yes, you know the story from the commercials. it wasnt the story that got me though. it was the obvious visuals, but also, the character developement, i think, was top notch. so good! really drew me in.
definitely buying it when it comes out. probably see it again in theaters.
one question though. was the WHOLE thing CG? or was it just an overlay type thing for the human actors? i wanna saw it was just post production stuff for the humans?
Snemmy I have to agree with you. It was sooo black and white, call me a hater guys but that's enough to kindof ruin the storytelling and the impressive visuals. I mean it's not that I can't enjoy a simple story - but given how predictable it all was, it somehow ruined the cool 'reveals' that could have happened. For instance I really liked the design of the main black and white facetted bomber ship ; but it didn't feel near as big as say, the District9 mech reveal. I guess it's a matter of buildup ?
That's a bit weird to say but some stuff in Transformers2 looked more epic to me, like that giant crushing/eating robot. I think maybe ... it's because we quickly loose the sense of how gigantic the Navis are ? My fav scene of the movie is the basketball court when you see them playing bball near humans. That was very very very cool but throughout the rest of the movie I was hoping to see something familiar in the jungle, or some leftover human device, that would let me appreciate that badass height of the characters again. Like on Avatar could have a little companion critter following him or her even when he transfers. That would have been very very cool I think.
Regarding the character development I had my hopes pretty high when I saw the main guy breaking out the first time he transfers to his smurf body!! At that point I was hoping that it was gonna be a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hide sort of setup where one would conflict with and maybe eat out the other after some kind of struggle. But instead of that Ripley came to say hi (in her very cool Tshirt, I must admit!! Nice touch) and it was all sweet and back to flat story hehe.
Movie of the year. I LOVED IT. People who want to rag on this movie need to get in touch with their inner child. This movie made me feel like a kid again. I left the theater wishing I could live in that world, I havent felt that way in a long time.
The Cg was PERFECT. I was completely immersed in the performances of the CG Actors. It was so good that when it was real actors, I wanted it to go back to the CG stuff as soon as possible. Fantastic Beautiful Movie.
and again, josh totally nailed what i wanted to say
Yup I fuken loved it, totally agree with neox/josh. Pior, I don't know man, maybe stop analyzing this sort of stuff and just enjoy it for what it is...entertainment. Bits were cool, some bits were a little slow, but at the end of the day who cares it was fuekn rad and well worth my coin.
one question though. was the WHOLE thing CG? or was it just an overlay type thing for the human actors? i wanna saw it was just post production stuff for the humans?
The whole thing was not CG, there were a lot of built sets (obviously all the ones where there were just humans around), like the human base and the ship cockpits etc.
AFAIK most of the jungle stuff and exterior shots were CG, and the Na'vi were 80% mocap, 20% keyframe animation. The facial animation was mostly mocap but more keyframe than the character stuff. The other animals were all keyframe animation I think. WETA wrote a whole new system for doing muscle/skin deformation for the creatures and characters apparently.
There's a fairly good article about it in this month's 3D World magazine.
Awesome movie, in regards to the complaints about the story what were people expecting? Leaving the imax theater the story was the last thing on my mind. The visuals were amazing, the setting was amazing. Everything about the way this movie looked was awesome and made me feel like a kid.
i guess anyone complaining the story was weak didn't see 2012, i guess thats why i loved that movie so much, the last cinema experience i had was 2012... and wow that was a total waste of time
Saw it, walked out of it after abotu an hour of watching this crap. The 3d screening was horrible ( no idea if that's because of me wearing glasses and having the other ones going on top of them.) To me it was like watching a bad hologram with too much blurring.
Storywise, meh whatever, still couldn't get over the character and world design. Just too forced. Shame I wasted cash on this. More excited about the 3D Alice trailer that showed before avatar.
I loved the world, the characters, the feel of it all. and the 2 contrasting designs, humans mech military vs natural pandora.
I forgot I was watching it in 3D after I got the cool jungle sequences out of the way. And just let the 3D help tell the story. A story which by all means is very predictable and weak. But has JC ever been known for great stories?
