedly subversive or anti war film I seen come out of Hollywood.


----------



## belboid (Mar 9, 2010)

D9 was, imho, more interesting in that it developed more realistic characters and didn't portray the 'others' as homogenous in the way overwhelmingly Avatar did. That makes it less patronising in my book, tho I do agree it is pretty damn simplistic as well, and that the world of Avatar was probably more consistent (tho various evolutionary scientists have said both sets of aliens were equally implausible, and whilst Avatar was worse, thats only really cos we were shown more of that world)


----------



## Reno (Mar 9, 2010)

belboid said:


> D9 was, imho, more interesting in that it developed more realistic characters and didn't portray the 'others' as homogenous in the way overwhelmingly Avatar did.



How were the aliens of District 9 were any less homogeneous than those in Avatar ? It's just that unlike with Avatar, in District 9 we only get to know two of them.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 9, 2010)

belboid said:


> D9 was, imho, more interesting in that it developed more realistic characters and didn't portray the 'others' as homogenous in the way overwhelmingly Avatar did. That makes it less patronising in my book, tho I do agree it is pretty damn simplistic as well, and that the world of Avatar was probably more consistent (tho various evolutionary scientists have said both sets of aliens were equally implausible, and whilst Avatar was worse, thats only really cos we were shown more of that world)



You might have failed to notice but the 'other' was no more homogenous than the human characters in Avatar, none of them were to any real extent fully developed or characterised and as I said before I found it refreshing, it kept the film focused on the events and wider universal concern.

As for District 9 well I actually found the way it created a 'nice' Prawn for the human to interact with and identify with more problematic. In Avatar there is no significant distinction made between nice Na'vi and alien Na'vi, the Na'vi in other words are to be supported or not supported on the basis of the wider issue that like I said transcends individual particularities.


----------



## belboid (Mar 9, 2010)

revol68 said:


> you utter cretin, how on fucking earth did you take the message that conflict is generally bad from it?
> 
> Did the film come to a happy ending through the marines and the Na'vi coming to some agreement, to somehow mutually co-exist?
> 
> ...



fair enough that there isn't some nice peace settlement at the end, but that's hardly an original ending. Most 'noble savage' films such as this, that arent factually based, end up in a very similar way.  The worst ones are  the ones where it takes someone from the imperialist faction to change sides for the savages to win. 

Just cos its set in the future doesnt mean one can simply INSERT CURRENT WAR HERE to take its meaning.  Sure, anyone can _choose_ to view it like that, but they can also choose not to.  It's not a question of 'wit', its about the film being so woolly that almost _any_ interpretation can be put onto it.


----------



## belboid (Mar 9, 2010)

Reno said:


> How were the aliens of District 9 were any less homogeneous than those in Avatar ? It's just that unlike with Avatar, in District 9 we only get to know two of them.



we dont get to 'know' lots of them in D9 either, but we can see in the general behaviour of characters in the background that they were a _society_, with differing emotions, whereas the na'vi were all just _being_, iyswim


----------



## revol68 (Mar 9, 2010)

belboid said:


> fair enough that there isn't some nice peace settlement at the end, but that's hardly an original ending. Most 'noble savage' films such as this, that arent factually based, end up in a very similar way.  The worst ones are  the ones where it takes someone from the imperialist faction to change sides for the savages to win.
> 
> Just cos its set in the future doesnt mean one can simply INSERT CURRENT WAR HERE to take its meaning.  Sure, anyone can _choose_ to view it like that, but they can also choose not to.  It's not a question of 'wit', its about the film being so woolly that almost _any_ interpretation can be put onto it.



When was the issue about the originality of the ending? Just admit you were talking shit about it simply being about 'conflict being bad'.

As for the changing of sides, well considering it's an American (even if Cameron is a cannuck) made movie aimed primarily at a western audience, and furthermore is aiming to, nay needs to be a massive block buster just to cover it's costs, it was always going to have it's central character start off as a Marine. It also makes perfect political sense as the films politics are aimed squarely at undercutting support for US militarism in the West, afterall it's not like many Iraqi's need to be offered an alternative perspective on the US military.

Also you can claim the films politics are vague and wooly and really just the product of people reading into them what they want, but that's just bullshit and I think you know it, there are just far too many non to subtle references to the war on Terror and we are left in fuck all doubt that for the corporation we should read US military, surely this had sank into even your thick nut by the time Cameron had blown up the fuck off tree with more than a few winks and nods towards Apocalypse Now.


----------



## Reno (Mar 9, 2010)

belboid said:


> ...but we can see in the general behaviour of characters in the background....



That's really clutching at straws. 


I'm off to bed, this is getting silly.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 9, 2010)

belboid said:


> we dont get to 'know' lots of them in D9 either, but we can see in the general behaviour of characters in the background that they were a _society_, with differing emotions, whereas the na'vi were all just _being_, iyswim



like I said you don't get to know any of the characters in Avatar beyond some very broad strokes and to my mind that's a good thing as it keeps the focus on the wider rights and wrongs instead of muddying the waters with individual personalities prying for our allegiances and empathy.

Also the appearance of the 'rational' prawn to interact with the human is politically far more problematic if you thought about it for more than a second, as it acts to move the issue of the prawns away from the political rights and wrongs and instead tends to reduce it to the level of individual sympathies because we can see the Prawn and his son like us, as opposed to those other animalistic prawns.


