Poll: Avatar, what's the big deal?

[DaBozz]

For a film that cost $280.000.000 to make I would like a story that has not been stolen from disney film. I would rather have a film that had no CGI and a orginal story.

anyone who likes avatar is basicly proof that, you put shiny grapics on front of a human and the love it no matter what.

That's a horrible analogy. It was generaly good and no story these days is really original, avatar was a bit too familiar to Pocahontas but it was still generaly good.

I know the analogy was bad, but I had this agument soooo many times Im getting bored of saying it. Avatar is -not- the film of the year far from it.

What argument?

There are many people that love the movie, even enough to say it's the best they have ever seen, do you have some kind of problem with that? I hope not, there are many people that would agree it's not the best movie of the year but they don't get annoyed with the people who do.

Just by that comment I can guess that you like it.
Its overhyped and I personly -hate- it when poeple overhype something thats not even that good
like trasonformers, COD6, Avatar, Michel jackson.
the problem is 40%poeple say its cool and another 40% just agree with them without forming an opinion of there own, but suddenly when someone challenges the idea then OMG what assholes.

If you looked earlier into the thread you would have seen I already said I liked it, is that not a good thing?

So what if it's over-hyped? Everything is over-hyped these days, are you going to get annoyed at everyone just because they don't think like you?

I used to fall for hype but not anymore, I know better and because of this it won't ruin any experience ever again. I liked the Avatar for what it is, an action flick with an explosion of CGI, I was entertained by it but I wouldn't put it anywhere near my greatest movies list.

Meh I did not read to far into the thread.

Im not getting annoyed, mearly saying poeple need to think for themselves once in a while.

and I have no problem with you *shrugs*
but nothing will make me change my mind about avatar, so you like it I don't thats all it comes down too.

You just said you hate it when things get overhyped, that's a strong word so sorry if I had mistaken you getting annoyed, but still don't let it ruin your experience.

Also I am not trying to change your mind about the Avatar, it doesn't bother me frankly, it was just that opening analogy that disturbed me.

Just curious, why didn't you like the movie? I doubt it was just because of the over-used story.

Ah hate to me is just a everyday word, but I'll change it for you, "I dislike it when a film is overhyped"

I don't like i for lots of reasons, its over publicized you can barely look anywhere without seeing adverts and such for it, where as other good films get missed (district9)
the fact it cost so much £280.000.000 is a lot to make a film. and the fact everyone thinks the CGI is amazing and new, when Final fantasy advent children actually started using CGI like that. and like I said I don't like how poeple rave about something just because it has good grahpics, its like with games poeple spend £40 on a game that lasts 2hours just becuase it has good grapics.

PS: and becuase the disney film it copys is cheaper and shorter, I mean 3hours long WTF!

 

[brainfreeze215]

It's a big deal because it has such an incredibly immersive world, and the simple story just does its job and stays so simple to prevent us from being alienated in any way so that we can just totally ignore reality for a few hours and completely dive into Pandora.

It does this so well despite the fact that this is the first that the audience has seen of the world, since it is neither a franchise movie nor a sequel. That in itself is pretty amazing given the box office trends of the last decade.

 

[GrinningManiac]

Well, I loved it, and thought it was the best film of 2009, and possibly the decade for me.
I'd rate it up there with other epics like Lawrence of Arabia.

But that's just my opinion.

But really, people just need to stop over-analyzing it.
It's a popcorn film, it's just to entertain you.
It's not going to change the world or anything.

Yeah, like Furburt said: It's a film for enjoying, and I enjoyed it

Having said that, EVERYONE (even the film makers themselves) prior to release were portraying some kind of Messiah to CGI and 3D and filmography everywhere. If they just said "we developed new 3D for a cool film, check it out" rather than "THIS. FILM. WILL. BLOW. GOD'S. MIND" I may have enjoyed it even more

But I went in, expecting the cinematic pinnacle of all time, and I got a "nice film"

 

[Nazulu]

People really need to learn to adjust there expectations when they watch films. What I generally see is people trying to compare a blockbuster to fucking Citizen Kane. That makes no sense to me. You go and see a film like No Country For Old Men and you say ok this film is trying to have some artistic merit and appeal to a demographic that enjoys cinema.