Ill also add, that this story did have me wondering how sully would stay in the avatar body? and how hes torn between 2 worlds and 2 bodies. (SPOILER) and until i saw the scene under the tree with weaver trying to transfer bodies, i had no idea how they would pull off this character dilema.
To say this movie sucks and you walked out, its just so weak. How can anyone on a CG forum hate a movie which is arguable one of the greatest feats in CG history.
Anyways, Im a huge fan. I try not to let other peoples hype determine my opinions on movies, so going in i was looking forward to something great, and i was still blown away. It might not have the style of district 9, but its more of a grand spectacle. 9/10 for me
I totally agree with josh and neox. I felt like a kid again, watching star wars for the first time, experiencing something new.
100% agree. I couldnt sleep that night after watching it. My imagination was going crazy. I felt like a kid when i was pretended to be a super sayan, or scorpion after watching mortal kombat. Or wolverien every saturday morning after watching cartoon x-men.
To say this movie sucks and you walked out, its just so weak. How can anyone on a CG forum hate a movie which is arguable one of the greatest feats in CG history.
The whole thing was not CG, there were a lot of built sets (obviously all the ones where there were just humans around), like the human base and the ship cockpits etc.
Again though, that goes to credit how great the work was on this movie... you can't tell what is real and what is CG. Some stuff is obvious, just because you know certain things don't exist, but otherwise, pretty f'in amazing.
Once again though, this is why I think you guys get WAY too critical of CG movies. How many of you BAGGED on this movie, and now loved it :P
Hehe Gavku as a matter of fact I don't think I analyzed it that much - it's just that I felt like it was missing on a few things that usually are the things making me love certain movies.
If I were to really think about things ... well the first crit I would have is about Pandora and its jungle itself. I like the bonding-plug thing alot, as it was an original core element of the world and unified creatures together. But then, why two plugs per creature and only one for Navis? Also, how come some trees have glowy thingies but the bigger of all has none of that? What are the glowy things on the Navis forehead ? How come we never go to see a hairless Navi ? Is hair just conveniently covering the Smurf plugs? All that.
It honestly kindof felt like GnomonDVD 101. A lot of quality character and prop design but nowhere near the consistency of say, District9, StarWars, 2001 and many others...
Those are things I could go along with in other movies, but with Avatar acclaimed for its world design by so many, including artists, then I cannot help but have very high expectations :P
I didnt feel like walking out because I was curious to see the quality of the CG and wanted to get a feel for the scope of the achievement behind the movie. But I agree that the 3D (the glasses stuff) was completely unnecessary and I think, not worth the time and price it cost. I think I like stereo movies to be shorter and more gimmicky. For instance the 3D effect I liked the most in Avatar was the floating HUD of the videologs as it really is a clean parallax effect. During fight scenes however, it felt more like a popup book. As far as entertaining stereo 3D goes I would take CaptainEO over Avatar anytime because it takes itself less seriously.
As far as story goes, well I don't mind a simple story at all. But I cannot help but taking a step back. I watched First Blood for the first time (!) a few weeks ago and in terms of character development, storytelling, cliffangers (pun INTENDED!) it is far, far better than Avatar. And I am talking about a 80s action flick! So yeah after great movies like that I have a hard time agreeing with Avatar being the movie of the decade many claim it is. A good visual achievement, but not a great movie as a whole. Entertaining, yes, to some degree!
pior, just gonna address one of your questions (and it's something I initially thought about for about 5 minutes). Re: hair: identification. Plain and simple. Aside from a couple of really recognisable ones (Norm being the standout, in a good way), the hairdos were what allowed me to recognise the individuals (at least the important ones) at a glance.
Gonna have to go out on a limb here and question what is so great about the CG of a movie in which every creature posses the specular qualities of a sheet of plastic.
Gonna have to go out on a limb here and question what is so great about the CG of a movie in which every creature posses the specular qualities of a sheet of plastic.
Pior, it seems you actually want painful exposition? You are assuming that just because something isn't spelled out in plain English they put no thought into it? You realize that if you had your will this movie would be 5 hours long and dull as hell right? From production docs and interviews I'd say this is the most accomplished sci-fi world ever produced, they put great amounts of thought into every little detail it seems. Maybe I've misunderstood what you're trying to say?
