-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Rottenwatch: AVATAR (82%)
- Thread starter SCULLIBUNDO
- Start date
- Status
JzeroT1437
Member
aznpxdd said:
So is that what we're going to predicate this being a decent film on? The fact that Cameron gave us slightly smoother CGI action than Bay? This doesn't change the fact that the film contextualizes itself almost entirely through background narration, wastes much of the first hour and a half showing off Pandora's visual splendor without going too far into the Navi's actual traditions--at least not to an extent to merit its 1.5 hour span--and has a flimsy, overused, stock plot.
polyh3dron
Banned
Damon lindelof was also involved in the writing of star trek and there were probably a few other uncredited writers involved too. There always are on projects that big.Tobor said:
It also helped that on star trek they didn't have a director who wanted shitty writing as Bay always seems to want. No matter who writes his flicks they always have the same shitty qualities.
Expendable.
Member
I had zero trailers :/ the theater employee actually announced before that the film was too long.JGS said:
ryutaro's mama
Member
CassidyIzABeast said:
I'm sure all the Cameron fans got the joke.
CassidyIzABeast
Member
I didn't at first but now I doryutaro's mama said:
All the Oscar buzz seems to have died down now that everyone has seen it and the RT/Metacritic score has deflated. I can see it winning a Special Effects Oscar but I don't think it will stand up to films driven by superior writing and superior acting. Zoe Saldana might have an outside chance for Best Actress but I don't think her work during the serious moments is all that great, and some might say it borders a little on hammy.Speevy said:
Based on buzz alone I'm probably picking Up In The Air to take home most of the gold. Clooney is a Hollywood darling, and Reitman needs an Oscar but they couldn't give it to him for something as light and flip as Juno or Thank You For Smoking. I'd say that even Nine has a better shot than Avatar.
But then again with the crazy way they've re-arranged the Best Picture nomination process, who knows what could happen? Maybe the vote will be split between all the artsy fartsy folks, and some mainstream film could win. But since the "serious drama" category is supposedly devoid of legitimate contenders, all it takes is one good artsy fartsy film to beat everything else. Of course there is the animation taboo, and I'm not sure how many voters can/could really pick a mostly animated film over more "legitimate" live action efforts.
Hasphat'sAnts
Member
DanielPlainview said:
Didn't miss much then. The trailers at mine were Prince Of Persia, Clash of the Titans, Salt, Percy Jackson and the Olympians the Lightning Thief (what an awful title), and some other utterly unmemorable movie. It was awful how far movie trailers had fallen.
JzeroT1437 said:
A long 3D tour of an alien world, perfectly rendered, isn't really a worthwhile thing to complain about in a movie whose premise and raison d'etre is precisely that. I almost forgot that Pandora was threatened while we got to explore the place.
I think Cameron should keep writing his own stories. He is the best action director out there in exploring relationships between characters. I think he did it better when he was with his Bigelow, but you can't turn back time.
IMO, no one, except possibly Spielberg when he does action flicks, comes close and Avatar is no exception. He may farm out writing to make a more interesting villian, but otherwise, his stories are tight because he's telling them. I have a hard time believing he would ever give up control anyway. When he makes a movie, the WHOLE movie is his.
T2 is nowhere near as well written a story as Avatar. It just isn't. The reason it is awesome has nothing to do with the writing.
IMO, no one, except possibly Spielberg when he does action flicks, comes close and Avatar is no exception. He may farm out writing to make a more interesting villian, but otherwise, his stories are tight because he's telling them. I have a hard time believing he would ever give up control anyway. When he makes a movie, the WHOLE movie is his.
T2 is nowhere near as well written a story as Avatar. It just isn't. The reason it is awesome has nothing to do with the writing.
JzeroT1437
Member
border said:
Inglourious Basterds. If it doesn't win, it will certainly be in the running for best pic.
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
the first hour and a half is what sucked me into the film completely. it was fantastic escapism.JzeroT1437 said:
JzeroT1437
Member
OuterWorldVoice said:
I guess if you're some mindless voyeur who goes to the theater only to be shown pictures rather than entertained or stimulated by an actual story, yeah. That's true.
CassidyIzABeast
Member
is jzero baiting? I think he's baiting
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
yep, we're all mindless idiots.JzeroT1437 said:
Arrows have a slightly finer tip than bullets, but bullets fly at probably ten times the speed. Keep in mind this is supposedly bulletproof glass, so their force against the shielding should have to be far greater than that of an actual bullet. I don't really buy it, but it would be interesting for someone to do the math and actually see what sort of arrow could penetrate bulletproof glass. I'd have to be something with pretty significant mass fired at a pretty incredible speed.maharg said:
And as I mentioned earlier, if the arrows are "better" the bullets they should not stick in humans' chests.....they should fly straight through, given that our innards are much more gooey and soft than bulletproof glass.
Expendable.
