Electric Mole Forums

Electric Mole Forums (https://forums.electricmole.net/index.php)
-   Off-Topic (Movies, TV & Other Media) (https://forums.electricmole.net/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   The Movie/Film Thread (https://forums.electricmole.net/showthread.php?t=1404)

frecklegirl 2009.12.13 10:13 AM

Let's talk about the movies we've recently seen or are looking forward to seeing!

golem09 2009.12.16 03:03 PM

Just seen avatar. But I have to go to bed, so only a few words:

It was utterly amazing. I wouldn't have dreamt of this. There might some minor flaws that critics will drag out and blow up, but the whole package ist something so rarely achieved that we should be glad about it, instead of talking about how it was less artsy than entertaining.
Because you have never been entertained before quite like this.

Inaudible-Whisper 2009.12.16 03:37 PM

Will be watching Avatar tomorrow night. Fantastic feedback online though.

Just watched the Californication season finale. Damn. Coupled with Dexter, what a depressing week of television.

golem09 2009.12.17 08:20 AM

I will go watch Avatar again on Monday. Actucally I'm very impatient about it. I couldn't stop thinking about Pandora the whole day. So fucking amazing.

Inaudible-Whisper 2009.12.18 04:44 AM

Saw Avatar in IMAX 3D last night. Wow. By far the most visually impressive movie I've ever seen it my life. It honestly feels 5-10 years ahead of everything else. Say what you want about the story, but I don't see how you could fail to be blown away by this movie visually. The story wasn't surprising nor particularly original, but it served it's purpose. It introduced Pandora and the protagonists and antagonists and it gave me enough reason to have an emotional connection with the good guys. You really want them to kick ass. There are some mother-earth-like cheesy scenes and lines, but they're native people and it's what they believe; I can't really fault Cameron for that. But screw all that, I spent the first 20-30 minutes just looking at the screen thinking "Holy shit". The trailers really don't do this justice, at all, in any way. The 3D is also the best use of it I've ever seen. In fact, half of the time I didn't notice it was there because it was used in such a way that it didn't noticeably stick things in your face on purpose. It was used as an artistic tool like lighting, to give depth to a scene and it's the best argument for the format to be used in a none-gimmicky way I've seen. It looked phenomenal.

Overall it met my expectations for the story. But best of all it totally lived up to the hype for it's visuals. I went with 6 other people, 4 of which didn't know of the scale of the hype and hadn't seen much other than a trailer. I think they liked it more than me, they could not stop talking about how utterly beautiful it was after.

You need to see this movie in a cinema in 3D. You'll really regret it if you don't; I don't care if you found the trailers unappealing just do it. I'm going to see it again and make the most of it in this format while I still can.

Glathannus 2009.12.18 05:08 AM

It's already been my plan since before December, to see Avatar in IMAX 3D. Anytime a groundbreaking blockbuster (such as the recent Batman movies) comes out, I go to IMAX for them anyway even if they're not shot in 3D.

I won't have time for it though, until closer to the end of the month. I have to be all prepared - which includes waiting in line for almost an hour just to get a middle seat, and that's after pre-ordering ticket(s) at least a week in advance. I realize that IMAX theaters are very well laid-out and that technically there's no such thing as a "bad" seat, but if you like to stick around for the credits of most movies, it is super-annoying to have so many people walking past you within your row - which they won't do when you're in the middle.

golem09 2009.12.18 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inaudible-Whisper (Post 65791)
Saw Avatar in IMAX 3D last night. Wow. By far the most visually impressive movie I've ever seen it my life. It honestly feels 5-10 years ahead of everything else. Say what you want about the story, but I don't see how you could fail to be blown away by this movie visually. The story wasn't surprising nor particularly original, but it served it's purpose. It introduced Pandora and the protagonists and antagonists and it gave me enough reason to have an emotional connection with the good guys. You really want them to kick ass. There are some mother-earth-like cheesy scenes and lines, but they're native people and it's what they believe; I can't really fault Cameron for that. But screw all that, I spent the first 20-30 minutes just looking at the screen thinking "Holy shit". The trailers really don't do this justice, at all, in any way. The 3D is also the best use of it I've ever seen. In fact, half of the time I didn't notice it was there because it was used in such a way that it didn't noticeably stick things in your face on purpose. It was used as an artistic tool like lighting, to give depth to a scene and it's the best argument for the format to be used in a none-gimmicky way I've seen. It looked phenomenal.

Overall it met my expectations for the story. But best of all it totally lived up to the hype for it's visuals. I went with 6 other people, 4 of which didn't know of the scale of the hype and hadn't seen much other than a trailer. I think they liked it more than me, they could not stop talking about how utterly beautiful it was after.

You need to see this movie in a cinema in 3D. You'll really regret it if you don't; I don't care if you found the trailers unappealing just do it. I'm going to see it again and make the most of it in this format while I still can.

I just don't get why people critize the story so much, because all the new twists like the protagonist in an avatar body while his real body is in the hands of the enemy, the bionetwork, the creature symbiosis, the sidekick in the love triangle that DOES NOT HOLD A GRUDGE against Mr Good, The complete destruction of the mother tree, the body transfers, the unsuccessful one just as much as the final one, and the fact you ARE getting emotionally involved in everything that's going on is incredible if you look at how pale this movie could have been with that premise
The video logs were another great way to enhance the storytelling and give you much information in little time. Now ON TOP of that cameron is a genius when it comes to the use of cinematic devices, and ON TOP of that this is the most beautiful movie ever created. You can not possibly imagine how good it looks, and if you've seen the trailer it's even harder.
I thought a lot about this movie in the last two days, and since I left the cinema I had a thought in my head that I didn't want to say out loud. "This is the best movie I have ever seen". Now I'm a movie nerd and so this is not something I'd say lightly. So I tried to find out why that thought is still in my head, even two days after. It's not the greates movie of all times. BUT, it's the best cinematic experience of all times. And I have the feeling that, despite being the first REAL 3D movie, this one will wait a long time until something better comes along.

Avatar has me in it's grip. I was introduced to Pandora and it's people so well that I just want to go back. I'll watch it again on Monday.

kuro_neko 2009.12.19 11:27 AM

um, avatar.

can I get a FUCKING HELL YES

holy shit I was a huuuge cameron fan before this and this movie was just, I haven't had an experience like that at the movies since the original LOTR. I took my mom and dad, neither of whom knew much about it, and my father, who goes tot he movies about 1 a year and usually falls asleep/complains the entire time, a silent strong type, was crying when the credits rolled.

the greatest achievement isn't the amazing special effects (I saw it in IMAX 3D and holy shit was it good) its how you become attached to these characters with no thoughts as to their digital creation, and how the story plays to a simultaneous male and female audience at the same time. there is no target demographic and both women AND men walk away saying how amazing it was. that is the mark of a true great. I can't wait to find some friends and go again, mannnnnn.

golem09 2009.12.19 03:34 PM

Very good Review here:

Avatar Review


when watching the live reviews about Avatar on youtube I noticed that all the premiers seem to have been on 00:01. Is that still the norm? Because about 3-4 years ago that just changed in germany, and every cinema started showing those premiers just at the normal time at 20:00.

HEDOfloe 2009.12.20 07:23 PM

i haven't seen avatar, but from seeing the trailer in the theater, i thought it was going to be lame because the blue people seemed completely uninspired and the story somehow seemed familiar in a way i didn't bother looking into. i ran across this article and they have another problem i would have never thought of. i don't care for the whole race thing, but it showed me another way the story seemed uninspired and it's that it's kind of already been told before.

kuro_neko 2009.12.20 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HEDOfloe (Post 65864)
i haven't seen avatar, but from seeing the trailer in the theater, i thought it was going to be lame because the blue people seemed completely uninspired and the story somehow seemed familiar in a way i didn't bother looking into. i ran across this article and they have another problem i would have never thought of. i don't care for the whole race thing, but it showed me another way the story seemed uninspired and it's that it's kind of already been told before.

the movie isn't unspired. just go watch it. I guarantee you won't feel the same kind of awe or emotion watching any other movie nowadays than you will find if you just got your butt into the theatre. And why does it work? Simple, because it is a parable which appeals to a deepseated and long standing racial history of greed and gluttony. this isn't an issue of white guilt, it is an issue of colonization, I mean you could see the movie as Pocahontas in space in a way. That is precisely why the movie works. I personally think that is an oustanding thing, it bears a message of importance (racial tolerance and reverence for nature, respect for life) and does so in a breathtaking and exhilarating way. These people who are so conserved with being original or being edgy just make me laugh, because stories like Pocahontas and these "white-guilt" archetype fables are passed down through centuries for a reason. They are important and Cameron is dutifully handing the message to the next generation while simultaneously making leaps and bounds in technology that are unprecedented. he should be applauded, not dissected for being uninspired or unoriginal. I mean, how can someone who has designed the first motion picture technology which enables photo realistic artificial lifeforms the ability to grace the screen stupid enough to just steal other people's stories and pass them off as his own? People say District 9 is just as impressive and I disagree, because you look at those aliens and see giant bugs, it is much harder to take a bi-pedal humanoid shape and truly transmit human emotions. You don't feel the same emotion. You don't understand the bugs, you just feel guilt or pity for their situation. In Avatar the Na'vi might as well be human as the way the audience relates is much more complex and multi-faceted. District 9 is a movie which should be written off as white guilt driven, Avatar is something completely different. of course people are divided over it, but you should just go see it and make up your mind for yourself, because when it boils down to it people just dislike James Cameron to begin with, so the higher the bar to knock him down off of really.

edit: about the blue people, he picked humanoids because he needed the actors to perform the roles and use their actual faces to capture emotions and transmit that digitally. when you watch the Na'vi in the movie you are watching actual human performances digitally rendered, the emotions and muscles you see are real, which is why it resonates with a human audience. When you watch them fly, they were flying, when you watch them run, they were running, and when you watch them laugh and cry, they were laughing and crying. no dead eyes to be found. as for the feline shape, he went with it because it was easy for people to relate to cats. it works to enhance empathy. he could have gone more alien but it would have made the link between human emotion and reaction much further, audiences wouldn't relate and since the entire movie works by appealing to the human condition, it would have failed.

Inaudible-Whisper 2009.12.21 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HEDOfloe (Post 65864)
i haven't seen avatar, but from seeing the trailer in the theater, i thought it was going to be lame because the blue people seemed completely uninspired and the story somehow seemed familiar in a way i didn't bother looking into. i ran across this article and they have another problem i would have never thought of. i don't care for the whole race thing, but it showed me another way the story seemed uninspired and it's that it's kind of already been told before.

