Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

261 - 280 of 544 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,157 Posts
re: "Avatar" Movie discussion

Oh and I forgot to mention how amazing the 3-D was. I haven't seen a 3-D movie since the mid 90's, and it definitely has come a long way. And stead of trying to throw crap at the viewer to get a physical reaction, it's used as more of a depth perception tool and really helps involve you in the film. As someone who was really skeptical of 3-D in general, especially as a device for future televisions, Avatar has completely changed my mind and I can really see it advancing the immersion viewers have with movies.

On a side note, they need to have some one make some actual comfy glasses. I couldn't rest the arms of the glasses on my actual ears because the lenses would be sitting on my nostrils instead of my eyes. Maybe when 3-D makes it into actual homes they'll sell custom glasses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,157 Posts
re: "Avatar" Movie discussion

Exactly, add that to it's "freshness" to the genre at that time, and it's influence on what the sci-fi genre would become, and I think it's indefinitely the better film.
I can't really argue with that, let's just say I love them both.
 

·
BAIT
Joined
·
12,946 Posts
re: "Avatar" Movie discussion

Yea generally speaking Aliens usually tops out Alien on most lists I've seen. They are very different movies though.
That's strange. What lists specifically? Alien has been argued as one of the greatest sci-fi films ever, and I've never seen such praise for Aliens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,809 Posts
re: "Avatar" Movie discussion

That's strange. What lists specifically? Alien has been argued as one of the greatest sci-fi films ever, and I've never seen such praise for Aliens.
Aliens received similar praise.

Using rottentomatoes; if you compare the reviews of the two films Alien stands out at 97% on the general meter/86% on the Top Critics portion. Compared to Aliens that had 100%/100% although there were about eight more Top Critics' reviews for the first and 20 or so more reviews in the t-meter. They both have the same rating from the RT community which has about an equal amount of reviews.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1000617-aliens/reviews_users.php

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/alien/reviews_users.php

Imo Aliens is also a movie thats better suited towards repeated viewings although they're both damn good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,552 Posts
re: "Avatar" Movie discussion

Just got back, and I'm laughing hysterically at everyone who thought this was going to be bad or thought the CGI looked goofy.

Revolutionary is the right word.
 

·
BAIT
Joined
·
12,946 Posts
re: "Avatar" Movie discussion

Aliens received similar praise.

Using rottentomatoes; if you compare the reviews of the two films Alien stands out at 97% on the general meter/86% on the Top Critics portion. Compared to Aliens that had 100%/100% although there were about eight more Top Critics' reviews for the first and 20 or so more reviews in the t-meter. They both have the same rating from the RT community which has about an equal amount of reviews.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1000617-aliens/reviews_users.php

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/alien/reviews_users.php

Imo Aliens is also a movie thats better suited towards repeated viewings although they're both damn good.
Ah, the whole RottenTomatoes thing. In terms of film lists though, I really have never seen Aliens top Alien on many sci-fi lists. While I always see Alien on countless top tens.

http://www.afi.com/10TOP10/scifi.html

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.06/scifi.html

http://www.imdb.com/chart/scifi

In terms of repeated viewings, honestly, I can't say one is better suited than the other. I've enjoyed watching both numerous times, although I have watched Alien probably a good amount of times more than Aliens, simply because I like it better. But they both almost give me the same enjoyment that I had the first time I saw them.
 

·
BAIT
Joined
·
12,946 Posts
re: "Avatar" Movie discussion

Just got back, and I'm laughing hysterically at everyone who thought this was going to be bad or thought the CGI looked goofy.

Revolutionary is the right word.
LOL at this. Since nobody said the CGI looked goofy, and only that the Na'vi looked goofy, I imagine you're referring to "those people".

And the Na'vi did look goofy. I'm sorry they did, but they did. That can't be changed. I'm still going to think they did even if I'm blown away.

It's not like I'm going to watch the movie, love it, and then go, "You know what? Forget all I said about the Na'vi looking stupid in the trailers. They looked great! Nevermind! It didn't look good in the trailers, but a primal Bo Derek looking catwoman does look cool!" They looked goofy.

That's the strangest logic I've ever seen. It's like if somebody watches Return of the Jedi, loves it, then bashes all it's critics by saying, "I'm laughing hysterically at everyone who thought the Ewok looked stupid" because the movie was good. The Ewok did look ****ing stupid. And the Na'vi look goofy.

