Support NeoGAF

[Combine]

They did

Spoiler

show up at the end. I didn't notice it my first time but there were avatars standing around in "human" clothes with machine guns while the humans were being forced out. There were at least two of them that weren't Jake.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I noticed

Spoiler

Norm back again in Avatar form. And I definitely saw Dr. Patel. Dunno how many other humans got to stay, probably a good chunk of the science team I'd imagine, especially the Avatar team. I'm hopeful the novel will go into this part with much more detail regarding the taking of Hell's Gate and the decisions made.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Pandora was nicely realised, but far from perfect.

Spoiler

The horse thingies felt somehow really cheesy and I remember lolling at the floating mountains.

I mean they tried to make it a believable place, but that thing stood so much out from everything else.

And it bothered me to death that they rambled about the dangers of Pandora for ages, and yet it felt more empty and sterile than your typical forest? I mean Jacksons King Kong had a way more intimidating jungle areas going on than Avatar. I thought Pandora looked lovely and very welcoming aside from the few mandatory threat scenes.

The floating mountains were awesome! U mad?

 

[hermit7]

Sliiiightly different scale, though.

While true scale plays a large part, Cameron was going for a more epic feel in the world he created. Del Toro was a bit more focused on how he wanted to shape his world and made the details more apparent.

Pandora was great, and I am anxious to see the movie again, and a possible sequel, but overall Hellboy had more realized set pieces, and artistic design.

 

[border]

JPeople who are like "meh" or "I didn't like it" escape me. Impossible to impress, perhaps? I'm certainly glad I'm not that cynical. The movie was literally fantastic.

I think Cosmic Bus said it better many many pages ago, but when everything is infinitely possible then the impossible becomes far less impressive. I took a look at the Iron Man 2 trailer the other day and all all those real-live actual cars blowing up in sequence still seemed way cooler than much of the stuff in Avatar. I wouldn't say my reaction to Cameron's film was "Meh" or "I didn't like it", but it holds none of the allure of live-action effects and stunt work. Things like the Dark Knight truck flip or Matrix Reloaded car chase still make my eyes widen more than Avatar's action sequences, though I can still appreciate that other people enjoy visual spectacle alone regardless of the "Holy shit how'd they do that?" factor.

 

[Giolon]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I noticed

Spoiler

Norm back again in Avatar form. And I definitely saw Dr. Patel. Dunno how many other humans got to stay, probably a good chunk of the science team I'd imagine, especially the Avatar team. I'm hopeful the novel will go into this part with much more detail regarding the taking of Hell's Gate and the decisions made.

Spoiler

Norm wasn't in avatar form at the end. His avatar presumably died. He was standing next to Dr. Patel at the end. The other avatars were some of the unnamed scientists.

 

[zoukka]

The floating mountains were awesome! U mad?

? I just thought they were random, and there for just looking "cool". High and thin shards of mountains would've worked too.

 

[Truant]

While true scale plays a large part, Cameron was going for a more epic feel in the world he created. Del Toro was a bit more focused on how he wanted to shape his world and made the details more apparent.

Pandora was great, and I am anxious to see the movie again, and a possible sequel, but overall Hellboy had more realized set pieces, and artistic design.

Absolutely, Hellboy 2 has some of the best creature design ever.

I think Cameron was very deliberate in making the Na'Vi and parts of Pandora so earth-like, because of the nature of the story. He wouldn't have gotten $300 million to make a love story between two crazy Del Toro-eque creatures, set in some bizarre world where nothing makes sense. I mean, I'd love to see someone pull that off, but there wouldn't be any money in it. Cameron is smart in the way that he knows how to pull different audiences with his films, and Pandora and the Na'Vi were definitely influenced by that.

 

[catchabad0ne]

Saw it in IMAX 3D, had really low expectations and I guess my expectations were surpassed, but honestly it was a pretty bad movie. What I want to know is why James Cameron had to wait 10-15 years to make this movie... I mean it has been made many times before... it is essentially Fern Gully/Dances With Wolves/Last Samurai/etc.

I thought he said that the story and the world could only be realized when the technology caught up. Sure the world he wanted to create needed this new technology, but if he wanted to tell this story, he surely could have done it 20 years ago. I think that is my main gripe with the film.

