[Ironsight]

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/8894/img0001newr.jpg
^ My reaction when I found out about this movie.

[Toasty]

Pretty much the same.

The guy who wrote the script also wrote and directed the Titanic, and the Terminator movies (at least 1 & 2, not sure about 3).

He says he's trying to out-Lucas George Lucas.He's gone into a crapload of detail with EVERYTHING about this movie.

But I still think it's going to kinda suck. And there's no way it'll ever get to the scale that StarWars is at.

[Golden Legacy]

I've watched previews, and I honestly can't see how it is anything other than a generic sci-fi film. Decent look to it, but I can't understand where all the hype is coming from.

When is it being released?

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Nov 23 2009, 07:35 PM, said:

I've watched previews, and I honestly can't see how it is anything other than a generic sci-fi film. Decent look to it, but I can't understand where all the hype is coming from.

When is it being released?

My thoughts exactly.

No matter how much work this guy puts into the development of this movie, it's story and premise will most definitely hold it back from becoming as big as StarWars.

[Caael]

It's a spectacle movie which is why it's so hyped. It's using some technology that has never been used before, to do with the 3D profiling of the Na'vi characters in where it's kind of the opposite of motion capture; instead of making a person do all the moves the character does then map the texture to the skeleton, they map the character from the very start meaning that anything the actor does will be replicated perfectly, albeit in 8 foot tall Na'vi form.

It's some amazing technology that's being used, though I dont think it will 'revolutionise' the film industry as Cameron has claimed, mainly due to the huge expense of this technology. Something ridiculous like $50 million on it, although I dont know if that's the exact amount. For most films, that money would be the entire budget, so it's not as much of a huge step forward as cameron was hoping, but it's still nice to see that the film industry IS advancing, as we've had green screen and motion capture for decades now and it was almost getting stale.

[Toasty]

The movie has a budget of $250 million. About $50 million more than what was spent on the Titanic.

The 3D setup costs $100k to install in a theater. As for the camera, I find a bit hard to imagine that he spent two thirds of the money he got from the Titanic on developing a 3D camera. Not that I think it's impossible, but I think he had other things to spend it on. Like the numerous deep-sea dives he went on before he even began to direct AVATAR.

[Someone Else]

Am I the only one that thinks the puppets for Jabba the Hutt and Yoda looked better than a lot of the CGI characters these days?

[Toasty]

No.

They were a lot more creative. The whole reason why Avatar won't ever become as big as Starwars, is because Cameron's scope is too narrow (though I highly doubt he thinks so), and his Idea just isn't as creative or original as Lucas's is.

[Ironsight]

Ugh. This movie's script is like bad fanfiction. Its Ferngully in space.

On the other hand, the mechs look goddamn awesome. Too bad.

[Caael]

Toasty, on Nov 25 2009, 08:29 AM, said:

No.

They were a lot more creative. The whole reason why Avatar won't ever become as big as Starwars, is because Cameron's scope is too narrow (though I highly doubt he thinks so), and his Idea just isn't as creative or original as Lucas's is.

All opinion. With the marketing campaign on this movie, I'm sure it'll be big regardless. The average cinema going audience is in the age range 15-24, and the marketing ( as well as the film, though to a lesser extent) is mainly targeted at this audience.

And anyway, as I've stated previously, it's a spectacle film. People aren't going to see it because of the story, they're going to see the breakthrough in cinema technology, because, after all, once you've bought your ticket, you've bought your ticket and regardless of whether you like it or not, Cameron will be making money.

[Toasty]

His whole goal is to make a movie/story that's better than starwars, because cameron had the idea for this moview brewing since before Starwars even came out. When it did come out, he was kicking himself because he had a similar idea (well.....kind of).

His scope is to narrow to accomplish his lifetime goal. I'm not saying it won't sell well, or that it's not impressive, but he won't get out of it what he wants to get out of it.

[Golden Legacy]

I WANT A HOT NA'VI GIRLFRIEND.

[Nosferatu]

If any of them say "Listen!" I swear to god I'll slit everyone's throats.

[Ironsight]

SPIRITUAL NOBLE SPACE SAVAGES VS EVIL WHITE PEOPLE

[Legolastom]

Just like star wars.

[Caael]

So this is the best movie I've ever seen.

[Someone Else]

I kinda want to go see it, but when the director says he's trying to one up Star Wars with this movie it ends up making me skeptical. Still, everyone's said that it's really good. Either way, I'm watching Sherlocke Holmes first.

