SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Vic said:
Oh man I had to look that up to know what that meant. :lol
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Rottenwatch: AVATAR (82%)
- Thread starter SCULLIBUNDO
- Start date
- Status
Oh man I had to look that up to know what that meant. :lol
Seems people are being a little to forgiving of this movie's shortcoming. Effects should just be an added topping to a movie, something you checkoff but if you ignore the effects in this movie then you're left with a run of the mill story, bad dialogue, and standard performances. The effects are second to none but that should be a small part of what makes a movie great.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
ralexand said:
Shit man. He's right. Everybody just stop for a minute. He's RIGHT. Turn off the music. Stack the chairs. The party is over. AVATAR really isn't as good as we've been led to beleive. James Cameron tricked us! I say we take to the streets and give him all the criticism he's been missing out on.
Discotheque
Banned
What Cameron does better than others though is that he can make you not give a shit about simple stories or dialogue.
Michael Bay and other noobs these days bring that shit to everybody's attention. It's almost at the forefront whenever there is no explosion.
Cameron can mask it, somehow, he just does. I really didn't have any problems with Avatar's script or very basic characters. Though Sigourney Weaver did annoy me a bit in the film.
Michael Bay and other noobs these days bring that shit to everybody's attention. It's almost at the forefront whenever there is no explosion.
Cameron can mask it, somehow, he just does. I really didn't have any problems with Avatar's script or very basic characters. Though Sigourney Weaver did annoy me a bit in the film.
Foliorum Viridum
Banned
Just got back from seeing it the 2nd time, this time in 3D, and feel somewhat underwhelmed. The 3D stuff was really good - but I kinda expected more of it. I appreciate less is more in some instances, but as a film that is meant to redfine what 3D was, I don't think it sold me on it. It was my first 3D experience, too, so it's not like I was jaded etc.
With that said, totally loved it again regardless of the minor 3D disappointment. I think that says so much about the film.
With that said, totally loved it again regardless of the minor 3D disappointment. I think that says so much about the film.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
ralexand said:
Just pointing out that your seemingly revalatory post has already been said about 500 times in this thread alone.
Sorry, just scanned a few pages and didn't go throught the whole thread and the ones I didn't mentioned those things. If things like writing and plotline isn't important to some I can see why you would love this movie. Like I said the effects are stunning and unprecedented. Seems I'm the minority here in terms of caring about those other things.Scullibundo said:
Yes, I thought the dialogue was (mostly) good. A few lines clunked. I've seen most of Tarantino's work, and love his movies, but haven't seen his latest. I plan to on DVD. That has nothing to do with Avatar.ralexand said:
But when you make a statement as stupid as this: "Effects should just be an added topping to a movie, something you checkoff," it's hard to take your opinion of cinema at all seriously.
Since this is probably the defacto Cameron thread atm...
I rewatched True Lies and Titanic the past 2 days, the JC movies Ive seen the least.
True Lies, probably the first time Ive watched the movie since the 90s in its entirety, ive seen bits and pieces on TV during that time. This is basically the movie that Michael Bay has been trying to make for his entire career and hes never come close to doing it this well. The movie is just so damn funny and likeable and the action just kicks ass despite being so over the top. Still at the end, this probably has to rank as Camerons "weakest" movie, but even so, this is definitely one of the most kick ass 90s action films.
Titanic, first time Ive watched it in at least 10 years...and man it really was a hell of a movie. Despite some elements which are "a bit" lol (like Leo's Italian friend. Dude hams it up even more than the entire cast of Assassin's Creed II), the movie is just so grand. I never really picked up on it until now, but Rose really is one of Camerons defining trademark female leads. Such a strong and memorable character, and god damn I forgot just how beautiful Kate Winslet was in this flick. My favorite part of the movie isn't even any of the destruction, but probably when Jake has dinner with Kates group and then afterwards takes her to the party below deck, I love those scenes. Great flick, but still would rank it below all of Camerons Sci-Fi work (basically everything else hes done aside from these two movies) except for maybe Terminator. Not sure, all great movies either way.
I wonder if Cameron will change any parts of Titanic, or add any scenes for the 3D edition. IIRC he was at one point talking about an anniversary special edition, then nothing at all. Id suspect hes rolled that into the 3D edition.
I rewatched True Lies and Titanic the past 2 days, the JC movies Ive seen the least.
True Lies, probably the first time Ive watched the movie since the 90s in its entirety, ive seen bits and pieces on TV during that time. This is basically the movie that Michael Bay has been trying to make for his entire career and hes never come close to doing it this well. The movie is just so damn funny and likeable and the action just kicks ass despite being so over the top. Still at the end, this probably has to rank as Camerons "weakest" movie, but even so, this is definitely one of the most kick ass 90s action films.
