The major thing I had a problem with was that the ending as it was could not have happened that way, even if you buy in 100% with everything else in the story. No way at all.
First, I can’t believe I wrote Andorra. (I meant Pandora, of course). Thank you all for not giving me a ration of crap on that one.
Second, this quote by even sven sums up a lot of what I was feeling about the plot. The script seemed simply lazy. For all the efforts made in the visual aspects of the film, the story, being so off-the-shelf and basic, detracted from the experience for me. I didn’t care about any of the characters because I’ve seen all of these characters before. They acted exactly how they’ve always acted. No plot surprises or twists. And what a shock the lead protagonist’s name was “Jake”. Nothing says manly man like JAKE SULLY, Not “Herbert Goldstein”.
The movie being nominated for the “Best Picture” Oscar is truly a joke. It wasn’t even close to the best movie. Best Special Effects? Sure. No argument there. But best picture? No way. Star Wars didn’t get a Best Picture nomination, and back in the 70’s, I can’t see why if ground breaking special effects is the biggest requirement. For its time, Star Wars seemed just as advanced to me as Avatar seemed to me for its time.
I am surprised at the almost universal agreement in this thread to my OP. It makes me wonder… did all of us see it for the first time only on TV? I get a sense that many people talk about this as a movie that must be seen on the big screen. I am confident that my opinion wouldn’t change, but I’m wondering if any of you saw it on the big screen and still walked away unimpressed…
I’m also amazed that the people who helped create the very long SD thread about Avatar when it came out are not in here defending this movie until their fingers bleed. Is it silent recognition that maybe the movie wasn’t “ALL THAT” and doesn’t hold up well in memory over time?
Finally, I agree with the premise stated by someone else that a great MOVIE should stand up no matter what. Big screen, small screen or IMAX. It shouldn’t matter to the story (unless the visuals ARE the story… which in this case, like a documentary on the Siberian Wilderness, seems to be the case).
St’ink Fi’sh P’ot
Jake is a manly name?
Damn, I’ve been doing it wrong all these years…
You’re quoting my mind.
Maybe they have better things to do than argue with someone who desires their approval so much?
I saw it on the big screen, in a theatre that offered all the technology needed to present the movie in all its flashy glory and wasn’t impressed either. Neither was my wife. My 12 year old daughter and her friends however were mesmerized, though even they anticipated every single step of the plot far in advance. But this might actually be one of the advantages of the purified kind of fairytale-like stories: they offer assurance, never surprise, always satisfy the hope for a happy ending.
Ah yes: the indomitable “you just didn’t get it!” defense. A virtual portal to that most erudite and sophisticated of all online symposia, the IMDb Message Boards.
It will be further suggested, sven, that you are a “hater” because you’re “just jealus”[sic] of Cameron’s unequivocal masterpiece, and challenged to provide an example of your own blockbuster filmmaking for the purposes of comparison. Then at some point, if tradition holds, someone will post a creepy request for pictures of Zoe Saldana’s feet.
maybe… but I doubt it.
And if you are referring to me as that “someone” who desires their approval so much, let me just say :rolleyes:
You actually missed my point entirely. It’d be nice if you actually read the post I was responding to, where he was arguing that exact point with his “If the audience doesn’t get it, they don’t get it” rhetoric.
My counter was a factitious retort showing the folly of his argument. Thanks for trying to keep up though.
The original Star Wars did get a Best Picture nomination, and G.Lucas got a Director nomination as well (both lost, though the film picked up 7 Oscars total that year).
He’s a she. Here’s a trophy for your effort, though.
That’s your response? Here’s a :rolleyes: for your effort.
I don’t think I participated in that thread. Certainly not before the movie came out. I was not even aware of “Avatar” until I saw some preview ads for it just before release.
Looked stupid to me. I’m very much skeptical of Hollywood fare (mostly tripe) and blockbuster mentality and when I saw blue people my eyes couldn’t roll enough. I was pretty much dragged to see it.
And it blew me away. Visuals, 3-D, and, yes, story. Like I said earlier–it worked for me. YMMV (obviously). I’m one of those arrogant types that doesn’t like to admit I was wrong. I was very very wrong in my preconceived notion for this film.
Having siad all that, I doubt I’ll buy the DVD (and this is from someone who has over 800 DVDs). I might rent an SE if one comes out to see all the special features, but I really don’t want to see it at home, after seeing the 3-D IMAX.
I saw Avatar three times last winter and I was always amazed at how the 3-D environment of the movie and the sense of being there was so compelling that most of the audience would retake their seats and put their glasses back on just to watch the credits, which for a few minutes allowed them to be back on the planet of Pandora. Pretty damn cool, and my hat is most definitely off to James Cameron. His achievements in making that film were nothing short of astounding.
