Avatar

[Jaxom 1974]

I still have ZERO interest in seeing this movie...but does anyone have any idea how it got worked into being the "B" storyline of the most recent episode of Bones? Does Cameron have some sort of hold on David Boreanaz...?

[WarGalley]

I'm waiting for the RT rating before I decide whether or not I go, but Cameron's resume is impressive despite being short. If I do go, it'll definitely be in an IMAX.

[Shryke]

This looks awful.

Does Cameron have any idea how silly it is to extol the virtues of primitivism/tribalism by making a film funded by capitalists, a film whose creation must have generated an enormous carbon footprint and consumed untold ammounts of nonrenewable energy. We're greedy Westerers here to rape and pillage your beautiful Gaia planet blah blah blah. Gag me with a spoon.

He basically took the plot of Ferngully and added some sci-fi elements to it. That trailer gives away the entire plot, which isn't interesting to begin with.

I gotta agree with Commodore here.

I'd never heard of this film till now (I thought the Avatar film I'd heard mentioned on occasion was a live-action version of that cartoon show), but one look at the trailer and the wiki page screams:

Ferngully: The Next Generation

Man gets to know primitive tribe who's land big bad modern society is raping to death. Learns to love them, bangs some native chick, learns important lesson.

/yawn

Looks like it could be visually really cool, but I'm not expecting much.

[Blaine]

Pretty much everyone I know is saying the same thing:

"It looks like a shitty movie. But it cost 500 million dollars, so I've got to see it."

That's pretty much where I am. Maybe it'll surprise me by being a work of genius, but right now it looks like Cameron's most indulgent one man party ever. The trailers basically look like a really, really expensive version of the Captain Planet cartoon.

Either way, it'll be interesting to watch, even if it's just to laugh at it.

[Jaxom 1974]

No info on my Bones question...?

[Brude]

The first reviews are coming in and they are pretty great.

I still have ZERO interest in seeing this movie...but does anyone have any idea how it got worked into being the "B" storyline of the most recent episode of Bones? Does Cameron have some sort of hold on David Boreanaz...?

"Bones" is a show on Fox, "Avatar" is a movie being released by Fox...Fox is working promotion of the movie into their show storylines, that's why.

[Relic]

Either way, it'll be interesting to watch, even if it's just to laugh at it.

I bet you it's better than...Transformers 2. :P

[Tsavong Lah]

The first reviews are coming in and they are pretty great.

"Bones" is a show on Fox, "Avatar" is a movie being released by Fox...Fox is working promotion of the movie into their show storylines, that's why.

I'm kind of surprised about how good the reviews are. Although most of them talk about the jaw-dropping visuals. There are a few that mention the story as being good (if somewhat cheesy at times). I was a "maybe" on seeing this, but now I'm probably a yes.

[Arthmail]

Pretty much everyone I know is saying the same thing:

"It looks like a shitty movie. But it cost 500 million dollars, so I've got to see it."

That's pretty much where I am. Maybe it'll surprise me by being a work of genius, but right now it looks like Cameron's most indulgent one man party ever. The trailers basically look like a really, really expensive version of the Captain Planet cartoon.

Either way, it'll be interesting to watch, even if it's just to laugh at it.

I'll give the guy who invented Hicks and the Pulse Rifle a chance. Especially as the reviews seem to be good. Perhaps i'll brew you up some ImWrong Pies, Blaine?

[Max the Mostly Mediocre]

"It looks like a shitty movie. But it cost 500 million dollars, so I've got to see it."

More like, "It has James Cameron, space marines, and powered armor. I have to see it."

[red snow]

It could be the titanic all over again. Everyone was citing that as beign the most expensive flop ever made before it was released and look what happened.

I'm hoping we get more terminator/aliens Cameron than Titanic Cameron but I suspect we will get a mixture of both as it clearly looks to be going down the "people from two worlds falling in love" line from the trailer.

Anyhow i have my tickets booked for the BFI IMAX (btitain's largest/best screen) figuring that if all it is going to be is an SFX orgy, I will be able to maximise it. Like Hitler I'm hoping to have my eyes fucked

[Commodore]

John Nolte's review pretty much confirms my initial impressions:

Does Neytiri just happen to be the Chief’s daughter? Check! At first, does the tribe not trust Sully and want to kill him on the spot before Neytiri intervenes with wise explanations as to why it’s their tribal custom to take in strangers as one of their own? Chuh-eck! Is Sully then immersed in the native culture and put through a series of tests to prove his worthiness beginning with the sort of clumsiness that brings hoots of derisive laughter from the male warriors but endears him to Neytiri? Double check! Does Sully eventually become one of their strongest warriors and on the day he’s to be initiated as a full member of the tribe—GOD this movie’s tedious.

In supporting roles, Michelle Rodriguez [8] and Joel Moore [9] bring a whole lot more to their underwritten roles than the film deserves — you’d like to spend more time with them — but it’s always back to the film’s dullest characters: the one-dimensional Na’vi. You would think that with 15 years and a half-billion dollars, Cameron could come up an alien species that doesn’t drip with every Indian and African sacred-cow cliché imaginable. These are creatures who worship the Great Mother Eywa, have a sacred relationship with the earth, shoot bow and arrows, ride horse-like animals, whoop it up in battle, and talk like this: “It has only happened five times since the time of the first songs of our ancestors.”