The world of Pandora and it's inhabitants are one of the most inspired, imaginative things you could see on screen. It is just gorgeous. And everything is designed to work with the environment; it all makes sense. Even if Cameron doesn't have time in the movie to explain why everything is huge, he'll explain in an interview that it's due to the low gravity. That the Direhorse breathes through it's neck because it has a large ant-eater like snout so it can breathe while it eats. He has really thought it all through (creating an entire language in the process, with some help from a friend). He has an encyclopedia of Pandora written called Pandorapedia which he plans to release as a book.

The story has been told before. It isn't wholly original, nor surprising as I've said. But it's setting is totally original, and the story serves it's purpose; to show the world of Pandora and introduce a reason for fighting and the Na'vi in a way which works as a tutorial for us as well as any character in the movie. The story doesn't necessarily raise the film up, but it doesn't damage it either unless you're going in expecting something more (which nobody should at this point). Seriously, you can't not see this movie on the big screen in 3D. You'll totally regret it later.

HEDOfloe 2009.12.21 10:04 AM

i guarantee you i won't like it. and i say that in the least coconut-headed way that i can--i think i've gotten really good at knowing what i like and if there is anything i could like in the movie, it's overshadowed by the design of the blue people. i can't stand looking at them so i won't be able to enjoy it. call it whatever you want. but not even that, from the trailer, i could tell it's a kind of sentimental thing which i don't care for. i think great stories make you feel something through deep situations that are not romanticized through cliche'd character roles or sentimental music. the ice storm is a good example of that.

"pocanhantas in space" is exactly why i don't want to watch that movie. i don't think anything is particularly original because it takes something established and blends it with something else. Neko, you say there's a reason why these stories lasted, and it's true, but cliches last a long time, too, and i'll tell you right now, no one wants to read a story with lines like, "her eyes were as blue/deep as the ocean." if wanting to be original is laughable, then go ahead and laugh your head off. i think the point of art is to show you something new, and while nothing comes from nothing, we don't have to cling to tried-and-true archetypes. i'm positive that this director was not simply trying to teach a lesson about race. he wanted to tell this story and whether subconsciously or front-consciously, it apparently turned out to be a very familiar one.

and also, my problem with the blue people is not that they're humanoid, it's that i think they're a lame design. they're just blue indians with feline facial features. teenagers on deviantart with that anime cat fancy draw better anthros than these. i think there have been a lot of great, memorable races and species in the past, to name a few: a shitload from starwars, moogles, chocobos, that alien thing (though i don't think it's a great design, it does have a very unique, iconic shape for its head), and the like. that's why i feel that the blue people are unimaginative. they don't compare. (and aside from moogles and chocobos, i don't really like the starwars and alien thing, i was just trying to think of others in sci-fi since it's not a genre i like).

even the place itself, "pandora," looks amazing but it's nothing particualry unique designwise. as described in that article, its "landscapes look like a cross between Northern California's redwood cathedrals and Brazil's tropical rainforest." i guess we must have a different meaning of the word "original."

and i'm not trying to say that because of the formula it's a bad movie and you can't connect with the characters, but i believe you can connect and enjoy anything if you let yourself and here there's a lot of incentive for you to do that. why wouldn't you want to get lost in this amazing visuals that this new technology has to offer? i wouldn't because i have a problem, i'm very shallow about art in that i want it to be very deep and fresh, and i know i wouldn't enjoy it because i'd be bothered by the lame blue people and "pocahontas" template. i think a lot of things "serve their purpose," but why settle?

the fox 2009.12.21 11:47 AM

Made it roughly 1/2 of the way through Avatar last night before the snow caused a power outage and we had to leave. Really enjoyed what I saw. The trailers, at least here in the US, are pretty terrible in comparison to the actual movie. The look and feel is completely different, and I'm glad because I thought the trailers looked horrible. Overall the experience was highly enjoyable. Going to see it again soon (hopefully will get to finish it this time).

Then again, I guess that's usually the case with movie trailers here, though. No matter what movie or genre, somehow a grand majority have that same generic trailer with laughably bad voice-over dudes making it even more awkward.

kuro_neko 2009.12.21 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inaudible-Whisper (Post 65867)
The world of Pandora and it's inhabitants are one of the most inspired, imaginative things you could see on screen. It is just gorgeous. And everything is designed to work with the environment; it all makes sense. Even if Cameron doesn't have time in the movie to explain why everything is huge, he'll explain in an interview that it's due to the low gravity. That the Direhorse breathes through it's neck because it has a large ant-eater like snout so it can breathe while it eats. He has really thought it all through (creating an entire language in the process, with some help from a friend). He has an encyclopedia of Pandora written called Pandorapedia which he plans to release as a book.

The story has been told before. It isn't wholly original, nor surprising as I've said. But it's setting is totally original, and the story serves it's purpose; to show the world of Pandora and introduce a reason for fighting and the Na'vi in a way which works as a tutorial for us as well as any character in the movie. The story doesn't necessarily raise the film up, but it doesn't damage it either unless you're going in expecting something more (which nobody should at this point). Seriously, you can't not see this movie on the big screen in 3D. You'll totally regret it later.

well said. It completely holds up on multiple viewings as well. You would have no idea it was 2hrs and 40minutes. I have been twice and I'm going at least another time this week and potentially a forth when I get back to Hawaii. I don't know how I will feel that many times in, but the movie still had all the wonder and thrill the second time around, thanks to the subtle yet ferocious performance by Zoe. There is just something about her that carried over completely to Neytiri, gave her real life, it was insane.

golem09 2009.12.21 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HEDOfloe (Post 65871)
i guarantee you i won't like it. and i say that in the least coconut-headed way that i can--i think i've gotten really good at knowing what i like and if there is anything i could like in the movie, it's overshadowed by the design of the blue people. i can't stand looking at them so i won't be able to enjoy it. call it whatever you want. but not even that, from the trailer, i could tell it's a kind of sentimental thing which i don't care for. i think great stories make you feel something through deep situations that are not romanticized through cliche'd character roles or sentimental music. the ice storm is a good example of that.

"pocanhantas in space" is exactly why i don't want to watch that movie. i don't think anything is particularly original because it takes something established and blends it with something else. Neko, you say there's a reason why these stories lasted, and it's true, but cliches last a long time, too, and i'll tell you right now, no one wants to read a story with lines like, "her eyes were as blue/deep as the ocean." if wanting to be original is laughable, then go ahead and laugh your head off. i think the point of art is to show you something new, and while nothing comes from nothing, we don't have to cling to tried-and-true archetypes. i'm positive that this director was not simply trying to teach a lesson about race. he wanted to tell this story and whether subconsciously or front-consciously, it apparently turned out to be a very familiar one.

and also, my problem with the blue people is not that they're humanoid, it's that i think they're a lame design. they're just blue indians with feline facial features. teenagers on deviantart with that anime cat fancy draw better anthros than these. i think there have been a lot of great, memorable races and species in the past, to name a few: a shitload from starwars, moogles, chocobos, that alien thing (though i don't think it's a great design, it does have a very unique, iconic shape for its head), and the like. that's why i feel that the blue people are unimaginative. they don't compare. (and aside from moogles and chocobos, i don't really like the starwars and alien thing, i was just trying to think of others in sci-fi since it's not a genre i like).

even the place itself, "pandora," looks amazing but it's nothing particualry unique designwise. as described in that article, its "landscapes look like a cross between Northern California's redwood cathedrals and Brazil's tropical rainforest." i guess we must have a different meaning of the word "original."

and i'm not trying to say that because of the formula it's a bad movie and you can't connect with the characters, but i believe you can connect and enjoy anything if you let yourself and here there's a lot of incentive for you to do that. why wouldn't you want to get lost in this amazing visuals that this new technology has to offer? i wouldn't because i have a problem, i'm very shallow about art in that i want it to be very deep and fresh, and i know i wouldn't enjoy it because i'd be bothered by the lame blue people and "pocahontas" template. i think a lot of things "serve their purpose," but why settle?

Say what you want, but it's just as if you'd say "I won't watch Star Wars, because the force is stupid, and lasers don't end after 1m so the swords are soooo unrealistic"
Every last person on earth can guarantee you that you have never seen anything like it. The Na'vi design ist not stupid if you see it in 3D. I saw it the second time today and in the End when Na'vi stands besides/touches a real human you CAN NOT tell that the human is real and the Na'vi CG. Once you've really seen the Na'vi interact they look and fell totally believable.
And if you don't watch it because of the story...
The design of Pandora is so unique and good that it totally makes up for it. It's changing the story so much that it's MORE than interesting to watch. And I don't just mean creature design. I'm talking about the biology and physiology invented for Pandora and let me tell you without spoilers that there's one side to it that makes every single being on the planet and the culture of the Na'vi so much richer. It also explains their religion and their motives on a biological level, and that has never been done before.


Something else about my second viewing of Avatar:
The first time I watched it in RealD, today I watched it in MasterImage. That was quite a difference!
MasterImage bluntly said SUCKS compared to RealD. It takes away a lot of magic of the 3D and I'm very sorry for people who only watched it in MasterImage and think they've seen the real thing. I guess IMAX ist even better or just as good as RealD, but can't really tell because I've never been to an IMAX.
So I'd really advise ANYONE to avoid MasterImage and Dolby3D and go see it in IMAX or RealD.

kuro_neko 2009.12.21 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by golem09 (Post 65881)
Say what you want, but it's just as if you'd say "I won't watch Star Wars, because the force is stupid, and lasers don't end after 1m so the swords are soooo unrealistic"
Every last person on earth can guarantee you that you have never seen anything like it. The Na'vi design ist not stupid if you see it in 3D. I saw it the second time today and in the End when Na'vi stands besides/touches a real human you CAN NOT tell that the human is real and the Na'vi CG. Once you've really seen the Na'vi interact they look and fell totally believable.
And if you don't watch it because of the story...
The design of Pandora is so unique and good that it totally makes up for it. It's changing the story so much that it's MORE than interesting to watch. And I don't just mean creature design. I'm talking about the biology and physiology invented for Pandora and let me tell you without spoilers that there's one side to it that makes every single being on the planet and the culture of the Na'vi so much richer. It also explains their religion and their motives on a biological level, and that has never been done before.