You go to a James Cameron film knowing that story and dialogue is going to be second to visual effects. I don't know why anyone is trying to assume any different. The difference between Cameron and someone like Bay (Not hating on bay because I do like him) is that generally your going to get an engaging story.

You can't rate every film on the same scale or maybe thats just why I don't have any seething hate for many films.

Pretty much this. I don't know a single person who walked into that movie expecting it to be the greatest storytelling endeavor in all of mankind. The advertisements, the people I went with, and myself all agree that it never intended to be more than an adventure-blockbuster.

I don't need a complex an intriguing storyline to enjoy a movie, I just want to be taken for a ride. As far as I'm concerned, this mentality has changed since the arrival of The Dark Knight and Iron Man. Both films had great stories and complex moral ideas, yet they were summer blockbusters. To me, it seems that now everyone expects other popcorn flicks to follow the same path.

Ya I'm convinced if Aliens came out today people would ***** and ***** about it because it's not up to The Dark Knight quality

I doubt that actually, I prefer to watch Aliens a lot more than the Dark Knight.

I love all of the alien movies. (Yes even 3 and ressurection) but to me the only one that is up to the cinematic quality of TDK is Alien1

I agree with Alien being the best out of all of them but I would say Aliens has got better cinematic quality than the Dark Knight. I also reckon the film was more interesting altogether and that you should give Aliens more credit.

That's my opinion and I know I'm not going to convince you but I just wanted you to know that some people are going to disagree with that, make that a lot of people.

 

[persopolis]

It was a pretty good movie, although (seeing the amount of work put into it)I did expect the story to be better i.e. no plot twist I could predict from the very beginning of the film.
Now If Jake dumped the millitary asshole dude (don't remember his name) and the evil ceo douche (I think they didn't even mention his name)in the rainforest, takes over the entire operation(this of course all after the whole n'avi-human love subplot),negotiates with the n'avi(or kills them all: SMURF CARNAGE!) so the humans get a part of the planet where they can mine for unobtanium(stupid name btw), Jake get's himself a fortune (and legs, but keeps the wheelchair and makes it into a super awesome combat wheelchair), goes to earth, stops pollution, ditches the evil corporations, forms a world goverment, declares himself emperor of the universe(take that Kojima!) and then the movie ends, but not whitout hinting an even more awesome sequel, that would have made this movie one of the best i'd ever seen.
It was a very good movie(and an interesting experiment, but so where the A-bombs), but nothing more. Well, let's hope the sequel does better.

 

[Nazulu]

Ah hate to me is just a everyday word, but I'll change it for you, "I dislike it when a film is overhyped"

I don't like i for lots of reasons, its over publicized you can barely look anywhere without seeing adverts and such for it, where as other good films get missed (district9)
the fact it cost so much £280.000.000 is a lot to make a film. and the fact everyone thinks the CGI is amazing and new, when Final fantasy advent children actually started using CGI like that. and like I said I don't like how poeple rave about something just because it has good grahpics, its like with games poeple spend £40 on a game that lasts 2hours just becuase it has good grapics.

PS: and becuase the disney film it copys is cheaper and shorter, I mean 3hours long WTF!

Good points! I said I wouldn't want to watch it again in my first post because it was so damn long and your definitely right about it being over-blown. First thing I heard about this movie is the CGI is the best ever, and even though that maybe true the scene's really weren't so spectacular, I have seen far more interesting and epic scene's in older movies.

 

[clipse15]

People really need to learn to adjust there expectations when they watch films. What I generally see is people trying to compare a blockbuster to fucking Citizen Kane. That makes no sense to me. You go and see a film like No Country For Old Men and you say ok this film is trying to have some artistic merit and appeal to a demographic that enjoys cinema.

