-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Rottenwatch: AVATAR (82%)
- Thread starter SCULLIBUNDO
- Start date
- Status
Revelations
Banned
Magnus said:
Try wearing them with glasses on. Your ears, temples and eyes will hurt. Surprised I didn't get a retinal tear with as much straining as I was doing.
Just getting back from a midnight show.
The movie is good and worth the price of admission for the CG alone. I still don't believe that the Na'vi look as good as the D9 prawns (at times they look great, other times meh).The movie though... its okay. It is just dumb long. I swear Cameron went out of his way to make the movie longer. Unobtainium is just lulz. Sigourney Weaver was cool. The end...
was kind of stupid, especially when they made me sit through an extra hour of movie for no reason.
But it is Fern Gully in space though. There is no getting around it.
That being said, tall & blue is the sexiest thing ever.
The movie is good and worth the price of admission for the CG alone. I still don't believe that the Na'vi look as good as the D9 prawns (at times they look great, other times meh).The movie though... its okay. It is just dumb long. I swear Cameron went out of his way to make the movie longer. Unobtainium is just lulz. Sigourney Weaver was cool. The end...
where jake magically conquers that legendary pokemon and when the clans just take over the base like it was pie - trust us!
But it is Fern Gully in space though. There is no getting around it.
That being said, tall & blue is the sexiest thing ever.
Just saw it and enjoyed the hell out of it, I would've been contend with some robot ass-beating but it went much farther than I had expected.
I never thought James would explore a space-opera sci-fi. He developed a lot of fun ideas that even kids could pick up on but were stimulating enough to anyone in the audience and they were very much into the film.
wheeeew, now bring on "The Forever War" and my space-marine lust shall be satisfied.
I never thought James would explore a space-opera sci-fi. He developed a lot of fun ideas that even kids could pick up on but were stimulating enough to anyone in the audience and they were very much into the film.
wheeeew, now bring on "The Forever War" and my space-marine lust shall be satisfied.
That is hilarious.vgamer1 said:
Have you seen the movie yet? The CG was awesome but it was damn near forcefed. I know the forest and floating mountains are awesome, you don't have to make me watch a pointless scene for 15 minutes (spoilers regarding 3/4 through the movie and on
especially when it contradicts itself later on in the film
In no way was this movie a space opera. Its Fern Gully in space, with mindblowing CG throughout.sammy said:
Just got back from an East Coast showing at midnight. Theatre was pretty well-populated....anyone arriving 10 minutes prior to showtime would probably have been stuck sitting alone or sitting in the first few rows. Why do I always feel sorry for these people? :lol
I think the problem with the super generic story is the same problem that King Kong had -- the ending is such a forgone conclusion that length becomes a consideration. Oftentimes it feels like you are tapping your foot waiting for things to come to a head. This wouldn't be a problem though if the characters were empathetic or interesting, but they are mostly just flat. If I were going to see the movie again it would almost certainly be for the last 20 minutes, which would make all the stuff that comes before it even more difficult to sit through. The Na'vi are never really humanized and their society never really explored....if the prelude had to be so long, it would have be nice to get a sequence like the Hobbiton part in Fellowship of the Ring - some section where we see more about how they live and play. They are just stoic mystics and hunters....more like Tolkein's stuffy joyless Elves than the Hobbits.
I was much more impressed with all the CG than I thought I would be, and much less impressed by the 3D. The 3D didn't seem any better or worse than other stuff I have seen in 3D, though I suppose there is less of that pop-up-book effect. A lot of times you cease to notice it at all.....I wasn't sure if my glasses stopped working at times. I had a headache through the last 45 minutes of the film, though I am still not sure if it was due to the glasses that pinch your head like a pair of tweezers or the 3D itself. I wouldn't say I felt particularly immersed, and there are still plenty of shots of stuff coming at the camera (though less obvious and gimmicky). A lot of the problems I had with RealD continue to exist with IMAX 3D.....things can look kinda flickery, or sometimes hazy and semi-translucent (like when you hold your hand about 5 inches from your face and it looks as if you can see through it).
