Avatar was NOT this good!

rarisgod · #1 08-14-2010, 07:03 AM

It's not that I didn't like Avatar...but I didn't think it was an absolutely amazing movie like everyone made it out to be. Sure it had some fancy special effects, and the story was decent (though unoriginal) but I don't see why this movie was so highly regarded.

Anyway, so apparently they're considering bringing it back to theatres.

Link here

Tommygunn · #2 08-14-2010, 07:05 AM

I ****ing hated the story line. And the graphics were cool, but nothing I'm interested in. Pretty lame if you ask me. I wouldn't go see it a second time.

Relic · #3 08-14-2010, 07:10 AM

The story line was pretty typical, and mundane. Borderline "politically correct-ish" to use a goofy phrase. I kind of hate that to be honest.
Still, I loved the look and the feel of the movie. It doesn't come anywhere near Star Wars or Lord of the Rings though. I remember that some critics were saying that this movie was going to be the next Star Wars in regards to impact and innovation.
Blah, not even close.

IMHO of course

Joe Gress · #4 08-14-2010, 07:11 AM

Loved the look and pretty pictures, but hated the movie itself.

T-Bird · #5 08-14-2010, 07:14 AM

Hi.

For me the story line was as orignal as the umpteenth talent show on telly.

The 3D experience was great though, even with the ill-fitting glasses.

I wouldn't go see it again for measly 12 minutes of added material.

Regards
Sam

Thunderscreech · #6 08-14-2010, 07:16 AM

I liked the computer visuals, but after the Shock and Awe phase I was kinda like "meh".

FWIW, they could have cleared up a lot of things by mentioning that genetically-altered flora and fauna had been placed on the planet by humans, and a rouge scientist made part-human things (a la Splice) to try and save it, and now they have to kill them. Maybe 5, 6 line of dialogue, tops...

Oh yeah, and humans win, because it's kinda BS that a bunch of blue cat-people with sticks beat gigantic tilt-rotor airplanes and shuttles rigged as bombers. And guys in mech suits. But it was a movie. and like all movies I see, I am glad it is not real.

TechJunky · #7 08-14-2010, 07:20 AM

I thought it was an entertaining movie, but not one I would watch again unless it were on TV and nothing else were on. Plus I felt like I'd already seen it several years ago when I saw FernGully the first time.

bass.monger · #8 08-14-2010, 07:24 AM

at first it thought it was alright. The graphics alone looked really awesome, but then again im an artsy type of person, so visuals mean a lot to me. The story line reminded me a little too much of Pocahontas. The 3D looked cool. The only reason i would watch it again would be for the graphics, even still, i wouldnt go see it again in theaters.

stratovani · #9 08-14-2010, 07:28 AM

I would not go see it again. For some reason those 3-d glasses made my eyes water. OK movie, stunning FX, okay story, not worth $10 a second time.

Thunderscreech · #10 08-14-2010, 07:29 AM

I actually kinda want to go see it again, but just so i can sit in the back and ruin the movie for everyone else by making absurd commentary, a la MST3K.

bass.monger · #11 08-14-2010, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunderscreech

I actually kinda want to go see it again, but just so i can sit in the back and ruin the movie for everyone else by making absurd commentary, a la MST3K.

hehe, if my friends wanna go see it again, ill probably go with them just to do that, and probably voice overs for all the characters

Relic · #12 08-14-2010, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bass.monger

at first it thought it was alright. The graphics alone looked really awesome, but then again im an artsy type of person, so visuals mean a lot to me. The story line reminded me a little too much of Pocahontas. The 3D looked cool. The only reason i would watch it again would be for the graphics, even still, i wouldnt go see it again in theaters.

You got "Pocahontas" from it? Interesting, now that you mention it!
To me, it was a futuristic remake of "Dances With Wolves".

I'd go see it again. I DID actually like it. It just wasn't the amazing all original blockbuster that it was made out to be.

rarisgod · #13 08-14-2010, 07:50 AM

I've also never been one to go see a movie again in theatres if I've already seen it, as tickets are expensive.

Jim Nazium · #14 08-14-2010, 08:25 AM

I still haven't seen it. The trailer gave away the entire story, and showed most of the cool effects, so I didn't feel the need to blow ten bucks and 2 hours of my life on it. I might watch it when it's on cable.

EdHunter · #15 08-14-2010, 09:10 AM

I could just play the Felushia levels on Force Unleashed while watching Pocahontas to get exactly the same end product as watchind Avatar...

**jmattbassplaya** · #16 08-14-2010, 09:20 AM

I've said it once and I'll say it again, the whole point of the movie was the visuals and the experience. Story and character development were completely secondary. Unless you see/saw it in theaters you really can't judge the movie. It was meant to be viewed in 3D on 40ft screens. In any other form it's easy to see why the movie would be completely mundane, unoriginal, and even boring. I personally would never buy the movie, but I would gladly see it again in theaters. I thought it was really cool for what it was - a visual experience.

Relic · #17 08-14-2010, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdHunter

I could just play the Felushia levels on Force Unleashed while watching Pocahontas to get exactly the same end product as watchind Avatar...

LOL, I can picture that!

To me the Avatar story was pointless. I would probably have enjoyed it more if it was rather a faux documentary on the flora and fauna of Pandora using the same effects.

But now that I think it, I still want to see Zoe Saldana's character naked. Tail or not I'd still go to town on that

Gard · #18 08-14-2010, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmattbassplaya

I've said it once and I'll say it again, the whole point of the movie was the visuals and the experience. Story and character development were completely secondary. Unless you see/saw it in theaters you really can't judge the movie. It was meant to be viewed in 3D on 40ft screens. In any other form it's easy to see why the movie would be completely mundane, unoriginal, and even boring. I personally would never buy the movie, but I would gladly see it again in theaters. I thought it was really cool for what it was - a visual experience.

^this.

EBodious · #19 08-14-2010, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmattbassplaya

I've said it once and I'll say it again, the whole point of the movie was the visuals and the experience. Story and character development were completely secondary. Unless you see/saw it in theaters you really can't judge the movie. It was meant to be viewed in 3D on 40ft screens. In any other form it's easy to see why the movie would be completely mundane, unoriginal, and even boring. I personally would never buy the movie, but I would gladly see it again in theaters. I thought it was really cool for what it was - a visual experience.

yup, that is it. i really had fun seeing it (in the front row, with personal "visual enhancements"). i knew going in that the story was standard, hollywood formula.

here is my question: can movie makers put the time, energy, and resources into making a visually intense movie as well as a cutting edge story? could the movie going public take the double onslaught?

i know that a movie that really focuses on the plot or interplay and dialogue of the characters doesn't need much cinematography. it can get away with a small cast and a few sparse sets. one could argue, a big visual setting would be a distraction; they want the focus on the characters.

so, how complex or deep could avatar's plot get before it became a distraction?

p.s. LOTR fans, please consider the movie makers had a very intense, painstakingly worked out book to work with!

Unrepresented · #20 08-14-2010, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmattbassplaya

I've said it once and I'll say it again, the whole point of the movie was the visuals and the experience. Story and character development were completely secondary. Unless you see/saw it in theaters you really can't judge the movie. It was meant to be viewed in 3D on 40ft screens. In any other form it's easy to see why the movie would be completely mundane, unoriginal, and even boring. I personally would never buy the movie, but I would gladly see it again in theaters. I thought it was really cool for what it was - a visual experience.

+1.

I'd see this movie again in a movie theater before I'd see it at home. It's about the visuals and sound -- especially in a 3D environment on a giant screen.