You go to a James Cameron film knowing that story and dialogue is going to be second to visual effects. I don't know why anyone is trying to assume any different. The difference between Cameron and someone like Bay (Not hating on bay because I do like him) is that generally your going to get an engaging story.

You can't rate every film on the same scale or maybe thats just why I don't have any seething hate for many films.

Pretty much this. I don't know a single person who walked into that movie expecting it to be the greatest storytelling endeavor in all of mankind. The advertisements, the people I went with, and myself all agree that it never intended to be more than an adventure-blockbuster.

I don't need a complex an intriguing storyline to enjoy a movie, I just want to be taken for a ride. As far as I'm concerned, this mentality has changed since the arrival of The Dark Knight and Iron Man. Both films had great stories and complex moral ideas, yet they were summer blockbusters. To me, it seems that now everyone expects other popcorn flicks to follow the same path.

Ya I'm convinced if Aliens came out today people would ***** and ***** about it because it's not up to The Dark Knight quality

I doubt that actually, I prefer to watch Aliens a lot more than the Dark Knight.

I love all of the alien movies. (Yes even 3 and ressurection) but to me the only one that is up to the cinematic quality of TDK is Alien1

I agree with Alien being the best out of all of them but I would say Aliens has got better cinematic quality than the Dark Knight. I also reckon the film was more interesting altogether and that you should give Aliens more credit.

That's my opinion and I know I'm not going to convince you but I just wanted you to know that some people are going to disagree with that, make that a lot of people.

And i'm not trying to convince you either i'm sure a lot of people think Aliens is a more cinematic film than TDK but i'm also sure there would be a few people who would say that because Aliens is a "classic." I'm not saying that that's you i'm just saying that its a likely occurance.

To me when I first saw it I saw it as a slight rehash of the first film (Company wants alien, they send people to get alien without telling them, people die and then ripley kills aliens.)

To me what makes Aliens strong is that theres no weakness to it everything works like a well oiled machine. On the flipside nothing in that film to me stands out as "OMG."

With TDK I found that it also had very little weakness in the film but there are several elements that elevate it from very good film to excellent.

 

[Nazulu]

People really need to learn to adjust there expectations when they watch films. What I generally see is people trying to compare a blockbuster to fucking Citizen Kane. That makes no sense to me. You go and see a film like No Country For Old Men and you say ok this film is trying to have some artistic merit and appeal to a demographic that enjoys cinema.

You go to a James Cameron film knowing that story and dialogue is going to be second to visual effects. I don't know why anyone is trying to assume any different. The difference between Cameron and someone like Bay (Not hating on bay because I do like him) is that generally your going to get an engaging story.

You can't rate every film on the same scale or maybe thats just why I don't have any seething hate for many films.

Pretty much this. I don't know a single person who walked into that movie expecting it to be the greatest storytelling endeavor in all of mankind. The advertisements, the people I went with, and myself all agree that it never intended to be more than an adventure-blockbuster.

I don't need a complex an intriguing storyline to enjoy a movie, I just want to be taken for a ride. As far as I'm concerned, this mentality has changed since the arrival of The Dark Knight and Iron Man. Both films had great stories and complex moral ideas, yet they were summer blockbusters. To me, it seems that now everyone expects other popcorn flicks to follow the same path.

Ya I'm convinced if Aliens came out today people would ***** and ***** about it because it's not up to The Dark Knight quality

I doubt that actually, I prefer to watch Aliens a lot more than the Dark Knight.

I love all of the alien movies. (Yes even 3 and ressurection) but to me the only one that is up to the cinematic quality of TDK is Alien1

I agree with Alien being the best out of all of them but I would say Aliens has got better cinematic quality than the Dark Knight. I also reckon the film was more interesting altogether and that you should give Aliens more credit.