Titanic, first time Ive watched it in at least 10 years...and man it really was a hell of a movie. Despite some elements which are "a bit" lol (like Leo's Italian friend. Dude hams it up even more than the entire cast of Assassin's Creed II), the movie is just so grand. I never really picked up on it until now, but Rose really is one of Camerons defining trademark female leads. Such a strong and memorable character, and god damn I forgot just how beautiful Kate Winslet was in this flick. My favorite part of the movie isn't even any of the destruction, but probably when Jake has dinner with Kates group and then afterwards takes her to the party below deck, I love those scenes. Great flick, but still would rank it below all of Camerons Sci-Fi work (basically everything else hes done aside from these two movies) except for maybe Terminator. Not sure, all great movies either way.
I wonder if Cameron will change any parts of Titanic, or add any scenes for the 3D edition. IIRC he was at one point talking about an anniversary special edition, then nothing at all. Id suspect hes rolled that into the 3D edition.
Scullibundo said:
I've been saying this for ages now. Glad to see your eyes are finally open. Do you think we should do local protests in our own countries first (each coordinated by team leaders in each country) or do you think it would be more effective if we all flew down to a central spot like say, Times Square, and did a massive protest? I'll be happy to contribute to either.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Lolligag said:
Um, what? I thought they were the focal point of the shot. And you need to find a good 3d theater if it was blurry. A good theater does not have that problem, and the only things that should be blurry are things that are intentionally not in focus. The same as it would be in 2d.
Take it seriously or not, we certainly have a difference of opinion on effects in movie. Imo the best effects are the one that don't standout as effect. The minute effects become the main ingredient of a movie is when we get movies like Attack of the Clones and Transformers. A film like District 9 has amazing effects but they are never used to sacrifice good writing and a good story.GhaleonEB said:
Count Dookkake
Member
ralexand said:
Again, it's a message board. He was just rebutting your silly generalization. No more tears.
Mechanical Snowman
Member
It makes sense in 2D for the things out of focus to be blurred, as it is in real life - but in 3D it's a little weird if you want to look around a shot and not just at the characters / main focus, and you find you can't because they're actually out of focus. If that makes sense. Your eyes / brain try to focus but you can't because it's actually blurred on screen, it almost feels like there's something wrong with your eyesight. That's what I felt anyway, after the first few times I got used to it and just stopped trying to focus on things that the film didn't want me to.PhoncipleBone said:
And :lol at the story argument coming up again. It seems like the people who enjoyed the film just talk about how they liked it, but the people who didn't enjoy it just talk about why others shouldn't either.
It's almost as if you expect everyone to preface their posts with "I know the narrative was unoriginal, and maybe some of the dialogue was poor, but..." Even if this were true, it's not like these points have to be acknowledged and explicitly stated whenever someone wants to talk about the film.
Avatar is so popular because of what it has, not what it lacks, that's why its "shortcoming" isn't a big deal.
Movies are first and foremost a visual medium; visuals are the reason we watch movies rather than listen to an audio play. Visual effects are just one type of visual element used to tell a story, like a prop or a background or lighting. Saying it's something to check off is like saying cinematography is something to check off. The Piano is one of my favorite films ever, and the heartbreakingly stunning cinematography is a big part of the reason why. Of that film I could start the sentence, "Cinematography should just be an added topping to a movie, something you checkoff but if you ignore the cinematography in this movie then you're left with...." but that would be exceptionally dim. Visuals are a part of a visual story telling medium, and dismissing it as a checkbox is simply strange. Especially in a film that's over 70% visual effects.ralexand said:
And just as Tarantino's dialogue (to cite your example) is a reason to see his films, Cameron's visuals are one of the main reasons to see his.
But to your last point: We're going to have to agree to disagree, though I feel like I'm agreeing to disagree with someone who asserts the sky is not blue. I can genuinely understand criticism of the films dialogue or characters - I disagree, but I understand and respect that viewpoint. Comparing the implementation of visual effects in Avatar to something from AotC or some Michael Bay excrement is simply wrong, on so many levels. :lol
He wasn't rebutting shit.Count Dookkake said:
It's fine to not wanting to re-discuss those points, but what the fuck does that old tired "sarcastic" (and I use this term loosely and with quotation marks in respect of better practitioner of art) response add to the conversation?
Either let it slide, or reply seriously.
It's like he can't leave a bad word about this movie alone.
YOU DON'T NEED TO PROTECT AVATAR OR CAMERON, IT'S THE MOST SUCCESSFUL MOVIE OF ALL TIME, IT'S CELEBRATED BY MOST MOVIE GOERS AND CRITICS, IT HAD WON AWARDS AND WILL MOST LIKELY WIN SOME MORE. SOME DUDE ON THE INTERWEBS DIDN'T CARE FOR AS MUCH AS YOU DO, DEAL WITH IT.
Synth_floyd
Banned
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJarz7BYnHA&feature=sub
The 70 min phantom menace review guy did an Avatar review. This one's only 20 min.
The 70 min phantom menace review guy did an Avatar review. This one's only 20 min.
usernamechange
Member
Nobody should post anything positive about Avatar because it's all already been said 500 times in this thread alone.Scullibundo said:
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Bpatrol said:
If somebody were to say 'Nobody seems to be giving credit to the movie for this and this and this', yet it had been mentioned countless times earlier, making the post redundant, it would be the same.