The story is just a big tired cliche, the characters were fairly generic, and it is overly long. On top of that, the 3D gave me a splitting headache. Just like the 3D did when I went to see Up. I am not going to ever see any more 3D movies again if I can help it. It just makes the movie harder to enjoy with no actual benefit. I reckon the movie would have been more clear and more visually impressive in 2D.

 

[StuBurns]

I think Pandora, and the Na'vi are so similar to Earth and humans because they are meant to represent us. In the film the bad guys are these super over the top, single focus, blind by greed people, I don't think they're meant to represent what humanity would become, I think they're just the worst aspects of society amplified. Where as the Na'vi are the best elements of humanity amplified. Pandora isn't so dissimilar to an ocean bed without an ocean at times.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Saw it in IMAX 3D, had really low expectations and I guess my expectations were surpassed, but honestly it was a pretty bad movie. What I want to know is why James Cameron had to wait 10-15 years to make this movie... I mean it has been made many times before... it is essentially Fern Gully/Dances With Wolves/Last Samurai/etc.

I thought he said that the story and the world could only be realized when the technology caught up. Sure the world he wanted to create needed this new technology, but if he wanted to tell this story, he surely could have done it 20 years ago. I think that is my main gripe with the film.

The story is just a big tired cliche, the characters were fairly generic, and it is overly long. On top of that, the 3D gave me a splitting headache. Just like the 3D did when I went to see Up. I am not going to ever see any more 3D movies again if I can help it. It just makes the movie harder to enjoy with no actual benefit. I reckon the movie would have been more clear and more visually impressive in 2D.

most stories/movies, when broken down to their essence, are just a retelling of older stories.

 

[Okin]

most stories/movies, when broken down to their essence, are just a retelling of older stories.

So I guess you watch the same movie over and over because they're all the same? A baseline idea can be crafted in to something unique in many different ways, but the Avatar story was about as bland as they get.

 

[g23]

Anyone know if the TV's today that are 1080p can handle 3d?

 

[StuBurns]

Anyone know if the TV's today that are 1080p can handle 3d?

Some can, most can't.

 

[catchabad0ne]

most stories/movies, when broken down to their essence, are just a retelling of older stories.

I'll agree with this, and it usually wouldn't bother me. But in this case there was all this hype about how he had to wait all this time to create this movie because it couldn't have been done before and yadda yadda yadda. It was all smoke and mirrors, this movie has been done before, and it wasn't good the first 5 times either.

The visuals were ace though.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

I thought he said that the story and the world could only be realized when the technology caught up.

This is the dumbest thing I've read today. Kudos.

 

[cory]

From the Wikipedia page for Battle Angel:

James Cameron has not decided if Battle Angel can be filmed with current technology. When MTV News talked to Cameron about the possibility of adapting the series, the director responded with, "Maybe, maybe."[5] Cameron's film would be a live-action adaption of the first three volumes of the manga series.[6] He plans to complete a trilogy if the first film is successful. Alita will be a CG character with the photographic likeness of a young, 14 year old girl. The actress portraying Alita, however, will be an adult, who is not yet identified by the studio. Her character will appear nude in many scenes, so performance capture CG imagery will be the only logical way to portray such a young character in this manner without violating child pornography laws.

That's kind of messed up.
I hope he does Avatar II first.

 

[Zaptruder]

I think Cosmic Bus said it better many many pages ago, but when everything is infinitely possible then the impossible becomes far less impressive. I took a look at the Iron Man 2 trailer the other day and all all those real-live actual cars blowing up in sequence still seemed way cooler than much of the stuff in Avatar. I wouldn't say my reaction to Cameron's film was "Meh" or "I didn't like it", but it holds none of the allure of live-action effects and stunt work. Things like the Dark Knight truck flip or Matrix Reloaded car chase still make my eyes widen more than Avatar's action sequences, though I can still appreciate that other people enjoy visual spectacle alone regardless of the "Holy shit how'd they do that?" factor.

I think you're just an utter fiend for non-cg stuff. They could make a CG film look identical to a non-CG film down to the last pixel, and you still wouldn't be impressed with CG, just because it was CG.

