AVATAR

[Presto-digitation]

QUOTE (Rushman14 @ Jan 12 2010, 01:20 PM)

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Jan 12 2010, 11:19 AM) QUOTE (Rushman14 @ Jan 12 2010, 12:52 PM) some people really do need to get a life. AVATAR VIEWERS ON THE BRINK OF DEPRESSION Despite this week surpassing "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" as the second best selling film of all time, "Avatar" has led some film fantatics to the brink of depression. Jim Cameron now holds the top two spots in the all time worldwide grosser's, with the director achieving unprecedented success with "Titanic" in 1997. Some fans of his latest release however, just cannot seem to come to terms with the realisation that the world of Pandora was only created so that such statistics could become possible. One "Avatar" fanatic in particular was keen to share their feelings of why the film has had such an effect on some of its audience. In a forum subject titled 'My feelings on my Avatar depression', user Adonai says: "People today convince themselves that they are happy, possibly because we have only each other to compare our happiness with. "We are too preoccupied with work and everything else to stop and think what would really make us happy. We all just accept our way of life, because we don't really have much of a choice." "Avatar changes that. It makes you believe that a world like Pandora can exist, and it gives us hope. Seeing the Na'vi live at peace with their planet, and with each other, makes you stop and think about the life you live, and it makes you realise that you are in fact not happy at all." User Monicolada was in agreement, adding: "We see a world where everyone works together, loves each other and respects each other and the planet. Our is so tragically different. It makes us sad to see the blatant differences and how life would be if we changed things." The movie is set in the future with the Earth's resources running dangerously low due to the greed of the human race. A corporation sets out on a mission to invade Pandora and take their resources back to planet Earth. Admittedly, it is difficult not to take a disliking for the human race while watching the film. However, few could have predicted that it would have had such an effect on some of its captivated viewers. User Eltu posted the following on the "Avatar" forum page: "When I woke up this morning after watching Avatar for the first time yesterday, the world seemed...gray. It was like my whole life, everything I've done and worked for, lost its meaning. "It just seems so...meaningless. I still don't really see any reason to keep...doing things at all. I live in a dying world." "Avatar" has already made $1.4bn and has been tipped by experts to change the face of cinema forever. Despite such astronomical figures, surely even Cameron himself could not have predicted the impact that "Avatar" and the land of Pandora has had on some of his viewers. This really isn't a piece by The Onion?   Really?? I'm afraid not. Google it. I trust you. I wish I didn't in this case, but...

[Rush Cocky]

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Jan 12 2010, 01:28 PM)

QUOTE (Rush Cocky @ Jan 12 2010, 01:25 PM) Vatican Says "Avatar" is No Masterpiece Vatican City, Italy (AP) -- Unlike much of the world, the Vatican is not awed by the film "Avatar." James Cameron's big-grossing, 3-D spectacle has earned lukewarm reviews by both the Vatican newspaper and its radio station, which say the movie is simplistic in its plot is superficial in its eco-message, despite groundbreaking visual effects. The Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano says that despite "so much stupefying, enchanting technology," there are "few genuine emotions." Vatican Radio called it "rather harmless" but said the movie was no sci-fi masterpiece. The reviews came out after a red carpet preview held in Rome just a stone's throw from St. Peter's Square. The movie will be released Friday in Italy. You know, I was just sitting here wondering when the Vatican would chime in on it, noted film historians that they are. Thank Jesus (Joseph and Mary) they finally weighed in.

[Rush Cocky]

 

It's been almost 24 hours since we talked about the greatness that is Avatar......can't have that!

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (Rush Cocky @ Jan 12 2010, 11:25 AM)

Vatican Says "Avatar" is No Masterpiece Vatican City, Italy (AP) -- Unlike much of the world, the Vatican is not awed by the film "Avatar." James Cameron's big-grossing, 3-D spectacle has earned lukewarm reviews by both the Vatican newspaper and its radio station, which say the movie is simplistic in its plot is superficial in its eco-message, despite groundbreaking visual effects. The Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano says that despite "so much stupefying, enchanting technology," there are "few genuine emotions." Vatican Radio called it "rather harmless" but said the movie was no sci-fi masterpiece. The reviews came out after a red carpet preview held in Rome just a stone's throw from St. Peter's Square. The movie will be released Friday in Italy.

Jeez, it's ONLY A MOVIE!

