Acknowledging the craft of Pandora, and the visual design of the film in general, means acknowledging not only the work of WETA and the visual artists, but also means acknowledging Cameron's script and his own art contributions.
And you can't credit Cameron for anything. He's just a cynical money hungry tyrant with no artistic drive whatsoever.
So its kinda easier to just say "yeah the visuals are nice" in order to avoid all that.
If a movie is only good in 3D and/or HD, it isn't a good movie.
Avatar isn't a good movie. It's not bad, but anyone who thinks that impressive CG makes a mediocre film great has incredibly different priorities in movies than I do. And that's fine, you know, to each his own...but to pretend that there are no valid criticisms or that the movie deserves all of the hype it got is disingenuous.
Avatar has a lot more going for it than impressive CG.
The direction, pacing, the music, everything is perfect, or close to it. Sure, the story is generic (I wouldn't even say bad, just simplistic and cliched), but the other stuff more than makes up for it.
I've watched it in 2D the first time and thought it was good, nothing special. After seeing it in 3D for the second time I had to see it 2 more times, it was amazing.
I would probably feel the same way about LOTR for example, after seeing it on a black and white TV for the first time, and then experiencing it in the cinema.
Does that make LOTR a bad movie?
If you're watching movies for the story alone (not saying it's not the most important part, but still...), you should probably stick to books. There's a lot more to cinema.
Now, that being said, as much as I love the film, it still relies on Rule of Cool rather than rule of logic and practical and basically telling you to turn off your brain and enjoy the ride. But you know what? I still fucking love it to death and have every single version of its release (Initial Blu-Ray, 3D Blu-Ray, Extended Addition, etc)
Avatars story is no less complex than the lotr films. They're about the same "reading level." I hate it when people apply logic from one discussion onto another set of circumstances and are like "well what about this." but seriously.
Avatar was a fun, coherent movie. Ridulously good action scenes, fantastic CG, and a straightforward story. I'd rather a story be straightforward and work than be a convoluted mess trying to pass off their pretentious shortcomings as being "intellectual." Just because something tries to be intellectual doesn't make it the Best Movie Ever Made™ nor is a decidedly unintellecual film automatically bad.
Avatars story is no less complex than the lotr films. They're about the same "reading level." I hate it when people apply logic from one discussion onto another set of circumstances and are like "well what about this." but seriously.
Still, you never had people bashing the story of LOTR in the same way.
Considering that, as you put it, they're about the same "reading level", I think that a lot of people are being really unfair to Avatar.
Avatars story is no less complex than the lotr films. They're about the same "reading level." I hate it when people apply logic from one discussion onto another set of circumstances and are like "well what about this." but seriously.
I'm not a huge fan of LotR, look at any thread on GAF dedicated to it, but to say that LotR is as shallow as Avatar is really dragging LotR down. Especially when you take them as a trilogy... Also, the basis for the movie was written 70 years ago, so if anything Avatar is cliched based on what LotR did for genre fiction. *lol*
Avatar was a fun, coherent movie. Ridulously good action scenes, fantastic CG, and a straightforward story. I'd rather a story be straightforward and work than be a convoluted mess trying to pass off their pretentious shortcomings as being "intellectual." Just because something tries to be intellectual doesn't make it the Best Movie Ever Made nor is a decidedly unintellecual film automatically bad.
I was specifically talking about the films. (Except for when I mention that the source material paved the way for modern Genre Fiction) Everything about the films is about packing as much subtext and meaning into the actions of characters as possible. The dialog and smart and contains much more than what is spoken, even the camera work is more about telling the story than showing off the world.
I haven't seen Avengers yet myself either. But Ive been in that thread enough times to see Gaffer reviews calling it big, dumb, loud fun to make me chuckle a bit, as I know lots of them are vocal Avatar haters.
The problem is Avatar is plenty big and dumb and loud, but not very fun. That being said, I have zero interest in that Avengers movie.
I was completely surprised and befuddled by the hype leading up to the movie. I was able to avoid paying to see it, and when I caught it on TV I found it alternately tedious and unintentionally hilarious. It's a garbage script, but I think the real divide, the reason I can't just turn my brain off and enjoy it as eye candy, is that I found the overall look goofy, especially the creature designs. This is purely a matter of taste I guess, so if some of you genuinely love its aesthetic, then by all means enjoy. But, come on, calling it a masterpiece or anything like that is downright silly.