CG looks very good, though I'd still say it mostly looks like CG whenever there is anything other than an inanimate object on screen. To WETA's credit though, there are still of shots of that look like humans in prosthetics rather than CG furries. Mostly I think this is a step forward in animation and getting the movements down right.
If you live in the boonies and can't get to a 3D theatre, I wouldn't sweat it too much. The 3D isn't a gimmick, but it isn't really what makes the film. The technology still has a long way to go, especially if it's going to hike ticket prices by 50%.
I dunno how the movie will play with normal audiences. My friend is a pretty average moviegoer and he liked it, but certainly wasn't wild about it. He said military/human scenes were on par with "that shitty videogame that Mark Hamill was in with the giant tigers" :lol But he really enjoyed all the Pandora stuff. He said Sigourney Weaver was terrible - I merely thought she was phoning it in. I feel like they could have gotten somebody much better and much more into it.
Overall I'd say it was just okay -- mostly worth seeing just to have something to talk about with everyone else. And I'm hoping it will bring us out the "Shrek"-era of CG films and towards something a little more serious. It doesn't feel like a game-changer or a leap forward or whatever, but it is hard to hate if you take it on its own merits and not the hype. I'd rank it below almost all of Cameron's other films....maybe better than The Terminator (my least favorite).
I think the problem with the super generic story is the same problem that King Kong had -- the ending is such a forgone conclusion that length becomes a consideration. Oftentimes it feels like you are tapping your foot waiting for things to come to a head. This wouldn't be a problem though if the characters were empathetic or interesting, but they are mostly just flat. If I were going to see the movie again it would almost certainly be for the last 20 minutes, which would make all the stuff that comes before it even more difficult to sit through. The Na'vi are never really humanized and their society never really explored....if the prelude had to be so long, it would have be nice to get a sequence like the Hobbiton part in Fellowship of the Ring - some section where we see more about how they live and play. They are just stoic mystics and hunters....more like Tolkein's stuffy joyless Elves than the Hobbits.
I was much more impressed with all the CG than I thought I would be, and much less impressed by the 3D. The 3D didn't seem any better or worse than other stuff I have seen in 3D, though I suppose there is less of that pop-up-book effect. A lot of times you cease to notice it at all.....I wasn't sure if my glasses stopped working at times. I had a headache through the last 45 minutes of the film, though I am still not sure if it was due to the glasses that pinch your head like a pair of tweezers or the 3D itself. I wouldn't say I felt particularly immersed, and there are still plenty of shots of stuff coming at the camera (though less obvious and gimmicky). A lot of the problems I had with RealD continue to exist with IMAX 3D.....things can look kinda flickery, or sometimes hazy and semi-translucent (like when you hold your hand about 5 inches from your face and it looks as if you can see through it).
CG looks very good, though I'd still say it mostly looks like CG whenever there is anything other than an inanimate object on screen. To WETA's credit though, there are still of shots of that look like humans in prosthetics rather than CG furries. Mostly I think this is a step forward in animation and getting the movements down right.
If you live in the boonies and can't get to a 3D theatre, I wouldn't sweat it too much. The 3D isn't a gimmick, but it isn't really what makes the film. The technology still has a long way to go, especially if it's going to hike ticket prices by 50%.
I dunno how the movie will play with normal audiences. My friend is a pretty average moviegoer and he liked it, but certainly wasn't wild about it. He said military/human scenes were on par with "that shitty videogame that Mark Hamill was in with the giant tigers" :lol But he really enjoyed all the Pandora stuff. He said Sigourney Weaver was terrible - I merely thought she was phoning it in. I feel like they could have gotten somebody much better and much more into it.
Overall I'd say it was just okay -- mostly worth seeing just to have something to talk about with everyone else. And I'm hoping it will bring us out the "Shrek"-era of CG films and towards something a little more serious. It doesn't feel like a game-changer or a leap forward or whatever, but it is hard to hate if you take it on its own merits and not the hype. I'd rank it below almost all of Cameron's other films....maybe better than The Terminator (my least favorite).