Something else about my second viewing of Avatar:
The first time I watched it in RealD, today I watched it in MasterImage. That was quite a difference!
MasterImage bluntly said SUCKS compared to RealD. It takes away a lot of magic of the 3D and I'm very sorry for people who only watched it in MasterImage and think they've seen the real thing. I guess IMAX ist even better or just as good as RealD, but can't really tell because I've never been to an IMAX.
So I'd really advise ANYONE to avoid MasterImage and Dolby3D and go see it in IMAX or RealD.

that side you hint at was so amazing awesome. the movie subtly hints at a biological basis for religion and god and translates it into a modern 21century concept, which was really quite cool. golem, you may think the na'vi designs suck, but have you seen any of the other wildlife from Pandora? I was blown away at the designs from half the monsters in the movie, they were incredible, and the level of detail he gave to their design (such as having the horse-like creatures breath through gil-like opening in their necks so their ant-eater like face can eat while they breathe) was really outstanding.

my problem with your argument golem is simply that to be believable james cameron had to to go alien but stay within what the human race knows. he had to take familiar concepts and juggle them around into something new and alien. all the wildlife/species on pandora fit together and they all are similar enough to our own biosphere but just different enough to be alien but allow for empathy, which is a large part of the movie.

I'm sorry, but you can't compare the message to "her eyes were as deep as the ocean" because the movie is a humanist parable, which are passed down in various forms in all cultures because it is important to share respect for *all life forms* in every single culture, and if teaching that to the next generation means creating movies about giant blue cat-humans, I think thats fucking rad.

everyone, including myself, thought the Na'vi design was stupid, up until they saw the movie. Seriously, I can't stress it enough. I'm not saying you will like/enjoy the movie, but I think it is pretty stupid to write something off without seeing it. James Cameron is a very smart man and everything works almost *solely* in terms of context, which is why the advertising campaign was limited (except for a massive last minute push) and the trailers leave much to be desired.

bash it as you like, I watched my father wipe away tears when the lights came on and I've seen that man cry only a handful of times in my life, and almost never during a movie. it has a powerful message and I think writing it all off based on initial impressions of creature design, presented largely out of context, is a shame.

golem09 2009.12.21 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kuro_neko (Post 65884)
that side you hint at was so amazing awesome. the movie subtly hints at a biological basis for religion and god and translates it into a modern 21century concept, which was really quite cool. golem, you may think the na'vi designs suck, but have you seen any of the other wildlife from Pandora? I was blown away at the designs from half the monsters in the movie, they were incredible, and the level of detail he gave to their design (such as having the horse-like creatures breath through gil-like opening in their necks so their ant-eater like face can eat while they breathe) was really outstanding.

my problem with your argument golem is simply that to be believable james cameron had to to go alien but stay within what the human race knows. he had to take familiar concepts and juggle them around into something new and alien. all the wildlife/species on pandora fit together and they all are similar enough to our own biosphere but just different enough to be alien but allow for empathy, which is a large part of the movie.

I'm sorry, but you can't compare the message to "her eyes were as deep as the ocean" because the movie is a humanist parable, which are passed down in various forms in all cultures because it is important to share respect for *all life forms* in every single culture, and if teaching that to the next generation means creating movies about giant blue cat-humans, I think thats fucking rad.

everyone, including myself, thought the Na'vi design was stupid, up until they saw the movie. Seriously, I can't stress it enough. I'm not saying you will like/enjoy the movie, but I think it is pretty stupid to write something off without seeing it. James Cameron is a very smart man and everything works almost *solely* in terms of context, which is why the advertising campaign was limited (except for a massive last minute push) and the trailers leave much to be desired.

bash it as you like, I watched my father wipe away tears when the lights came on and I've seen that man cry only a handful of times in my life, and almost never during a movie. it has a powerful message and I think writing it all off based on initial impressions of creature design, presented largely out of context, is a shame.


I think you are mixing up my post with hedo's. I never said a single bad thing about avatar....
Or did you just wrote golem instead of Hedo by accident in your second paragraph?
Cause I liked the Design of everything on Pandora, the Na'vi included.

HEDOfloe 2009.12.21 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by golem09 (Post 65881)
Say what you want, but it's just as if you'd say "I won't watch Star Wars, because the force is stupid, and lasers don't end after 1m so the swords are soooo unrealistic"
Every last person on earth can guarantee you that you have never seen anything like it. The Na'vi design ist not stupid if you see it in 3D. I saw it the second time today and in the End when Na'vi stands besides/touches a real human you CAN NOT tell that the human is real and the Na'vi CG. Once you've really seen the Na'vi interact they look and fell totally believable.
And if you don't watch it because of the story...
The design of Pandora is so unique and good that it totally makes up for it. It's changing the story so much that it's MORE than interesting to watch. And I don't just mean creature design. I'm talking about the biology and physiology invented for Pandora and let me tell you without spoilers that there's one side to it that makes every single being on the planet and the culture of the Na'vi so much richer. It also explains their religion and their motives on a biological level, and that has never been done before.

dude, you're mixing up what i'm saying. well, first, what i'm saying is nothing like "I won't watch Star Wars, because the force is stupid, and lasers don't end after 1m so the swords are soooo unrealistic." not at all. i'm not questioning the believability of the story or the characters, i just mean that design-wise, they're not very original. that has nothing to do with whether they look realistic next to people, whether they are painted, sketched, or whatever. if you drew it on paper, black and white, it's a lame design. now it seems you'll say the amazing 3d makes it better, but it's the same design and it's a design that is unappealing to me. that's all i'm saying.

and neko, how is the design i'm seeing out of context? i haven't seen it paired with the whole story, but the design is what it is and there's no getting around that. it's the story, really, that doesn't make me care for it, i can get past a visual disturbance if the content was worth it but it doesn't seem to be the case. as i said before, if it's so similar to other stories i've heard, i don't feel like bothering with it. i looked at some reviews and everyone says the same thing, the story is ho-hum but the visuals are amazing. i want the cake to be real good, not just the icing.

you're right about the message bit, if that is really the intention. i didn't mean to compare the message directly to a cliche'd line, but i intended to show that if it is something i already know and is established and passed down like cliche'd lines, then i won't be interested. but if it's for a younger generation and it really is a "lesson" for them to learn, i guess that's fine for them. though i'm not sure i want a movie to teach me anything specific as much as i want it to show me something that i can draw my own conclusions from. though i'm also not sure if that's always the case in my movie watching.

i don't want to seem like i'm bashing this, it does seem like a legit movie and all. i wasn't going to comment on it before because i saw some people seemed to really like it but i pointed out that article because it had an interesting view that i probably would not have put to the movie and was wondering if that would add/change/subtract from anyone's enjoyment of it.



but, i might get it from netflix in the future, i doubt it, but you never know. the only real thing i might be missing out is on the 3d experience and the only place that offers that near me is too out of the way for me to bother.

kuro_neko 2009.12.21 08:34 PM

I mixed up golem and hedo's posts. oops.

the design aspect is brought up because I'm sure you think the designs look retarded, but when you spend 2 and a half hours with them and you learn to live breathe and feel Na'vi, I think the way you perceive them change, its the same as a first impression, there are distinct reasons why they are designed they way they are. They even did tests where they did more unconventional designs and based on the reactions Cameron engineered them to their current look (eye placement had a big effect, placing the eyes too far apart is a major issue apparently).

the movie bears a well thought out and stylish packaging for a surprisingly heartfelt old-as-time parable about man versus nature. I mean, you could compare it to Pocahontas or Ferngully, but you could also compare it to Princess Mononoke. I really challenge anyone to watch the film and walk away saying they didn't feel the least bit amount of emotion from the film. I mean when the lights go up your walking nerds and jocks alike kind of pulling off the 3D glasses and shaking off the final thoughts and impressions. I am not forcing you to like something you think is a waste of time, I just think the movie is such a well done and powerful piece of work it speaks for itself and its a shame to miss out. I wouldn't be concerned with IMAX persay (I heard from another board the film was optimized for dolby digital 3D since the majority of moviegoers don't have access to IMAX, so the 3D presentation is better on a regular screen than imax) or even 3D if you don't have access.

the film is number 21 highest rated film of all time on imdb and the only entry from 2009 so far, which is reason enough in my book to give it a shot.

Inaudible-Whisper 2009.12.22 05:00 AM

Hedo, I don't think you should miss out on the movie even if you don't like the Na'vi design. 80% of the film is CGI including the entirety of Pandora, not just the Na'vi. When people say it looks astounding, they're not just talking about the Na'vi and the motion capture, they're talking about the entire world that was created which is totally unique and compelling.

I can't believe that the guy earlier who said it's just a mixture of South America's rainforests and the forests of California was watching the same movie, because aside from the fact that tree's are typically green there is nothing remotely similar about the creatures and plant life. Sure, it at first looks like a typical forest (particularly from above) but each individual aspect is wholly unique (and based on underwater life, if anything). I don't think you should miss out on the visual experience because of one dodgy review and a dislike for the Na'vi design. The trailer, when it came out, had huge backlash. People laughed at the Na'vi calling them smurfs, saying that they look stupid. They said the CG wasn't that good. Heck even I was underwhelmed after all the hype. But that has totally switched now that people have seen the final product, so you should give it that chance too. You're not going to get the chance to see the most visually compelling movie ever made (thus far) on the big screen in 3D again, so why not spare a few dollars? What have you got to lose? You can still come back and say you hated it, but at least you tried. I don't see how it's possible to hate the visuals though.

There is a fantastic article here in which an astrophysicist who has worked on SETI and the Hubble space telescope talks about the science of Avatar and Pandora. Read his response after the initial article too where he finds out how certain things work via Pandorapedia. It really goes to show how much work Cameron has put into the movie. Geologists have been emailing in to explain that the vast rock arcs seen at the climax look to be mineral growth following magnetic field lines. That is stuff 99.999% of the audience will never notice, but it's there and it's awesome.

frecklegirl 2009.12.22 07:58 AM

Yeah, Hedo, I understand all your reservations--and have not seen Avatar (yet) either--but I still wouldn't be so sure if I were you. After I was fully convinced Star Trek wasn't going to be my thing but then I ended up loving the movie and seeing it twice, I've realized sometimes (SOMETIMES) the hype is real, and I can't always be so stubborn all the time about what I will like or dislike. I'm not saying you should go out of your way to see it, but if you get a chance, maybe don't dismiss it.

Personally, although I really have not had good experiences with IMAX 3D in the past (I remember going to an IMAX 3D show at a museum as a kid and starting to feel sick; I've just never been big on 3D stuff), I think I'd still like to see this at least on an IMAX screen, though I may not wear the glasses.

Also, I saw The Princess and the Frog the other night and it was really, really good. Completely proved that Disney still has it and I hope this leads to a lot more quality hand-animated films.

golem09 2009.12.22 01:24 PM

If you don't like IMAX 3D, you should look out for a RealD cinema. Just avoid MasterImage, these suck so much that you will really MISS some of the magic of Pandora.