There was already a heck ton of exposition. The naration and video logs by Jake. Most of the other characters dialogue involved explaining things.
There is lots of juvenility in the story and the elements. The plugs being one of many. How would something like that evolve, what purpose does it serve apart from letting the Navi control everything, and serving as a plot device so that Jake can change defect to the natives permanently.
The horses have six legs of which two legs are totally redundant, the move and gallop like our horses.
They rely on some singular tree. How does that work. So basically in a few years when that single tree dies they will all be extinct?
For the tree to control the animals, it doesnt require them to be physically connected with the plugs making them redundant.
Their god makes him the chosen one.
As a sci fi world it is really weak.
Its a good film on a most superficial level though.
Calabi? You're asking a bunch of silly questions trying to make the story 'sound' juvenile.
How are the legs on the horse redundant? I dont think it's really a problem and is ok for the purposes of creature creation I mean there was a couple 6 wheeled F1 cars at one point.
You're also trying to make the tree sound trivial, who says it'll die in a few years? We have redwoods that have lived for thousands of years, why cant this fictional tree live for hundreds of thousands?
Also what's wrong with creating some physical attribute of the characters that serves the plot? I mean it works and there's some background to the way it works in their world.
I think you're trying to look too smart in this case
After this, I care not for your opinion on this movie! (I disagree, like a thousand percent).
Anyway - Does anyone know if they've rolled out the toys for this yet? Will they be TOYS or FIGURES? Cuz god dammit I want a Na'vi figure soooo badly. Hell, I'd buy some figures of the plants from that world if they glowed when I plug them in.
Calabi? You're asking a bunch of silly questions trying to make the story 'sound' juvenile.
How are the legs on the horse redundant? I dont think it's really a problem and is ok for the purposes of creature creation I mean there was a couple 6 wheeled F1 cars at one point.
You're also trying to make the tree sound trivial, who says it'll die in a few years? We have redwoods that have lived for thousands of years, why cant this fictional tree live for hundreds of thousands?
Also what's wrong with creating some physical attribute of the characters that serves the plot? I mean it works and there's some background to the way it works in their world.
I think you're trying to look too smart in this case
I'm not smart, those are just things that stood out as man made. When I said a few I meant any number of years, its still a weird thing though.
Those usb plug things are indications of a weak plot and world, and having to create something after the fact because their is no other way to do something.
Animals are a lot different to F1 Cars.
But actually those arent the Juvenile parts of it. The story has a Fanfiction type flow to it. But I wont say anymore I dont want to be antagonistic and start a war.
Most of the small figures are a bit junky, especially for the price.
$8-9 for a slightly underdetailed 4-5 inch figure with little articulation.
There is good exposition and bad exposition, without being 5hrs long.
Avatar skipped the good exposition for more "WOOO! I'm running and jumping!" scenes. Glossed over how the Avatars are controlled, 'I read a book' or didn't mention what Unobtainium was NEEDED so desperately for.
Those are two minute or three long scenes. A simple explaination for the braid-connectors could have been 'it's an extention of their nervous system'. Even a diagram in the background as they are talking would have worked.
I tried hard to get into the movie and experience the wonder like many of you have. There was a lot of 'ooh, what's next?.. oh.. oooh what's next? oh...'
It just didn't do it for me when other worse movies have.
I went in expecting to hate it.
I came out wanting to love it sooo much, like my friend, but it made me sad that I couldn't.
I think I could appreciate it more the more I watch it, but that first viewing...
Your plastic sheeting must be a hell of a lot more interestingly-textured than the shit I'm used to seeing.
[img][/img]
While the Na'vi have problems of their own (just subjectively, from my point of view), they aren't what I was referring to. I meant the creature creatures. No good images up on google yet but I mean, just watch the movie. Those dog things that attack Stock Dynamic Protagonist in the night might as well be molded latex
A simple explaination for the braid-connectors could have been 'it's an extention of their nervous system'. Even a diagram in the background as they are talking would have worked
They explained it repeatedly by giving you multiple examples of exactly how it worked... can't think of a better explanation than that. Sounds like you got the point when you saw the movie anyway, why do you think you needed a better explanation?