That's my opinion and I know I'm not going to convince you but I just wanted you to know that some people are going to disagree with that, make that a lot of people.

And i'm not trying to convince you either i'm sure a lot of people think Aliens is a more cinematic film than TDK but i'm also sure there would be a few people who would say that because Aliens is a "classic." I'm not saying that that's you i'm just saying that its a likely occurance.

To me when I first saw it I saw it as a slight rehash of the first film (Company wants alien, they send people to get alien without telling them, people die and then ripley kills aliens.)

To me what makes Aliens strong is that theres no weakness to it everything works like a well oiled machine. On the flipside nothing in that film to me stands out as "OMG."

With TDK I found that it also had very little weakness in the film but there are several elements that elevate it from very good film to excellent.

To me that's a very flawed argument. If the struggle for survival and the queen alien didn't make you go OMG then only certain things will. To me both films a very good but not great, they both just miss out by a bit.

 

[The Heik]

Before the hate starts, yes I have seen Avatar. I just really wasn't that impressed with it.

I mean, yes it was pretty; but that's about it. There really wasn't any really significant plot twists that you couldn't see coming a mile away, there was no idea or situation that really made you think, and while the characters weren't as one dimensional as some other movies that begin and end with the letter "T", the characters really weren't that deep.

The movie was visually stunning, yes; but there was really nothing here other than the CG that hasn't been done before and better and I for one have no plans of ever watching it again. Thoughts?

Well in terms of innovation that's the first actual immersive 3D I've ever seen. They didn't just "throw" stuff at you like in other 3D movies; it felt natural, like staring at an actually world, rather than a flat representation of it.

The plot might have been a bit easy to guess, but it was fun and kept the rhythm going. What I liked most about it was that they never sacrificed story for action, or vice-versa. Everything blended together nicely, unlike some other movies where they continuously try to shove action up our corneas or drown us in dialogue

In the end though, it's really one's own opinion. Nothing will ever float everyone's boat

 

[JeanLuc761]

I don't like i for lots of reasons, its over publicized you can barely look anywhere without seeing adverts and such for it, where as other good films get missed (district9)
the fact it cost so much £280.000.000 is a lot to make a film. and the fact everyone thinks the CGI is amazing and new, when Final fantasy advent children actually started using CGI like that. and like I said I don't like how poeple rave about something just because it has good grahpics, its like with games poeple spend £40 on a game that lasts 2hours just becuase it has good grapics.

In response to the underlined: WAT?

When District 9 arrived in theaters, it was all anyone could talk about. Critics praised it, audiences were dumbfounded by it, and it turned a respectable profit. On the flip side, its complexity and more mature tone made it less accessible to audiences. Avatar is a film that can be enjoyed by a massive age bracket.

Secondly, I've seen Advent Children multiple times and I can objectively say that the CGI is incredibly mediocre in comparison to Avatar. It's like comparing Toy Story to Wall-E.

 

[DaBozz]

I don't like i for lots of reasons, its over publicized you can barely look anywhere without seeing adverts and such for it, where as other good films get missed (district9)
the fact it cost so much £280.000.000 is a lot to make a film. and the fact everyone thinks the CGI is amazing and new, when Final fantasy advent children actually started using CGI like that. and like I said I don't like how poeple rave about something just because it has good grahpics, its like with games poeple spend £40 on a game that lasts 2hours just becuase it has good grapics.

In response to the underlined: WAT?

When District 9 arrived in theaters, it was all anyone could talk about. Critics praised it, audiences were dumbfounded by it, and it turned a respectable profit. On the flip side, its complexity and more mature tone made it less accessible to audiences. Avatar is a film that can be enjoyed by a massive age bracket.

Secondly, I've seen Advent Children multiple times and I can objectively say that the CGI is incredibly mediocre in comparison to Avatar. It's like comparing Toy Story to Wall-E.