On the movie:
I talked to one of my coworkers today. She went in with her boyfriend, just to do him the favor. She hadn't seen anything about the movie, just some pictures with those blue people and she thought it looked stupid. She thought it could be fun to watch it, because it's 3D, but she didn't really want to go.
She bought popcorn and cola as usual, and then the movie started and from the first second she was in total awe until the end. Amazed by the effects, the story and the emotions, she completely forgot to eat her popcorn and drink her cola. And even though the movie was almost 3 hours long, she was so amazed that she would have just watched it again if that was possible.

Inaudible-Whisper 2009.12.22 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by golem09 (Post 65903)
I talked to one of my coworkers today. She went in with her boyfriend, just to do him the favor. She hadn't seen anything about the movie, just some pictures with those blue people and she thought it looked stupid. She thought it could be fun to watch it, because it's 3D, but she didn't really want to go.
She bought popcorn and cola as usual, and then the movie started and from the first second she was in total awe until the end. Amazed by the effects, the story and the emotions, she completely forgot to eat her popcorn and drink her cola. And even though the movie was almost 3 hours long, she was so amazed that she would have just watched it again if that was possible.

That is almost exactly what happened with 2 of my friends. They knew virtually nothing of the movie other than the trailer, which they weren't particularly enthusiastic about. They both ended up crying, one of them 3 times, and they both wanted to watch it instantly again. One of them told me today "It's my favourite film of all time" and she has tickets booked to see it again this Thursday.

HEDOfloe 2009.12.22 07:49 PM

whisper, i'm not really put off by the review, i only mention it because it seemed to confirm my own ideas. i usually don't read reviews at all because i like to make up my own mind on things.

the fact that i appreciate the reasons for most of you guys' opinions really makes me want to see it but i really cannot see myself enjoying this no matter how stunning. part of me wants to go see it just so i can come back and say i told you i'd hate it, but i also know about the self-fulfilling prophecy and don't want to make myself not like it on purpose.

at this point, i almost conceded to your urging and went to go see it, but money is superhero tight with me right now. i tutor essay writing at school and that has been over for two weeks now and won't be back until mid january so i have to be very frugal so that i don't end up having to ask my parents for cash. i already have a couple of trips with friends planned to go to new york during the winter break and that's always costly so i'm going to have to wait. the time off from discussing it would do well to let me be more clear-minded about it, too. sometimes the mainstream hype annoys me even about stuff i'm already excited about.

and, i would never ever ever watch that star trek movie. ugh i can't stand those actors and, well, i won't go into it. it really gets me angry.

more about hype: i don't think the hype is ever true because the hype is always for the wrong reasons, or at least, not the reasons i value most. when i see a great movie that the public agrees is great, it's usually really underappreciated. even something simple like the hangover, for example, i thought was pretty funny but most people in the theatre laughed over all the great jokes that usually come after a more obvious one and it just shows how many little things go unnoticed by the masses.

kuro_neko 2009.12.22 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by golem09 (Post 65903)
If you don't like IMAX 3D, you should look out for a RealD cinema. Just avoid MasterImage, these suck so much that you will really MISS some of the magic of Pandora.

On the movie:
I talked to one of my coworkers today. She went in with her boyfriend, just to do him the favor. She hadn't seen anything about the movie, just some pictures with those blue people and she thought it looked stupid. She thought it could be fun to watch it, because it's 3D, but she didn't really want to go.
She bought popcorn and cola as usual, and then the movie started and from the first second she was in total awe until the end. Amazed by the effects, the story and the emotions, she completely forgot to eat her popcorn and drink her cola. And even though the movie was almost 3 hours long, she was so amazed that she would have just watched it again if that was possible.

everyone I has talked to said if it looped and started up again they wouldn't have gotten out of their seats, haha.

I'm going again tomorrow, three times in a week, insaaaane. lets see if it holds up!

Scribble R 2009.12.23 03:08 AM

The impressions here have made me want to see this while I still can (It's the kind of movie I should have been excited about anyway, but something went wrong along the way)

Inaudible-Whisper 2009.12.23 05:38 AM

Well Hedo there is no rush. I think they've booked 10 weeks with IMAX. If you are going to see it, probably best to do so in your own time and not due to peer pressure :P

golem09 2009.12.23 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HEDOfloe (Post 65909)
whisper, i'm not really put off by the review, i only mention it because it seemed to confirm my own ideas. i usually don't read reviews at all because i like to make up my own mind on things.

the fact that i appreciate the reasons for most of you guys' opinions really makes me want to see it but i really cannot see myself enjoying this no matter how stunning. part of me wants to go see it just so i can come back and say i told you i'd hate it, but i also know about the self-fulfilling prophecy and don't want to make myself not like it on purpose.

at this point, i almost conceded to your urging and went to go see it, but money is superhero tight with me right now. i tutor essay writing at school and that has been over for two weeks now and won't be back until mid january so i have to be very frugal so that i don't end up having to ask my parents for cash. i already have a couple of trips with friends planned to go to new york during the winter break and that's always costly so i'm going to have to wait. the time off from discussing it would do well to let me be more clear-minded about it, too. sometimes the mainstream hype annoys me even about stuff i'm already excited about.

and, i would never ever ever watch that star trek movie. ugh i can't stand those actors and, well, i won't go into it. it really gets me angry.

more about hype: i don't think the hype is ever true because the hype is always for the wrong reasons, or at least, not the reasons i value most. when i see a great movie that the public agrees is great, it's usually really underappreciated. even something simple like the hangover, for example, i thought was pretty funny but most people in the theatre laughed over all the great jokes that usually come after a more obvious one and it just shows how many little things go unnoticed by the masses.

Ok here are two reasons for you to go:

1. You should have read the stuff about people who thought the trailer was stupid and then sat there in such an awe that they were just speechless by now. Think about that :)

2. No matter what special Edition DVD or BluRay, you won't ever have the chance again for all the money in the world to EXPERIENCE this movie for the 10$ as you can now.

There is a nice (even if clicheed line in the movie): "It's hard to fill a bowl that already full". Just go in, trusting us, and forgetting everything you already know about the movie.

golem09 2009.12.23 11:07 AM

ok, I have now three videos for you:

1. For Hedo to watch:

Avatar Feature

Better than the trailer. You should also watch the next video:

2. Small video about the motion, and the emotion capturing

Motion Capturing


3. And now a stunning 30 minutes video interview with Cameron sitting on a cheap couch, talking about the development process of the tech that made Avatar possible:

Cameron Interview


This is brilliant. You can't even begin to describe in a few words, just HOW MUCH work this requiered. 1.5 years of R&D just for the basics, and the design on Pandora. All while developing a new 3D camera, then developing a camera that can take you through the CG set in real time ON the motion capturing set BY moving the "CG camera" through it. Then combinging both technologies so that you can film real humans WHILE having the CG sets on the camera.
After that they needed about 9-12 months for EVERY character individually to get the finetuning on the mimic capturing done. All with horrible drawbacks and no one to turn to, because they were the ONLY ones even trying to do it. As cameron said, it wasn't just hard work, but also very scary, because he had no idea if it would work in the end.

Inaudible-Whisper 2009.12.23 11:40 AM

I'd try and watch as little footage of the movie as possible beforehand to be honest. I'm glad I didn't watch that first vid before watching the movie, it had too many spoilers (not necessarily story-wise, but great shots that I didn't expect that were stunning in the movie like waking up in zero-g). The motion capture vid isn't so bad; it really shows off the tech with only snippets of footage, and the Cameron interview is fine too.

HEDOfloe 2009.12.23 09:32 PM

golem, that feature did not help me at all. i was beginning to resign to watch it and then it showed me everything that made me not want to watch it all over again. first, what the guy describes that movie as: not just scifi, but action adventure, and fantasy. fantasy is broad, but i usually hate sci-fi, and action adventure in movies is generally lame. i think the only action movies i really liked off my head are old boy though it wasn't exactly and action flick, and tarantino's movies with action in them.
then there's that general/lieutenant's speech that is in every single movie with an army official: "you are not home, you are in this fucked up dangerous place now." the idea of an avatar is lame to me, it's this modern thing with exploring people being someone else that's come up through the internet and i believe there was a movie with that same idea already that had people going into the minds and bodies of prisoners and controlling them. the title itself is lame, it's so blunt and blech to me.
those things may seem picky, but it's really the story that gets to me. i think a movie is nothing if the story isn't good and i can't get over the idea that i can probably predict most of it, even that feature pretty much outlined the whole movie in 3 minutes while the actual thing goes on for 3 hours! the visuals may be impressive but only technically, they're actual aesthetic design is not particularly pleasing to me. i don't doubt all the time that went in to make it, though.

but, if it is as whisper said and they extended it, i'll clear my mind of all this and try to go see it in a couple of weeks. i have another friend who was critical of it (though i don't know for what reasons) who i might go with.

oh, also, about trailers, golem, they're rarely ever any good because they have to market to everyone in one go. even good movies i like, i feel they are misrepresented by the trailer more often than not.

kuro_neko 2009.12.23 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inaudible-Whisper (Post 65925)
I'd try and watch as little footage of the movie as possible beforehand to be honest. I'm glad I didn't watch that first vid before watching the movie, it had too many spoilers (not necessarily story-wise, but great shots that I didn't expect that were stunning in the movie like waking up in zero-g). The motion capture vid isn't so bad; it really shows off the tech with only snippets of footage, and the Cameron interview is fine too.

agreed, the less you know when you go in the better I think.

its certainly impressive but he didn't promote the heck out of the movie's amazing technology because it truly stands on its own. its cool to know how he did it and how revolutionary it is, but what is even more impressive is the final product on its own. when I was in art school they would talk about how there is no one way to view a piece of art and how the artist shouldn't have to explain their work, it should speak on its own. you give birth to this piece and its left to stand on its on merit in the world and people can take away what they want, but in hedo's defence, if I had this many people telling me I should see the movie I would probably resist too. Fortunately I stumbled into on my own and with relatively little exposure.

HEDOfloe 2009.12.24 06:56 AM

well, you know, if i didn't have people here telling me to watch it, i'd really never see it. the only other people that have told me to watch it are my brother and a couple of his friends but they like a whole lotta movies that i couldn't care for. so thanks guys =).

cjhobbies00 2009.12.24 07:34 AM

Don't we already have a film thread (or something similar...)?