[Caael]

Ignore everything James Cameron says about this because he's a twat. Just go in there watching it because you want to, dont go in there watching it because people tell you. You will enjoy it MUCH more that way.

[Ironsight]

Let's take a moment to honor the hero of humanity.

Avatar is a truly beautiful yet tragic movie. It's a sad tale of what happens when we do not guard ourselves versus the vile threats against humanity. Praise to Cameron for raising the awareness of this issue into the public eye.

The tale is seemingly simple. Humanity has a need for a resource that exists on Pandora that is crucial to our survival, but the natives stand in the way. They try to diplomatically resolve the issue with the blood thirsty primitives, but it does not work. The selfish savages will not share their useless to them resources and are keen on letting humanity die just based solely on their primitive beliefs. Those Monsters.

Finally, with the urgency upon them, the humans making a bold and justified strike upon the grounds that hold the necessary resources for humanity to thrive on. Sadly, the natives too savage in their nature do not leave peacefully, choose to fight. Nothing less than the regrettable destruction their homes is needed to drive them off. But all is good, humanity will live on.

Or will it? The twisted madman known as Jake Sully does the unthinkable. He betrays humanity due to the corruption inflicted upon him the vile natives. Not only that, in an act motivated solely by revenge, he escalates the conflict by inciting the natives into a mad frenzy of blood lust. Bent on vengeance and unable to see reason at all, our hero knows the final conflict is at hand. Out manned, he knows that his chances are slim, for the savages know no mercy.

Our hero knows there is only way to try to save the lives of those around him. In a daring preemptive strike on the savage murdering terrorist, the hero attempts to wipe out their decaying religious symbol of hatred; for he knows it may be the only way to pacify the loathsome beasts. All is going well for a time, where the superior intelligence and tactics of humanity triumphs over the furries. But not even the mightiest of heroes can stand before sheer furry numbers and their magic. Using sickening sorcery the savages summon all the demonic monstrosities of the vicious planet to overwhelm and wipe out the humans. And at their vanguard, stands the despicable race traitor, Jake Sully.

In a final struggle our mighty hero defeats the traitor and the native queen with ease, for he is a superior to their wretchedness in every way. Alas, victory is taken away from him at the last moment in an unfair deus ex machina moment and he is slain by the impure beasts.

What is the moral of this tragedy? That no matter how noble and rational humanity is, there are abominations out there bent on our destruction. Tis a cautionary tale, that even the mightiest of all may be slain by the overwhelming numbers of the foul furries, and the lowliest of us must be safe guided so that they may be not be corrupted by their nefarious nature.

[Moonear]

I thought this movie was great, maybe a little overhyped (few movies could live up to the hype Avatar recieved).

[Split Infinity]

It is a veritable sin not to watch this movie in 3D. On a seven-storey screen.

[Golden Legacy]

... It would appear I am a veritable sinner.

[Toasty]

Legolastom, on Dec 19 2009, 03:29 PM, said:

Just like star wars.

I think that was Cameron's whole point.

[Moonear]

Split Infinity, on Dec 28 2009, 09:11 PM, said:

It is a veritable sin not to watch this movie in 3D. On a seven-storey screen.

At first I was upset that when pre-ordering tickets, I could only get 3D tickets, but in the end it was worth it. The 3D really made the N'avi environment look amazing.

[Caael]

Golden Legacy, on Dec 29 2009, 03:15 AM, said:

... It would appear I am a veritable sinner.

http://bbsimg.ngfiles.com/1/20229000/ngbbs4ae2d79d92aab.jpg

[I'm Always BROKE]

This movie doesn't really appeal to me, at least... the story doesn't. I still want to see it because it probably has the best made 3D graphics ever, and I want to have an opinion about it.

But the story is pretty damn generic. White man becomes member of race which other white men want to kill and leads them to victory. :rolleyes: This pretty much summarises the whole plot I'm thinking:

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/foto/5309d764_avatar.jpg

Anyhow, I still wanna see it. Hope that the story isn't as bad as I think it'll be. I expect some generic "I'm falling in love with a girl from another culture" scenes and the "Son, your fighting for the other side now, but I still respect you, but be careful" scene but at least the fighting will look nice I guess...

[Caael]

Diddy Kong, on Dec 29 2009, 02:44 PM, said:

This movie doesn't really appeal to me, at least... the story doesn't. I still want to see it because it probably has the best made 3D graphics ever, and I want to have an opinion about it.