It's not unreasonable... but it's certainly a limiting factor of your own psychological makeup rather than a problem with the CG.

 

[Particle Physicist]

So I guess you watch the same movie over and over because they're all the same? A baseline idea can be crafted in to something unique in many different ways, but the Avatar story was about as bland as they get.

i watch them for the unique retelling of the same story. i found avatar unique.

 

[StuBurns]

I'll agree with this, and it usually wouldn't bother me. But in this case there was all this hype about how he had to wait all this time to create this movie because it couldn't have been done before and yadda yadda yadda. It was all smoke and mirrors, this movie has been done before, and it wasn't good the first 5 times either.

The visuals were ace though.

At no point did Cameron say he was waiting till technology caught up to is narrative needs. Of course it could have been done straight after Titanic if he wanted to paint people blue. It took this long for performance capture and CG to get this far, and considering how far he's ahead of everyone else, I fully believe that.

 

[catchabad0ne]

At no point did Cameron say he was waiting till technology caught up to is narrative needs.

Well I'll admit, I was never really interested in Avatar and didn't follow really any of the information going around about it before it came out. That was just the impression that I got. I heard "hey everybody, I have this great idea for a movie in my head but I can't make it until I develop this new technology, etc." Now I personally go to watch movies for the story and the characters, so I guess because of this, the reason why I watch movies, I got the wrong impression. I mean, really what is the point of this tech anyway if you don't have a good story to go along with it.

I've seen this shit before, a new coat of paint won't help it.

 

[StuBurns]

This film raises some interesting internal debates for me. As to what exactly is a film, what makes a film great etc. (500) Days script outclasses Avatar on every level, as a whole the acting is vastly superior, it's very original, and completely charming. But for me, Avatar is an immeasurably better experience. And I can't articulate why. Maybe it is that glorious new coat of paint.

 

[catchabad0ne]

Well I agree that the movie was entertaining, albeit on a superficial level. The visuals were jaw-dropping for sure. But the movie served no purpose other than to show off the technology. Since that was the case, and since we are essentially remaking Dances with Wolves...why not remake something better? Shit, he might as well have remade The NeverEnding Story.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

500 Days of Summer is indeed great, but how can you even compare the scripts given the subject matter. Its like some people want a blockbuster sci-fi with the romantic subplot of Before Sunrise. How about AVATAR 2 focuses on Jake an Neytiri's relationship collapsing Closer style, all whilst the planet is dying.

Also, the acting was better in AVATAR. I said it.

 

[∀ Narayan]

God damn it.

I've already seen this movie twice and I want to see it again.

 

[StuBurns]

500 Days of Summer is indeed great, but how can you even compare the scripts given the subject matter.

Pretty easily, in terms of conversation flow and actual dialogue. And 500 Days is better.

Its like some people want a blockbuster sci-fi with the romantic subplot of Before Sunrise.

No, it's not, although I love Before Sunrise.

How about AVATAR 2 focuses on Jake an Neytiri's relationship collapsing Closer style, all whilst the planet is dying.

Yeah, that'd be nice.

Also, the acting was better in AVATAR. I said it.

Zoe was, the rest weren't.

 

[Krev]

This film raises some interesting internal debates for me. As to what exactly is a film, what makes a film great etc. (500) Days script outclasses Avatar on every level, as a whole the acting is vastly superior, it's very original, and completely charming. But for me, Avatar is an immeasurably better experience. And I can't articulate why. Maybe it is that glorious new coat of paint.

Film is a strange and mysterious language. People tend to focus on things like script and performance when they talk about what makes a film good, but they're just elements. The core of the medium is not words on a page, it's pictures on a screen.

Also, Avatar is better directed than (500) Days. Cameron focuses all the elements of the medium to make something better than the sum of its parts.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

Zoe was, the rest weren't.

Sigourney too, don't forget Sigourney.

 

[Timbuktu]

most stories/movies, when broken down to their essence, are just a retelling of older stories.

With T2 even, the technological leap and the story came hand in hand. You can't have T1000 without the CG and you can't have T2 without T1000. Here does seem like an excuse, it feels that the Na'vi are so similar to humans because Cameron wanted to use mo-cap. The technique came before the designs. It just didn't feel alien. Like when the characters kissed, I was taken aback that the Na'vi would express affection the same way humans do? I don't want to feel that Cameron thought about how audience to would respond and designed the Na'vi accordingly. Maybe it would have been easier to pull off as a fantasy than a sci-fi.