Four pages of Avatar talk. I'm not particularly excited about the premise and I missed out on all the hype. Dunno if I'll ever get a chance to catch it in 3D before the run ends.

frecklegirl 2009.12.24 07:38 AM

I closed the similar threads so we could start over with this one and the TV one. The "Our favorite movies" thread was always a little confusing as to whether current movies could be discussed there or just people's favorite movies. After this thread and the TV one have gotten more established I might reopen/restart "Currently Watching" but have it dedicated only to what you're watching on Youtube, concert DVDs/music videos, etc.

This thread isn't just for Avatar of course but that discussion has kinda taken over lately (it did the same in the old Currently Watching thread).

Inaudible-Whisper 2009.12.24 08:16 AM

Yeah, I think this thread title makes more sense. I'd often not know which movie thread to post in. If I'm looking forward to a movie I'm not "currently watching" it and it isn't my "fav. movie" (yet) so it's best to have just a flat out movie thread. And keeping the TV totally separate is good too.

Avatar is the biggest movie release of the year though, so it's no shock that it's taking up a great bulk of the discussion as of recent. Should have really had an Avatar thread but it'll probably die down now that most people have chipped in.

golem09 2009.12.24 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HEDOfloe (Post 65930)
golem, that feature did not help me at all. i was beginning to resign to watch it and then it showed me everything that made me not want to watch it all over again. first, what the guy describes that movie as: not just scifi, but action adventure, and fantasy. fantasy is broad, but i usually hate sci-fi, and action adventure in movies is generally lame. i think the only action movies i really liked off my head are old boy though it wasn't exactly and action flick, and tarantino's movies with action in them.
then there's that general/lieutenant's speech that is in every single movie with an army official: "you are not home, you are in this fucked up dangerous place now." the idea of an avatar is lame to me, it's this modern thing with exploring people being someone else that's come up through the internet and i believe there was a movie with that same idea already that had people going into the minds and bodies of prisoners and controlling them. the title itself is lame, it's so blunt and blech to me.
those things may seem picky, but it's really the story that gets to me. i think a movie is nothing if the story isn't good and i can't get over the idea that i can probably predict most of it, even that feature pretty much outlined the whole movie in 3 minutes while the actual thing goes on for 3 hours! the visuals may be impressive but only technically, they're actual aesthetic design is not particularly pleasing to me. i don't doubt all the time that went in to make it, though.

but, if it is as whisper said and they extended it, i'll clear my mind of all this and try to go see it in a couple of weeks. i have another friend who was critical of it (though i don't know for what reasons) who i might go with.

oh, also, about trailers, golem, they're rarely ever any good because they have to market to everyone in one go. even good movies i like, i feel they are misrepresented by the trailer more often than not.

Movies don't tell a story just by the characters and the surprising or not surprising ending. I mean just looking at it you can tell that the protagonist is going to root for the indigenous people and they will defeat the humans. Every single viewer was able to predict that. But all this is so PERFECTLY pulled off, and I don't just mean through CG, but through the script, the perfect pacing and cinematography. Cameron know exactly how to play with your emotions and when it comes down to the action, you are so immersed in what's going on, that you forget all the bad lines and the clicheed characters.
And I don' think you can really judge the design from what you have seen so far.

kuro_neko 2009.12.24 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inaudible-Whisper (Post 65945)
Yeah, I think this thread title makes more sense. I'd often not know which movie thread to post in. If I'm looking forward to a movie I'm not "currently watching" it and it isn't my "fav. movie" (yet) so it's best to have just a flat out movie thread. And keeping the TV totally separate is good too.

Avatar is the biggest movie release of the year though, so it's no shock that it's taking up a great bulk of the discussion as of recent. Should have really had an Avatar thread but it'll probably die down now that most people have chipped in.

yeah and its only going to get worse as its a word-of-mouth movie and as more people are going to see it they are coming out, telling their friends, and saying they will go again, which means it will only continue to make money, and with the critics loving it and the oscars best picture category open to up to 10 movies this year, expect it to be on the plate through Oscar season too. you might as well see it if you are annoyed hearing about it to see what the fuss is about and get over with it, hah.

golem09 2009.12.24 10:25 AM

If it wasn't for the time and money, I would watch Avatar every evening, lol.
I hope I can convince my best friend to go on wednesday again. Or my parents, or maybe another friend of mine. I'm still more fascinated by it than I have been with a single movie in a VERY long time.
I just keep listening to the soundtrack and searching for videos of it on youtube.

kuro_neko 2009.12.24 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by golem09 (Post 65950)
If it wasn't for the time and money, I would watch Avatar every evening, lol.
I hope I can convince my best friend to go on wednesday again. Or my parents, or maybe another friend of mine. I'm still more fascinated by it than I have been with a single movie in a VERY long time.
I just keep listening to the soundtrack and searching for videos of it on youtube.

hahaha. I've seen it 3 times and probably will end up another 1 or 2 times before its out of theatres (although probably not IMAX). its completely involving and entertaining time after time. its paced incredibly well, so even on repeat viewings its difficult to get bored. he jumps from comedy to action to wonder to romance to drama to a to z its insane, never lingering.

golem09 2009.12.24 10:58 AM

What I loved the most was the perfect scene constellation of
climbing up to the dragons (fascinating)
-> taming his one (suspense)
-> first flight (Excitement)
-> teasing Neytiri (romance)
-> Dr Grace tells him about the tree of sould (fascination)
-> they fly over it (fascination)
-> Toruk chase (suspense)
-> Toruk Makto story (calmness)
and then the perfect scene to close this segment: Jake getting out of the Avatar with that sad music, rolling down the hall, asking himself what's real and what's not.

SO perfectly executed.

kuro_neko 2009.12.24 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by golem09 (Post 65953)
What I loved the most was the perfect scene constellation of
climbing up to the dragons (fascinating)
-> taming his one (suspense)
-> first flight (Excitement)
-> teasing Neytiri (romance)
-> Dr Grace tells him about the tree of sould (fascination)
-> they fly over it (fascination)
-> Toruk chase (suspense)
-> Toruk Makto story (calmness)
and then the perfect scene to close this segment: Jake getting out of the Avatar with that sad music, rolling down the hall, asking himself what's real and what's not.

SO perfectly executed.

when he climbs out of the machine at that point it is absolutely heart breaking.

in rewatches what I liked/noticed:

grace flips out after jake smashes the cameras and askes quaritch "what, you going to shoot me?" and he is all "I could shoot you" and then he does, about twenty minutes later. Quaritch also foreshadows his own death early on in the Pandora briefing at the start where he explains that you got to avoid Na'vi arrows as they are dipped in neurotoxin that will stop your heart in 1 minute (how he dies). Trudy also laughs about how she hoped to avoid martydom (which happens again). There are a lot of small lines early on in the film which reference later events and its kind of amusing as you go through picking up on them. Also, when Neytiri and Jake climb into the pods in Hometree the first night he spends there, you can see in the background a large group of Na'vi sleeping in a big pile, which looks like a man and a couple women or a general orgy. I thought that was kind of funny for some reason. They don't address is the Na'vi men are monogamous, you kind of just assume they are, but based on what Neytiri says its up to the male to pick the female, but in jake's case they picked each other.



BanFan 2009.12.24 05:14 PM

My friend is trying so hard to convince me to see Avatar, but it doesn't look like something I'd like.

I finally saw There Will Be Blood. The only problem is that I got sucked in halfway through, so I watched the second half first, then the first half about a week later. I'm super picky when it comes to movies, so I was surprised that I liked this one so much. Paul Dano's acting was insane after only seeing him in Little Miss Sunshine and Fast Food Nation.

Also saw Where The Wild Things Are recently, but don't really know how I feel about it. It looked great, the soundtrack was perfect, but something was missing. It was such an up and down movie that I left the theater a little discombobulated. The beginning and ending made enough sense, it's just all that stuff in the middle I couldn't wrap my brain around. Still, that scene with the owls alone was worth the three dollars.

EDIT: This should have gone under the "Currently Watching" thread. I figured this would be a better place to post specifically about movies, until I looked through the fives pages and realized it's pretty much the Avatar thread.

golem09 2009.12.24 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BanFan (Post 65959)
My friend is trying so hard to convince me to see Avatar, but it doesn't look like something I'd like.

If you hate Star Wars and Indiana Jones, and never watched The Lord of the Rings, then yes, you can skip Avatar.
Otherwise you have no choice but to go see it.

BanFan 2009.12.24 05:51 PM

Would I be allowed to settle with a cheap, non-3D or IMAX version in two months?

golem09 2009.12.24 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BanFan (Post 65961)
Would I be allowed to settle with a cheap, non-3D or IMAX version in two months?

non 3D? No
non IMAX? yes
In two months? yes

Just make sure you get to see it in a RealD cinema.

mizer_unmei 2009.12.24 06:39 PM

Is it imperative to see Avatar in 3D? Whenever I see something in 3D I get a headache and end up going to sleep.

golem09 2009.12.24 06:45 PM

I would say yes, but I don't know your problem with 3D. What DID you watch in 3D?

Tokyo Jihad 2009.12.24 07:03 PM

Can I talk about movies that aren't Avatar in this thread?

mizer_unmei 2009.12.24 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by golem09 (Post 65964)
I would say yes, but I don't know your problem with 3D. What DID you watch in 3D?

Coraline and The Nightmare Before Christmas. They both made my eyes hurt, causing a headache and subsequent rest of eyes and sleep. XP


And ooh, non avatar discussion: I just watched A Christmas Story~! CLASSIC. I'm sad I won't be able to watch the 24 hour marathon they always have on TNT or whatnot. For the last couple years I didn't really like watching it because I thought it got boring year after year, but now I realized how awesome it is again and that it's seriously one of the greatest Christmas movies. And Darren McGavin is the best. :wub:
Now I need to watch Home Alone via webcam with my sister when it turns midnight back home, plus an It's a Wonderful Life/Miracle on 34th Street B&W extravaganza, and I'll be set for Christmas.

golem09 2009.12.25 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tokyo Jihad (Post 65965)
Can I talk about movies that aren't Avatar in this thread?