And Wall-E does look like Short Circuit's distant nephew, but I still liked the movie.
 

·
Kwisatz Haderach
Joined
·
31,773 Posts
re: "Avatar" Movie discussion

What are the Na'vi supposed to look like? That's the whole thing I've been unable to understand when people say they look stupid. We really have no frame of reference because this is our first exposure to them. It's almost as if people put designs for aliens in designs of: cool, scary, or stupid instead of just being.

It'd be completely different if James Cameron said "wait until you see the Na'vi they look awesome" and they looked like they do. What he did say is that the CGI was going to be revolutionary. I feel that his statement on the CGI is completely separate from the character designs.

I think the example you used with the ewoks is perfect. They looked stupid because that's what they were supposed to look like. Things that couldn't have taken down the At-Ats by themselves.
 

·
BAIT
Joined
·
12,946 Posts
re: "Avatar" Movie discussion

What are the Na'vi supposed to look like? That's the whole thing I've been unable to understand when people say they look stupid. We really have no frame of reference because this is our first exposure to them. It's almost as if people put designs for aliens in designs of: cool, scary, or stupid instead of just being.
I agree, we have no frame of reference, but that doesn't change the fact that from strictly a visual level, the Na'vi are not only not pleasting to look at, they're silly looking. I think alien designs have such rigid categorizations on purpose. I don't see anything wrong with it, it's the nature of the beast. When you're creating something as bold and risky as this, you're putting yourself in the line of fire, and if you're creatures look silly, they look silly.

I mean, since the beginning of time, the main draw of portraying aliens (not just aliens, it's the same thing with machines too) in film is first and foremost a visual thing. And the first look is always so crucial. It has always been that way, so those categories of cool, silly, scary, whatever are just the intitial reactions audiences are going to have. Remember the madness to find an early photo of the Cloverfield monster? It became the focal point of the viral marketing. Nobody gave a damn about the story at that point. People wanted to see if the monster looked cool, and I'm sure it was on Abrams mind to make the monster as scary as possible.

I feel like once you're showcasing you're creations as a focal point of your visual presentation in a film, you're going to be subject to that sort of strict categorization. Nobody is looking at the Na'vi and going, "Yeah, they look dumb, but maybe that's part of their evolution process of living in Pandora and whatnot. Yeah they're blue but there's probably some evolutionary reason for their skin color." Is it a bit unfair? Maybe, but I don't think it's wrong. It's not enough these days to see good CGI. Good CGI is on display with almost every new blockbuster out there, the creations have to look "cool", and the Na'vi just don't. They look damn silly.

It'd be completely different if James Cameron said "wait until you see the Na'vi they look awesome" and they looked like they do. What he did say is that the CGI was going to be revolutionary.
Did he really have to, though? I think once you're putting you're creation out there and exposing it like he did, (I mean, he literally showcases the Na'vi in all of the trailers, and I imagine that they dominate the film) he was exposing the Na'vi to that sort of judgement.

I feel that his statement on the CGI is completely separate from the character designs.
I completely agree. Which is why I don't understand people insinuating that I think the CGI looks silly. I never said it did. But the character design is.

I think the example you used with the ewoks is perfect. They looked stupid because that's what they were supposed to look like. Things that couldn't have taken down the At-Ats by themselves.
Touche'. The Ewoks were sort of a parody design, much like E.T. was in a way (to highlight how vulnerable he could be, like a small child), or the martians in Mars Attacks. You're right.

Still though, I don't see the correlation between me thinking the Na'vi look silly in a trailer, and somebody claiming, "Victory!", because the CGI in the film was outstanding (which I'm sure it was, and fully expect it to be).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,552 Posts
re: "Avatar" Movie discussion

Have you even seen the movie though? The Na'vi look great. My whole point from the beginning was that it's ridiculous to decide you are not going to like a movie because you don't like the way something looks in a trailer. Once you see them in the context of Pandora, they go from looking awkward (they are supposed to look awkware in a laboratory, they are 12 feet tall and blue!) to completely natural.
 

·
BAIT
Joined
·
12,946 Posts
re: "Avatar" Movie discussion

Have you even seen the movie though? The Na'vi look great. My whole point from the beginning was that it's ridiculous to decide you are not going to like a movie because you don't like the way something looks in a trailer. Once you see them in the context of Pandora, they go from looking awkward (they are supposed to look awkware in a laboratory, they are 12 feet tall and blue!) to completely natural.
While I do think context is important with any character design, it's not significant enough to go from seeing a silly looking blue creature in a trailer to seeing an amazing looking blue creature in a film at the theater. Will it look better within the context of the film? Maybe, even probably. But it can't erase what has already been shown. The characteristics of the Na'vi aren't going to change on a big screen. They'll still have the same features. Those same features and characteristics that initially made me think they look silly.