Good scifi leaves a lot to the imagination... almost all the examples of things people are saying they didn't understand were actually explained in the movie and understood by most people. If nobody understood those things, then yes, the movie failed... but from what I'm hearing, those who didn't understand are a small minority.
Don't mean to be a dick... but you can't just refuse to try and understand a movie and then accuse it of not making sense.
Not to be a dick, but I did try to shut off my brain like the rest of the masses that saw this movie. It didn't work for me when it has for many other SHITTY movies.
That's fine when done right. Avatar wasn't done right or wrong, it was just done.
This movie failed to engage me on more than superficial 'oooh pretty' level. I felt no swell of emotion, no pity, no sympathy, no sense of betrayal, no sense of connection for anyone.
I tried to understand everything and was looking for explanations.
Only those two aspects did not click for me while watching the movie. Maybe they were spread too far apart and the next pretty scene washed over it. I forgot about them most of the time, getting swept up in the beautiful scenery.
This wasn't 'good' scifi.. it was moderate scifi with the most amazing coat of paint ever seen.
It was a generic non-deviating plot-line with a generic happy ending.
The only surprise in the movie was the flaming horse of the apocalypse reference.
I like STORY and this story was okay. Nothing more, nothing less.
Dances with Wolves, Fern Gully, The Last Samurai, Disney's Atlantis, all same story but presented in far more engaging ways that don't involve relying on the most gorgeous CG environment ever seen.
Take away ALL of the CG and what's left? Not a lot. That saddens me.
A Tootsie pop with no chocolate in the center, only a generic filler. Once you get through that pretty, tasty outer shell, it's really rather bland.
Can't wait for the sequel: since Unobtanium is SO important, the human armada comes back to nuke the Na'vi from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
There is lots of juvenility in the story and the elements. The plugs being one of many. How would something like that evolve, what purpose does it serve apart from letting the Navi control everything, and serving as a plot device so that Jake can change defect to the natives permanently. -I guess you fell asleep for part of the movie, all things on their planet are connected in some way, even the dead to the living, similar to earth (we rely on the remains of long dead creatures to power vehicles and various tech) but in a much more tangible connection. Ripley talks about the whole planet being connected like a series of synapses within the brain, everything knows its place and is conscious of this perfect circle of life. The difference between the blue guys and humans, is that humans despite all odds manage to interrupt this circle (but that's a matter of opinion)
The horses have six legs of which two legs are totally redundant, the move and gallop like our horses. -things on earth have between none and 1000's of legs, whats the point here? A similar mammal type thing cant have similar locomotion? Also keep in mind the environment of pandora vs. earth, horses don't fair well in the jungle, there aren't many paths, lots of ups and downs over roots branches, earth horses are really oriented more towards plains. Theres a reason for evolution right there, terrain adaptation. The panther thing had more than 4 legs too, maybe in an effort to keep up with the horse things.
They rely on some singular tree. How does that work. So basically in a few years when that single tree dies they will all be extinct? -Are you talking about the tree where they live? Or the tree where they pray and are able to commune with the entire network of life on the planet? Neither of these seemed necessary for actually living....
For the tree to control the animals, it doesnt require them to be physically connected with the plugs making them redundant. -this is one of the few loose ends the movie actually has, but keep in mind the planet actually influenced the hot blue girl not to kill jacksulley by dropping seeds on him, so what you say is not entirely true
Their god makes him the chosen one. -How is he the chosen one? Other blue guys had ridden the big bird before?
As a sci fi world it is really weak. -sigh
Its a good film on a most superficial level though. -sigh++
For the record, there was only two things i didn't like about this movie: 1. the planets called pandora, which is the same name as the planet in borderlands, and sounds like pandorum which came out earlier this year, and its pretty much the most see through toddler-level metaphor possible.
