|
Off-Topic (Movies, TV & Other Media) Post about movies, TV shows, video games, and other media. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
2009.12.20, 08:30 PM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: World's End
Posts: 2,991
|
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. Last edited by kuro_neko : 2009.12.20 at 08:37 PM. |
|
2009.12.21, 03:54 AM | #12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Newcastle, England
Posts: 3,195
|
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.
__________________
|
|
2009.12.21, 10:04 AM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 2,671
|
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? Last edited by HEDOfloe : 2009.12.21 at 10:21 AM. |
2009.12.21, 11:47 AM | #14 |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 64
|
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. |
2009.12.21, 02:19 PM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: World's End
Posts: 2,991
|
|
|
2009.12.21, 04:48 PM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,414
|
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.
__________________
|
|
2009.12.21, 05:34 PM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: World's End
Posts: 2,991
|
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. |
|
2009.12.21, 06:15 PM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,414
|
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.
__________________
|
|
2009.12.21, 07:57 PM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 2,671
|
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. Last edited by HEDOfloe : 2009.12.21 at 08:02 PM. |
|
2009.12.21, 08:34 PM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: World's End
Posts: 2,991
|
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. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Movie Trailers Thread | Inaudible-Whisper | Off-Topic (Movies, TV & Other Media) | 44 | 2010.03.22 06:08 AM |
BombayTV - Subtitle a movie clip | Inaudible-Whisper | Off-Topic (Movies, TV & Other Media) | 10 | 2009.04.17 11:13 AM |
Movie villains, need your help | Tokyo Jihad | Off-Topic (Movies, TV & Other Media) | 6 | 2009.01.07 04:06 AM |
100 year anniversary of animated film | Tokyo Jihad | Off-Topic (Movies, TV & Other Media) | 1 | 2008.08.18 01:14 AM |