Yes, but why would you even want to do that? :)

s3r3nity 2009.12.25 01:55 AM

BACK TO AVATAR :P
I went in to see it hoping to prove my boyfriend, who said it looked dumb, wrong. I wanted to love it. I knew very little about it, only about the concept of the avatar.
Within the first half hour, my boyfriend and I predicted nearly every major plot point, besides the information that you find out about the biology of the planet. By the time they revealed that, however, I was totally unattached. They could have told me that the Na'Vi were all Shiina Ringo clones in disguise, and I wouldn't have cared, because I knew how it was going to play out, regardless of how awesome the world was. In my totally inexperienced and uneducated opinion, the movie should've chosen a focus:
Either
1) Pandora
OR
2) Emotion/Character
I know you guys are all saying that people were crying in the theater and what not, and I accept that people interpret things differently, but for me it is so hard to get emotional over such a tried plot. I know that there probably was depth put into the movie, but the characters all seemed so flat (Haha, yes, I did see it in RealD) to me, as if they were just along for the same old ride. Not one character made me look forward to them being on screen. I felt as if I had met them all before.
Now, Pandora was certainly an interesting place, and if the movie had been instead focused just on avatars in Pandora, and made up some new conflict rather than "THEY'RE KILLING NATURE", then I probably wouldn't have been about to fall asleep in my seat.
I suppose it's all a matter of what you're looking for in a movie. I personally want to see real character interaction, and while the actors did wonderfully, the script did not lend itself well to natural character development.

Disclaimer:
These are my opinions written at 6AM. I'll probably want to put foot in mouth after letting this sit a few days, but I'd rather get it all out now while it's fresh.

kuro_neko 2009.12.25 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by s3r3nity (Post 65970)
BACK TO AVATAR :P
I went in to see it hoping to prove my boyfriend, who said it looked dumb, wrong. I wanted to love it. I knew very little about it, only about the concept of the avatar.
Within the first half hour, my boyfriend and I predicted nearly every major plot point, besides the information that you find out about the biology of the planet. By the time they revealed that, however, I was totally unattached. They could have told me that the Na'Vi were all Shiina Ringo clones in disguise, and I wouldn't have cared, because I knew how it was going to play out, regardless of how awesome the world was. In my totally inexperienced and uneducated opinion, the movie should've chosen a focus:
Either
1) Pandora
OR
2) Emotion/Character
I know you guys are all saying that people were crying in the theater and what not, and I accept that people interpret things differently, but for me it is so hard to get emotional over such a tried plot. I know that there probably was depth put into the movie, but the characters all seemed so flat (Haha, yes, I did see it in RealD) to me, as if they were just along for the same old ride. Not one character made me look forward to them being on screen. I felt as if I had met them all before.
Now, Pandora was certainly an interesting place, and if the movie had been instead focused just on avatars in Pandora, and made up some new conflict rather than "THEY'RE KILLING NATURE", then I probably wouldn't have been about to fall asleep in my seat.
I suppose it's all a matter of what you're looking for in a movie. I personally want to see real character interaction, and while the actors did wonderfully, the script did not lend itself well to natural character development.

Disclaimer:
These are my opinions written at 6AM. I'll probably want to put foot in mouth after letting this sit a few days, but I'd rather get it all out now while it's fresh.

cameron had to create an entire believable foreign ecosystem and alien universe and with a built-in viewer education system and believable/engaging plot within one movie he was taking a huge risk on, and in that regard he succeeded. Avatar does an amazing job of creating this realistic lush and believable world and ushering in the completely ignorant and unaware audience into said world. by the time the movie is over you feel like you really do have a sense of what pandora is like. the movie really sets up sequels. he sat on this for 14 years and the thoughts became so much he wrote an encyclopedia, called the Pandorapedia, which he plans on publishing. if the movie succeeds he wants to do more, telling other stories on nearby moons of the same planet and having spin-offs and sequels and novels. that being said, the fact that the plot is engaging enough for most people while accomplishing a feat that only movies like LOTR and Star Wars has accomplished (and LOTR had source material) is pretty amazing. Unfortunately that means he has to rely on certain established tropes or archetypes, but IMO that is the a proper price if it it ensures more innovative movies. I mean, watch The Abyss, that movie is, head to toe, completely original, and breathtaking considering when it was made. I have no worry that Cameron can't create an involving and unique story, but to do so he had to build the world and get the audience into the theatre and believing it before he can go real ape-shit.

also, what with the state of the world lately I think his film-making was definitely influenced. He himself has stated the parallels, obvious and not so obvious, the movie holds to real life. for some people that is a deal-breaker, but Avatar is meant to be seen and enjoyed, feel in the moment. If you sit there and try to outthink it, like your waiting for some huge plot twist, you will be disappointed. A whole slew of M Night Shamalan movies and "smart" thrillers has desensitized us to the style of gold old fashioned story telling. Whip out a childhood storybook or fairytale, read some Grimm, and tell me its not predictable. What Cameron has done is create a fairytale for Adults. So you gotta go, get a huge popcorn, get some soda, put on some 3D glasses, and sit back and just live in the moment. It sounds bad, but turn off your brain, the movie does the work for you. Some may criticize that, but it is a welcome escape in today's world.

HEDOfloe 2009.12.25 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by golem09 (Post 65948)
Cameron know exactly how to play with your emotions and when it comes down to the action, you are so immersed in what's going on, that you forget all the bad lines and the clicheed characters.

i never forget.

Quote:

Originally Posted by golem09 (Post 65960)
If you hate Star Wars and Indiana Jones, and never watched The Lord of the Rings, then yes, you can skip Avatar.
Otherwise you have no choice but to go see it.

dude, i guess i can skip on it then, because it's like you just described me. i hate star wars and jones, and only saw half of the first lord of the rings. i'm surprised you were able to stereotype that so easily. (not sure if stereotype is the right word but i'm too tired to bother with it).

Quote:

Originally Posted by s3r3nity (Post 65970)
I know you guys are all saying that people were crying in the theater and what not, and I accept that people interpret things differently, but for me it is so hard to get emotional over such a tried plot. I know that there probably was depth put into the movie, but the characters all seemed so flat (Haha, yes, I did see it in RealD) to me, as if they were just along for the same old ride. Not one character made me look forward to them being on screen. I felt as if I had met them all before.

this is a better way to say what i was trying to say =). no matter how much pace or depth the characters would have, i wouldn't be able to get over the plot. i guess people's tolerance of that is different, as everything else.

on another movie mentioned, There will be Blood really is amazing. jeez, i loved it. partly was because i related to the main character (i can't remember his name now, i'm so bad with names) in that he was so agressive in his desire for success. he has this great bit where he starts, "i have a competition in me," and gives a creepy little talk of it and hatreds and that fire. but overall, it was very well presented; the soundtrack was a mix of eerie orchestrations and some other odd sounds and was mixed in at all the right moments--none of that pop soundtrack nonsense, and it was just very raw. there were some very nice shots and the things this man puts at stake in his life are almost scary. highly recommended, this movie.

kuro_neko 2009.12.25 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HEDOfloe (Post 65976)
i never forget.



dude, i guess i can skip on it then, because it's like you just described me. i hate star wars and jones, and only saw half of the first lord of the rings. i'm surprised you were able to stereotype that so easily. (not sure if stereotype is the right word but i'm too tired to bother with it).



this is a better way to say what i was trying to say =). no matter how much pace or depth the characters would have, i wouldn't be able to get over the plot. i guess people's tolerance of that is different, as everything else.

on another movie mentioned, There will be Blood really is amazing. jeez, i loved it. partly was because i related to the main character (i can't remember his name now, i'm so bad with names) in that he was so agressive in his desire for success. he has this great bit where he starts, "i have a competition in me," and gives a creepy little talk of it and hatreds and that fire. but overall, it was very well presented; the soundtrack was a mix of eerie orchestrations and some other odd sounds and was mixed in at all the right moments--none of that pop soundtrack nonsense, and it was just very raw. there were some very nice shots and the things this man puts at stake in his life are almost scary. highly recommended, this movie.

I saw that movie in Japan and I couldn't enjoy it, because of Daniel Day Lewis. I don't get the love for the guy, his acting is just plain cheesy in some movies (Gangs of New York?) and when he is serious he just exudes douche bag-ishness. Then again, I do know someone who has a permanent back injury and was blacklisted from the movie industry because Daniel Day Lewis is a jackass (amongst being personally responsible for his injuries, he denied involvement and flat out lied, throwing his weight around to avoid trouble). having strong personal feelings towards an actor can really suck, as I really wanted to like that movie.

Inaudible-Whisper 2009.12.26 02:19 AM

I think I'd put forward Daniel Day-Lewis for performance of the decade in There Will Be Blood. Which reminds me; I need to get that film on Blu-Ray.

frecklegirl 2009.12.26 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BanFan (Post 65959)
EDIT: This should have gone under the "Currently Watching" thread. I figured this would be a better place to post specifically about movies, until I looked through the fives pages and realized it's pretty much the Avatar thread.

Wtf? No it shouldn't. That thread is currently closed anyway. This is not the Avatar thread and is exactly where discussion relating to ALL movies should go. -_-

I saw The Princess and the Frog again a few days ago. It is seriously so good and everyone should see it.

golem09 2009.12.26 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HEDOfloe (Post 65976)
dude, i guess i can skip on it then, because it's like you just described me. i hate star wars and jones, and only saw half of the first lord of the rings. i'm surprised you were able to stereotype that so easily. (not sure if stereotype is the right word but i'm too tired to bother with it).

Ah ok, that would have saved a lot of effort from my side ;)
No use recommending that movie for you then. Like trying to make me watch Wall-E

Inaudible-Whisper 2009.12.26 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by golem09 (Post 65983)
Like trying to make me watch Wall-E

Why won't you watch Wall-E?

HEDOfloe 2009.12.26 11:23 AM

i don't remember gangs of new york, but he was flippin' SOLID in there will be blood. i guess you had a bias towards the actor, but if you thought his serious acting was douche-bag-ey, then i think it was just the way the character was. in which case, you wouldn't like the movie even if it was another actor. i don't see how that character could have been played any better.

as for wall-e, i think it was over-hyped. i saw it, and i fell for the hype, but as i think back on it, i don't think it was that great. i guess i'd have to watch it again to see how it holds up. but i didn't like the whole colony thing too much and i like it much less now. i think i originally liked it because i thought it was a nice way of making fun of america, but that wore off.

Inaudible-Whisper 2009.12.26 11:24 AM

Wall-E was great, but I much prefer Up.

kuro_neko 2009.12.26 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HEDOfloe (Post 65986)
i don't remember gangs of new york, but he was flippin' SOLID in there will be blood. i guess you had a bias towards the actor, but if you thought his serious acting was douche-bag-ey, then i think it was just the way the character was. in which case, you wouldn't like the movie even if it was another actor. i don't see how that character could have been played any better.

as for wall-e, i think it was over-hyped. i saw it, and i fell for the hype, but as i think back on it, i don't think it was that great. i guess i'd have to watch it again to see how it holds up. but i didn't like the whole colony thing too much and i like it much less now. i think i originally liked it because i thought it was a nice way of making fun of america, but that wore off.

yeah I have the personal bias, so seeing him play more or less an intensified version of himself didn't surprise or awe me. usually the "great" performances that earn people attention are eerily close to their personal attributes, hence why they seem to really define the role. Like Julia Roberts in Erin Brokovitch...I mean, in my mind, it is MUCH more impressive to see actors tackle roles that are drastically different than themselves in both personality and demeanor. Daniel Day Lewis seems more or less to keep picking similar type roles over and over. I mean, he pretty much ruined Nine for me. You could argue it is the character and not him as an actor, but man, that movie frustrated the heck out of me.