2. the business guy sounds like jeremy piven and should have been played by jeremy piven, hug it out bitches.
my three favorite movies all start with A now, avatar, anchorman and aliens
Engineers have long (since at least the 1950s[2]) used the term unobtainium when referring to unusual or costly materials, or when theoretically considering a material perfect for their needs in all respects save that it doesn't exist. By the 1990s, the term was widely used, including in formal engineering papers such as Towards unobtainium [new composite materials for space applications]. [3]
hahahaha I didnt know that about the unobtainium. I love how Safari doesnt recognize it as a word that is spelled properly Silly scientists.
Questioning the validity of creatures in Avatar is the same thing as someone going on a 5000 word rant about how someone's shotgun, handgun, rifle, or completely fictitious laser rifle model in 3ds Max is wrong because it could not function on any believable level. The humanoids, plantlife, animal life, in Avatar look like creative and fun art, made to make your eyes and brain go YAY!.
I went in to see it. Not expecting to really think it was that great. I don't like James Cameron films for the most part, and I'm not a fan of hype. I had a feeling more people were going to go see it so they could eye cheat on their wives with the naked blue girl more than anything else...
But I saw it anyway, because I've been wrong before and I don't generally like to make such assumptions.
And I really, really enjoyed it. At first I was a little bit bothered by the lack of backstory in the beginning leading up to the present events, they really just kinda jumped right into it with the dude's narrating and straight up "This is how it is don't worry about it for now" explainations. But then I realized, as the film went on, why it was like that.
They had a shit ton of more worthwhile stuff to cover.
I don't think it was "The greatest movie of all time", like so many people are saying. And I'm not going to go see it in theatres two or three times. But as a whole, I genuinely enjoyed it. I thought it made enough sense, didn't really mind their take on things in spite of a cliche overall story, and impressively enough I did not get bored ONCE in the entire film. A bunch of people criticized it for making them feel like shit about being human. But seriously - there's shit to put you in that kind of mood around every day. I personally kinda like it.
Good stuff. Not amazing OMG WTF FANTASTIC but still very good and very worthwhile. I'll be looking forward to picking this up on DVD.
Glad I decided to say fuck it and go see it, in spite of my initial hesitation. Love it when I'm wrong about shit.
So where do the floating mountain waterfalls get water from?:poly141:
Where non-floating mountains... from rain and snow that comes from the sky.
Calabi, read this about the science background... http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43440
Also has links to Pandorapedia and the Pandora filed guide book...
I just saw it. One of the best movies I've ever seen, I really stand corrected about my skepticism.
Too bad the 3D goggles thing didn't really do it for me, everything was blurry and the effect wasn't all that awesome. I saw more details when I watched the trailer on my 42" tv...
I've heard alot of mixed reception on the 3d goggles thing, and I was wondering if it has alot to do with the quality of the 3d setup, strength of the lightbulb, quality of the projection surface.
I would assume that not every cinema will have the best possible setup for 3d movies.
I've heard alot of mixed reception on the 3d goggles thing, and I was wondering if it has alot to do with the quality of the 3d setup, strength of the lightbulb, quality of the projection surface.
I would assume that not every cinema will have the best possible setup for 3d movies.
i have seen at 2 different cinemas, and it was 2 different experiences. one of them provided a really nice effect, and i'm glad i saw it...
i would have said that the 3d took away from the film, but it definitely has to do with the quality of the cinema. the first one i saw was very crisp and vibrant, the second was much more fuzzy and darker
That's a shame though, I've made sure to find the best possible cinema we have to make sure I get the best picture quality, since it seems like alot of people have gotten the lower end on this.
especially since the 3d perception is quite sensetive to quality.
Replies
yes, you know the story from the commercials. it wasnt the story that got me though. it was the obvious visuals, but also, the character developement, i think, was top notch. so good! really drew me in.
definitely buying it when it comes out. probably see it again in theaters.
one question though. was the WHOLE thing CG? or was it just an overlay type thing for the human actors? i wanna saw it was just post production stuff for the humans?
That's a bit weird to say but some stuff in Transformers2 looked more epic to me, like that giant crushing/eating robot. I think maybe ... it's because we quickly loose the sense of how gigantic the Navis are ? My fav scene of the movie is the basketball court when you see them playing bball near humans. That was very very very cool but throughout the rest of the movie I was hoping to see something familiar in the jungle, or some leftover human device, that would let me appreciate that badass height of the characters again. Like on Avatar could have a little companion critter following him or her even when he transfers. That would have been very very cool I think.
Regarding the character development I had my hopes pretty high when I saw the main guy breaking out the first time he transfers to his smurf body!! At that point I was hoping that it was gonna be a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hide sort of setup where one would conflict with and maybe eat out the other after some kind of struggle. But instead of that Ripley came to say hi (in her very cool Tshirt, I must admit!! Nice touch) and it was all sweet and back to flat story hehe.
As far as deviations go, hmm Michelle Rodriguez
and again, josh totally nailed what i wanted to say
i totally agree, i just loved it
The whole thing was not CG, there were a lot of built sets (obviously all the ones where there were just humans around), like the human base and the ship cockpits etc.
AFAIK most of the jungle stuff and exterior shots were CG, and the Na'vi were 80% mocap, 20% keyframe animation. The facial animation was mostly mocap but more keyframe than the character stuff. The other animals were all keyframe animation I think. WETA wrote a whole new system for doing muscle/skin deformation for the creatures and characters apparently.
There's a fairly good article about it in this month's 3D World magazine.
Also BBC News have a short behind-the-scenes video from Framestore in London where they did some of the post work, worth a watch.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8405089.stm
Saw it, walked out of it after abotu an hour of watching this crap. The 3d screening was horrible ( no idea if that's because of me wearing glasses and having the other ones going on top of them.) To me it was like watching a bad hologram with too much blurring.
Storywise, meh whatever, still couldn't get over the character and world design. Just too forced. Shame I wasted cash on this. More excited about the 3D Alice trailer that showed before avatar.
I forgot I was watching it in 3D after I got the cool jungle sequences out of the way. And just let the 3D help tell the story. A story which by all means is very predictable and weak. But has JC ever been known for great stories?
Ill also add, that this story did have me wondering how sully would stay in the avatar body? and how hes torn between 2 worlds and 2 bodies. (SPOILER) and until i saw the scene under the tree with weaver trying to transfer bodies, i had no idea how they would pull off this character dilema.
To say this movie sucks and you walked out, its just so weak. How can anyone on a CG forum hate a movie which is arguable one of the greatest feats in CG history.
Anyways, Im a huge fan. I try not to let other peoples hype determine my opinions on movies, so going in i was looking forward to something great, and i was still blown away. It might not have the style of district 9, but its more of a grand spectacle. 9/10 for me
100% agree. I couldnt sleep that night after watching it. My imagination was going crazy. I felt like a kid when i was pretended to be a super sayan, or scorpion after watching mortal kombat. Or wolverien every saturday morning after watching cartoon x-men.
Quoted for truth.
Again though, that goes to credit how great the work was on this movie... you can't tell what is real and what is CG. Some stuff is obvious, just because you know certain things don't exist, but otherwise, pretty f'in amazing.
Once again though, this is why I think you guys get WAY too critical of CG movies. How many of you BAGGED on this movie, and now loved it :P
If I were to really think about things ... well the first crit I would have is about Pandora and its jungle itself. I like the bonding-plug thing alot, as it was an original core element of the world and unified creatures together. But then, why two plugs per creature and only one for Navis? Also, how come some trees have glowy thingies but the bigger of all has none of that? What are the glowy things on the Navis forehead ? How come we never go to see a hairless Navi ? Is hair just conveniently covering the Smurf plugs? All that.
It honestly kindof felt like GnomonDVD 101. A lot of quality character and prop design but nowhere near the consistency of say, District9, StarWars, 2001 and many others...
Those are things I could go along with in other movies, but with Avatar acclaimed for its world design by so many, including artists, then I cannot help but have very high expectations :P
I didnt feel like walking out because I was curious to see the quality of the CG and wanted to get a feel for the scope of the achievement behind the movie. But I agree that the 3D (the glasses stuff) was completely unnecessary and I think, not worth the time and price it cost. I think I like stereo movies to be shorter and more gimmicky. For instance the 3D effect I liked the most in Avatar was the floating HUD of the videologs as it really is a clean parallax effect. During fight scenes however, it felt more like a popup book. As far as entertaining stereo 3D goes I would take CaptainEO over Avatar anytime because it takes itself less seriously.
