Avatar 2 & 3 (& 4?)

[Tricky]

i think thinly veiled is putting it mildly when it literally has rednecks in american flag trucker hats talking about shock and aweing the natives... That was the general attitude in the build up to invading Iraq though, lots of Amercian chest beating and whooping and cheering when bombing the shit out of Iraq/Afghanistan while stomping all over the locals, I guess Cameron just wanted to show that in his film. Personally I really enjoyed Avatar when I saw it at the cinema, it was the best cinema experience I'd had in years and visually it felt really groundbreaking to me. Yeah the plot was thin, but no thinner than any of the recent Marvel films (which I also really enjoyed) or films like Independence Day etc. Cant understand why there seems to be so much hate directed towards it myself.

[Danny]

Cant understand why there seems to be so much hate directed towards it myself. a lot of it is to do with its fanatical fanbase, a large number of which genuinely use terms like 'the citizen cane of this century' or 'the film that changed cinema forever' when describing this film as they LARP roleplay a blue cat wedding in the woods with their friends from their community college 'learn to speak navvi' class.

[Tricky]

a lot of it is to do with its fanatical fanbase, a large number of which genuinely use terms like 'the citizen cane of this century' or 'the film that changed cinema forever' when describing this film as they LARP roleplay a blue cat wedding in the woods with their friends from their community college 'learn to speak navvi' class. A lot of films & TV shows have that same kind of sad act fanbase though, theres a good reason I've never been to a convention of any kind! Star Wars & Star Trek spring to mind, or even our revered zombie films!

[mista_mo]

i honestly thought that you were referring to the lawn ornaments when you mentioned pink flamingos. The person that I'm living with has one, and I met it one day while cleaning the garage. I honestly had never met one before, and i was disgusted...it was so tacky. I packed my shit up and left.

[EvilNed]

Because it's not even "less than average" we're talking about, it's people suggesting it's not even around the middle of all films ever made, but infact at the bottom. Don't you know, it's a "$hit" film... It's "rubbish"... Oh... and now "horrible"... Rediculous! And your point being what..? There's a "threshold" of how much one can dislike any one movie, and that threshold is set by you? If I thought Zombie 4: After Death was a better film than Avatar, am I wrong?

[AcesandEights]

I think Neil is saying it's a question of motive, Ned. Just as a lot of people don't have time for others who feel they love something just because it's popular or they're told to by enough soundbites; others don't have time for people who come off as overly critical due to a reactionary mindset, or need to differentiate themselves through (supposedly invalid or picayune) criticism.

[EvilNed]

That's not how I percieve it. To me, what Neil is saying is that Avatar is a perfectly fine film, and objectively, nobody can dislike it. That's absurd. There's no such concept in my way of thinking. I can't get my grip around such a mindset. To me, Avatar was a horrible experience. I've already explained that it might have been a horrible experience because I saw it in the cinema (where good films become great films, maybe bad films become terrible films?). But even so, I'm never gonna watch it again to find out. Why would I? Life's too short to waste on things you don't like.

[Sammich]

I waited to see Avatar on one of the satelite channels and was glad that I didn't shell out $15 to see it in the theater. It was one of those movies that kept telling me: "hmm, haven't I seen this story somewhere before?" Dancing with Wolves with giant blue aliens maybe? I really wonder about people who declare it "Citizen Kane of this century" have even seen Citizen Kane, much less realize that there still are 88 more years left until 2100. Another fact is that CK was released in 1941, long before viral marketing, social media, widespread instant communication and other bombardments of hype.

[Rumsfeld]

There were different forms of media back then that were just as powerful as the forms of media we have now-a-days. They were just a tad slower. Word of mouth is one that comes to mind.