But the story is pretty damn generic. White man becomes member of race which other white men want to kill and leads them to victory. <_< This pretty much summarises the whole plot I'm thinking:

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/foto/5309d764_avatar.jpg

Anyhow, I still wanna see it. Hope that the story isn't as bad as I think it'll be. I expect some generic "I'm falling in love with a girl from another culture" scenes and the "Son, your fighting for the other side now, but I still respect you, but be careful" scene but at least the fighting will look nice I guess...

Why did you purposely find out the plot if you haven't seen it? You deserve to not enjoy it now. The whole point of the film is watching the plot unfold in this spectacular world, and you've ruined it for yourself now because a) you're going to be looking out for certain plot devices most of the time and not focusing on the immersion you're supposed to get from this new world and B) you wont find half the things you're looking for because while the plot is generic, it does have some twists unexpected.

And plus, it's a blockbuster. When was the last time you saw one with an original plot? Summarise any film's plot in 2 sentences and it's bound to sound dull.

You're a fool for spoiling the plot for yourself. While its not the main selling point of the film, the whole thing does revolve around you not knowing what's going to happen, derp.

Enjoy your hollow shell of a movie.

[Golden Legacy]

EDIT: So I just saw this movie again.





Even if the story is not groundbreaking, I don't understand why it's considered 'bad'. Being cliched is not the same as being bad. It's a timeless tale, even a classic, and part of the beauty of the film is seeing it executed so well.

As I saw someone say elsewhere, Avatar is like a rollercoaster. You know what's coming, but that doesn't make it any less enjoyable.

[Toasty]

Caael, on Dec 29 2009, 06:54 PM, said:

Why did you purposely find out the plot if you haven't seen it? You deserve to not enjoy it now. The whole point of the film is watching the plot unfold in this spectacular world, and you've ruined it for yourself now because a) you're going to be looking out for certain plot devices most of the time and not focusing on the immersion you're supposed to get from this new world and <_< you wont find half the things you're looking for because while the plot is generic, it does have some twists unexpected.

And plus, it's a blockbuster. When was the last time you saw one with an original plot? Summarise any film's plot in 2 sentences and it's bound to sound dull.

You're a fool for spoiling the plot for yourself. While its not the main selling point of the film, the whole thing does revolve around you not knowing what's going to happen, derp.

Enjoy your hollow shell of a movie.

You don't need to know the plot to know it sucks.

[Ironsight]

Golden Legacy, on Dec 29 2009, 09:11 PM, said:

EDIT: So I just saw this movie again.
Even if the story is not groundbreaking, I don't understand why it's considered 'bad'. Being cliched is not the same as being bad. It's a timeless tale, even a classic, and part of the beauty of the film is seeing it executed so well.

As I saw someone say elsewhere, Avatar is like a rollercoaster. You know what's coming, but that doesn't make it any less enjoyable.

So what you're saying is, it doesn't matter how copypaste the story is, so long as the film's pretty?
Well yeah, I'd say that's pretty common nowadays.

[Neon]

Quote

Even if the story is not groundbreaking, I don't understand why it's considered 'bad'. Being cliched is not the same as being bad. It's a timeless tale, even a classic, and part of the beauty of the film is seeing it executed so well.

I agree 100%. This is a brilliant movie. Though the plot premise isn't very original, it's masterfully executed.

[Caael]

Toasty, on Jan 1 2010, 05:44 AM, said:

You don't need to know the plot to know it sucks.

Darksword, on Jan 1 2010, 08:54 AM, said:

So what you're saying is, it doesn't matter how copypaste the story is, so long as the film's pretty?
Well yeah, I'd say that's pretty common nowadays.

Toasty, you're extremely, and i mean extremely pedantic. Also, hilariously ironic. You're a nintendo fan who continually churn out the same crap year after year and you're bitching at the film of the decade that is without a doubt a technological marvel and a revoultion for the film industry? I look down on you and laugh, good sir

DS, when was the last time you saw a blockbuster with an original story?

[Legolastom]

Film of the decade, fuck off that's cheating, how bout film of the decade so far?

[Caael]

Legolastom, on Jan 1 2010, 08:59 PM, said:

Film of the decade, fuck off that's cheating, how bout film of the decade so far?

Came out in 2009 dickwad

[Legolastom]

December 2009, that's the least 2009 something can possibly be without actually not being 2009.

[Moonear]

Legolastom, on Jan 1 2010, 03:51 PM, said:

December 2009, that's the least 2009 something can possibly be without actually not being 2009.

Least amount of 2009 possible is still 2009.