I believe I mentioned this in one of the threads at the time, but Cameron intentionally made the story simplistic. He wanted people to experience the movie and the 3-D effects and the love story and the environmental message without being distracted by trying to figure out a more complex story line. He wasn’t making an art film - he was making a blockbuster. And at that he succeeded very well.
The main thing this movie succeeded at was in separating a lot of people from a lot of their money.
That’s why it won most of those awards.
What thread are you reading? If this thread qualifies as universal agreement you should go into politics.
This movie is about the immersive experience of seeing it in 3D. It’s not a perfect film and I don’t think many fans would even make that case. I’m the biggest Star Wars fan on the planet, ok maybe not the biggest, but you know. However I will concede that the characters in SW are paper thin, the plot had plenty of predictable hackneyed elements and the acting was often subpar. The story had gaping plot holes and the dialogue was often rudimentary at best.
The same can be said about Avatar. Now, would Star Wars and Avatar have been as big of a box office success with a more complex, original and unpredictable script? Maybe, maybe not. Would the Coen Brothers have done the technology justice, who the hell knows. Certainly being safe, predictable and most of all kid friendly was the obvious choice and the box office confirmed that. Could it have been as successful with deeper characters and a twistier plot, probably but it also could have flopped if those twists and turns were disorienting. Cameron played it safe and he wasn’t playing to the SDMB audience, he was playing to the Twitter audience. Most people can accept that even if they aren’t the target, some people are too egocentric to acknowledge that not all things are for all people.
There’s a very strong correlation between people complaining about the movie and those who saw it in 2D in the theater. There’s an even stronger correlation between those who saw it at home versus 3D.
You’re close-minded if you think that you wouldn’t have appreciated it in 3D. Your opinion of the story likely wouldn’t change, but you’d have certainly said “hey, I haven’t seen THAT before!” That is what the movie was intended to do.
Yeah, because fighting with people like you who obviously have selective hearing is how they want to spend their time. I’m telling you that seeing the film in 3D was a entirely different experience than seeing it on HBO. It you refuse to hear that and are set in your mind that this movie will suck no matter what, well then you can’t be helped.
The original thread wasn’t universal agreement. People who saw it in 3D generally loved it. Most agreed that the story was pretty well traveled ground but they accepted that and enjoyed the ride. It was an inoffensive story that let them sit back and enjoy the ride. The quintessential popcorn flick. People who saw it in 2D were less impressed predictably and some said they might go back and try it in 3D to see what the talk was about. A vocal minority came in to shit on everyone’s enjoyment and pointed out all the movies flaws. The flimsy characters and Ferngully/Dances With Wolves parallels were beaten into the ground. Supporters generally said, yeah that’s true but that wasn’t the most important thing to me. The haters continued screaming louder and the battle was on. Some people simply cannot be pleased and have to crap on everything, that’s one of the facets of the internet. Had SW come out in 2010 it’d have been mocked to death. Had Titanic come out in 2010 people would be ranting about the cheesy love story and how boring the first 90 minutes were. The SFX would have been “cartoony”. As with most things the internet allows a very vocal minority to get the loudest and last word.
Look if you didn’t enjoy the movie, fine. If you don’t agree with the consensus that seeing it in 3D would have dramatically improved the appeal, it’s your loss.
Well, I’m glad that you folks are here to clarify what a great movie is. We’d be lost without you.
I certainly did, and I’d love to see it again. But I absolutely will not watch it in 2-D. Like you or someone else said upthread, the difference is like b&w vs. color television.
Funny you say this. I was so engrossed in the experience of feeling like I was on Pandora that I wasted an entire large bag of popcorn, as I felt that to look around for it and start munching it would take me out of the movie and back into the theater.
That was a $5 bag of popcorn too. :smack:
For my money, Coraline’s 3d was a lot more interesting: it added a depth to a beautiful story, and the imagery had personality. Midway through Avatar’s 23-hour length, I thought, “this is an excellent proof of concept video!” Nothing in its remainder made me reassess that judgment. Even the action scenes were sloppy and uninteresting to me, and I can dig me some good action scenes.
Just saw it too. 67" TV. Totally unimpressed. It’s a technical feat, but as far as acting, story, etc., it’s ordinary. The graphics provide no sense of reality, so it’s basically a cartoon without any art. I’m sure it was great for 3D fans, and compared to the average movie, how bad could it be? But it’s not to my tastes. I didn’t see it in the theater because it was obvious what kind of movie it would be. Perhaps others seeing it now on cable for the first time held those same low expectations.
Again, there is simply no point in saying that you were underwhelmed watching it in 2-D. I loved the film, saw it three times, and I wouldn’t watch it in 2-D. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard someone say that they thought the movie would suck, and then when they went and saw it in 3-D they were blown away. (That would include me, btw. I knew very little about the movie and basically went to see it because one of my neices wanted to see it again and couldn’t get her husband to go with her, so I went mostly just to get to spend some time with her. We both saw the movie two more times. :D)