Revelations
Banned
Magnus said:
I actually wished it was longer. Some important things needed that much more screen time.
Tricky I Shadow
Banned
nib95 said:
Well under Top Critics its currently on 96%...which is far more important.
Scullibundo said:
Yes, I'm definitely going to see it again. I really like the movie quite a lot, and I want to see what the rest of my family thinks about it too, especially my dad. I'm not shitting on the movie or anything, I just feel that with all the hype around it, there is a sort of expectation for the movie to do more than it realistically can do, given the sort of story Cameron obviously wanted to tell. It does feel like it's a bit of a waste to be revolutionary in the technology just to tell such a simple story though, but obviously it's up to Cameron what sort of stories he wants to tell, and I had a good time either way.
JimiNutz
Banned
It'll be interesting to see how the people that OMFG! LOVED IT! first time around, react to it the second time.
I was kind of down on the movie after the first time, but enjoyed it a lot more the second time. Will these people that loved it first time, enjoy it even more second time?
I'm seeing it a third time tonight so wonder how I'll view it after my third showing.
I just hope that Cameron now uses the tech to tell a truly compelling story.
Although I'm feeling a lot more positive about Avatar now that I've seen it a second time, I'm thinking about it more as an extended tech demo or theme park ride.
I was kind of down on the movie after the first time, but enjoyed it a lot more the second time. Will these people that loved it first time, enjoy it even more second time?
I'm seeing it a third time tonight so wonder how I'll view it after my third showing.
That's exactly what I was trying to convey in my initial review, and obviously I still feel the same way.duckroll said:
I just hope that Cameron now uses the tech to tell a truly compelling story.
Although I'm feeling a lot more positive about Avatar now that I've seen it a second time, I'm thinking about it more as an extended tech demo or theme park ride.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
mrklaw said:
The first second I thought that, then I realised it was him getting used to USING LEGS again, let alone Avatar legs. You have to understand that what you were watching wasn't animation, it WAS Sam Worthington.
The cinematography and CG in the movie is amazing. I know it's a cliche, but I really sort of felt like I was part of the world during the course of the movie.
I've got some problems with the story, through.
Minor issue
Major issue
I've got some problems with the story, through.
Minor issue
When Jake conquers the big flying thingie. All he basically does is just sneakily fly above the thing and then jump on its back. If getting one of those things is really as easy as that, wouldn't the Na'vi have figured that out?
Major issue
Humanity is villanized way too much in the movie. Instead of critiquing humanity, the films slams it. The movie never seeks to understand why the humans in the movie act the way that they do. I kept waiting for a scene where Jake explains human nature to the Na'vi, but it never happens. And in the end, Jake throws his humanity away. Along with Terminator, Cameron seems to have a knack for criticizing the advance of human technology. Yet the irony in making his movies using the most advanced film making technology ever is irony not lost on this viewer.
DY_nasty said:
No they don't. The CGI is pretty bad in Avatar, and by bad, I mean it doesn't look real. It's not believable. The CGI in District 9 was believable and awesome.
DY_nasty said:
I forgot about that :lol Yeah that made my eyes roll in the theater.
Another thing that bothered me was when the arrows went through the glass. Like, earlier in the movie, it was established that arrows bounced off the humans' cockpit glass. It's even bulletproof, FFS. But when the big battle comes, suddenly arrows can penetrate the glass! When I saw that in the theater, I called bullshit.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Really great part of the score for those who have seen it can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBtaRoRfFZ0#t=4m30s
Especially the part that starts just before the five minute mark.
Especially the part that starts just before the five minute mark.
border said:
WING COMMANDER 3 IS NOT SHITTY
PLEASE PUNCH YOUR FRIEND FOR ME kthx
DY_nasty said:
Well they have no technology whatsoever, aside from simple things like bows, hammocks and stretchers made out of leaves and bamboo rods. So I assume they just don't have the capability or the know-how to produce guns.