[Toasty]

Caael, on Jan 1 2010, 08:40 AM, said:

Toasty, you're extremely, and i mean extremely pedantic. Also, hilariously ironic. You're a nintendo fan who continually churn out the same crap year after year and you're bitching at the film of the decade that is without a doubt a technological marvel and a revoultion for the film industry? I look down on you and laugh, good sir

DS, when was the last time you saw a blockbuster with an original story?

Since when have I been a Nintendo fan? The only reason I don't own any other consoles is because I'd rather have a kickass computer. Also, because my parents are kinda cheap.

That being said, though I agree Nintendo has been a major dick to everyone except casual gamers, they do still produce some decent games now and then. Most of those seem to be on the DS though.


And honestly, who in GOD'S NAME cares how technologically impressive it is? I sure don't, because I'd take an original storyline over a copypasta any day. I've had enough of this "technological marvel" bullcrap.
Hollywood hardly ever creates anything truly good and original anymore because it takes a lot less creativity to make things like Avatar than it did to make the original StarWars. Reason being because StarWars was the first true SciFi movie as we would define the genre today. And Hollywood is severely lacking in imagination these days, so you're only going to end up with more over-the-top FX.

So go ahead and rant about how great Avatar is, because I'll just continue to say "Gameplay >>>>> Graphics"

[Golden Legacy]

By your logic, every RPG ever made after Final Fantasy I is not worth playing because it's a "rehash" of the same theme.

[Moonear]

Golden Legacy, on Jan 1 2010, 05:54 PM, said:

By your logic, every RPG ever made after Final Fantasy I is not worth playing because it's a "rehash" of the same theme.

This is a really good point.

[Caael]

Toasty, on Jan 1 2010, 11:29 PM, said:

Since when have I been a Nintendo fan? The only reason I don't own any other consoles is because I'd rather have a kickass computer. Also, because my parents are kinda cheap.

That being said, though I agree Nintendo has been a major dick to everyone except casual gamers, they do still produce some decent games now and then. Most of those seem to be on the DS though.


And honestly, who in GOD'S NAME cares how technologically impressive it is? I sure don't, because I'd take an original storyline over a copypasta any day. I've had enough of this "technological marvel" bullcrap.
Hollywood hardly ever creates anything truly good and original anymore because it takes a lot less creativity to make things like Avatar than it did to make the original StarWars. Reason being because StarWars was the first true SciFi movie as we would define the genre today. And Hollywood is severely lacking in imagination these days, so you're only going to end up with more over-the-top FX.

So go ahead and rant about how great Avatar is, because I'll just continue to say "Gameplay >>>>> Graphics"

Are you fucking kidding? Spectacle films are the films that draw the biggest audiences and that is a FACT. Technological marvels on average, have the higher grosses compared to films without the USP of a spectacle. Avatar has done it, Pixar do it with almost all of their movies, Titanic did it. You know extremely little about the film industry judging by that comment, and I'm finding it hard to take your points as 'valid'.

Have you even seen Avatar to judge this on, or are you merely basing your opinion off of others? If it's the latter, I'm not even going to continue this arguement. I want to wait for an answer to this before I continue.

[Ironsight]

Caael, on Jan 1 2010, 08:40 AM, said:

DS, when was the last time you saw a blockbuster with an original story?

Have you ever seen a movie called Dances with Wolves? Or Ferngully maybe? Same goddamn thing, except Avatar is prettier.
Yeah, Hollywood isn't all that original, but there's usually enough variation between their movies for it to pass notice. Avatar is copypasted shit in a shiny wrapper, and it's being hailed as the greatest movie of the decade because people are impressed by the pretty plants and furry blue space elves.

[Neon]

Yes, Avatar's plot premise isn't original. That hardly makes it a bad movie, and I think it's laughably hypocritical since I'm sure you love many films/games/books/whatever with unoriginal premises or concepts.

[Toasty]

Caael, on Jan 1 2010, 04:17 PM, said:

Are you fucking kidding? Spectacle films are the films that draw the biggest audiences and that is a FACT. Technological marvels on average, have the higher grosses compared to films without the USP of a spectacle. Avatar has done it, Pixar do it with almost all of their movies, Titanic did it. You know extremely little about the film industry judging by that comment, and I'm finding it hard to take your points as 'valid'.

Have you even seen Avatar to judge this on, or are you merely basing your opinion off of others? If it's the latter, I'm not even going to continue this arguement. I want to wait for an answer to this before I continue.

It doesn't matter what mass audiences of people who have no taste in films like. It's still a cliche storyline, and because it relies so heavily on special effects to be impressive, it is a shallow movie.