The Na’vi also apologize to animals after killing but before butchering them. So I guess that’s okay. Maybe if Quaritch had gotten on the loudspeaker and spoken a little mumbo-jumbo before dropping a daisy cutter on Home Tree all would be forgiven.

On top of that, the Na’vi are an awfully stupid species. After years of dealing with the “Sky People,” for some reason they still haven’t figured out that arrows are useless against giant military aircraft. And is it okay to mention how hard it is to keep track of who’s who, because the Na’vi, uhm … all look alike? Twice I was sure Sully’s avatar had been killed. Twice I was disappointed.

Cameron’s brainchild tribe is boringly perfect and insufferably noble … I wanted to wipe them out...

Think of “Avatar” as “Death Wish 5” for leftists. A simplistic, revisionist revenge fantasy where if you freakin’ hate the bad guys (America), you’re able to forgive the by-the-numbers predictability of it all and still get off watching them get what they got coming.

And if Cameron is able to make a profit spending a half-billion dollars on a little liberal bloodlust, more power to him.

I can get passed the left viewpoint (even if it makes it harder to enjoy), it's the tedious simplistic preaching that will keep me away.

300 was awful for the same reason, but from the opposite political perspective. It also was supposed to be this amazing action flick. I had trouble staying awake watching it. The hero Leonidas and the pacifist corrupt beauracrat in 300 (evil McNulty) were just as one dimensional as I'm sure the characters in Avatar are.

And how can Cameron rail against technology and praise primitivism considering the kind of work he does.

[Werthead]

Most reviews are positive, although the Guardian was unimpressed. Empire gave it 5/5 (caution, they did the same with Attack of the Clones and INdy IV) despite having several major complaints (such as comparing one sequence to the rave scene in Matrix Reloaded). The Hollywood Reporter gushes uncontrollably. Variety is considerably more cautious, citing problems with the script and theme but acknowledging the sheer adrenalin rush of it all. The Telegraph cites problems with the film's length and some daft dialogue, but again cites the entertainment value as being high.

A common viewpoint seems to be that it's visually stunning and entertaining, but it's not particularly smart and viewers' mileages on the love story, the dialogue and Cameron's over-obvious use of certain themes will vary.

[Ran]

I think this could very well make its money back at the box office, but I'd be sure of it if the romantic leads were more noteworthy. Titanic had DiCaprio and Winslet -- a pretty potent pair -- but we've got New-Uhura and someone I've never heard of this time... We'll see.

[Arthmail]

John Nolte's review pretty much confirms my initial impressions:

Does Neytiri just happen to be the Chief’s daughter? Check! At first, does the tribe not trust Sully and want to kill him on the spot before Neytiri intervenes with wise explanations as to why it’s their tribal custom to take in strangers as one of their own? Chuh-eck! Is Sully then immersed in the native culture and put through a series of tests to prove his worthiness beginning with the sort of clumsiness that brings hoots of derisive laughter from the male warriors but endears him to Neytiri? Double check! Does Sully eventually become one of their strongest warriors and on the day he’s to be initiated as a full member of the tribe—GOD this movie’s tedious.

In supporting roles, Michelle Rodriguez [8] and Joel Moore [9] bring a whole lot more to their underwritten roles than the film deserves — you’d like to spend more time with them — but it’s always back to the film’s dullest characters: the one-dimensional Na’vi. You would think that with 15 years and a half-billion dollars, Cameron could come up an alien species that doesn’t drip with every Indian and African sacred-cow cliché imaginable. These are creatures who worship the Great Mother Eywa, have a sacred relationship with the earth, shoot bow and arrows, ride horse-like animals, whoop it up in battle, and talk like this: “It has only happened five times since the time of the first songs of our ancestors.”

The Na’vi also apologize to animals after killing but before butchering them. So I guess that’s okay. Maybe if Quaritch had gotten on the loudspeaker and spoken a little mumbo-jumbo before dropping a daisy cutter on Home Tree all would be forgiven.

On top of that, the Na’vi are an awfully stupid species. After years of dealing with the “Sky People,” for some reason they still haven’t figured out that arrows are useless against giant military aircraft. And is it okay to mention how hard it is to keep track of who’s who, because the Na’vi, uhm … all look alike? Twice I was sure Sully’s avatar had been killed. Twice I was disappointed.

Cameron’s brainchild tribe is boringly perfect and insufferably noble … I wanted to wipe them out...

Think of “Avatar” as “Death Wish 5” for leftists. A simplistic, revisionist revenge fantasy where if you freakin’ hate the bad guys (America), you’re able to forgive the by-the-numbers predictability of it all and still get off watching them get what they got coming.

And if Cameron is able to make a profit spending a half-billion dollars on a little liberal bloodlust, more power to him.

I can get passed the left viewpoint (even if it makes it harder to enjoy), it's the tedious simplistic preaching that will keep me away.