[rushgoober]

Avatar won the Golden Globe for best picture and best director tonight. The tally is now approximate $490 million US and over 1.6 billion world wide. Titanic made around 1.8 billion, and Avatar willl soon destroy that number. Domestically it will definitely top The Dark Knight at $533 million, and has a real shot at Titanic at $600 million. This thing is pretty unstoppable.

[rushguy82]

Saw it in 3-D the other night. So sorry I wasted 9 bucks to see this piece of shit.

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (rushguy82 @ Jan 17 2010, 10:52 PM)

Saw it in 3-D the other night. So sorry I wasted 9 bucks to see this piece of shit.

 

Oh well, can't win 'em all!

[1-0-0-1-0-0-1]

"Avatar" may have the year's best visual effects, the most technologically-advanced production, and be the biggest money-maker, but did it really deserve the Globe for best MOVIE? Did it really have better acting and a better script than "Up In The Air?"

 

Shouldn't the best movie be more than visual effects and ticket sales?

[JohnnyBlaze]

QUOTE (1-0-0-1-0-0-1 @ Jan 18 2010, 03:28 PM)

"Avatar" may have the year's best visual effects, the most technologically-advanced production, and be the biggest money-maker, but did it really deserve the Globe for best MOVIE? Did it really have better acting and a better script than "Up In The Air?" Shouldn't the best movie be more than visual effects and ticket sales?

Well, I still say Titanic, The Matrix, & Lord of the Rings are boring pieces of shit but millions would disagree with me. All of us will never agree on any movie.

 

btw, I enjoyed Up In The Air. I saw it a week after Avatar and thought it was easily the better movie going by your standards (and mine)

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (1-0-0-1-0-0-1 @ Jan 17 2010, 11:28 PM)

"Avatar" may have the year's best visual effects, the most technologically-advanced production, and be the biggest money-maker, but did it really deserve the Globe for best MOVIE? Did it really have better acting and a better script than "Up In The Air?" Shouldn't the best movie be more than visual effects and ticket sales?

A movie like the Transformers will never win or get nominated even though it might have outstanding visual effects and make a ridiculous amount of money, so it's not just about that. Look at some of the recent Academy Award winners - Crash, The Departed, No Country For Old Men - these weren't exactly the biggest blockbusters of their respective years.

 

I can't rightly judge for myself since I haven't seen all the nominees, but some years a movie makes such a huge impact that it wins because of it's grandeur, scope, influence, impact and other more intangible qualities.

 

For example, in 1996 Titanic beat out As Good As It Gets, The Full Monty, Good Will Hunting and L.A. Confidential. Some of those movies were definitely better written, had better acting and were certainly more intelligent. But Titanic had the intangible qualities - it moved people and gave them something extraordinary they hadn't seen before. There was a reason the movie made as much money as it did and had people going back to see it over and over and over again, just like Avatar. I think Good Will Hunting is a far superior movie in most respects, but I completely understand why Titanic won.

 

I agree that Avatar is far from the best written or most original movie I've ever seen. It doesn't have fantastic dialog or mindblowing acting. It does have something special going for it though that goes beyond all that.

 

Then again, the movie I think deserves to win usually doesn't. And then there are years that a movie wins where I'm completely appalled and can't understand why it was even nominated.

Edited January 18, 2010 by rushgoober

[Presto-digitation]

QUOTE (1-0-0-1-0-0-1 @ Jan 18 2010, 01:28 AM)

"Avatar" may have the year's best visual effects, the most technologically-advanced production, and be the biggest money-maker, but did it really deserve the Globe for best MOVIE? Did it really have better acting and a better script than "Up In The Air?" Shouldn't the best movie be more than visual effects and ticket sales?

I think Inglorious Basterds was the better film, myself. But then again I think Quentin deserves it almost every time out too.

[Tick]

QUOTE (1-0-0-1-0-0-1 @ Jan 18 2010, 02:28 AM)

"Avatar" may have the year's best visual effects, the most technologically-advanced production, and be the biggest money-maker, but did it really deserve the Globe for best MOVIE? Did it really have better acting and a better script than "Up In The Air?" Shouldn't the best movie be more than visual effects and ticket sales?

The Golden Globes are usually different in the winners they choose then the Academy Awards(not that they don't both suck)I doubt Avatar will win the Oscar for best picture ? I guess we will see soon.