I haven't seen the movie, no, but I've seen the Na'vi. I haven't seen them within the context of the movie, but I don't seem to think that's the big gamechanger you do. They'll still have the same characteristics, they'll just look crisper, sharper, and more "natural" with their surroundings on the big screen, because it's what they were meant for, but will they still look silly? I believe so.

And I never decided I didn't like the film. I want to see it. With each review and positive post on this board, I want to see it more. I even think it will be good. But it's not going to change the fact that I think the character design was goofy. It was.

I imagine it'll be a movie I like very much with goofy looking blue creatures, and not one I hate passionately because of goofy looking blue creatures.
 

·
Kwisatz Haderach
Joined
·
31,773 Posts
re: "Avatar" Movie discussion

I'm starting to think the design of the Na'vi is actually brilliant.

The look is abrasive and it's been enough of a conversation piece that it was harder to dodge the backlash to their appearance, than it was to dodge the hype of the movie and James Cameron. As we know people respond more to what they don't like (in this case the visuals of the Na'vi in ads) than what they do like. So with more ads we got more criticism of the look and even some vitriol dripping through.

They stand out because they look like nothing we've seen before just the same way they stand out in the movie when in the human lab. Seems like an essential move if you're really going to have them out front on the ads because you need something that stands out and people will remember.

I was going to see the movie today, but thanks to Mr. snow storm I don't think that'll happen.
 

·
Werewolf Bar Mitzvah
Joined
·
18,794 Posts
re: "Avatar" Movie discussion

While I do think context is important with any character design, it's not significant enough to go from seeing a silly looking blue creature in a trailer to seeing an amazing looking blue creature in a film at the theater. Will it look better within the context of the film? Maybe, even probably. But it can't erase what has already been shown. The characteristics of the Na'vi aren't going to change on a big screen. They'll still have the same features. Those same features and characteristics that initially made me think they look silly.

I haven't seen the movie, no, but I've seen the Na'vi. I haven't seen them within the context of the movie, but I don't seem to think that's the big gamechanger you do. They'll still have the same characteristics, they'll just look crisper, sharper, and more "natural" with their surroundings on the big screen, because it's what they were meant for, but will they still look silly? I believe so.

And I never decided I didn't like the film. I want to see it. With each review and positive post on this board, I want to see it more. I even think it will be good. But it's not going to change the fact that I think the character design was goofy. It was.

I imagine it'll be a movie I like very much with goofy looking blue creatures, and not one I hate passionately because of goofy looking blue creatures.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah.

The movie if ****ing amazing. Do you know every big thing that's going to happen? Yes. However the story is well written enough to actually give a depth and beauty to the civilization of the Na'vi that no other film of this genre has managed to capture. When I watched Last Samurai, I thought, "Ok, he's Samurai and will now take a stick to fight because he's gone hippie." This movie doesn't go hippie, his connection to the Na'vi is also a connection to the planet, one that is stronger than any connection a human has ever made. It truly sucks you into the world of Pandora and his experiences you experience with him. I don't know how else to describe it.

As for the Na'vi design, they look great. The characters have depth of personality, that makes them more believable than any other CG character. On top of that, they're like 10 feet tall. Their skin is different that humans, so of course their rendering would look different than a human's. They're completely believable. More than that, they're completely badass!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,264 Posts
re: "Avatar" Movie discussion

You wouldn't rate any of the Terminator and Alien movies as great? There's no top 10 sci-fi list of all time that wont have both T2 and Aliens on it.
nope. the first alien was fantastic but too bad ridley scott directed it. the sequel was alright, not what i would define as a great flick. terminator 2 is bad *** and good but i don't think it justifies a top 10 spot on a scifi list.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,264 Posts
re: "Avatar" Movie discussion