Now, that being said, as much as I love the film, it still relies on Rule of Cool rather than rule of logic and practical and basically telling you to turn off your brain and enjoy the ride. But you know what? I still fucking love it to death and have every single version of its release (Initial Blu-Ray, 3D Blu-Ray, Extended Addition, etc)
I can't think of anything that is better. Everything else is either limp dick action with poor directing (anything Nolan), shaky cam hell (bourne), CG vomit AND shaky cam (Bay), overuse of slow-mo (Snyder), anti-climactic and poorly choreographed and shot (almost anything marvel)
Theres literally nothing else as good. Nothing else matches the tempo, direction, pace, visuals and impact of Jake taking out the shuttle in the final battle.
I'll also point out you mentioned shaky cam, which falls under "cinematography" jurisdiction. The Bourne films have some fantastic action. If they had competent photography direction they'd be top-tier action cinema.
Because they're separate elements? Choreography, cinematography, mis-en-scene, acting... lots of things go into making good 'action'. Avatar has superb action cinematography. It is 'merely' very good in the other areas (minus acting, but I'm not getting into that right now)
Because they're separate elements? Choreography, cinematography, mis-en-scene, acting... lots of things go into making good 'action'. Avatar has superb action cinematography. It is 'merely' very good in the other areas (minus acting, but I'm not getting into that right now)
I dont think it matters when that one element is one of the most fundamentally important aspects of an action scene. The scene has to succeed on both accounts.
Something like Bourne may have some good choreography, but you cant appreciate any of that due to the poor cinematography
On the other hand, some of the action in the Matrix sequels may have decent steady cam shooting, but its no use because some of those scenes have rather boring and loose choreography
Or in some instances you get shit choreography AND shit cinematography, like in Inception
I can't think of anything that is better. Everything else is either limp dick action with poor directing (anything Nolan), shaky cam hell (bourne), CG vomit AND shaky cam (Bay), overuse of slow-mo (Snyder), anti-climactic and poorly choreographed and shot (almost anything marvel)
Theres literally nothing else as good. Nothing else matches the tempo, direction, pace, visuals and impact of Jake taking out the shuttle in the final battle.
Hero and House of Flying Daggers both have very good action scenes but I wouldn't compare them to Avatar because they rely on very different competencies.
I dont think it matters when that one element is one of the most fundamentally important aspects of an action scene. The scene has to succeed on both accounts.
Something like Bourne may have some good choreography, but you cant appreciate any of that due to the poor cinematography
On the other hand, some of the action in the Matrix sequels may have decent steady cam shooting, but its no use because some of those scenes have rather boring and loose choreography
Or in some instances you get shit choreography AND shit cinematography, like in Inception
Joke? Avatar has some of the most intuitive, best choreographed and downright awe-inspiring action of any movie in recent memory. What it immediately highlights is that almost no other director of the past decade knows how important spatial awareness is in a movie.
Hero and House of Flying Daggers both have very good action scenes but I wouldn't compare them to Avatar because they rely on very different competencies.
Oh goddamn, Jett. That opening fight to Hero is one of the best ever. All the other fights are metaphors because they didn't actually happen (minus the quickie of Hero vs Flying Snow) - slow motion is employed because they're dream-like stories rather than fights.
I'll agree with you about House of Flying Daggers, though.
Joke? Avatar has some of the most intuitive, best choreographed and downright awe-inspiring action of any movie in recent memory. What it immediately highlights is that almost no other director of the past decade knows how important spatial awareness is in a movie.
I am not striking the Chateau fight off my list. It's the only decent fight in both the sequels and stands so head and shoulders above all three films that it isn't funny. It intelligently takes the 'demigod' rules of the Neo and still manages to produce something gripping, balletic and sublime, rather than something videogame-y and boring.
Yeah, jett is crazy. I love Hero, but it is indeed a completely different type of discipline in terms of action. The choreography of action itself relies almost entirely on the dance-like routine of the martial arts.
Suairyu, you gotta name some films that do better action than Avatar if you want to tell me it definitely isn't at the top of the list.