You misunderstood most of that. tell me was distict9 advertisted everywhere, every shop, does it have a movie tie in game, where there mc-donalds toys, was it on youtube right at the top of the page no...avatar got wayyy more advetising, even on tv.

And as for the GCI, I said everyone thinks the CGI is amazing and new, when Final fantasy advent children actually started using CGI like that.

With wall-e not everyone whent around saying "Omg its like totaly a new animation"
thats becuase toy story did it first, and thats my point FF-AC did this first and got no respect for being the first.

 

[JeanLuc761]

You misunderstood most of that. tell me was distict9 advertisted everywhere, every shop, does it have a movie tie in game, where there mc-donalds toys, was it on youtube right at the top of the page no...avatar got wayyy more advetising, even on tv.

And as for the GCI, I said everyone thinks the CGI is amazing and new, when Final fantasy advent children actually started using CGI like that.

With wall-e not everyone whent around saying "Omg its like totaly a new animation"
thats becuase toy story did it first, and thats my point FF-AC did this first and got no respect for being the first.

Ah, I understand where you're coming from on District 9. Advent Children however, I'm still perplexed. I had seen better animation in The Spirits Within, so I'm not seeing where Advent Children was "totally new animation."

 

[DaBozz]

You misunderstood most of that. tell me was distict9 advertisted everywhere, every shop, does it have a movie tie in game, where there mc-donalds toys, was it on youtube right at the top of the page no...avatar got wayyy more advetising, even on tv.

And as for the GCI, I said everyone thinks the CGI is amazing and new, when Final fantasy advent children actually started using CGI like that.

With wall-e not everyone whent around saying "Omg its like totaly a new animation"
thats becuase toy story did it first, and thats my point FF-AC did this first and got no respect for being the first.

Ah, I understand where you're coming from on District 9. Advent Children however, I'm still perplexed. I had seen better animation in The Spirits Within, so I'm not seeing where Advent Children was "totally new animation."

Ah, well I just used that as an example, I forgot about spirits within.

Ps: Nice avatar Brian FTW.

 

[YoUnG205]

To be honest I do not see why this film is loved by most people I thought it was avergage, Howwever the visual effects were amazing.

 

[danosaurus]

A guy who took 14 years, Quarter of a billion dollar budget and a plethora of famous actors and studios at his disposal still can't make a film that pleases me more than a $5 million dollar Zombie apocalypse movie (28 Days Later).

At least Avatar might get the ball rolling for some more incredible Sci-Fi flicks like we saw in the 80's.

 

[BuckminsterF]

Meh. Graphics were okay, but the art direction, story, acting, and general idea were all recycled and terrible

 

[Tattaglia]

Who cares? It's a movie. Get on with your lives and watch better movies if it didn't entertain you. Is that so hard?

A guy who took 14 years, Quarter of a billion dollar budget and a plethora of famous actors and studios at his disposal still can't make a film that pleases me more than a $5 million dollar Zombie apocalypse movie (28 Days Later).

That movie was fucking sweet, right? One of my all time favourites, but I guess I'm a sucker for zombies.

 

[Domo-Khan]

Although I would like to find the writer who thought "unobtanium" was a good name for a material people really wanted to obtain and punch him square in the neck for being such a freaking dolt.

Except that "unobtanium" means a nigh impossible material to obtain. It's a very general concept and can refer to almost any extremely rare object.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Although I would like to find the writer who thought "unobtanium" was a good name for a material people really wanted to obtain and punch him square in the neck for being such a freaking dolt.

Except that "unobtanium" means a nigh impossible material to obtain. It's a very general concept and can refer to almost any extremely rare object.

Um, I get that. That's my whole point. In fact, when you think about it the usage in this case is entirely inappropriate because unobtanium is perfectly obtainable on Pandora. They're freaking exporting it, for goodness sakes. It might be valuable, but it's certainly not unobtainable.

But I understand the way they meant it to be taken merely as something valuable. And it still completely sucks as a name for something.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

Yer a tard. Congrats.