Danthrax said:
I discussed this earlier with my mates. The first ship they were firing arrows at was not only a much larger ship, but they were also firing arrows up and at an angle to already angled glass. The second time around they are not only firing at the smaller gun ships, but they are also firing from above, with the added benefit of gravity and a better angle for penetration. Makes sense to me.
Also, why would the Na'vi use guns? The whole point is that they are anti-technology and pro nature. Their weapons, clothes, everything, used and created from the jungle around them. Essentially like other tribes in the past, who also only rely on what nature provides.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Danthrax said:
Erm, different ships, different cockpits. The thing Quaritch was riding around in was a heavy gunship. Also, the Na'vi had to get in close before letting their arrows fly on the small cockpits.
Magnus said:
Exactly. In the scriptment it ever says its a joke name everybody uses for it.
Tesseract
Banned
Guardian Bob
Member
Loved the movie. Sure, its predictable, but very enjoyable. My favourite movie of the year.
I can't believe how caught-up in the Na'vi characters. When they would return to human bodies i would go "oh yeah, they are actually human... hurry up and go back into a Na'vi!"
I can't believe how caught-up in the Na'vi characters. When they would return to human bodies i would go "oh yeah, they are actually human... hurry up and go back into a Na'vi!"
Danthrax said:
Well, I think you're wrong.
And everyone I watched it did too. We all questioned it, but it made perfect sense when actually considered beyond knee jerk reaction.It's the same reason no Na'vi stuck an arrow through the cockpit of the giant gunship (which had hello bullseye written on it) at the end. Clearly the bigger ships have stronger reinforced glass. Otherwise they would have downed the behemoth instantly.
With all the soldiers that they killed, they never explain why the Na'vi never picked up some guns off dead soldiers.Danthrax said:
Native Americans, Africans, and just about every other out gunned civ seemed to get the idea just fine. Clearly they can't produce the weapons - why won't they use them though?
Tricky I Shadow
Banned
Danthrax said:
The hell? I think you're getting character designs and CGI mixed up......because it's a FACT that the CGI was incredible and ridiculously believable.
I had absolutely no idea it was an already coined term in existing films, never mind our real world. Thanks for the enlightenment guys. 
Opinion. I found every bit of CG here very technically sophisticated and beautiful to look at, but believable? Still looked plastic and ephemeral to me. Neytiri had a lot going for her; a wonderful performance for a CG character. Got nothing on Gollum though. The Na'vi scenes and the human scenes were like two different films mashed together, visually speaking.
Tricky I Shadow said:
Opinion. I found every bit of CG here very technically sophisticated and beautiful to look at, but believable? Still looked plastic and ephemeral to me. Neytiri had a lot going for her; a wonderful performance for a CG character. Got nothing on Gollum though. The Na'vi scenes and the human scenes were like two different films mashed together, visually speaking.
MisterAnderson
Member
Danthrax said:
Disctrict 9's aliens looked great. I think you're blind to say that Avatar's CGI didn't look real, and not better than District 9's, but that's me.
In the final battle
the Na'vi are shooting arrows while flying towards the human ships. The velocity of them flying towards them + velocity of the arrow = more impact.
Tricky I Shadow said:
I cared more for Neytri than I did for....well...any female lead I can remember from big blockbusters in recent times. She was not only completely convincing and believable, but offered a better performance than any other "human" actor in the film. Jake as a Na'vi was also fantastically realised.
JimiNutz
Banned
I kind of agree but have a possible explanation.Danthrax said:
Maybe the glass on those smaller choppers is not as thick as the glass on the large ship that Quaritch was flying in?
We only ever see the arrows bounce off the glass of that ship, where as during the battle they were firing at the smaller ships. That would make sense since we see the dragon things trying to bite through the glass of the large ship again later in the movie and they are still unable to penetrate through it.