As for comparing him to George Lucas; even in Cameron's weakest department which is writing scripts/stories he excels by comparison. George Lucas' idea of trying to emulate old school B-movies failed through its lackluster execution (Prequels, Indiana Jones 4) and his recent works had to be some of the most disappointing movies ever made. Visually and basically all the other parts of film making, its almost no comparison...the way Lucas used CGI was a breakthrough but at the cost of wooden acting to the point where you don't really care whats going on on-screen whereas Cameron can immerse you in his world while at the same time offering entertainment and technological breakthroughs that forever shape the industry. Lucas used to be great while Cameron still is, imo.
that makes sense. not sure how my other paragraph nullifies my opinion. greatness imo is something that rarely anybody reaches in this industry. to me a true great film is like goodfellas, godfather, 2001 (made in 1960s and still looks fantastic) which i can't compare any of his films to if that makes any sense. that is not to take away from his technical achievements (some of which look bad today but back then were kick ***) but can you guys really not name ten better scifi films than t2 and aliens? both those films were good and bad*** (i've seen t2 at least 20 times, t1000 shatters = classic) but great?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,809 Posts
re: "Avatar" Movie discussion

Yes you're in the minority if you don't think Cameron's films are great achievements in the cinematic industry. Its not about naming how many movies are better than his which imo would not be that many in the scifi genre; the impact and success he's made is unquestionable and he continuously raised the bar for movies in a number of ways. Few directors are as technologically innovative as Cameron and he's also able to deliver entertaining blockbusters that influence the entire industry.

A quick google search for "top scifi movies" came up a list from IMDB and it currently has Aliens, T2, and Avatar in the top 10: http://www.imdb.com/chart/scifi

On most scifi lists you'll find his movies near the top and sites like Rottentomatoes.com which features a huge number of reviews generally rate his classics pretty high up there. You yourself said you watched his movies several times and really I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point; but yea if you don't think James Cameron and his films are a part of the movie industry's greats that does devalue your opinion quite a bit. Hell just look at the impact Cameron's Avatar had here, this is probably one of the longer threads this movie forum has seen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,264 Posts
re: "Avatar" Movie discussion

the imdb lists also have the dark knight in the top 10 of all time, which i think we can both agree is not the case. in fact there is a lot wrong with that imdb list. metropolis is 4 spots behind wall-e lol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,047 Posts
re: "Avatar" Movie discussion

I agree with Coatesvillain and MLKG.


What the **** are they supposed to look like? I'm sure if I never saw a Giraffe before or knew how a Stegosaurus looked I'd find them beyond silly looking. Those creatures actually exist(ed) on our planet though, yet somehow some alien creatures on a distant planet, centuries into the future, are too silly? Based on what? C'mon, that's a terrible reason not to accept a film, especially when you haven't even seen the movie.

And that leads into MLKG's point -- you can't criticize the imagery of a character without the context of the plot. I haven't read one review that insinuates the movie is worse of because of the appearance of the Na'vi. That tells me that they aren't a problem in the movie.

Seriously, watch the movie before deciding the imagery of the Na'vi are too silly. That's the only real way of making a proper judgment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,950 Posts
re: "Avatar" Movie discussion

LOL at this. Since nobody said the CGI looked goofy, and only that the Na'vi looked goofy, I imagine you're referring to "those people".

And the Na'vi did look goofy. I'm sorry they did, but they did. That can't be changed. I'm still going to think they did even if I'm blown away.

It's not like I'm going to watch the movie, love it, and then go, "You know what? Forget all I said about the Na'vi looking stupid in the trailers. They looked great! Nevermind! It didn't look good in the trailers, but a primal Bo Derek looking catwoman does look cool!" They looked goofy.

That's the strangest logic I've ever seen. It's like if somebody watches Return of the Jedi, loves it, then bashes all it's critics by saying, "I'm laughing hysterically at everyone who thought the Ewok looked stupid" because the movie was good. The Ewok did look ****ing stupid. And the Na'vi look goofy.

And Wall-E does look like Short Circuit's distant nephew, but I still liked the movie.
great. you've already made up your mind before seeing the movie. if that's true, what's the point in pretending that your opinion on the movie is relevant in any way?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,157 Posts
re: "Avatar" Movie discussion

Have you even seen the movie though? The Na'vi look great. My whole point from the beginning was that it's ridiculous to decide you are not going to like a movie because you don't like the way something looks in a trailer. Once you see them in the context of Pandora, they go from looking awkward (they are supposed to look awkware in a laboratory, they are 12 feet tall and blue!) to completely natural.
The Na'vi look far from great. They go from looking goofy in a lab, to looking goofy in a jungle.
 
261 - 280 of 544 Posts
Top