Inaudible-Whisper 2009.12.26 12:48 PM

He often stays in character throughout shooting -- to the extreme -- so if his character is an arsehole, he probably will be too. I don't think he really plays himself, in fact I think his role as Daniel Plainview was one of the biggest transformations I've seen on screen in terms of stepping inside and acting out another character. To say "He is an angry actor, and the character is angry so he is just playing himself" simplifies it way too much, because Daniel Plainview was not Daniel Day Lewis at all. When I showed my friends some clips of him after the movie they were shocked at how different he is (not only in appearance).

He certainly doesn't play it safe with his role choices, staying in a severely disabled position for weeks on end (breaking ribs in the process) for My Left Foot, and living off the land camping, hunting and skinning animals for Last of the Mohicans. Whether he is an arsehole in real life or not, I have huge respect for him as an actor. But I think he appears pretty humble and very intelligent in the very few interviews with him I've seen. I imagine he is just hell to work with on set, staying in (often ugly) characters. At one point he asked the crew to verbally abuse him and throw cold water over him throughout shooting.

I haven't seen Nine yet (I was initially looking forward to it), but I imagine the movie didn't click because it unfortunately doesn't look to be very good. But I won't pre-judge it too much yet.

kuro_neko 2009.12.26 03:04 PM

I'm not going to go into the details about my personal experiences and my friend, but I can assure you that what happened was not the result of him being immersed in the role. meryl streep is a method actress too and yet she doesn't endanger production crew and staff and throw her weight around to cover her tracks when people, already working in underpaid and dangerous environments, get severely injured because of her ignorance. fact of the matter was the incident occurred during pre-production, months before any actors were supposed to be at the location and he just showed up, which was a liability to everyone involved (himself included), and well, when shit hit the fan, he turned tail and left other people to blame. a complete coward and with the ego to boost, makes for dangerous and unsafe working conditions.

Scribble R 2009.12.27 01:34 PM

Just watched Isao Takahata's 'Only Yesterday'. Must be manly, must be manly...

;_____________________________________________________;

golem09 2009.12.29 04:31 PM

Too bad, my planned trip to watch Avatar tomorrow had to be canceled. Well, I guess I'll have to go next week on Tuesday.
For some news: The extended cut of Avatar could be about 30 minutes longer. They already had some scenes at the beginning on the destroyed earth almost finished but still decided to cut them out. Then some hunting scene with Jake, and more conversations with Quaritch that shed a better light on his character.

kuro_neko 2009.12.29 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by golem09 (Post 66060)
Too bad, my planned trip to watch Avatar tomorrow had to be canceled. Well, I guess I'll have to go next week on Tuesday.
For some news: The extended cut of Avatar could be about 30 minutes longer. They already had some scenes at the beginning on the destroyed earth almost finished but still decided to cut them out. Then some hunting scene with Jake, and more conversations with Quaritch that shed a better light on his character.

really where did this info come from? cool.

edit: also, found this, which is a really cool detailed summary and analysis of the original script Cameron wrote in the 90's (titled Project 880) and the finished version of Avatar. there are a lot of differences, I think I like how he streamlined the movie although if it is true there were establishing earth scenes shot but not used, I think a lot of the article says is a moot point if there is an extended cut. overall the emphasis seems to be less on on the love story and more on the planet itself. there is a lot more explanation and history/science in the original script, but it seems like the heart isn't there in some ways. either way, makes for an interesting (albeit long) read.

golem09 2009.12.30 01:32 AM

Read that too, but I think all this would only distract from the fairy tale like experience you get from the movie as it is now. The Script of Project 880 could a bitter more complex and better, but it's not really complex or good. So trading in a "bad" story for a "mediocre" story and thus destryoing the perfect flow wouldn't have made a lot of sense.

kuro_neko 2009.12.30 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by golem09 (Post 66067)
Read that too, but I think all this would only distract from the fairy tale like experience you get from the movie as it is now. The Script of Project 880 could a bitter more complex and better, but it's not really complex or good. So trading in a "bad" story for a "mediocre" story and thus destryoing the perfect flow wouldn't have made a lot of sense.

it wouldn't have succeeded IMO because its too long and not emotionally engaging enough. by streamlining the story and focusing on the emotional aspects he has secured box office numbers that will probably allow him, if he chooses, to create a sequel, in which I imagine many of the unused plot points/ideas would resurface.

Maou 2010.01.06 09:44 PM

Sixteen Candles is on now. It's odd that I've never watched this movie from start to finish, but I have seen the entire thing in bits and pieces. Never finished Pretty in Pink either despite being a big Molly Ringwald fan.

BanFan 2010.01.10 10:38 AM

Has anyone here seen Mah Nakorn (Citizen Dog)? It was a pretty good movie, but started to drag on around the last thirty minutes. The visuals were great; it was sort of like a Wes Anderson movie with actual heart. I was wondering if the "growing a tail" thing is a reference to something in Thai mythology or if it was just meant to be random.

kuro_neko 2010.01.10 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BanFan (Post 66361)
Has anyone here seen Mah Nakorn (Citizen Dog)? It was a pretty good movie, but started to drag on around the last thirty minutes. The visuals were great; it was sort of like a Wes Anderson movie with actual heart. I was wondering if the "growing a tail" thing is a reference to something in Thai mythology or if it was just meant to be random.

I've seen that. wasn't a huge fan, it was interesting but didn't manage to hold my attention throughout the entire movie. I liked how her book turned out to be porn, LOL.

mizer_unmei 2010.01.11 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maou (Post 66276)
Never finished Pretty in Pink either despite being a big Molly Ringwald fan.

Pretty in Pink is perfection. I wants to be Andrew McCarthy.


Anyway! Ooh, during the past 2 weeks I went and saw 3 movies here! Sherlock Holmes was surprisingly fantastic. It's nice to see that Guy Ritchie wasn't sucked dry of a soul by succubus-Madonna.
And The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus was looooooooooovely. I didn't have many high hopes because of the unwatchable Tideland, but Terry Gilliam still has it in him to make a looovely movie. Even with the whole Heath Ledger death thing. Christopher Plummer CARRIES the movie, and makes me absolutely smitten with him. :wub: And Lily Cole was unexpectedly really good too.

I also went to see the Korean movie "Girlfriends". And both my sister and I walked out not an hour into it. Not due to the lack of understanding, but because it was seriously an unbearable. It felt like 2 hours by the time we left and it didn't even have a semblance of resolving any type of plot it had. Oh Korea, you've faileddd me. x.x

kuro_neko 2010.01.11 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mizer_unmei (Post 66372)
Pretty in Pink is perfection. I wants to be Andrew McCarthy.


Anyway! Ooh, during the past 2 weeks I went and saw 3 movies here! Sherlock Holmes was surprisingly fantastic. It's nice to see that Guy Ritchie wasn't sucked dry of a soul by succubus-Madonna.
And The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus was looooooooooovely. I didn't have many high hopes because of the unwatchable Tideland, but Terry Gilliam still has it in him to make a looovely movie. Even with the whole Heath Ledger death thing. Christopher Plummer CARRIES the movie, and makes me absolutely smitten with him. :wub: And Lily Cole was unexpectedly really good too.

I also went to see the Korean movie "Girlfriends". And both my sister and I walked out not an hour into it. Not due to the lack of understanding, but because it was seriously an unbearable. It felt like 2 hours by the time we left and it didn't even have a semblance of resolving any type of plot it had. Oh Korea, you've faileddd me. x.x

you thought Tideland was unwatchable? your not the first person I know who despises that movie. I read the book long before the movie came out and the movie is almost a straight up adaptation. I really enjoyed it and the disturbing content was handled extremely well, but I get why people made a stink about it. Not a huge fan of Parnassus. I liked the overall magical feel to it but as a movie it couldn't decide what it wanted to be, serious, humorous, dramatic, scary, what, it just didn't hold any idea long enough to keep me interested.

I watched Leap Year yesterday, I've been a bit down in the dumps and that movie was a nice escape for an hour and a half. I also watched The Ramen Girl with Brittany Murphy, which I felt was a very honest and surprisingly realistic portrayal of living in Japan and one girl's dream to become a ramen chef.

mizer_unmei 2010.01.11 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kuro_neko (Post 66377)
you thought Tideland was unwatchable? your not the first person I know who despises that movie. I read the book long before the movie came out and the movie is almost a straight up adaptation. I really enjoyed it and the disturbing content was handled extremely well, but I get why people made a stink about it. Not a huge fan of Parnassus. I liked the overall magical feel to it but as a movie it couldn't decide what it wanted to be, serious, humorous, dramatic, scary, what, it just didn't hold any idea long enough to keep me interested.

Tideland was just strange. I couldn't stand the plot, I didn't like any of the characters. And the taxidermy-d up Jeff Bridges was hard to handle.
Parnassus was in the same vein as Brazil, which I adoreeee. I love the way people act like normal people in the weirdest situations. And seriously, I can't get over Christopher Plummer's awesomeness. I went in thinking that the Heath Ledger character was going to be the main character, but I loved that they focused on Plummer instead.
And omgoodness, the look of the Jude Law part seemed like it was pulled straight from his Python drawings, and especially the dancing/cross-dressing policemen part. :wub:

golem09 2010.01.11 04:34 PM

Has anyone seen The Road? I'm curious if it's any good

Osiris12345 2010.01.15 04:23 PM

I saw Sherlock Holmes recently and found myself rooting for Holmes and Watson to get together instead of Holmes and Irene Adler. They just had more chemistry! I even like Rachel McAdams but I felt like her character added absolutely nothing to the plot. It's a shame too because the original novel Irene Adler is so cool.

frecklegirl 2010.01.15 04:37 PM

^ hell yeaaaahhhhh!!! meeee toooooo. (but I knew that going in)

Nimh 2010.01.17 10:48 AM

I recently had my second-annual Drunkathon, where I watch a triple feature of overbudgeted crap over Christmas break while getting as drunk as possible.

Last year was Rush Hour 3, Spiderman 3, and Transformers 1.

This year it was G.I. Joe, Terminator Salvation, and Transformers 2.