I was thinking that as well but don't know enough about physics to know for sure whether it was a feasible explanation.MisterAnderson said:
When they're firing arrows from the ground they were also having to fire upwards at the ships, where as during the battle they were swooping down towards the ships and firing downwards.
Do you mean why they don' use dead humans guns, or their own guns? If you mean their own guns then maybe it's because they don't have enough/any metal or gun powder readily available to them? Besides, they seem perfectly happy using their bows to hunt, plusDY_nasty said:
they make their bows from Home Tree once they become a man,
Count Dookkake
Member
Sullied my trousers.
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
Tricky I Shadow
Banned
Tricky I Shadow said:
Well ok maybe in terms of believability it's an opinion (a pretty stupid one if you thought it wasn't believable), but not in terms of how good the CGI is.
I wish they went into why humans were trying to get unobtanium.
Was I the only one actually rooting for the humans? :lol
It would have gone a long way into actually making the humans viable bad dudes. I mean, at the end when Jake says "And they sent the humans back to their dying planet" that just confirmed my feelings that I wanted the humans to win.
Was I the only one actually rooting for the humans? :lol
I can kinda see how the big ship's glass would be more reinforced than the smaller ships, but I still think the smaller ships' glass would be thick enough to repel arrows. This explanation kinda makes sense to me, though, and I can see it being plausible:
As for the CGI, maybe it's the art style, I don't know, but the Na'vi always looked fake as hell to me. District 9's prawn looked much more realistic and believable. Mind you, Avatar's animation is better than anything ever made, so I'll give it that. Maybe the lighting and texturing needed to be better? I'm not sure. I just know it never looked as real to me as the CGI in District 9 or even Lord of the Rings (odd, considering WETA worked on those movies, too... maybe it IS just the art style).
MisterAnderson said:
As for the CGI, maybe it's the art style, I don't know, but the Na'vi always looked fake as hell to me. District 9's prawn looked much more realistic and believable. Mind you, Avatar's animation is better than anything ever made, so I'll give it that. Maybe the lighting and texturing needed to be better? I'm not sure. I just know it never looked as real to me as the CGI in District 9 or even Lord of the Rings (odd, considering WETA worked on those movies, too... maybe it IS just the art style).
If the na'vi were so believable then there wouldn't be such a large "whoa! blue people! probably do no want" movement.Tricky I Shadow said:Well ok maybe in terms of believability it's an opinion (a pretty stupid one if you thought it wasn't believable), but not in terms of how good the CGI is.
Its an opinion shared by the majority if anything. The CG for the environments is amazing but like I said before, at some points the na'vi look great, and other times they look astonishingly meh.
nib95 said:
Well that's a different thing. As a character, yeah, she was believable and I could feel empathy for her. But as far as how she looked, she never blended at all with the real-life parts that were filmed. None of the CGI did.
That's what makes good CGI good: if it blends with the FMV. If it doesn't seem like it could believably exist within the real world of the FMV, then it's failed to some extent.
JimiNutz
Banned
legend166 said:
When I first went to see the movie, I found the characters so boring that I didn't care what happened to any of them.
The only character I even remotely liked was Quaritch, so I was definitely rooting for him to kick some Na'vi butt :lol
I especially liked the part where
he fucked up that Thanator thing
The second time around the Na'vi grew on me a little so I was kind of rooting for them.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Danthrax said:
I disagree with you completely.
There is a shot where
She is drinking water out of some purple plants that have captured the water and it looks absolutely realistic. One of my favourite moments is after the big motherfucker flies after her and Jake and they come to rest against a tree and Jake smiles whilst Neytiri lets out this brilliant laugh of joy. Also after their flight when they're talking excitedly about what they did 'I came down like this' etc. Or even straight after that when they play with each other in the air formation.
Neytiri has a great ass.
Nutjob -
I REALLY loved how Quaritch fucked up the Thanator. Absolutely cold-blooded gutting of the thing.
I'm really glad Michael Biehn wasn't Quaritch or I would've just had flashbacks to his role in The Abyss.
- Status