Had he brought up negative points that had not been considered, just as he claimed they hadn't been, then you might have something.
eLGee said:
GhaleonEB said:
WTF, they cut all these things out of the theatrical version? Moments like that are what make Aliens a bona-fide classic. They give a lot of other moments in the film real context and weight.
Sounds like there's absolutely no point to the theatrical cut of Aliens at all.
Scullibundo said:THANKYOU!
I was actually reading his post and thinking 'No this is the most substantial loss! :lol
Its such a beautiful moment. Last goodbyes between comrades before descending into the depths of hell.
'See you, Hicks'
'Dwayne, its Dwayne.'
'Ellen.'
'Don't be gone long, Ellen.'
Well fucking said.
And then of course ALL of that gets tossed right out the window in the first 5 minutes of Alien 3.
Count Dookkake
Member
Chichikov said:
:lol
Yes, he was.
ralexand's position is that people are being too forgiving of the film's flaws.
COOLIO's position is that plenty of people like the film and don't agree with the alleged flaws.
LEARN TO READ, MORAN, ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE GOING TO USE FUCKING ALL-CAPS TO DISGUISE THE FACT YOU HAVE LITTLE OF MERIT TO ADD OTHER THAN 'NO DISCUSSION NECESSARY.'
Discotheque said:
I'm not going to say Cameron and Bay are on the same level as far as anything goes, but I'm also not going to say that Cameron can "mask" the simplicity in his characters and stories. Not for me, at least, which has always been my big sticking point with Cameron's films.
That, and all of the CHEESE.
Count Dookkake
Member
Puddles said:
I'm eager to hear what popular adventure film they claim to not have these 'problems.'
For me, the moment when Jake runs in his avatar body for the first time and finally digs his toes into the dirt was just as emotionally engaging as plenty of scenes from "better movies." There were a lot of other moments like that in Avatar, but that one is a great example. Saying that the movie had no characterization and depth is just wrong, IMO.
TRANSFORMERS DEFENSE TACTIC #5146 : "If you didn't like some aspect of this movie, obviously your hopes were too high and you wanted some kind of artfilm! Go watch some Fellini, you pussy!"Puddles said:
Just because it's a popcorn movie doesn't really mean that the lead character has to be hopelessly dull and generic.
Count Dookkake
Member
border said:
fixed
The point is that a lot of people really liked the characters in the movie while also recognizing that none of them are going to be mistaken for Jean-Valjean or Leopold Bloom anytime soon. However, a lot of people think that the characters were quite well-written and not one-dimensional at all. So when people come along and bash the characters, the natural reaction is to question what kind of standard the detractors are trying to apply here.
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
all this last page has done is reconfirm how super fucking awesome Aliens is, and how much i want to watch it again.
I dunno, earlier somebody said "what popular adventure film can you claim does not have these problems", as if it's really so impossible to make an adventure film with compelling leads.Puddles said:
But just off the top of my head I'd argue that characters are done better in Indiana Jones, Aliens, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars Original Trilogy, Pirates of the Caribbean, Lord of the Rings, Titanic, Jaws, Iron Man, Back to the Future, etc. I'm not interested in judging AVATAR against Fellini or Orson Welles, but I think plenty of medium-to-big budget Hollywood productions have turned out better.
Count Dookkake
Member
Now we're getting somewhere.
Pick one of those films, please.
Pick one of those films, please.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
i have no problem with the opinion that the writing and acting is bad/mediocre, but the way you phrased things suggested that:ralexand said:
a) anyone who liked the movie must be overlooking these flaws, even though it's entirely possible that most people just liked the writing and acting, or at least liked these things more than you did.
b) that it's somehow wrong of people to overlook certain flaws in a movie to enjoy other aspects because those flaws are especially important to you. anyone enjoying anything harmless is essentially a good thing.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
ralexand said:
Lot of people in thread seem to point out its shortcomings but accept that it's still a totally enjoyable film. Yes the characters are pretty stereotypical to a story that's been told before, but it's still a great film and fun to watch. That's what Cameron is good at, figuring out unique ways to tell stories.
Kinda depends on if you want to discuss the merits of a lead character versus Jake Sully or the casts as a whole. Indiana Jones is probably the best lead and I think we'd all take him over Sully. Star Wars is the best ensemble, though Luke as lead character is kinda bland and whiny at the onset. Lord of the Rings is fantastic all-around, but perhaps it's an unfair comparison since Jackson had great novels to work from and 10 hours to flesh everyone out. I don't care for Titanic that much and think it hasn't aged very well, but I still like Jack and Rose more than Jake and Neytiri (Billy Zane and Quarritch are about equal as goofy cartoon villains).Count Dookkake said:
I wouldn't argue that any of the movies are flawless of course, just that in terms of characters they do what they do a great deal better than AVATAR.
- Status