[Presto-digitation]

QUOTE (tick @ Jan 18 2010, 09:04 AM)

QUOTE (1-0-0-1-0-0-1 @ Jan 18 2010, 02:28 AM) "Avatar" may have the year's best visual effects, the most technologically-advanced production, and be the biggest money-maker, but did it really deserve the Globe for best MOVIE? Did it really have better acting and a better script than "Up In The Air?" Shouldn't the best movie be more than visual effects and ticket sales? The Golden Globes are usually different in the winners they choose then the Academy Awards(not that they don't both suck)I doubt Avatar will win the Oscar for best picture ? I guess we will see soon. I don't think it will either.

[Mara]

Am I defective in that I have no interest whatsoever in seeing this movie? Can any of you convince me otherwise?

[Jack Aubrey]

QUOTE (Mara @ Jan 18 2010, 11:31 AM)

Am I defective in that I have no interest whatsoever in seeing this movie? Can any of you convince me otherwise?

No, because I'm right there with you.

[Tick]

QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ Jan 18 2010, 12:37 PM)

QUOTE (Mara @ Jan 18 2010, 11:31 AM) Am I defective in that I have no interest whatsoever in seeing this movie?  Can any of you convince me otherwise? No, because I'm right there with you. I would see Avatar, but I have not.

[Presto-digitation]

QUOTE (Mara @ Jan 18 2010, 11:31 AM)

Am I defective in that I have no interest whatsoever in seeing this movie?  Can any of you convince me otherwise?

No convincing required. But do know -- for what little it's worth -- I was, I suspect equally, unimpressed by the trailer and really had almost no interest in seeing the film. Went on a whim and was really impressed far beyond what I suspected. My wife was the same way and also blown away.

 

I'm sure no degree of description of plot, visuals, etc. will compel you. You just have to go or not go. I'm guessing if you go you'll be surprised. I was. But I can only speak for me and everyone else I knew who wasn't excited about the movie...(almost everyone I know who's seen it).

Edited January 18, 2010 by Presto-digitation

[star_madness]

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Jan 18 2010, 08:59 AM)

QUOTE (1-0-0-1-0-0-1 @ Jan 18 2010, 01:28 AM) "Avatar" may have the year's best visual effects, the most technologically-advanced production, and be the biggest money-maker, but did it really deserve the Globe for best MOVIE? Did it really have better acting and a better script than "Up In The Air?" Shouldn't the best movie be more than visual effects and ticket sales? I think Inglorious Basterds was the better film, myself. But then again I think Quentin deserves it almost every time out too. I think Inglorious Basterds deserves it as well. Quinten Tarentino has yet to disappoint me.

[Presto-digitation]

QUOTE (star_madness @ Jan 18 2010, 12:06 PM)

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Jan 18 2010, 08:59 AM) QUOTE (1-0-0-1-0-0-1 @ Jan 18 2010, 01:28 AM) "Avatar" may have the year's best visual effects, the most technologically-advanced production, and be the biggest money-maker, but did it really deserve the Globe for best MOVIE? Did it really have better acting and a better script than "Up In The Air?" Shouldn't the best movie be more than visual effects and ticket sales? I think Inglorious Basterds was the better film, myself. But then again I think Quentin deserves it almost every time out too. I think Inglorious Basterds deserves it as well. Quinten Tarentino has yet to disappoint me. He only does me when he works or writes for others. I don't like any of his work with Rodriquez. I don't think collaboration is my favorite of his facets. I prefer his (solo) films.

[Rushman14]

QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ Jan 18 2010, 09:37 AM)

QUOTE (Mara @ Jan 18 2010, 11:31 AM) Am I defective in that I have no interest whatsoever in seeing this movie?  Can any of you convince me otherwise? No, because I'm right there with you. i thought you were looking forward to this Jack. what changed your mind? trust me, it's definitely worth seeing.

[PariahDog]

I saw Avatar this weekend in IMAX 3D, and was REALLY impressed! Definitely one of the best sci-fi films I've seen in years.

 

My favorite aspect was the depiction of Panadora as a fully-realized world: landscapes, plants, animals, etc. It really was like a Roger Dean painting brought to life.

 

The special effects were extremely impressive, especially the realism of the Na'vi. I thought the Na'vi CGI performances were very believable and expressive, probably due to using the actors' real faces and performances as a reference (as with Gollum in LOTR).