As far as story goes, well I don't mind a simple story at all. But I cannot help but taking a step back. I watched First Blood for the first time (!) a few weeks ago and in terms of character development, storytelling, cliffangers (pun INTENDED!) it is far, far better than Avatar. And I am talking about a 80s action flick! So yeah after great movies like that I have a hard time agreeing with Avatar being the movie of the decade many claim it is. A good visual achievement, but not a great movie as a whole. Entertaining, yes, to some degree!
Fail.
There was already a heck ton of exposition. The naration and video logs by Jake. Most of the other characters dialogue involved explaining things.
There is lots of juvenility in the story and the elements. The plugs being one of many. How would something like that evolve, what purpose does it serve apart from letting the Navi control everything, and serving as a plot device so that Jake can change defect to the natives permanently.
The horses have six legs of which two legs are totally redundant, the move and gallop like our horses.
They rely on some singular tree. How does that work. So basically in a few years when that single tree dies they will all be extinct?
For the tree to control the animals, it doesnt require them to be physically connected with the plugs making them redundant.
Their god makes him the chosen one.
As a sci fi world it is really weak.
Its a good film on a most superficial level though.
How are the legs on the horse redundant? I dont think it's really a problem and is ok for the purposes of creature creation
You're also trying to make the tree sound trivial, who says it'll die in a few years? We have redwoods that have lived for thousands of years, why cant this fictional tree live for hundreds of thousands?
Also what's wrong with creating some physical attribute of the characters that serves the plot? I mean it works and there's some background to the way it works in their world.
I think you're trying to look too smart in this case
After this, I care not for your opinion on this movie!
Anyway - Does anyone know if they've rolled out the toys for this yet? Will they be TOYS or FIGURES? Cuz god dammit I want a Na'vi figure soooo badly. Hell, I'd buy some figures of the plants from that world if they glowed when I plug them in.
http://www.sideshowtoy.com/?page_id=4489&sku=300032&utm_source=search0109
I want it. NOW!
I'm not smart, those are just things that stood out as man made. When I said a few I meant any number of years, its still a weird thing though.
Those usb plug things are indications of a weak plot and world, and having to create something after the fact because their is no other way to do something.
Animals are a lot different to F1 Cars.
But actually those arent the Juvenile parts of it. The story has a Fanfiction type flow to it. But I wont say anymore I dont want to be antagonistic and start a war.
$8-9 for a slightly underdetailed 4-5 inch figure with little articulation.
There is good exposition and bad exposition, without being 5hrs long.
Avatar skipped the good exposition for more "WOOO! I'm running and jumping!" scenes. Glossed over how the Avatars are controlled, 'I read a book' or didn't mention what Unobtainium was NEEDED so desperately for.
Those are two minute or three long scenes. A simple explaination for the braid-connectors could have been 'it's an extention of their nervous system'. Even a diagram in the background as they are talking would have worked.
I tried hard to get into the movie and experience the wonder like many of you have. There was a lot of 'ooh, what's next?.. oh.. oooh what's next? oh...'
It just didn't do it for me when other worse movies have.
I went in expecting to hate it.
I came out wanting to love it sooo much, like my friend, but it made me sad that I couldn't.
I think I could appreciate it more the more I watch it, but that first viewing...
It's an energy source, earth is fucked, they mention both those things in the movie
They explained it repeatedly by giving you multiple examples of exactly how it worked... can't think of a better explanation than that. Sounds like you got the point when you saw the movie anyway, why do you think you needed a better explanation?
Good scifi leaves a lot to the imagination... almost all the examples of things people are saying they didn't understand were actually explained in the movie and understood by most people. If nobody understood those things, then yes, the movie failed... but from what I'm hearing, those who didn't understand are a small minority.
Don't mean to be a dick... but you can't just refuse to try and understand a movie and then accuse it of not making sense.
secret vaults in the mountains filled with nazi gold and crystal skulls... obviously
A wizard did it....