G.I. Joe was actually sort of fun, better than I expected. Especially when you compare it with the other two. It was tight, had a good spirit, and just the right amount of insanity and ingenious casting. The wine helped.

Terminator Salvation was a fucking ordeal. Best thing about was I got halfway drunk throughout and couldn't figure out why everyone was so serious.

Transformers was as horrible as everyone says, only it hit some level of awfulness so transcendent I can't say I hated it.

BanFan 2010.01.17 11:18 AM

Finally saw Inglorious Basterds last night. It was pretty close to perfect.

golem09 2010.01.17 01:11 PM

Avatar is at 1.68 Billion Dollars. Only 0.12 Billion more to beat Titanic and become the must successful movie of all time :)

mizer_unmei 2010.01.17 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by golem09 (Post 66599)
Avatar is at 1.68 Billion Dollars. Only 0.12 Billion more to beat Titanic and become the must successful movie of all time :)

That's intense. Like, holy crap James Cameron.
But even if it is another one of his movies, I'm fine with anything taking over Titanic. 'Cause at least it's one of his Sci-fi ones (what he's mostly done anyway) and anything finally taking over Titanic is good with me. That one's been on top for far too long.

golem09 2010.01.18 03:20 AM

If you take inflation into account, then Avatar doesn't beat Titanic :P

But if you do that, Titanic wouldn't be on top to begin with, because then "Gone with the wind" would still be on top :D

Also, Avatar just won the golden globe for best Drama Motion Picture and best Director.
I think it would be cool if Zoe Saldana as Neytiri would even get nominated for an oscar, that would mean a lot for the technology Cameron created. I think even more than getting the Oscar for best Motion Picture.

mizer_unmei 2010.01.18 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by golem09 (Post 66622)
But if you do that, Titanic wouldn't be on top to begin with, because then "Gone with the wind" would still be on top :D

Which is why adjusting for inflation is the best. Gone With the Wind is the awesomest and then Star Wars has its rightful place at number 2. :wub:

But still, Titanic is looming over those other charts. Ughhh, that movie. However much I love Kate Winslet and Victor Garber... ughs.

kuro_neko 2010.01.18 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mizer_unmei (Post 66633)
Which is why adjusting for inflation is the best. Gone With the Wind is the awesomest and then Star Wars has its rightful place at number 2. :wub:

But still, Titanic is looming over those other charts. Ughhh, that movie. However much I love Kate Winslet and Victor Garber... ughs.

adjusting for inflation doesn't work, because getting getting an audience into theaters now is many times harder than it was years and years ago. I mean, the fact that Avatar is doing as well as it is in this economic climate, and a lot of that being IMAX tickets, is pretty remarkable. just comparing inflated ticket prices and admissions doesn't work, because there are a lot of other factors to consider. I mean, when Star Wars and Titanic both were released getting an audience into a movie theatre wasn't nearly as difficult as it has been in the last few years. Between the advancement in home theatre technology, piracy on the internet, the economic recession, and the skyrocketing price of admissions, Avatar's success *now* is much more remarkable than Titanic or Star Wars was back in their heydays. Hollywood is in a terrible recession and Avatar's success is even more remarkable because of that.

still, best picture? that was a real surprise. take a huge commercial pop corn flick and give it best drama golden globe, its almost ironic in a way.

Nimh 2010.01.18 09:30 PM

^^^ Hollywood is not really in a "recession" right now....it just set a record for box office admissions. It's creatively near-bankrupt, but that's a different issue.

Gone With the Wind has always been and always will be the biggest hit of all time. No way can any film really match it unless something like the equivalent of 3 or 4 Avatars comes out. The factor to account for is not just revenue adjusted for inflation or number of admissions, but the percentage of viewers related to the population of America at the time.

Gone With the Wind sold 208,000,000 tickets in America through its initial run and releases. In 1939, the population of America was 131,000,000. So, basically, if you were living in America in 1939 you saw this movie. Which is four hours long.

By contrast, Avatar has so far sold about 70 million tickets at most. The average $7.35 they use to calculate for inflation is probably skewing low for Avatar, which had the more expensive IMAX tickets to take into account. The average ticket price for Avatar might be closer to 9 dollars, which would mean about 57 million tickets sold.

In other words, Avatar is currently between 1/4 and 1/3 of Gone With the Wind's box office. And in a country of over 250 million people, certainly a far smaller percentage of the population is going to see this than Gone With the Wind.

Neither one of these films is all that good, by the way. :P

mizer_unmei 2010.01.18 09:47 PM

Gone With the Wind is the bestttt. "I don't know nothing about birthin' babies." Bwahaha. That and Viven Leigh is perfect.

And Avatar is selling so much because James Cameron cracked the secret of putting crack in movies and has thus hypnotized the whole world. It's like blue crack. The necklace thing in Titanic was blue. And he had been testing it out before too. I've seen The Abyss!

Aaaand this is funny. Teehee.

kuro_neko 2010.01.19 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NIMH Rat (Post 66639)
^^^ Hollywood is not really in a "recession" right now....it just set a record for box office admissions. It's creatively near-bankrupt, but that's a different issue.

Gone With the Wind has always been and always will be the biggest hit of all time. No way can any film really match it unless something like the equivalent of 3 or 4 Avatars comes out. The factor to account for is not just revenue adjusted for inflation or number of admissions, but the percentage of viewers related to the population of America at the time.

Gone With the Wind sold 208,000,000 tickets in America through its initial run and releases. In 1939, the population of America was 131,000,000. So, basically, if you were living in America in 1939 you saw this movie. Which is four hours long.

By contrast, Avatar has so far sold about 70 million tickets at most. The average $7.35 they use to calculate for inflation is probably skewing low for Avatar, which had the more expensive IMAX tickets to take into account. The average ticket price for Avatar might be closer to 9 dollars, which would mean about 57 million tickets sold.

In other words, Avatar is currently between 1/4 and 1/3 of Gone With the Wind's box office. And in a country of over 250 million people, certainly a far smaller percentage of the population is going to see this than Gone With the Wind.

Neither one of these films is all that good, by the way. :P

but none of that matters because your not taking into account the economic climate of the time or technology. seriously, when gone with the wind came out what else were you going to do besides go and watch it repeatedly? its not like you could wait for a blu ray release three months later to purchase at almost the same cost of driving to a theatre and price of admission, or boot up the old pc and download it, or head over to china town and buy a 1 dollar bootleg. do you see what I am getting at? straight up statistics and numbers reporting inflation and percentage of total americans who view a movie are bs. especially if you want to talk about a movie like Twilight/New Moon, which is seeing target audiences returning to the threatres time after time, so it looks like a larger portion of the population has seen it, but in reality its just repeat viewings.

golem09 2010.01.20 12:55 PM

2 Attachment(s)
If anyone is interested, these are the first two shots from the directors cut of Avatar:

A scene on earth after jake got into a barfight, and the dying scene of Tsu'Tey after his fall from the helicopter.

Nimh 2010.01.21 10:19 PM

Avatar is the new Dark Knight. The movie a lot of people think is meaningful just because it takes all the humor out of material intended for children.

kuro_neko 2010.01.22 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NIMH Rat (Post 66698)
Avatar is the new Dark Knight. The movie a lot of people think is meaningful just because it takes all the humor out of material intended for children.

I'm not going to argue that the movie isn't clearly a hollywood trope, but you seem to be implying with your statement that something intended for children can't be meaningful, which I strongly disagree with.

my whole issue with avatar is I find the arguments about why it sucks a bit pointless. the fact of the matter is that the majority of people who see it are touched and come away thinking about how great pandora is and nature and war and all of that, and I don't see HOW that could possibly be a bad thing. sure, it might be pocahontas in space, or dances with blue talking wolves, but anything that makes man feel compassion for the environment and aversion to war, IMO, is meaningful.

frecklegirl 2010.01.23 08:06 PM

Finally saw Avatar (3D, no imax). It was good, but not like OMG FROTHING AT THE MOUTH BEST MOVIE EVER like all the hype I've seen. I really liked the entire middle of the movie with the cool Na'vi hangin out in Pandora scenes. Everything else... kinda meh. Especially the end with all the action, it just got overwhelming. @_@ But all the images of the Na'vi interacting with their world are going to stick with me for a long time. That was great.

justriiingo 2010.01.23 08:56 PM

I want to see a great director make a great movie with that technology.

Osiris12345 2010.01.23 10:42 PM

I look forward to seeing other movies use it myself.

Inaudible-Whisper 2010.01.24 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justriiingo (Post 66741)
I want to see a great director make a great movie with that technology.

You don't think Cameron is a great director? Whatever you think of the script or the story, the guy directed the shit out of that film :P (and The Abyss, T2, Aliens and True Lies).

Osiris12345 2010.01.25 08:06 PM

I was going to say that James Cameron IS a great director but I guess everyone's entitled to their own opinion. I can see why someone might not like his works - especially if sci-fi isn't their thing. And I don't like Titanic to this day. Or maybe it's just because of that damn "My Heart Will Go On" song. God, I hate that song. It rivals "Tubthumping" for most overplayed song of the nineties.

Anyway, caught some of Legion on my break at work and it looks pretty generic. We were supposed to have a midnight showing at the theater I work at but we canceled possibly due to bad weather (or because my theater realized that nobody would show up). It's pretty much exactly what you would expect from the trailers. In fact, most of the scenes that are worth seeing were already shown in the trailers. Isn't it fun when you can see the highlights of an entire movie when you're waiting for your movie to start? That's Legion for ya. Save yourself the ticket price by skipping this one.

Up In The Air seems incredibly popular at my theater. It's gotten to the point where I'm very curious to see it myself. I've been meaning to go out and watch it before it gets pulled. I will say this though - after starting to work at a theater, popcorn and movies get less and less appealing every day. I never feel like going back to the theater on my days off.

HEDOfloe 2010.01.25 10:14 PM

anyone here loved Fantastic Mr. Fox as much as i did?

kuro_neko 2010.01.28 07:59 AM

what was her skill? maybe she was an amazing blowjay-er? ROFL

avatar makeup tutorial

kuro_neko 2010.01.28 03:57 PM

double post for the win!!!

I just got back from The Lovely Bones. It was interesting, I felt amazingly depressed after it ended for some reason. I usually enjoy heavy movies but the piece at the end was just almost too much to handle, with the sinkhole...I didn't read the book, I can only imagine how much worse it was while reading, but parts of the movie literally made me want to vomit. There was a point in my life (A Midsummer Night's Dream) where I thought Stanley Tucci was hot.....;;gag;;


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:19 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.