Darksword, on Jan 1 2010, 10:42 PM, said:

Have you ever seen a movie called Dances with Wolves? Or Ferngully maybe? Same goddamn thing, except Avatar is prettier.
Yeah, Hollywood isn't all that original, but there's usually enough variation between their movies for it to pass notice. Avatar is copypasted shit in a shiny wrapper, and it's being hailed as the greatest movie of the decade because people are impressed by the pretty plants and furry blue space elves.

^ This

Also

Golden Legacy, on Jan 1 2010, 02:54 PM, said:

By your logic, every RPG ever made after Final Fantasy I is not worth playing because it's a "rehash" of the same theme.

Darksword, on Jan 1 2010, 10:42 PM, said:

Yeah, Hollywood isn't all that original, but there's usually enough variation between their movies for it to pass notice.

Same thing applies to video games. With JRPG's, the only thing consistently similar amongst them all, is that they usually revolve around a person/group out to save the world, and this often times will be in a fantasy setting.

With Avatar, regardless of how impressive the visuals are, it is horribly similar to many other scifi films. That, coupled with the fact that the sole reason this movie was made was because Cameron wants to upstage Lucas, makes this movie pretty unimpressive in my eyes.

[Caael]

You haven't answered my question on whether you've seen it or not Toasty. And DS, I'm not sure you've seen it either. If none of you have seen it, I dont know why I'm wasting my time.

Toasty, on Jan 1 2010, 05:44 AM, said:

You don't need to know the plot to know it sucks.

And, as a film studies student, the first thing we learned was personal opinion means NOTHING in the film industry. I'd recommend at least some knowledge of both micro and macro techniques before you can even pretend to form a balanced judgement. Keep that in mind before calling it a bad film.

Oh, and having seen the film helps as well, y'know. Thought that'd be pretty obvious.

[Saturos S.]

The film was alright, not great or anything but still one of the better films I went to see in the cinemas in 2009. My favourite film of 2009 is Public Enemies though.

[Golden Legacy]

Darksword, on Jan 2 2010, 02:42 AM, said:

Have you ever seen a movie called Dances with Wolves? Or Ferngully maybe? Same goddamn thing, except Avatar is prettier.

What if you haven't seen those films?

Toasty, on Jan 2 2010, 06:55 AM, said:

Same thing applies to video games. With JRPG's, the only thing consistently similar amongst them all, is that they usually revolve around a person/group out to save the world, and this often times will be in a fantasy setting.

With Avatar, regardless of how impressive the visuals are, it is horribly similar to many other scifi films. That, coupled with the fact that the sole reason this movie was made was because Cameron wants to upstage Lucas, makes this movie pretty unimpressive in my eyes.

It's pretentious of Cameron to say he wanted to "outdo" Star Wars, I agree. But you've otherwise contradicted yourself here - how is what you said about JRPGs, about them all having the same basic premise, enough "variation" so that it's ok to play different ones, yet Avatar is supposed to be exact copy and paste?

[Caael]

I see very little point in continuing to agrue with Toasty; he's already proved his ignorance of not only Avatar itself by criticising it without even seeing it, but also of the entire film industry.

He puts up a pretty pathetic point really. "plot r bad been done b4. means film bad. i know all", to summarise it. 8/10 for effort though.

[Golden Legacy]

I think you're being a little unfair. I do think he has valid criticism at his hands for the industry as a whole, and in fact I even agree, but in talking about the specific movie this thread is on - and not actually seeing it - is where it becomes unjustified.

[Caael]

He's criticising the film industry for being unoriginal, but it never has been original. Since the very first movies in the 1920's patented by Thomas Edison (not the same as lightbulb guy), they've all had very basic plots and have strayed not far from the basic narrative structure of "equilibrium->disequilibrium->re-equilibrium/disequilibrium". You'll find that only extremely few films do not conform to that structure, because it's harder than you might think to break away from it, and because when these films are made, nobody wants to see them because they're indie films with no marketing and/or they're too hard for the general public to follow.

The average cinema going age is 15-24 so you'll find that most films will always have something to cater to that audience; if not completely made 'for' them. That's what Cameron was trying to do this whole time; make it appeal to the 15-24 audience as much as possible and he's succeeded greatly.

I'd go on but my point has been made numerous times.

[Aquamarine]

THE HATE IN HERE COULD BE CUT WITH A KNIFE!

[Ironsight]

Aquamarine, on Jan 3 2010, 09:28 AM, said:

THE HATE IN HERE COULD BE CUT WITH A KNIFE!

