James Cameron's "Avatar"

it was really good, went with some friends.

Even though its long, its worth is completely.
Graphics are a A+ .
Storyline is a A- ( love story part was so-so )
Overall amazing.
 
Houndour2004 said:
Did Avatar deserve the Golden Globe for Best Pic?
Click to expand...
Avatar deserved the award just as much as the other nominated "Best Picture" movies did. It wasn't a terrible movie and because it was in such a high rave, it was expected for this movie to win the award of "Best Picture."

spacecub said:

I don't think so, but I don't care, because I feel the same way about the Golden Globes as I do about PC's Member of the Month thread: it's a popularity contest that I can't take seriously. (I would have watched for Ricky Gervais, though, if I weren't boycotting NBC.) The fact that Avatar won just makes me wonder what exactly "Best Picture" means to the people who choose the nominees. Avatar was underdeveloped and unoriginal, plain and simple, these people must have been hypnotized by those damn special effects.
Click to expand...
Considering it took about 5-6 years for this movie to be written and just about a little less time for the damn special effects to be well developed enough for the movie, I don't think it could be said that this movie was underdeveloped and unoriginal. The movie's basic concept played along well, and with just about three hours to tell the whole story I don't think you could say this movie didn't deserve this award.

Not to mention, it was filmed in which it could be shown in three different ways, normal view, 3D, and 3D imax. So, you can tell that much effort was put into this film, just about equal to and/or probably more than the other nominated movies at the 2010 Golden Globe Awards.
 
Overall, I'll give it either a 3.5/5 or 4/5. It was a really good movie. The graphics was really good, and the storyline just made it better.
 
Does anyone believe that Cameron took a environmentalist movement with this movie? Like how they show the advanced machinery that destroys whatever is in its path?
I would have to say 'perhaps', but it doesn't bother me too much.
But what I'm really curious about is the struggle between humans and the Na'vi. It does look like racial, however, the humans only want the special mineral, unobtanium, that's located beneath the Hometree. Even so, the humans do treat the Na'vi like savages.
What's your opinion?
 
The movie basically shoved the whole environmental spiritualism thing down your throat so uhh... yeah. XD;

The entire film is basically a simple metaphor for white Europeans landing in North America and claiming it as their own land and treating the natives horribly. :3
 
I don't see why some people are getting their panties in a knot over the racial implications in this movie, especially considering it reflects the history of Earth pretty well as far as colonization goes. I know some people are also complaining about how it mirrors the war in Iraq, but the storyline was conceived well before that war started. Either way, who cares?

As far as the plot is concerned, no it wasn't particularly original. You could probably draw parallels between Avatar and many different sci-fi series spread over a variety of media, but in the end what does it really matter? I could understand "the plot isn't very good" as an argument for something like a book, since without a plot, what else do you have? But, a movie, well that's a different story. A movie could have the most original plot ever written, but if the movie wasn't overall entertaining, then that's a moot point. Without an original plot, Avatar does everything BUT fail to entertain, so it's shortcomings in plot are easily outweighed by entertainment value.

So yeah, you could say I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. I might have thought less of it if I didn't see it in 3D, though.
 
Considering it took about 5-6 years for this movie to be written and just about a little less time for the damn special effects to be well developed enough for the movie, I don't think it could be said that this movie was underdeveloped and unoriginal. The movie's basic concept played along well, and with just about three hours to tell the whole story I don't think you could say this movie didn't deserve this award.
Click to expand...

I meant everything BUT the visuals. It's a classic case of style over substance. I've mentioned before in this thread that the animation was impressive, I won't deny that; but the characters were made of cardboard, the story was unoriginal and predictable, and the anti-humanity message was really quite corny and overbearing (though valid), that is what I mean by underdeveloped. You must understand: as a bit of a cinephile, it takes a lot more than costly animation to dazzle me; I still assert that this movie is purely eye-candy, and undeserving of a "Best Picture" award. But it's a crowd-pleaser, so I'm not at all surprised it was nominated.
 