I cant wait to see this movie...turn off my brain, shove chocolate in my gob, and get in touch with my inner 12 year old
Not to be a dick, but I did try to shut off my brain like the rest of the masses that saw this movie. It didn't work for me when it has for many other SHITTY movies.
That's fine when done right. Avatar wasn't done right or wrong, it was just done.
This movie failed to engage me on more than superficial 'oooh pretty' level. I felt no swell of emotion, no pity, no sympathy, no sense of betrayal, no sense of connection for anyone.
I tried to understand everything and was looking for explanations.
Only those two aspects did not click for me while watching the movie. Maybe they were spread too far apart and the next pretty scene washed over it. I forgot about them most of the time, getting swept up in the beautiful scenery.
This wasn't 'good' scifi.. it was moderate scifi with the most amazing coat of paint ever seen.
It was a generic non-deviating plot-line with a generic happy ending.
The only surprise in the movie was the flaming horse of the apocalypse reference.
I like STORY and this story was okay. Nothing more, nothing less.
Dances with Wolves, Fern Gully, The Last Samurai, Disney's Atlantis, all same story but presented in far more engaging ways that don't involve relying on the most gorgeous CG environment ever seen.
Take away ALL of the CG and what's left? Not a lot. That saddens me.
A Tootsie pop with no chocolate in the center, only a generic filler. Once you get through that pretty, tasty outer shell, it's really rather bland.
Can't wait for the sequel: since Unobtanium is SO important, the human armada comes back to nuke the Na'vi from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Probably from the shitton of clouds they were floating in
For the record, there was only two things i didn't like about this movie: 1. the planets called pandora, which is the same name as the planet in borderlands, and sounds like pandorum which came out earlier this year, and its pretty much the most see through toddler-level metaphor possible.
2. the business guy sounds like jeremy piven and should have been played by jeremy piven, hug it out bitches.
my three favorite movies all start with A now, avatar, anchorman and aliens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtanium
Questioning the validity of creatures in Avatar is the same thing as someone going on a 5000 word rant about how someone's shotgun, handgun, rifle, or completely fictitious laser rifle model in 3ds Max is wrong because it could not function on any believable level. The humanoids, plantlife, animal life, in Avatar look like creative and fun art, made to make your eyes and brain go YAY!.
But I saw it anyway, because I've been wrong before and I don't generally like to make such assumptions.
And I really, really enjoyed it. At first I was a little bit bothered by the lack of backstory in the beginning leading up to the present events, they really just kinda jumped right into it with the dude's narrating and straight up "This is how it is don't worry about it for now" explainations. But then I realized, as the film went on, why it was like that.
They had a shit ton of more worthwhile stuff to cover.
I don't think it was "The greatest movie of all time", like so many people are saying. And I'm not going to go see it in theatres two or three times. But as a whole, I genuinely enjoyed it. I thought it made enough sense, didn't really mind their take on things in spite of a cliche overall story, and impressively enough I did not get bored ONCE in the entire film. A bunch of people criticized it for making them feel like shit about being human. But seriously - there's shit to put you in that kind of mood around every day. I personally kinda like it.
Good stuff. Not amazing OMG WTF FANTASTIC but still very good and very worthwhile. I'll be looking forward to picking this up on DVD.
Glad I decided to say fuck it and go see it, in spite of my initial hesitation. Love it when I'm wrong about shit.
From what I've heard the original cut was 5 hours long...
Where non-floating mountains... from rain and snow that comes from the sky.
Calabi, read this about the science background...
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43440
Also has links to Pandorapedia and the Pandora filed guide book...
Too bad the 3D goggles thing didn't really do it for me, everything was blurry and the effect wasn't all that awesome. I saw more details when I watched the trailer on my 42" tv...
I would assume that not every cinema will have the best possible setup for 3d movies.
i have seen at 2 different cinemas, and it was 2 different experiences. one of them provided a really nice effect, and i'm glad i saw it...
i would have said that the 3d took away from the film, but it definitely has to do with the quality of the cinema. the first one i saw was very crisp and vibrant, the second was much more fuzzy and darker
especially since the 3d perception is quite sensetive to quality.