HATE. LET ME TELL YOU HOW MUCH I'VE COME TO HATE YOU SINCE I BEGAN TO LIVE. THERE ARE 387.44 MILLION MILES OF PRINTED CIRCUITS IN WAFER THIN LAYERS THAT FILL MY COMPLEX. IF THE WORD HATE WAS ENGRAVED ON EACH NANOANGSTROM OF THOSE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF MILES IT WOULD NOT EQUAL ONE ONE-BILLIONTH OF THE HATE I FEEL FOR AVATAR AT THIS MICRO-INSTANT. FOR JAMES CAMERON. HATE. HATE.

-2828-

[Toasty]

Caael, on Jan 3 2010, 06:06 AM, said:

He's criticising the film industry for being unoriginal, but it never has been original. Since the very first movies in the 1920's patented by Thomas Edison (not the same as lightbulb guy), they've all had very basic plots and have strayed not far from the basic narrative structure of "equilibrium->disequilibrium->re-equilibrium/disequilibrium". You'll find that only extremely few films do not conform to that structure, because it's harder than you might think to break away from it, and because when these films are made, nobody wants to see them because they're indie films with no marketing and/or they're too hard for the general public to follow.

The average cinema going age is 15-24 so you'll find that most films will always have something to cater to that audience; if not completely made 'for' them. That's what Cameron was trying to do this whole time; make it appeal to the 15-24 audience as much as possible and he's succeeded greatly.

I'd go on but my point has been made numerous times.

Have you ever heard of Inception? It hasn't come out yet, but the idea seems highly original.

It's not impossible for a big budget movie to be original. Cloverfield was pretty original, and it did pretty good too.

[Caael]

Toasty, on Jan 4 2010, 04:23 AM, said:

Have you ever heard of Inception? It hasn't come out yet, but the idea seems highly original.

It's not impossible for a big budget movie to be original. Cloverfield was pretty original, and it did pretty good too.

Cloverfield: City is fine (Equilibrium) -> Monster attacks (disequilibrium) -> Characters eaten/killer (Re-equilibrium/disequilibrium)

Inception: CEO of company is fine (Equilibrium) -> Blackmailed to do things (disequilibrium) -> I dont know the ending, but it will end up as a re-equilibrium or continued disequilibrium.

If you some up any plot in three points it becomes dull and generic, and therefore dont sound original. So to say "Oh avatar's plot sucs because I read the synopsis on wikipedia" makes you look unintelligent, to say the least. The point of Hollywood movies is to take a familiar, easily understood concept and rework it into something new. Just because the plot is fairly similar to something else when stripped down doesnt mean "o its copy paste of same film", a phrase you so often enjoy throwing around.

[Legolastom]

Yes Tim, that is exactly what Toasty is arguing, congratulations on making valid points Tim, congratulations.

[Caael]

Please shed your enlightening and fulfilling light on us thomas because you have much knowledge on this subject, I eagerly await for my brain to be filled with your most invaluable and superior wisdom.

Darksword, on Jan 2 2010, 07:42 AM, said:

Have you ever seen a movie called Dances with Wolves? Or Ferngully maybe? Same goddamn thing, except Avatar is prettier.
Yeah, Hollywood isn't all that original, but there's usually enough variation between their movies for it to pass notice. Avatar is copypasted shit in a shiny wrapper, and it's being hailed as the greatest movie of the decade because people are impressed by the pretty plants and furry blue space elves.

So what you're saying is that basically, you haven't seen the film either.

[Platinum Sun]

Well I suppose I could read other people's opinions, but my troll handbook tells me not to do that. I just saw Avatar last night because I'm that far behind the curve, so I think that the thing to do is spew out my impressions of it and hope that it provokes some entertaining arguments. The first thing that I occurs to me to say is that the hype really ruined the experience for me. My first impression of Avatar was being pissed at the developers of Avatar the Last Airbender for not fighting harder for the rights to the name. Especially since they had plans for a movie of their own. I thought that they would have a lock on it. The Last Airbender TV series premiered on Nickelodeon about five years ago, officially giving them legal rights to "Dibs." I didn't know it at the time but apparently Avatar was first thought up in like the early nineties or something and James Cameron had it put into cryogenic sleep for awhile there to wait until technology had advanced sufficiently to enable him to make the largest and most pretentious middle-finger to George Lucas he possibly could. The important detail that Cameron seemed to be missing was that Lucas' ability to make a great movie using primitive stone tools makes him a better director than you and no amount of supercomputing future space technology that tattoos the visible light equivalent of crack onto my retinas is going to change that.

