James Cameron's 'Avatar' - The next gen of cinema

NeilFawcett said:
Now it's a peeing competition? :)

But what exactly is your point? To let us know you don't like it? - You can take that as a given. That some other people don't like it? - Again, we know reviews/views are mixed...

Or is your point that the people who did enjoy it are somehow wrong? Fair enough, keep posting... :)
Click to expand...

Oh give over Neil, I was just having a lend of ya (as we say down here). :)

Smithy said:
Interestingly, the person condemning the "fanatics" is so dedicated to his cause that he's the second highest by post count in this thread.

What's the opposite of irrational enthusiasm?
Click to expand...

I don't know big boy, you tell me. GO ON, YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO! :eek: :p
 
Watched this yesterday, The first half hour or so was a struggle to get through, some of the characters were annoying, The story was a bit naff, but you had to love the action sequences. Would I watch it again? Probably not. If I were aged 5-12 would I watch it again and buy it on DVD? Probably.
 
@Reality|Bites .. I loved all the build up :) It was classic James Cameron. He basically lifted the entire concept of the Marines straight from Aliens. The big bad ass General guy with the scars was a bit OTT but to be honest that is Cameron's style.

Any Aliens buff should, IMO, have liked the Marines stuff in Avatar.

:)
 
I finally cracked and took the missus to see this today, I was not expecting to enjoy it tbh.

The story was a bit 'meh' for my tastes, but not bad by any stretch. But my god, the 3D and special effects were just stunning. I spent most of the film looking for little details like insects flitting about etc, I was just awestruck at how good it was. :)
 
NathanE said:
I couldn't stop thinking of all the previous films that would be so much better in 3D...

The Matrix? Yes please.
Event Horizon? Zomg... yes!
Top Gun? YES YES YES.
Predator? :D
Click to expand...

I did this, and the thought of 3D Ghostbusters made me slightly damp.
 
Meridian said:
I don't think he wants it burned, just taken of the pedestal that it has been put on, and stuck in a line with all the other average films.


M
Click to expand...

Well, I think there's only three reasons it's on a pedestal:-
1) It's a Cameron film, and he's previously generated some pretty good/cult films thus far.
2) People want to see what $250,000,000-500,000,000 looks like :)
3) A lot of people enjoyed it.

And what is this pedestal you're talking about exactly anyway? Best film ever? Best film of the decade? Best film of the year? Best action flick in a while? Best 3D live action film? Best film with floaty rocks in?

I think you'll find most people (who enjoy it) would simple suggest the pedestal it deserves is one of the better cinema experiences in a while?


Now, a couple of the folks here really confuse me... What are they trying to achieve? Change everyones mind (who liked it) that infact they didn't actually enjoy the film at all?

We all know it's not the greatest flick ever. We all know the plot is somewhat simple. And we know some of the script has flaws... But for some reason, it still (IMHO) works and many folk still enjoy it.


But by all means, grab that pitch all the tighter, run around all the harder, and do your best to convince us it's "average", "terrible", "worse" or what ever your goal is... :rolleyes:

But what a waste of time and effort... Some people liked it, some don't... Just move on...


Personally - for all its flaws - I really enjoyed it. It's by no means an outstanding flick, but it made me go to the cinema to see it again. Which is something I haven't done I believe in over ten years... Strangely I enjoyed it more second time around? I think I gave it about a 7.5/10 first time, and an 8/10 second time around. These personal scores surprise me as I can see all the flaws, but as I've said, it seems to overcome them for some reason (for me at least).
 
Last edited:
Volcs said:
More in terms of people frothing at the mouth when someone suggests they didn't really enjoy it that much - I don't think Cameron himself would defend the film as much as some here!
Click to expand...

beheadthosewhoinsultisl.jpg


:D
 
I saw it in 3D a week or so back. When I got past the first 30 minutes of my eyes hurting, my God, how awesome!

The 3D is incredible, I felt so immersed in the world. The story line is ok, but the visuals are freakin' fantastic! I loved it!
 
I think time will show this movie to be the piece of **** that me and a few other rationally minded folks know it to be - two years from now everyone else will be looking back, and thinking, well actually, that was a load of old twaddle, and everyone was swindled to part with their cash at the box office. And I don't even think it will be because 3D tech will take off, and the world will have moved on to make decent films with a decent plot and slightly improved 3Dness. It's such a shame that the story and therefore the film itself is such utter ***** because otherwise it could well have been the next Matrix - as it is I actually think the poor storyline has set the whole 3D thing back and yet again it will remain in the realms of random cinema novelty that resurfaces every decade or so.
 
Robosapien said:
I think time will show this movie to be the piece of **** that me and a few other rationally minded folks know it to be - two years from now everyone else will be looking back, and thinking, well actually, that was a load of old twaddle, and everyone was swindled to part with their cash at the box office. And I don't even think it will be because 3D tech will take off, and the world will have moved on to make decent films with a decent plot and slightly improved 3Dness. It's such a shame that the story and therefore the film itself is such utter ***** because otherwise it could well have been the next Matrix - as it is I actually think the poor storyline has set the whole 3D thing back and yet again it will remain in the realms of random cinema novelty that resurfaces every decade or so.
Click to expand...

I can't decide whether to bow down to your glory or just calling you an arrogant snob and be done with it...

Don't enjoy the movie all you like, hate it even but can we all just give this "We know better than you who liked it" malarkey a rest?
 
Last edited:
Fenris said:
I can't decide whether to bow down to your glory or just calling you an arrogant snob and be done with it...

Do you read the Guardian? You sound like a Guardian reader.
Click to expand...

:eek: :mad:Thanks for the newspaper recommendation, I'll look into it. Actually come to think of it I have read a few Guardian articles and come to the conclusion that what I was reading was utter tripe. I conceed that what I have written could probably easily pass for a hugely opinionated Guardian article.
 
Last edited:
Meh, well i thought it was great fun, an excellent 'turn your brain off and enjoy' movie. The 3D was incredibly impressive too imo, though it's the first 3D film i've ever seen.

[EDIT] I'm not sure i get the argument that this being a poor movie in manys' opinion will set back 3D tech? It's the highest grossing film of all time, all studios care about at the end of the day is making money, they're all going to want a piece of the pie. I think it's going to go a long way towards pushing 3D tech to the masses.
 
Last edited:
Jabbs said:
After experiencing this in 3D would have loved to see Lord of the rings films in 3D.
Click to expand...

Supposedly they're busy doing the original Star Wars films (& T2?). I still just don't understand how that can 3D a 2D film. If you imagine the existing single bit of film they have is say your right eye's view, then they need to go away and render your left eyes view. Well, this may involved, in somes frames having objects, people, scenery that isn't there in the existing (right) footage. So they'd have to cut and paste it in from other frames, or literally render it from nothing...

Baffled how they can take on that amount of work...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom