Avatar

[kelltym88]

Has anyone seen it yet?

I just saw it last night and WOW! It was awesome.

 

[troj]

I saw it a week ago, with a couple of my kids.

Good movie, enjoyable, but CGI still has a ways to go. I'm incredibly impressed by how far it's come, but there's still room for improvement.

It's a bit campy at points, and a bit predictable at others, but overall, it's an enjoyable movie.

-Kevin

 

[stickershock23]

I see a lot of new movies that rely on the Graphics to make the movie good.
I was afraid to see it because of that.

In other words, How was the story? or is it just a special effects movie?

 

[kelltym88]

The story was good. How many times can you tell about the baddies coming in and taking over and the locals fight back, that concept. Visually, absolutely amazing.

I'm patrial to Cameron's movies 'cause he used to babysit my wife way back when, but that guy knows how to make a movie. See it, it is so worth it.

 

[n5wd]

In other words, How was the story? or is it just a special effects movie?

It's the same ol'

Boy meets girl, girl saves boy from little monsters, boy mets momma and dad, dad's not sure, but mom's got a feeling that boy is important... and he is...

kinda movie. Predictable at times, with a few twists thrown in. The way they shot the characters was waay cool - and as a result the CGI characters look and act almost lifelike - the girl's facial movements were dead on like a 17 year ol' that's just been told she has to stay in, tonight! The convergence line of CGI and live shots is not so obvious but the CGI still has a ways to go before you're convinced you're seeing it as it really is, but.... for me, the bottom line is seat-time.

How long will I sit through a movie without needing a bathroom/snack run - it's exacerbated by my spinal stenosis making it hard/painful to sit in any position for very long unless I'm really medicated.

Avatar's the champ, so far... 2 hours, 45 minutes and not a desire to get up and move around! It won't win any screenwriting awards, but you'll see it up there on the stage many times for other categories. Oh, and the sound track is amazing as well.

So a three out of four thumbs up! :clap::clap::clap:

 

[jorpet]

It was spectacular in 3D, we are planning on seeing it this week in IMAX 3D.

As others have stated the movie is a tad predictable for all the reasons that they said. There is also an epic battle that runs the way all epic battles in movies run, so you know what to expect.

I thought the CGI people where as believable as any other character, simply amazing. I told my son as we left that if I was an actor that movie would make me nervous. In another 15 years, with the advancements they are making, there will be no need for live actors anymore, just generate the ideal image for the role and run them through the movie. Voice talent is a lot easier to get since they don't have to look like much to look good on screen.

 

[shrox]

There is a phenomenon in human like imagery called the "uncanny valley", it's a graph that shows how acceptable "humanish" things and shapes are. Much CG still falls in the "not quite acceptable as human" category, Polar Express is a good example of uncanny valley, the eyes of the characters seemed "dead".

Here's a link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

 

[H_Rocket]

It passed my test:

1. Buy ticket
2. Buy mondo bucket of popcorn
3. Buy Gutbuster cup of soda
4. Flop in chair and turn off reality filter
5. Come out of theater thinking, that was kewl!

 

[shrox]

...4. Flop in chair and turn off reality filter...

I wish I could do that.

 

[luke strawwalker]

I wish I could do that.

Yeah, sometimes that's easier said than done...

Most recent incarnation of the 'plausability effect' was when I was watching "The Astronaut Farmer".

Ok, the whole premise was implausible to begine with, I get it... but there's implausible and then there's IMPOSSIBLE and then there's just plain stupid and/or lazy writing or CGI whizkids taking over the storyboarding by saying "wouldn't it be cool if" and dreaming up some stupid shot that just ruins the whole movie... Case in point-- when the Atlas keels over at liftoff and goes bouncing across the desert at full throttle, singing everything in it's path, finally blowing the Mercury capsule free to bounce and tumble over the field of boulders before slamming down on it's side on the desert floor with the bloodied only slightly the worse for wear Billy Bob Thornton inside...

I WAS enjoying the movie to THAT point... I actually groaned out loud because that ONE stupid shot just ruined the whole movie! I was thinking to myself, "Geez, don't ANY of these people have Youtube?? You can find about a thousand vids on there of Atlases blowing up on the pad or shortly thereafter"... You'd think anybody writing a screenplay about a space launch would do SOME homework on the topic of the piece, but evidently NOT!!!

THAT is the difference between something like "Star Wars" and B-grade crap that just leaves you shaking your head... Star Wars, I can sit and watch and "accept" everything I'm seeing as "plausible" even if it REALLY doesn't exist, because it LOOKS like it could... but the ever increasing predilection of moviemakers to insert shots that are patently rediculous, TOTALLY violate the laws of physics and COMMON SENSE and just blow any sense of plausibility out of the water, just totally ruins the film for me...

Bout like the last Pierce Brosnan Bond film with the sports cars falling out of the back of the Antonov 225 and ending up sticking up out of the rice paddies perfectly intact. Geez... is it THAT hard to CGI in some crushed/obliterated cars, or even demolish some wrecks and put them in craters, like what would REALISTICALLY happen-- it certainly couldn't be any harder than the rigging they did to stand those cars on end for that STUPID shot...

OH well... I hope that AVATAR doesn't violate the 'plausibility principle' too badly... if it looks right it works... I'm really looking forward to seeing this film... I saw an artwork book about it already at Books A Million the other day, and it REALLY looked cool... OL JR

 

[Handeman]

I just saw the movie in IMAX 3D. Amazing!!!!!

The story line was the typical greed motivated cowboys against the mother earth indians. Some scenes took me right back to Dances with Wolves. The story line was nothing new or innovative, but the special effects, over the top.

I'm not one for heights and with the 3D on the huge IMAX, I actually had a touch of vertigo at points when they were flying around the floating mountains. If the seats had moved with the action like some of the Disney movie/rides, I'm not sure I could have handled it.

The CGI still has a softer edge then real film, but the way the movie was done and the contrast between Pandora and the human enclaves, it works very well.

Great movie and well worth the money.

 

[gary7]

I am a family kind of guy and took my 12 and 14 y/o daughters last night. We all liked the movie. It is a good movie. But I would prefer to have heard no swearing and perhaps a bit less gore/violence in the battle scenes. Call me old fashion if you want, we all have our preferences and points of view.

 

[dpower]

I liked Grace's line "... you'll go blind..."

 

[Atlantis]

I liked Grace's line "... you'll go blind..."

I think I was the only one in the whole theater that got one.

 

[powderburner]

I WAS enjoying the movie to THAT point... I actually groaned out loud because that ONE stupid shot just ruined the whole movie!

You are like .00001 percent of the movie-viewing audience who knows enought to be disappointed. Kinda scary to think that the other 99.99999 percent are too stupid to notice or understand, no?

My wife will only agree to watch movies with me if I promise to be quiet.

If you didn't like Astronaut Farmer, don't bother seeing 2012 either.

 

[kelltym88]

FWIW 2012 was pure crap!


By the way, I believe I heard on the TV last night that Avatar has grossed nearly a $Billion. WOW:y:

 

[Larry Curcio]

I see a lot of new movies that rely on the Graphics to make the movie good.
I was afraid to see it because of that.

In other words, How was the story? or is it just a special effects movie?

While watching, I enjoyed imagining what it must have been like for those who developed the technology to apply it to a real movie… any real movie… and to await the reaction of the public. They clearly knew they were doing something great, but the plot was not part of the greatness.

Several people remarked that the movie was predictable in part. They were being kind. It was entirely predictable in less than five minutes. Also, its Indiana Jones hyperviolence has the peculiar effect of disconnecting the audience from the action. When the hero escapes twenty encounters with certain death in the blink of an eye, the violence becomes a dog game – a lot of pointless moving around. Of course the disconnection is even more profound when animated characters are at stake.

Good points:
The mannerisms of the aborigines were well done. There were several interesting resonances too. The jungle had a karst landscape – spooky hills that clearly resembled parts of Vietnam. The avatars themselves were references to drones that are powered by kids in cubicles. Unobtanium is a clear reference to oil (OK. Duh!), and the issues that drive the plot (such as it is) are real issues in the world today.

Of course all of that shows that they could have made something more meaningful and, alas, didn’t. It’s an effect-fest built on the mind-numbing mediocrity that is contemporary American cinema.

Another triumph of project management!

 

[SCE to AUX]

OH well... I hope that AVATAR doesn't violate the 'plausibility principle' too badly... if it looks right it works...

Saw it a few days ago, and it is well worth the ticket price (go for the 3D screening if at all possible).

About the only scenes that violated the "plausibility principle" badly enough to temporarily take me out of the experience concerned the "floating mountains" on the Na'vi home planet of Pandora. These looked like huge (small mountain-sized) masses of rock and soil that did just that--floated in the atmosphere, tethered to the planet and each other by what looked to be bundles of vines and tree roots. A very cool visual effect, and the setting for some great scenes. But these mountains, obviously in a low-gravity environment, also had WATERFALLS on them, which appeared to be functioning as they would in 1G!

 

[GlennW]

Saw it this weekend with the wife. With the exception of Star Wars, we are not big SciFi fans, so I was a little hesitant but after hearing so many of my coworkers rave about it, I figured what the heck. While Avatar is a visually stunning production and an incredible experience to see in 3D on the big screen, as a movie it's just eh. Way too long, weakish storyline, characters and plot not fully developed. My wife liked it didn't love it, looked at her watch about 5 times during it. Overall, I'm glad I saw it and it was for the most part enjoyable, but without the effects and the 3D it's maybe a C+.

Glenn

 

[terryg]

Saw it a few days ago, and it is well worth the ticket price (go for the 3D screening if at all possible).

About the only scenes that violated the "plausibility principle" badly enough to temporarily take me out of the experience concerned the "floating mountains" on the Na'vi home planet of Pandora. These looked like huge (small mountain-sized) masses of rock and soil that did just that--floated in the atmosphere, tethered to the planet and each other by what looked to be bundles of vines and tree roots. A very cool visual effect, and the setting for some great scenes. But these mountains, obviously in a low-gravity environment, also had WATERFALLS on them, which appeared to be functioning as they would in 1G!

One way that would explain this and make the movie plausible, is if the mineral being mined was capable of anti-gravity effects. This would justify the tremendous expenses of an interstellar mining operation and would also explain the floating mountains.

 

[sandmantoy]

It passed my test:

1. Buy ticket
2. Buy mondo bucket of popcorn
3. Buy Gutbuster cup of soda
4. Flop in chair and turn off reality filter
5. Come out of theater thinking, that was kewl!

Yeah, what he said

 

[SCE to AUX]

One way that would explain this and make the movie plausible, is if the mineral being mined was capable of anti-gravity effects. This would justify the tremendous expenses of an interstellar mining operation and would also explain the floating mountains.

I had considered that the "unobtanium" was some kind of high temperature superconductor, and would "levitate" over a strong magnetic field (assuming that that is what the "energy vortex" in that area was). But the movie made it pretty clear that the "unobtanium" deposits were located at Hometree, not up in the floating mountains (where they could have been mined without needing to displace the natives from their home in the first place).

I would think that if the mountains contained another mineral that induced low gravity, the effect would screw with the waterfalls and everything else in the area, not just the mountains themselves.

Overanalyzing? Probably, but the movie did such a good job at making the rest of the planet seem plausible that the "floating mountains" seemed somewhat out of place among the rest.

 

[dpower]

One way that would explain this and make the movie plausible, is if the mineral being mined was capable of anti-gravity effects. This would justify the tremendous expenses of an interstellar mining operation and would also explain the floating mountains.

My off-the-cuff explanation was that Pandora was a moon of a large gas giant, and the gravity of the giant kept these mountains afloat (only on this side of the planet, of course). I realize this has lots of holes in it, like the waterfalls, and apparent gravity on the mountains, and so on, but it sounds cool. Maybe combined with the localized gravitational effects of unobtainium?

 

[Viperfixr]

Okay, it's not plausible in many ways. A lot of the technology and concepts are not explained, just fancifully amazing. OTOH, How can we really make a SciFi movie set over 140 years in the future accurate? I just sit back and enjoy the ideas and images presented.

But, the CGI was the best I've ever seen. The 3D was unremarkable in how strange it looked--looked normal with real depth perception after 2-3 minutes. The story was somewhat predictable, but very well done.

Let me put it this way: my wife and I took five girls ranging in age from 5 to 14 into a movie 165 minutes long, and not one of them had to go to the bathroom the entire movie. My 10-year old bolted like a scalded cat with a pulled groin muscle as soon as the credits started, however.

I honestly felt like I did as a young kid watching Star Wars for the first time in the...70s? Wow, doesn't seem that long ago. I enjoyed Avatar immensely, highly recommended!

 

[THarrison]

https://thenextweb.com/shareables/2010/01/05/pocahontas-avatar/

 

[Larry Curcio]

While snowed in over the weekend, we downloaded _The Color of Magic_ from NetFlix. (Very enjoyable two-part made-for-TV piece.)

FWIW, this flick, dated in 2008, has the exact same image of floating mountains that is presented in Avatar. The floating mountains in both movies are home to dragons that are ridden by (mostly female) warriors. Kind of odd, if you ask me.

Not that Color of Magic is exactly original. It's equal parts of Harry Potter and Hitchiker's Guide and spiced with Monty Python. (The book on which it is based predates Harry Potter.)

LarryC