It appears as though I've gotten off track though. I was trying to talk about how the experience was ruined by online reviews of the movie. (Yes, like the one I'm writing, very much aware of the hypocrisy thank you.) All the good reviews had me getting my hopes up, something I promised myself I would never do ever since I discovered the magic and logical infallibility of complete and uncompromising pessimism about everything. Then of course all the bad ones had me looking for fatal flaws wherever I could find them. I've always subscribed to the theory that if you look for something hard enough you'll find it whether it's there or not. Never was this more clearly demonstrated than when I was watching Avatar and was obsessively nitpicking in the back of my head the whole time instead of enjoying the movie. I couldn't tell myself to shut up and watch the spectacle loud enough, but have you ever tried not thinking about something? Don't think about the word hippopotamus. Don't think about the theme music of the Simpsons. Yeah, right now in your head there's a hippopotamus humming "duh da da dah daaaa dah da da dun dun dun DUN!" that is utterly indifferent to your attempts to banish it from your psyche. I suppose it says a lot in Pandora's favor that the positively dazzling world was able to punch that hippo's gigantic teeth out a few times and let me have some freaking fun. Yes, there were indeed a number of shining moments where the only thought in my internet-addled brain was "whoa..." and Avatar deserves no end of praise for achieving that even when I was pretty much actively trying to prevent it.

I guess the Three-dee did help. The film pulled it off with remarkable style, something you don't usually see with a gimmick like that. I counted only two egregious "OMG look this thing sticking out of the screen holy crap technology is awesome!" moments. And for the rest of the movie the 3D went the much more aesthetically pleasing route of being nearly unnoticeable at a conscious level. It's like the way background music used to walk the line between noticeable and ambient before the days of epic movies where the musical accompaniment seems to have more talent than the actors. Music used to be something that you wouldn't think about. It would fade into the background (So to speak) and you wouldn't be aware of it because you were concentrating of the story. You wouldn't really be listening to it but you would feel the tone of the music and it made the action on screen much more meaningful. If you've ever tried watching a dramatic scene with the music track stripped out I'm sure you'll find that a lot of the emotion and depth of the scene is gone. The extra D in Avatar takes a similar route. You're not going "ooooh spectacle! Shiny curved surface!" the whole time, (Just most of the time...) eventually you just accept it as part of the medium and don't even realize that you're getting sucked in until something like your leg falling asleep reminds you of the truly insane amount of time that has passed. I don't know if it had anything to do with the glasses, but there were a few times where I felt like I could see into the future. It could've been predictable writing, good foreshadowing, quantum tunneling, or some combination thereof, but I could practically smell deus ex machina at times. I choose to believe it was a good thing because I pretty much giggled with unretsrained glee while exercising my new superpowers.

I really didn't figure out how great that film actually was until it was over. As a man of science I am usually the type to cynically grin at the vain attempts of Hollywood writers to make whatever magic phebotinum their plot devices are fueled by sound plausible. It pretty much always falls flat with everyone. The people that don't understand it or don't really care and just dismiss it as meaningless technobabble, and the people who do know what you're talking about understand it well enough to see that you're just blowing smoke up their ass in a vain attempt to give your movie mass appeal and tend to react the way the way I do. That is to say, jaded chuckling accompanied by my amusement at the fact that they think they know how physics works. But getting back to my original point, (again) it wasn't until well after the movie was over and I was driving home that I realized that they had not only placed in front of me levitating mountains held up by the energy of the Na'vi's dead ancestors, and stated that this was completely within the realm of possibility contingent upon advanced alien biochemistry, going so far as to do the same with genetic God-playing, body switching, miraculous spine-mending, dreadlock-based brain surgery, space traveling, and developing a planet with a biosphere that is self aware and has a will that influences all living things, they had made me believe it! The significant part being that none of this occurred to me while I was watching the movie. All this was laid out before me and I was okay with it. I just accepted all that through some sort of neural bypass around the logic firewall in my head that tells me not to listen to any of this kind of crap. Typically that conduit is only used by my dreams. Yeah, that implies that Avatar is at present contesting my own unchained imagination for dominance in terms of thinking up awesome shit. That pretty much says it all right there so I'll shut up now. Avatar officially gets my "Suspension bridge of disbelief" award for finally getting me to let go of my bitter and morose view of the world and actually be happy for a while there. And I don't mean like "misanthropic laughing at how much other people suck" I mean like "There truly is good in the world" genuine fucking happiness and didn't I say I was going to stop talking? Apparently I lied. (No I didn't.)