I am floored by the effort and the execution, but I would be hard pushed to call this inspired filmmaking. Only Cameron could have pulled this off, but I find it all the more frustrating that he could be so bold in some ways but completely conservative in others. I don't think I would return to this in ten or twenty years the way I can go back and watch Star Wars, Jurassic Park or Toy Story after others match and surpass them technologically.

 

[DY_nasty]

500 Days of Summer is indeed great, but how can you even compare the scripts given the subject matter. Its like some people want a blockbuster sci-fi with the romantic subplot of Before Sunrise. How about AVATAR 2 focuses on Jake an Neytiri's relationship collapsing Closer style, all whilst the planet is dying.

Also, the acting was better in AVATAR. I said it.

Sigourney Weaver single-handedly ruined your argument.

And I don't see how an Avatar II could take place at all, Cameron pretty much packed a trilogy into one movie.

Spoiler

Humans come back in 13 years, pwn all. Jake gets to have all the blue poon he can handle

If there's an Avatar II, its going to end up like Atlantis II, and no one wants that.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

Sigourney Weaver single-handedly ruined your argument.

And I don't see how an Avatar II could take place at all, Cameron pretty much packed a trilogy into one movie.

Spoiler

Humans come back in 13 years, pwn all. Jake gets to have all the blue poon he can handle

If there's an Avatar II, its going to end up like Atlantis II, and no one wants that.

Sigourney single handedly proves my argument. Sigourney was great.

 

[cory]

It's up to 84%

 

[catchabad0ne]

This is the dumbest thing I've read today. Kudos.

Sorry I missed this earlier but explain why this is dumb? The purpose of a movie is usually to tell a story right? He had this whole concept in his mind for 10+ years or whatever it was, but couldn't do it until the tech caught up. What was the point of this wholly unoriginal concept/story bouncing around in his head for 10 years? The story of Avatar is ultimately meaningless and the film solely exists to show off some fancy technology. He could have just made a 10 minute tech demo if he really had nothing interesting to say.

Perhaps I don't make myself clear here, I'm tired as hell, but I really don't understand why he had this movie in his head for all these years.

 

[StuBurns]

Film is a strange and mysterious language. People tend to focus on things like script and performance when they talk about what makes a film good, but they're just elements. The core of the medium is not words on a page, it's pictures on a screen.

Also, Avatar is better directed than (500) Days. Cameron focuses all the elements of the medium to make something better than the sum of its parts.

Makes sense, it's hard though, it's not great to have so little grasp of my own opinion of something. I feel the same way about a number of Cameron's movies. I don't think it's the 'coat of paint' he's been applying over the years, but maybe it is, I can't say what it is, so I can't be sure. I'd hate to be that shallow though.

 

[Particle Physicist]

And I don't see how an Avatar II could take place at all, Cameron pretty much packed a trilogy into one movie.

Spoiler

Humans come back in 13 years, pwn all. Jake gets to have all the blue poon he can handle

If there's an Avatar II, its going to end up like Atlantis II, and no one wants that.

that is pretty short sighted. Avatar 2 doesn't have to involve humans. at least, not extensively. he could very well craft a completely different story that takes place in that world.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

Sorry I missed this earlier but explain why this is dumb? The purpose of a movie is usually to tell a story right? He had this whole concept in his mind for 10+ years or whatever it was, but couldn't do it until the tech caught up. What was the point of this wholly unoriginal concept/story bouncing around in his head for 10 years? The story of Avatar is ultimately meaningless and the film solely exists to show off some fancy technology. He could have just made a 10 minute tech demo if he really had nothing interesting to say.

Perhaps I don't make myself clear here, I'm tired as hell, but I really don't understand why he had this movie in his head for all these years.

It was stupid because you made a point to highlight the 'and', which means that you were implying that you thought he was waiting for the technology not just to realise his vision of Pandora and its inhabitants, but that he needed the tech to write the story itself. Otherwise you've just worded it very, very poorly.