Houndour2004 said:
Did Avatar deserve the Golden Globe for Best Pic?
Click to expand...
Hell no. It's a predictable and unoriginal special effects spectacular with characters that don't engage you in any way. Compared to the other films that were nominated. Original stories with character development? No, it didn't deserve to win. Hell, Up wasn't even nominated and that opening sequence is better than all of Avatar.

spacecub said:

I don't think so, but I don't care, because I feel the same way about the Golden Globes as I do about PC's Member of the Month thread: it's a popularity contest that I can't take seriously. (I would have watched for Ricky Gervais, though, if I weren't boycotting NBC.) The fact that Avatar won just makes me wonder what exactly "Best Picture" means to the people who choose the nominees. Avatar was underdeveloped and unoriginal, plain and simple, these people must have been hypnotized by those damn special effects.
Click to expand...
Mmm.... I think Globes and the Oscars are anything but popularity contests. Ages ago the big winners were both great films and films that lots of people actually saw. Nowadays, the big money makers are not usually best of the year material and some smaller "art film" wins the crown. The Dark Knight wasn't even nominated at the Oscar's last year. What was more popular than that?

Hiiro said:
Considering it took about 5-6 years for this movie to be written and just about a little less time for the damn special effects to be well developed enough for the movie, I don't think it could be said that this movie was underdeveloped and unoriginal. The movie's basic concept played along well, and with just about three hours to tell the whole story I don't think you could say this movie didn't deserve this award.
Click to expand...
10-12 years now? Early 90s or so Cameron got the idea but couldn't run with it because the tech wasn't around for what he wanted to do. Yes. But did he work on it from then until it was released? No. I'm awfully sure I heard him in a brief interview the other day say it only took him three weeks to write. The movie was in production for four years.
 
It is one of the largest grossing films in history. It is the second most worldwide to this day.
Do you think it will pass Titanic's record?
At first, Cameron didn't think so, but now he thinks it will in due time.
To be honest, I hope he's right.
Toxicroak said:
One of my best friends is named James Cameron. lol
Click to expand...
Amazing! And I'm glad you enjoyed the movie.
 
tjgamer said:
It is one of the largest grossing films in history. It is the second most worldwide to this day.
Do you think it will pass Titanic's record?
At first, Cameron didn't think so, but now he thinks it will in due time.
To be honest, I hope he's right.

Amazing! And I'm glad you enjoyed the movie.
Click to expand...
That's a tricky thing to calculate. I found the top grossing films worldwide. It could very well surpass Titanic, which is currently 1st (with Avatar a close second 2nd). But, that list isn't adjusted for inflation.

I found an inflation-adjusted top grossing list for North America and Titanic isn't first. It's sixth. And Avatar is currently 34th. So....mehh.....maybe not.
 
Because there is no objective way to determine if the movie was deserving of the award or not, arguing the subject is just moot.

TRIFORCE89 said:
Hell no. It's a predictable and unoriginal special effects spectacular with characters that don't engage you in any way. Compared to the other films that were nominated. Original stories with character development? No, it didn't deserve to win. Hell, Up wasn't even nominated and that opening sequence is better than all of Avatar.
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself, here. Yes, it's a it predictable, but there are even more predictable movies out there, now. Brothers is one prime example, at least it was to me. And to be honest, I didn't think Up was all that great.

But this isn't the place to talk about other movies. I found Avatar to be an amazing movie. For one, the entire scope of the setting was nothing short of spetacular. While the setting seemed like James Cameron was reading my mind when he was thinking of Pandora, that's what made the entire world entrancing, in my opinion. The story, while predictable, as said, kept me entertained enough. The Na'vi is another interesting aspect of the movie. While on the outside, they seem like your cookie-cutter sci-fi race of humanoids, there is actually a culture there. The language is a clear indication of that, as it is a developed language. I can't remember exactly who helped Cameron with the language, but all I know is that there is a specific structure to it and about 1000 words. The scientific end of the movie is also a spectacular intrigue. On one hand, I could see some of this stuff happening had Earth and all it's organisms a different situation, but on the other hand, well, there is no other hand.

I suppose my view is a little different than a lot of others', though. I see Avatar not as a movie, but as a whole world altogether.
 
Avatar is a good movie, but not great. It certainly doesn't deserve the massive hype it gets. I think most of the hype is centred around the visuals, and especially the 3D - the whole gimmick of 3D is clouding a lot of peoples' judgement about the film, IMO. Personally, the 3D gave me a headache, and it always has done since the 'revival' of 3D. I don't see how paying the extra £1.50 or whatever it was for 3D was worth it - I'm sure I'd have gotten an equal amount of enjoyment from the 2D version.