[Neil]

To me, what Neil is saying is that Avatar is a perfectly fine film, and objectively, nobody can dislike it. You can dislike it all you like. My point is suggesting that this qualifies the film as "rubbish" or "$hit", when clearly its a perfectly adequate film in at least some ways. There's some films I detest, and would never watch (again). But I realise that, a) they're at least directed/produced/written/scored well or adequately, and/or b) the subject matter is just not my cup of tea, so I wouldn't cast such unfair descriptions at them solely on it not being my thang! I guess we just approach these things in different ways. For me "$hit" is a film that's so bad there's no merit in any aspect of it at all. It's lazy, messy, poorly directed and incoherant. I don't see Avatar fitting this profile... I guess other's benchmark differently. And I would repeat that I suspect there's some people here, who have levelled more critical words at Avatar and Titanic than any other films... And these two films just happen to be the two most successful ($) ever. Coincidence? ie: Do these two films deserve this huge barrage of strong insults? Or is there another reason for the strong negativity?

[Danny]

And I would repeat that I suspect there's some people here, who have levelled more critical words at Avatar and Titanic than any other films... And these two films just happen to be the two most successful ($) ever. Coincidence? ie: Do these two films deserve this huge barrage of strong insults? Or is there another reason for the strong negativity? translation: you are haters hating it because its popular and successful. your tastes and opinion dont matter. next up neil will say we are being unfair to uwe boll because its 'cool to hate' him as well... OR you are a sucker for marketing spin and advertising hype and bought into the mystique of 'the biggest grossing film that changed everything forever'. that 'argument' works both ways dude and its a pretty lame argument at that. I dislike a movie because of the film, box office has nothing to do with it. i am not so petty as to hate something because others like it, nor am i ...jealous i suppose would be the only logical reason, of it making a lot of money. There is nothing redeeming about avatar. is the plot good? no. is the acting good? not at all. is the soundtrack good? no its generic and bland. is the art direction and world design original or believable? neither in the slightest. The ONLY thing you can tout about avatar as anything of note is its pioneering of 3D filming technology. which is not something i actually consider a good deed for the world of cinema... interesting technological development but it does not make a good film. at best it makes a good carnival ride. So, come on then. Tell us what redeems this film. What shred of originality it has. What performances were good. What memorable scenes stood out as something special. Anything at all. You have yet to say why its even a acceptable film yet for any reason other than 'it made a lot of money'. But so does mcdonalds and that doesnt mean its deserving of praise as an example of what it does though.

[shootemindehead]

ummm...why is it so difficult to buy into the fact that there are some people (on here at least) that just don't find 'Avatar' that good a film, or even that they think it's a bad film, purely based on their viewing of the material? Sometimes the "popularity" of a film doesn't enter into it.

[Danny]

ummm...why is it so difficult to buy into the fact that there are some people (on here at least) that just don't find 'Avatar' that good a film, or even that they think it's a bad film, purely based on their viewing of the material? Sometimes the "popularity" of a film doesn't enter into it. because the current social paradigms of the internet, namely, 'haters gonna hate, instills the us or them mindset that dislike is only ever malicious and with an agenda. Critical analysis of a film based on taste, quality and comparison are no longer factors allowed.

[Sammich]

There were different forms of media back then that were just as powerful as the forms of media we have now-a-days. They were just a tad slower. Word of mouth is one that comes to mind. Citizen Kane was a flop when it was initially released as was another film released 6 years later called It's a Wonderful Life. These movies didn't later become highly praised classics based upon marketing campaigns, but because they stand upon their own merits - script, acting and the director's ability at storytelling. Avatar's attributes were extensive use of cgi, 3d and an estimated $150 million marketing budget. Avatar's success is in the marketing Robert Thompson is a professor of media and pop culture at Syracuse University. He says mega-marketing efforts like these almost guarantee a mega-opening. Thompson: It may turn out that the real artistic achievement of Avatar is the way that it was packaged, sold and marketed. Here is a comparison of Academy Awards: Citizen Kane Won: Best Writing, Original Screenplay Nominated: Best Actor in a Leading Role Best Art Direction-Interior Decoration, Black-and-White Best Cinematography, Black-and-White Best Director Best Film Editing Best Music, Scoring of a Dramatic Picture Best Picture Best Sound, Recording Avatar Won: Best Achievement in Art Direction Best Achievement in Cinematography Best Achievement in Visual Effects Nominated: Best Achievement in Directing Best Achievement in Film Editing Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Score Best Achievement in Sound Editing Best Achievement in Sound Mixing Best Motion Picture of the Year Notice how there were no Avatar nominations for screenplay or any of it's actors. This pretty much is the same opinion I had of the movie. It looked nice and sounded nice, but other than that there really wasn't anything else notable. The trend of using special effects as a movie's centerpiece to overcompensate for a lack of story and/or character development amounts to creating a 2 hour music video.