Also the purpose of a movie isn't restricted to purely narrative goals. Look at 2001, you think people were amazed by 2001 because of its surface narrative when they first saw it? Why do people go to watch throwaway movies like Jackass? I've always liked the idea of movies as a means of learning about the means of affectation. What causes you to feel something - whether it is the presence or absence of any one thing.

 

[border]

I think you're just an utter fiend for non-cg stuff. They could make a CG film look identical to a non-CG film down to the last pixel, and you still wouldn't be impressed with CG, just because it was CG.

It's not unreasonable... but it's certainly a limiting factor of your own psychological makeup rather than a problem with the CG.

It's not unlike the divide that occurred between fans of martial arts movies once wire-fu became common in the 90's. Some people think it's cool to see Jet Li hurl a motorcycle at some dude and then leap into the air and jump kick six foes.......whereas I'd rather just see Jackie Chan perform a series of complex real-life maneuvers and knock out six guys in a single take. IF there's no risk or chance of error involved then I don't see what the impact there can be. In a greater sense it's like the difference between stage acting and film acting -- if you have 100 chances to get the scene right, then your inevitable execution doesn't have much weight. Of course film has long since overtaken theatre, so I can only presume that someday in the future nobody will really care whether stunts are real or not, and it will all be a matter of who can create the biggest spectacle.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

Btw, Neytiri looks fucking awesome when her hair is straight in the film. Her hair looks so fucking natural and life-like.

 

[catchabad0ne]

It was stupid because you made a point to highlight the 'and', which means that you were implying that you thought he was waiting for the technology not just to realise his vision of Pandora and its inhabitants, but that he needed the tech to write the story itself. Otherwise you've just worded it very, very poorly.

Also the purpose of a movie isn't restricted to purely narrative goals. Look at 2001, you think people were amazed by 2001 because of its surface narrative when they first saw it? Why do people go to watch throwaway movies like Jackass? I've always liked the idea of movies as a means of learning about the means of affectation. What causes you to feel something - whether it is the presence or absence of any one thing.

Ok, I see your point, like I said I am tired as hell. I didn't think he needed the tech to write the story, I figured he wrote the story and needed the tech to realize the story on the big screen. Which turned out to not be the case. The story was there solely to provide a backdrop for his tech.

I understand a movie isn't made solely for narrative, and a the value of a movie can be more than the sum of its parts, however to me, Avatar as a movie was pointless. It had been done to death, the only thing new is the tech. Which is very impressive, but not a reason to watch a movie.

A movie like Jackass isn't a movie like Avatar or 2001. That is a crap example because clearly people don't go see Jackass for the plot or to see any kind of decent filmmaking. People go to see Jackass because it is funny to get high and watch a guy put a toy car in his asshole.

 

[BakugekiNZ]

? I just thought they were random, and there for just looking "cool". High and thin shards of mountains would've worked too.

The whole point humans are on Pandora is to mine the mineral that has STRANGE PROPERTIES, the result of which is that things FLOAT, presumably which can be used on Earth for a variety of things (hence valuable enough to travel to Alpha Centauri to obtain).
The rocks were "floating" because they were very light because they contain this mineral + vines.

If you didn't understand this, you probably weren't paying attention at all. They make sure its very very understandable (e.g. the corporate guying fiddling with the floating shard of it).

I can see why someone might dislike aspects of the movie and could make a reasoned argument, but you sir, and just a plain hater.

 

[catchabad0ne]

Btw, Neytiri looks fucking awesome when her hair is straight in the film. Her hair looks so fucking natural and life-like.

I guess I should have said the tech is not enough of a reason to watch this movie to me, because from this quote, clearly seeing natural looking CG hair is the end-all be-all of cinema to you.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

I didn't realise that rock could be used to make things float. I thought it was just being held in a little device that kept it floating in mid-air.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

I guess I should have said the tech is not enough of a reason to watch this movie to me, because from this quote, clearly seeing natural looking CG hair is the end-all be-all of cinema to you.

Because I expressed appreciation for a particular aesthetic look in a scene? Why bring discussion down to such a stupid level?

 

[StuBurns]

I didn't realise that rock could be used to make things float. I thought it was just being held in a little device that kept it floating in mid-air.