300 was awful for the same reason, but from the opposite political perspective. It also was supposed to be this amazing action flick. I had trouble staying awake watching it. The hero Leonidas and the pacifist corrupt beauracrat in 300 (evil McNulty) were just as one dimensional as I'm sure the characters in Avatar are.

And how can Cameron rail against technology and praise primitivism considering the kind of work he does.

Did you spend all day trying to find an article that backed up your initial misgivings? Basically the author blabbered on about how america bashing it is, though it could be said of any colonizing nation in the last couple of hundred years, and seems like the guy is quick to take offense.

And at what point is he railing against technology? I didn't see that at fucking all. What i did see is him railing against human nature and our consumptive culture, which we pursue no matter the cost. Its relevant because, you know, its true. I don't think this movie has anything to do with the notion that primitivism is better, but rather that there is a price to be paid for progress.

But whatever. I'll see the movie and judge it then.

[Arthmail]

As a side note, Nolte there, is pretty partisan right wing.

And he sites the Santa Clause as a great christmas movie. Enough said.

[Relic]

Did you spend all day trying to find an article that backed up your initial misgivings? Basically the author blabbered on about how america bashing it is, though it could be said of any colonizing nation in the last couple of hundred years, and seems like the guy is quick to take offense.

And at what point is he railing against technology? I didn't see that at fucking all. What i did see is him railing against human nature and our consumptive culture, which we pursue no matter the cost. Its relevant because, you know, its true. I don't think this movie has anything to do with the notion that primitivism is better, but rather that there is a price to be paid for progress.

But whatever. I'll see the movie and judge it then.

:agree:

[Jacen]

Well, the plot did seem a little "been there, done that" to me, but that's not what turned me off from the previews.

Tired Ol' Rant:

What turned me off was that ... looking at the previews, I'm pretty sure Cameron's Aliens and T2 looked more REAL to me than this does, and those movies are going on twenty years old. I mean it seems like a giant step back!

It really saddens me that special effects work is dying out in Hollywood. Why does EVERYTHING have to be CGI? It doesn't look real, and I think it's going to be a really long time before it ever does.

I think the best way of doing things is to do live stunts, make scale models, use puppets, costumes, skilled make-up artists, prosthesis, etc., all the old school tricks, THEN use CGI to smooth shit out, improve it, enhance it, etc. But it should always have at least SOME basis in reality.

A good recent case of that was Dark Knight. You know when that semi flips over? It looks fuckin' great cuz they actually did it!

I think any old franchise that has a modern update shows this factor very clearly, a few examples:

Star Wars: Puppet Yoda looks like a real creature...CGI Yoda looks like a cartoon. Same thing with Jabba. The giant model of him looks real, compare that guy to the CGI shit one that Han steps on in the revised versions. It's no contest. Also , the fleet battle in Return of the Jedi looked real, the fleet battles in all the prequels looked like a videogame cut scene.

Blade Runner: despite using a low budget model, the L.A. seen in this movie is still the most impressive future city ever seen in film.

Indiana Jones: I'll take a fake rubber boulder over a CGI one any day.

I am Legend: Tell you what, a real live person with excellent zombie make up is fucking SCARY. A CGI zombie that looks weightless and flat? NOT scary.

There are more, but I'll stop. It just really frustrates me knowing what amazing shit they could be making if they combined the old and the new. Instead we get video game cutscenes. And honestly Metal Gear 4 and Uncharted 2 look more real than this movie.

Anyway, this article says it better than I can.

[Ser Greguh]

There needs to be a term for backlash that occurs even before a movie is released. I propose frontlash.

Does Avatar tell the most original story in history? No, of course not. As Ebert pointed out quite accurately in his review of Titanic, you don't choose the most expensive film in history to reinvent the wheel. Titanic was a very straightforward star-crossed, opposite-side-of-the-tracks love story that just happened to occur on a ship that we all knew was going to hit an iceberg, and despite the weenies whining about this or that, it went on to, you know, make a billion dollars.

From everything I have read, the message of Avatar is a rant against unchecked consumption, which seems to me to be perfectly relevant and not at all extreme. There is a pretty significant gulf between that and a story that actively extols the virtues of primitive societies. Just as, you know, you don't have to exist in adulation of, say, the Native Americans pre-Euro-colonization to see the genocide of them as a wee bit unjustified. It just so happens that the story of Avatar involves a people we might identify as being primitive (though the joke appears to be on us, as they can apparently more than stand toe-to-toe with us in a fight), but that doesn't mean that Cameron is saying we all need to be back in the woods.

I have no idea if Avatar is going to be any good or not as a movie, as neither I nor any of the reviewers I trust have seen/written about it yet. But to pre-judge the movie to this degree based on hype, fans, and a couple of trailers seems silly.

[saint777]

Well Ebert just gave it 4 stars and said it was like seeing Star Wars for the first time.

As far as CGI goes as long as it's good and serves the visuals I don't care. 1933's King Kong was heavily special effect laden with wooden acting but it's still a classic in my book.

When it comes to film visuals is king. Story, character, and plot literature will dominate every time.