 

The CGI work in general all seemed more realistic and believable than I've seen previously. In the entire film, I can remember only one shot that looked a little "fake" (when they were climbing up the "roots" to where the dragon creatures lived).

 

I also thought the screenplay was pretty darn good: great pacing, very few "clunker" lines, and not nearly as political as some have made it out to be.

 

IMO, about the only wrong note in the entire film was the Celine Dion-ish song over the end credits.

 

Otherwise, I was extremely impressed. I'd have to say this is Cameron's best, and I'm a fan of Terminator 1&2 and especially Aliens.

 

 

 

 

[BeOhBe Bob]

QUOTE (PariahDog @ Jan 18 2010, 05:44 PM)

I saw Avatar this weekend in IMAX 3D, and was REALLY impressed! Definitely one of the best sci-fi films I've seen in years. My favorite aspect was the depiction of Panadora as a fully-realized world: landscapes, plants, animals, etc. It really was like a Roger Dean painting brought to life. The special effects were extremely impressive, especially the realism of the Na'vi. I thought the Na'vi CGI performances were very believable and expressive, probably due to using the actors' real faces and performances as a reference (as with Gollum in LOTR). The CGI work in general all seemed more realistic and believable than I've seen previously. In the entire film, I can remember only one shot that looked a little "fake" (when they were climbing up the "roots" to where the dragon creatures lived). I also thought the screenplay was pretty darn good: great pacing, very few "clunker" lines, and not nearly as political as some have made it out to be. IMO, about the only wrong note in the entire film was the Celine Dion-ish song over the end credits. Otherwise, I was extremely impressed. I'd have to say this is Cameron's best, and I'm a fan of Terminator 1&2 and especially Aliens.

I thought I'd have to drag mrs beOhBe to it for the FIRST time around, no! willingly even drove and we were totally blown away by everything already mentioned....

 

tonight we saw it in 3D. Saw the listing for it the first time we wanted to see it, but the showtimes were bad for us

 

We were Glad we saw this version!

 

Again I wont take up space by rehashing what P Dog wrote, but there is one thing to add

 

 

The 3D is SO DAMN REALISTIC I almost felt hot air blowing in my face when the choppers landed, dust of some sort and the reeds at the landing zone, I was ducking so I wouldn't get hit... the scene where he has to take a dive to get away from the "thing" chasing him through the woods? I felt as if I needed to take a breath to keep my head above water. Sound was perfect as well!!

 

If you want to see an all around big screen epic of our times? This is the one!

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (BeOhBe Bob @ Jan 18 2010, 11:49 PM)

If you want to see an all around big screen epic of our times? This is the one!

This is the key here.

 

Those who don't catch it on the big screen will be really missing out IMHO, because most everyone will see it eventually anyway on DVD or TV. Might as well get the full experience. Most people will NOT regret it!

[PariahDog]

QUOTE (BeOhBe Bob @ Jan 19 2010, 01:49 AM)

The 3D is SO DAMN REALISTIC I almost felt hot air blowing in my face when the choppers landed, dust of some sort and the reeds at the landing zone, I was ducking so I wouldn't get hit... the scene where he has to take a dive to get away from the "thing" chasing him through the woods?  I felt as if I needed to take a breath to keep my head above water.  Sound was perfect as well!!

Yeah, I forgot to mention that the 3D was very well done and not at all intrusive.

 

The 3D was done in a way that I would imagine the Discovery Channel or National Geographic channel would use for documentaries. That is, the 3D was used to immerse you in the environment, rather than having a bunch of stuff flying towards your face.

 

[Presto-digitation]

QUOTE (PariahDog @ Jan 19 2010, 01:12 PM)

QUOTE (BeOhBe Bob @ Jan 19 2010, 01:49 AM) The 3D is SO DAMN REALISTIC I almost felt hot air blowing in my face when the choppers landed, dust of some sort and the reeds at the landing zone, I was ducking so I wouldn't get hit... the scene where he has to take a dive to get away from the "thing" chasing him through the woods?  I felt as if I needed to take a breath to keep my head above water.  Sound was perfect as well!! Yeah, I forgot to mention that the 3D was very well done and not at all intrusive.   The 3D was done in a way that I would imagine the Discovery Channel or National Geographic channel would use for documentaries. That is, the 3D was used to immerse you in the environment, rather than having a bunch of stuff flying towards your face. Which means nothing like this piece of shit:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSXy3KNzITM