[Neil]

So, come on then. Tell us what redeems this film. What shred of originality it has. What performances were good. What memorable scenes stood out as something special. Anything at all. You have yet to say why its even a acceptable film yet for any reason other than 'it made a lot of money'. But so does mcdonalds and that doesnt mean its deserving of praise as an example of what it does though. For me? - I thought the premise of the "Avatars" were interesting, if a little hokey - but were obviously necessary for the whole story line. - The overall premise of "unobtainium" and the resultant landscape. - The biological combined neural network was interesting. Where everything organic and biological had a shared evolution such that their neural networks could combine (at least to some degree). - I thought Jakes first night alone in the Jungle was very well done. The biological phosphorescence was pulled off beautifully and I love those scenes in the film. I recall my partner's reaction to it as well. A bit of a "wow" moment if only because of the visually imaginative feast it offered. - I thought Stephen Lang was pretty good as the Colonel. He had a number of entertaining scenes. - Jake taking his first flying lesson and gaining his wings was very well done. - And I thought the final fight scene where Stephen Lang survived his ships crash, right up to him suddenly changing in line of attach to Jake in the 'cabin' was all pretty well pulled off. If I infact compared it to "The Avengers" which I saw a couple of nights ago, I'd have to say, for me, that a couple of the scenes in "Avatar" offered more character building/interest than anything in "The Avengers". I found "The Avengers" very flat on character building, and far too heavy on contrived action. By the end I realised I hadn't been concerned/worried about a single character/event. At least in Avatar I found a couple of scenes 'concerning' or moving... And before anyone starts ranting and raving, I enjoyed "The Avengers", but for me, I just needed some more character building and true concern - Which I didn't seem to get... I prefered the character depth offered in "Iron Man" or "Captain America" personally. As referenced above, I'd say "The Avengers" suffered too much from "the trend of using special effects as a movie's centerpiece," to the extent the storyline seemed compromised? Will I bother watching "The Avengers" again? Maybe... But I suspect not, as I found the experience generally abit vapid and not very engaging. Do I therefore describe the film as "$hit?" I of course wouldn't dream of it. I enjoyed my time with it. And personally, a film would have be dire/poor in many/all aspects/areas for it to merit that sort of insult. Anyway, not sure what you're fishing for here... Everyone of course likes/dislikes according to their own preferences, and indeed, even mood on the day. Me listing some aspects of Avatar is going to mean what to someone who seems set on not seeing a single positive aspect, scene or moment in it? I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I'll just have to ignore the fact that some people have difference views, and seemingly level insults to films that I cannot imagine being deserving for them. And the reason I'm arguing this point so strongly - because generally I'm fairly easy going - is every bit of me says describing a film such as Avatar is "$hit" is wrong. It feels unfair, illogical or lazy or just paramount to cynical. Guess people just have different ways of expressing things... But I would say, if "Avatar" is "$hit," with that as a measuring stick, what on earth is used to describe truely poor/lazy/unimaginative productions?! "Really $hit?" Which again rings all the more of unfair, illogical or lazy. -- -------- Post added at 10:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:12 AM ---------- Notice how there were no Avatar nominations for screenplay or any of it's actors. This pretty much is the same opinion I had of the movie. And I agree, some of the acting felt very flat, and indeed the script was somewhat flat/linear. It's certainly one of Cameron's 'lesser' films in those departments. But does that reduce every aspect, scene and moment of the entire film down to "$hit"? Can't understand how anyone can say yes... Even for those individuals who think the story was very lacking, surely they can at least agree it was filmed, or directed or edited or scored well, or that it was even just mediocre? But I fear some are so fixated on their 'hatred' they're above being in any way reasonable and will continue with their damnation of seemingly every aspect and every moment of the film!?!