(The below is spoiler'd for plot details.)

Spoiler:


Other than that, of course, there are dozens of sci-fi films that have parallels to Avatar. The storytelling itself was pretty flat, and only managed to sustain my interest until about half way through. After an hour and a half I was already looking at my watch, wondering if it was ever going to end.

Avatar would make a good DVD/BluRay. You can pause at your leisure to have a cup of tea or sex or something, then come back and watch the rest of the film. It really felt like it needed an interval. Forget Return of the King - Avatar completely redefines the word 'overstretched'. ROTK had enough material to make the three hour plus runtime work, whereas Avatar was struggling after just 90 minutes. Buy it on DVD or BluRay if it's going cheap, but don't pay an extortionate amount at your local cinema just to see a third of it in 3D.
 
Relatively, people all view a movie differently. I actually talked to a friend not too long ago about how people view a movie, such as a critique or one who wants to be entertained. When you compare Avatar to any other Sci-Fi movie, you can agree the originality of it wasn't so high. However, when it gives the history of what happened before in a different aspect you can say it gave out its own originality in some different way.

Avatar was more so an entertaining movie which is what I go to see a movie for. I don't go and see a movie and critique its every aspect as others may do, but instead I go to see a movie hoping to enjoy my few hours spent watching it. Whether I thought Avatar deserved the award of "Best Picture" or not, it still achieved it regardless.

With a film being put into work for so long, written in 1994, put aside until 2005 I consider it well worthy of a long wait and it in no way put me down as far as entertainment went. Said by Cameron himself, he does have ideas into making this movie a trilogy, so we'll see exactly how much farther this one movie can get.
 
That's exactly what I think, Hiiro.
And the last thing you said is the only thing that I'm really concerned about. The story had a well shown beginning, middle, and end, yet I'm not so sure how sequels could be done though. It would be a challenge for Cameron to think of a good plot outline.
Personally, the 3D gave me a headache, and it always has done since the 'revival' of 3D. I don't see how paying the extra £1.50 or whatever it was for 3D was worth it - I'm sure I'd have gotten an equal amount of enjoyment from the 2D version.
Click to expand...
True, some people have different aspect for the eyes and sometimes can get headaches from the 3D experience. But like I have said earlier, the new greenish tint in the glasses is far better than the terrible red-and-blue colored ones.
In my perspective, the 3D was excellent. I don't know if its just me, but I think my eyes are just...endurant in a way. Plus, I'm the only one left in my family that doesn't need glasses or contacts yet.
 
i liked the special Effects of this movie they were great no they were fantastic all of the plants and animals that inhabit the Planet are awesome but beside that i think the movie is meh the story line was very average and was nothing to special i recommend watching this movie for the effects but not for the storyline
 
This movie... I liked it. But I was also disappointed with it. It didn't live up to the hype, which is expected. The special effects were pretty good, and, yes, I liked the plot. However, that is probably because I never watched Dances with Wolves, or anything similar. I enjoyed the world that we were presented with, and I hope to enjoy it again if I were to watch it again.

The bottom line is, while it isn't a great movie, it kept me entertained for the 2 hours and 20 minutes (I think that's how long it was). Defenitely a reccomendation from me.
 
How incredible! To think that after I watched this film, I never thought it would turn out to be so successful in the box office. But now, it is the highest-grossing film worldwide. My older brother hoped this would happen, and I now he is very pleased. ...And I am too.
After a few days from watching it, I saw that it became financially succussful, but I didn't expect it to make it this far.
 
tjgamer said:
How incredible! To think that after I watched this film, I never thought it would turn out to be so successful in the box office. But now, it is the highest-grossing film worldwide. My older brother hoped this would happen, and I now he is very pleased. ...And I am too.
After a few days from watching it, I saw that it became financially succussful, but I didn't expect it to make it this far.
Click to expand...
You have to adjust for inflation. Every movie in recent years makes it near the top of the list. Like...Ice Age 3 is the 15th highest grossing film of all time worldwide. That total BS.

In the North American lists...which are adjusted for inflation, Avatar is only 34th or so.

Do you guys have something invested in the movie? Why would you be so pleased that's made so much? O_o
 
Because it making so much shows that it's been successful ~ and we'll see more movies green-lighted with the sort of budget that allows for such magnificence, in future?
Hurrrr.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top