It's not strictly the way BakugekiNZ's rant makes it seem. The mountains float because of where they are, mixed with the properties of the mineral. The mineral alone, just anywhere with no charge, will not float.

 

[duckroll]

The more I think about Avatar, the more I grow to like it even more. It's a really strange feeling, but Cameron must have perfected the concept of a visual drug. I'm not sure if I really want to watch it again for the third time so soon, but I think I might make some time after the new year to watch it one more time. It's a really well crafted movie, and for some reason, the longer I'm away from Pandora, the more I think about the little things that were there throughout the movie. The different areas, the different plants and animals, how they all relate together both in practical natural purpose, and in awesome art direction. So good.

 

[catchabad0ne]

Because I expressed appreciation for a particular aesthetic look in a scene? Why bring discussion down to such a stupid level?

Nah, I was just joking because you said that I wrote the dumbest thing you read today. Just being a dick. This is the internet after all.

It's cool to appreciate the art and animation, and the skill involved to create everything in the film. I enjoyed the visuals a ton too. To me the wow factor of the visuals didn't really mean much without something more from the narrative. Pretty visuals only wow for so long. They kind of become old hat around the one hour mark when there is no reason to care for the characters or story.

I apologize for trying to be a dick. I'm no good at it anyway.

 

[BakugekiNZ]

It's not strictly the way BakugekiNZ's rant makes it seem. The mountains float because of where they are, mixed with the properties of the mineral. The mineral alone, just anywhere with no charge, will not float.

I lied about logging out
I got the impression it was some sort of room temperature superconductor and/or and strange magnetic properties, thus large chunks interacting with the moon's magnetic field cause the levitation seen in the "Hallelujah Mountains"

 

[StuBurns]

Nah, I was just joking because you said that I wrote the dumbest thing you read today. Just being a dick. This is the internet after all.

It's cool to appreciate the art and animation, and the skill involved to create everything in the film. I enjoyed the visuals a ton too. To me the wow factor of the visuals didn't really mean much without something more from the narrative. Pretty visuals only wow for so long. They kind of become old hat around the one hour mark when there is no reason to care for the characters or story.

I apologize for trying to be a dick. I'm no good at it anyway.

I think you two are on the same page, just disagreeing on the quality of the story itself. I get the sense that you do appreciate and understand the technical marvel, just that the tech should be used to support a story worth telling, and you don't think this is, but Sculli does.

I have to agree with Sculli, I think the story is fine, a more abstract story might not have even been green lite. I greatly look forward to whatever happens next on Pandora.

I lied about logging out
I got the impression it was some sort of room temperature superconductor and/or and strange magnetic properties, thus large chunks interacting with the moon's magnetic field cause the levitation seen in the "Hallelujah Mountains"

Pretty much, check out the scriptment if you want to hear the exact explanation.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

I lied about logging out
I got the impression it was some sort of room temperature superconductor and/or and strange magnetic properties, thus large chunks interacting with the moon's magnetic field cause the levitation seen in the "Hallelujah Mountains"

It is a room temperature superconductor which contains no resistance whatsoever. We use a similar sort of thing now with the Maglev trains (you'll find them in japan) where they hover slightly above the rails - yet even that has some resistance.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Man I wish I had the patience to type out a really thoughtful response on why this movie is so good, but it just seems too silly to have to explain something thats should be obvious to anyone. The combination of CG and 3D in this movie provides a visual experience that really is a "game changer"... usually things get hyped up and fail, but this movie I think surpassed the hype by a large margin. I've seen it three times now, and the last time I sat in the perfect place.... the 3D was so smooth and had so much depth, its mind numbing.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

The more I think about Avatar, the more I grow to like it even more. It's a really strange feeling, but Cameron must have perfected the concept of a visual drug. I'm not sure if I really want to watch it again for the third time so soon, but I think I might make some time after the new year to watch it one more time. It's a really well crafted movie, and for some reason, the longer I'm away from Pandora, the more I think about the little things that were there throughout the movie. The different areas, the different plants and animals, how they all relate together both in practical natural purpose, and in awesome art direction. So good.

Yep, I've seen it 3 times and it really just leaves you with a strong sense of nostalgia. I'm going to try wait a few weeks before I see it again so as not to burn out on it.