People say that you shouldn't judge Avatar by its plot, but I just can't help but ask why it should be there in the first place. Why does the film keep trying to manipulate me into caring for these ridiculous 1 dimensional characters if they're supposedly not important? Why does it keep focusing on the notion that what's happening to these ridiculously looking aliens is a terrible thing and I'm supposed to hate my own race? Hell, the film would have been an improvement if it had a minimalist story that focused more on atmosphere and mood. That still wouldn't solve the problem that the world in Avatar looks too over the top (and not in a good way) and uninteresting.
I am not striking the Chateau fight off my list. It's the only decent fight in both the sequels and stands so head and shoulders above all three films that it isn't funny. It intelligently takes the 'demigod' rules of the Neo and still manages to produce something gripping, balletic and sublime, rather than something videogame-y and boring.
But Monsieur, I am in agreement with you. Still, as I previously mentioned, these movies really cannot be compared to Avatar. Both are best at what they do.
When it comes to war, the battle for Jerusalem in Kingdom of Heaven probably comes the closest for me to matching Avatar's excellence in action.
But Monsieur, I am in agreement with you. Still, as I previously mentioned, these movies really cannot be compared to Avatar. Both are best at what they do.
But Monsieur, I am in agreement with you. Still, as I previously mentioned, these movies really cannot be compared to Avatar. Both are best at what they do.
Oh goddamn, Jett. That opening fight to Hero is one of the best ever. All the other fights are metaphors because they didn't actually happen (minus the quickie of Hero vs Flying Snow) - slow motion is employed because they're dream-like stories rather than fights.
I'll agree with you about House of Flying Daggers, though.
Maybe I'm misremembering but I recall all the fights being boring, dull and filled with slowmo, no matter if they were "real" or fabricated, with Jet Li's character doing his "twirling move" every time. And action aside it did little for me as well. Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon is a similarly styled movie that's better in pretty much every single way. Hero is frankly crazy overrated.
Incidentally, why isn't the Scott vs Todd bass battle scene on YouTube? That was totes going to be my "difference discipline to the MAX" choice.
(NB: Not all of these are better than Avatar. Some of them are; not all. It's more that these are at least in the same ballpark and Sculli is a hyperbolic whore for Cameron's dick. I mean, since making his statement he's already admitted that Kill Bill might just be better anyway. Who does that? Sculli does, that's who. I love him so much. He won't return my calls and I think he secretly doesn't like me but that won't stop the beating of my heart.)
Honestly surprised Sculli didn't mention it himself. It doesn't focus on the action so maybe you guys want to say "different discipline" or some bullshit, but that entire sequence towards the end is god-like action cinema. The others are good, too. Hand-held photography done right for a change.
Had the entire Matrix sequel debacle been as high quality as this one sequence (and not just the fights) it would have been one of the greatest works of science fiction ever.
(though the guys at 1:15 are totally just some random dudes he beats the shit out of because they're there)
Oldboy
You know something? This film does not deserve the hype it gets. It's middling. Unique enough to be worth the watch, but not worth the praise. Still, can't really get much better than this.
District 13
I'm in love. Love with a man. And France. All of it. Is that wrong? (spoiler alert: no, it is not)
Casino Royal can go cry in the corner.
Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen
DON'T LAUGH
I know it's a shit film and a terrible franchise. But it this scene is amazing, okay? I picked it up cheap on blu solely for this one clip. It was worth it.
Probably not the best clip to pick, actually. But it's my favourite. Very few cinematic moments in my life compare to catching this in a cinema with proper digital projection. If you've seen the full movie you can fill in the rest anyway. If you haven't then you're a motherfucker.
Also, why are the Wackowski brothers masters of music-to-visual emotional moments? The rain scene in V for Vendetta was equally as powerful. There was a similarly powerful moment in Sunshine with Kappa's jump but that isn't action so I can't post it.
... apart from the opening bit, anyway. Once the fight actually kicks off it's amazing. I mean, there's still some slow-mo, but it's so good that I don't care. Whatever, man. You're just being crazy.
I like it, but it was a letdown to me because I waited 12 fucking years for it, and it just didn't live up to my expectations. I was hoping for something darker and grittier like Cameron's earlier films, but it was more like a Disney film. Also, Cameron has always placed a strong emphasis on the characters, and I just thought the characters in Avatar were lacking charisma and severely underdeveloped. I was pretty shocked that he put such little effort into the characters...it's really not like him.
