Rate Avatar (James Cameron)

[catsclaw227]

I think that the main point about 'change film making' isn't so much in terms of what we see on the screen, but the camera technology which was invented in order to make Avatar - specifically the way in which Cameron could be filming the actors against the greenscreen and see a rendered version of them in a rendered environment at run time (as it were). In one video interview I saw, they make the point that Cameron can point the camera at the actors with stuck on ears and see Na'vi, point it down and see grass, point it up and see Hallelujah mountains.

That is what is likely to change film making (I don't know whether that will be evident from watching the film per se).

Sounds pretty damn significant to me.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Finally saw it yesterday. "Technically and visually stunning" is accurate, and it was engaging enough to overlook the derivative plot and wooden acting of most of the actors, as well as the heavy-handed thinly-disguised political commentary. The visuals lived up to the hype; the rest not so much.

I have to say though that 3D ruined the experience for me, and in retrospect I'd have preferred to see it in 2D. I dislike the distraction caused at the edges of vision where the 3D images no longer line up, and the "forced focus" that comes with 3D. I like to range around and watch little details to the sides and in the background, and that just wasn't possible in 3D.

Overall, a 7. Probably the best sci-fi movie I've seen this year; I was sufficiently entertained.

 

[Merkuri]

I have to say though that 3D ruined the experience for me, and in retrospect I'd have preferred to see it in 2D. I dislike the distraction caused at the edges of vision where the 3D images no longer line up, and the "forced focus" that comes with 3D. I like to range around and watch little details to the sides and in the background, and that just wasn't possible in 3D.

I wouldn't say that 3D ruined it for me, but yeah, that about summed up my thoughts about the 3D experience.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Well, AVATAR broke the billion dollar mark this weekend! The question; Does it have the power to take out TITANIC! (This was a week ahead of my thoughts).

Domestic: $352,111,000 (34.6%) + Foreign: $666,700,000 (65.4%) = Worldwide: $1,018,811,000

 

[Krug]

Finally saw it yesterday. "Technically and visually stunning" is accurate, and it was engaging enough to overlook the derivative plot and wooden acting of most of the actors, as well as the heavy-handed thinly-disguised political commentary. The visuals lived up to the hype; the rest not so much.

I have to say though that 3D ruined the experience for me, and in retrospect I'd have preferred to see it in 2D. I dislike the distraction caused at the edges of vision where the 3D images no longer line up, and the "forced focus" that comes with 3D. I like to range around and watch little details to the sides and in the background, and that just wasn't possible in 3D.

Overall, a 7. Probably the best sci-fi movie I've seen this year; I was sufficiently entertained.

Wow no way that this was better than District 9 or Moon.

Anyway, Avatar only dropped 10% from the previous weekend, and with hardly anything to compete against it I think it does have a fairly good chance of beating Titanic in global box-office.

 

[shilsen]

I just got back from the movie. It's very likely the prettiest movie I've ever seen and I can see why the effects impress a lot of other people as much as they do. It's a pity that the story itself is so derivative and hackneyed. I wasn't expecting anything great in that area, partly because it's Cameron and partly because of what I'd heard about the movie, but it's exceptionally weak in that area. Admittedly it's a plot which is as popular as it is simplistic and overdone, but it would have been nice to see something smart in that area. There's literally not a single part of the movie I can think of that was at all unexpected, and there are some big chunks which I was expecting well before they arrived. It doesn't help (at least not with me, though it won't bother most people, I think) that Cameron's depiction of the noble savage is one which got outdated sometime around the 16th century and is very blindly ethnocentric.

I'd give it a 6.

 

[catsclaw227]

It doesn't help (at least not with me, though it won't bother most people, I think) that Cameron's depiction of the noble savage is one which got outdated sometime around the 16th century and is very blindly ethnocentric.

Could you elaborate on this?

 

[Banshee16]

I gave it a 9....very strong sci-fi/fantasy movie, excellent visuals, and despite the fact that the story has many elements we've seen before, I still found it enjoyable. I went with my wife who didn't really care for seeing the movie, my sister who generally dislikes sci-fi movies, and her boyfriend, a former gamer, and after coming out, everyone said they thoroughly enjoyed it, and that they'd go see it again.

It's no Saving Private Ryan, but it was a lot of fun, and a genuine feast for the eyes.

Banshee

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Could you elaborate on this?

I'll take a brief stab....

The Na'avi were Indians in a Nathaniel Hawthorne novel, only cooler, prettier, and more awesome. They were, however, also nearly terminally dumb and hidebound. That view of them is simultaneously reverent and paternalistic. The mix doesn't sit well.

Once I realized I was watching "Ferngully PG-13" I was able to turn off my frontal lobes and half the left hemisphere of my brain and just enjoy the pretty. But, my word.... the villains in Disney movies aren't that broad and illogical.

Fun movie, but it had some issues.

 

[Fast Learner]

Indeed, both strong ethnocentrism and a heavy dose of Mighty Whitey. Still an amazing film, but it could have been much more.