----------



## belboid (Mar 9, 2010)

I did admit that, yes, That's what I was doing.  Well spotted.  The point about the ending is that the conclusion of the film, the conclusin that you are arguing makes it so different, is compltely unoriginal. It's _not_ different.  It's a genre trope 

As to the central character, yes, they pretty much must be someone who is on both sides at differing times. The question is over the extent to which they then drive the story forward. A better such movie has them as more observer.

And the few mentins about current military methods of fighting are just that, references to _current_ methods.

Plenty of people wont come away thinking it was about Iraq, not because they are stupid or lack the 'wit', but because they dont see Iraq as being about resources, nor them being full of such lovely savages. Those people still know they will use things like 'shock and awe' in any other conflict tho.


----------



## belboid (Mar 9, 2010)

Reno said:


> That's really clutching at straws.
> 
> 
> I'm off to bed, this is getting silly.



It is a lil - but its not quite straws, we saw a _society_, that is important. What kind of society did the Na'vi have?  I honestly have no idea, not even of whether there was any attempt to show it. 

Which does also show the weakness of that film, so much of that - very probably finely studied and detailed - background has left no specific impression.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 9, 2010)

belboid said:


> It is a lil - but its not quite straws, we saw a _society_, that is important. What kind of society did the Na'vi have?  I honestly have no idea, not even of whether there was any attempt to show it.
> 
> Which does also show the weakness of that film, so much of that - very probably finely studied and detailed - background has left no specific impression.





Have you mixed these two films up?

The whole point of District 9 was that the Prawns essentially had no society structure, they were broken, atomised and preyed upon, they had been reduced to animals. What made it interesting was that we were forced to ask whether Prawns were 'naturally' like this, that their behaviour and the conflicts this lead to with the human populace (the example of train derailings etc) were the outcome of some sort of primordial difference (be that cultural or biological) or rather product of alienation, poverty etc. It was this critique of multiculturalism that provided the best pieces of satire in the film.

In the case of the Na'vi were spend nearly an hour being introduced to their society by the mechanism of Jake's apprenticeship. Sure it could be argued their society was cheesy and far too unitary and hippy dippy but that's a separate matter to what you are talking about.


----------



## belboid (Mar 9, 2010)

You saw them doing 'different things' to each other was my point (probably badly made, as was this entire sentence a moment ago), as opposed to the Na'vi society which you just agree was too unitary.


----------



## pboi (Mar 9, 2010)

revol68 said:


> oh and it's also just a really fucking amazing looking, fun film, something that seems to get overlooked by middle brow cunts trying to flex their intellectual inferiority over 'popular culture'.



which is exactly what you did in the previous post. cock


----------



## TAE (Mar 9, 2010)

This is what I thought you had posted:


NOT BY revol68 said:


> Also I'd have given DirectX 9 a ton of awards


Thought you were being sarcastic until I read what you had actually written.




belboid said:


> It is very clearly NOT cinematography, because the CGI removes ALL need for camera choices.


I don't understand this statement. When you create a virtual 3D world, you need to place the virtual camera somewhere into that world. I know from the little raytracing I've done that camera placement is important even in 3D graphics.


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 9, 2010)

Kathryn Bigelow..ex-wife of Cameron....






You know...if you painted her blue....


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Mar 9, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Kathryn Bigelow..ex-wife of Cameron....



She's looking good for pushing 60.


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 9, 2010)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> She's looking good for pushing 60.


Na'vi must live longer.   She certainly looks good for her age...and not _really_ in that Hollywood fucked up botox/implants way.


----------



## T & P (Mar 10, 2010)




----------



## ska invita (Jan 20, 2015)

BUMP

I was just looking at something on IMDB and spotted this:

2019 Avatar 4 (pre-production)
2017 Avatar 3 (pre-production)
2017 Avatar 2 (pre-production)

Thats a lot of CGI


----------



## 5t3IIa (Jun 22, 2015)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I think it is quite likely to look crude eventually. It's wonderful now, sure; even my cynical brain enjoyed it, though mostly because of the _design_ rather than the implementation. But given how dodgy lots of older big-CGI films look now, I think in a few years' time we will be saying "yeah it was great then, dated now though, look at how X moves or what the detail on Y is".
> 
> I spend a lot of time on Uncanny Valley issues and I can certainly say that Avatar hits a few. There are two things that I think people still don't do properly: firstly, bone/musculature and skin, skin's never proper and what's supposed to be underneath it doesn't help. Skin is not PVC and even very sophisticated skeletons don't properly simulate how fibres and muscles look. To me, they look like rubber still.
> 
> Secondly, the animations still aren't as good as they could be - which is an artistic issue, not a technological one. There's a certain sort of overly fluid movement that animated animals have that just feels wrong. You can mocap humans, but for organic things where you can't it's incredibly hard to do - this isn't calling people rubbish, this is very very tricky stuff, but it's still not right.


Watching it now and dug up this thread to find a post saying this, and like it.

I was kind of surprised that I just now thought it looks a bit ropey. Wtf have I been watching to compare it unfavourably to? Rocket and  Groot? The Lego movie was more realistic


----------