Member
I really wanted to see the Piranha trailer in 3D though....and Knight and Day.JGS said:
JzeroT1437
Member
CassidyIzABeast said:
I'm not baiting. Sorry to crap on you're guys' fapfest over this film, but it's an example of subpar cinema. Introducing your movie with long stretches of background narration to contextualize your world being one of them. It's not a good film and it's certainly too long.
stuburns said:
He should have fire James Horner long before he fire himself as the writer. Someone need to kick that unimaginative ass.
As for the dialogue, I thought alot of funny bits work, ("remember to take some samples") What's the weakest part to me was the narration of the first 10-20min.
ryutaro's mama
Member
No I think he probably didn't like the film but now that everyone is responding to him, he's really playing things up.CassidyIzABeast said:
JzeroT1437
Member
ryutaro's mama said:
I did legitimately dislike the film and I'm not playing anything up. I've just been repeating the same foundational problems I had with it, to which everyone who has responded has failed to address.
Expendable.
Member
I thought some of it was okay. Like "I told myself I could pass any test a man could pass" as Jake is getting on the wheelchair off the transport ship.tino said:
I still don't know if it's realistic, but the arrows were just HUGE compared to humans, so they was clearly a large amount of mass - and force - behind them. They were going about 2/3 of the way through people. It was like getting hit by small tree trunks.border said:
As for the glass, the movie made a point that the Na'vi couldn't shoot through the glass from even moderate distance. They had to fly right up to the window, pull way back on the bow and fire at point blank range to shatter it.
Again, it may or may not be realistic. But I never had an issue with this - the arrows were huge, the Na'vi strong and the shots that broke the glass were from point-blank range.
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
i thought it was fantastic and could have done with another 20-30 minutes.JzeroT1437 said:
i wasn't aware there was an objective measure of how good a film is
like i said - i'm not sure you'll change anyone's opinion here. this movie really seems to be polarising people, and i'm enjoying it.Deadly Cyclone
Pride of Iowa State
JzeroT1437 said:
Congrats, you have an opinion like the rest of us, no need to take it to harsh words.
I don't get how people judge what is "sub-par" any more. If people really enjoy the film and it does very well, who is anyone to say how they made it and did certain things was sub-par? If the film succeeds in every sense, yet does something normally viewed as bad in the industry, how can we be so sure that what they did really is bad?
JzeroT1437
Member
Deadly Cyclone said:
People enjoy Tyler Perry movies. Wild Hogs was #1 at the box office for weeks. People enjoying a film isn't necessarily an indicator of quality.
JzeroT1437
Member
chubigans said:
Cinema is neither. It's a visual means of telling a story or addressing an issue. Though you're right--Avatar is much closer to photography than any form of meaningful storytelling.
Expendable.
Member
An overwhelming majority of critics loved Avatar and I'm sure in the next few weeks we wont see a drop like we do with the films you mentioned.JzeroT1437 said:
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
thank god we have a real movie critic in the thread teaching us what's good and bad.JzeroT1437 said:
Avatar did tell a story, albeit a simple one. but there was one.
Deadly Cyclone
Pride of Iowa State
JzeroT1437 said:
Yet (more of an argument of artistic "quality" in general) an artist can take a can of paint and throw it at a wall and call it art, and people will pay millions for it and say it is brilliant, can this not be applied to motion pictures? Maybe it is more that quality is in the eye of the beholder, as you think one thing is low quality and I another.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
JzeroT1437 said:
And to that I add:
Roger Ebert said:
ryutaro's mama
Member
JzeroT1437 said:
No but taking a pompous, "you must all be morons to like this garbage" attitude when defending your viewpoint is an indication of being an ass.
JzeroT1437
Member
DanielPlainview said:
Star Wars: Episode 3 Rottentomatoes Score: 80 %
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Rottentomatoes Score: 77%
Sometimes if a movie's big enough or their director has enough cultural notoriety, critics do what they're expected to do, not what they should. This thing's riddled with problems critics would knock other lesser films for.
cartoon_soldier
Member
JzeroT1437 said:
Those are criminal critical scores.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
JzeroT1437 said:
Star Wars Episode 3 Box Office:
Domestic: $380,270,577 44.8%
+ Foreign: $468,484,191 55.2%
= Worldwide: $848,754,768
Indy 4:
Domestic: $317,101,119 40.3%
+ Foreign: $469,534,914 59.7%
= Worldwide: $786,636,033
And both made TONS of money too. What was your point again?
JzeroT1437
Member
PhoncipleBone said:
They were horrible, dude. Did you see either?
brandonh83
Banned
Not sure how it's remotely possible to hate the battle sequence at the end but what the fuck ever
JzeroT1437
Member
brandonh83 said:
The ending was a breath of fresh air after the hour and a half of fluff that was given as an excuse for "development" at the beginning.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
JzeroT1437 said:
Horrible? No they were not. Spectacular? No, they were not either.
Did I at least enjoy myself for a couple of hours when I watched them? Yes, I did.
julls said:i thought it was fantastic and could have done with another 20-30 minutes.
i wasn't aware there was an objective measure of how good a film is
I am not least bit surprised by the debate. When Titanic was released, the good/bad movie debate was much more intense. I am glad I was around in rec.arts.movies.current-films , with my webTV terminal!!! Goof times, young 'un, good times.
- Status