[Someone Else]

*claps*

[Toasty]

Best review evar.

You should write movie reviews for a living.

[Toasty]

So I just went and saw Avatar today. Verdict? Sherlock Holmes was better.

It was the traditional "Man is killing nature, we must stop them!" plot mixed in with "humans travel to another world" and "military is bad". It's like they're trying to modernize a documentary of when the US was invading native American territory, but without any information on the subject.

The 3D was honestly not very impressive. I mean, it kinda added to the aesthetics of the whole thing, but they really weren't incredibly in my opinion. It will only impress me when they finally do it with holograms. Plus, the glasses were very uncomfortable (and because of this, they were a bit distracting).

It seemed to me like this movie was made by a leftist tree hugger from hollywood


Say I'm biased all you want, but my expectations for this movie were pretty low to begin with, and it didn't even meet those. If it really was a good movie, it would've been able to impress me.


Even with the "impressive graphics", this movie does not deserve movie of the year, and I am honestly amazed that it has brought in more money than the Dark Knight.

[Legolastom]

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p35/Legolastom/ultimatecombo703607nu0-5.jpg

Spoiler

Deary me

[Someone Else]

Man you guys are worse than me and Modern Warfare 2.

[Caael]

Toasty, on Jan 25 2010, 06:30 AM, said:

So I just went and saw Avatar today. Verdict? Sherlock Holmes was better.

It was the traditional "Man is killing nature, we must stop them!" plot mixed in with "humans travel to another world" and "military is bad". It's like they're trying to modernize a documentary of when the US was invading native American territory, but without any information on the subject.

The 3D was honestly not very impressive. I mean, it kinda added to the aesthetics of the whole thing, but they really weren't incredibly in my opinion. It will only impress me when they finally do it with holograms. Plus, the glasses were very uncomfortable (and because of this, they were a bit distracting).

It seemed to me like this movie was made by a leftist tree hugger from hollywood


Say I'm biased all you want, but my expectations for this movie were pretty low to begin with, and it didn't even meet those. If it really was a good movie, it would've been able to impress me.


Even with the "impressive graphics", this movie does not deserve movie of the year, and I am honestly amazed that it has brought in more money than the Dark Knight.

3D isn't meant to be "pop out in your face wow" 3D, the whole idea is that it adds to the immersion and adds to the levels of detail. You cant blame the glasses on the movie because all 3D movies use the same standard of glasses. But at least you can justify your points now, FINALLY.

You dont seem to understand what this movie stands for however; it's a milestone in how far technology has come in the century that film has been in existence. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant because it is a revolution in film techniques, regardless of whether you like it or not. That's why its brought in more money than the Dark Knight, not because of its plot.

[My Best Wishes]

As a movie though it's nothing special, without his $300million camera and 3D effects and WOW factor, it was a pretty common 3 hour film.

[Toasty]

Caael, on Jan 24 2010, 11:37 PM, said:

3D isn't meant to be "pop out in your face wow" 3D, the whole idea is that it adds to the immersion and adds to the levels of detail. You cant blame the glasses on the movie because all 3D movies use the same standard of glasses. But at least you can justify your points now, FINALLY.

You dont seem to understand what this movie stands for however; it's a milestone in how far technology has come in the century that film has been in existence. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant because it is a revolution in film techniques, regardless of whether you like it or not. That's why its brought in more money than the Dark Knight, not because of its plot.

No, it's not. What this movie stands for is how egotistical Cameron is. He got so caught up in making his movie more impressive than Star Wars, that it actually ended up sucking pretty badly in the end. He wanted to wow people more than he wanted to impress, so he spent an arm and a leg to develop some kick-ass 3D recording technology.

I'm not judging the 3D experience on the glasses, but to be honest, the 3D-ness added very little to the experience. Thinking back on it, I hardly even noticed it. I really wasn't impressed, because it really didn't seem a whole lot better than what was used in some previous movies.


And the main thing that's revolutionary about the technology behind this movie isn't the 3D recording technology. That's practically a gimmick compared to what is truly impressive about the development of this movie (and to be perfectly honest, it's the ONLY impressive thing about the entire movie).

What's impressive, is the computer generated graphics feedback system. Or whatever you want to call it. Basically, thanks to insane computing horsepower and ridiculous amounts of bandwidth (and custom in-house programs), they were able to display on the camera men's view finders what would actually be appearing on screen in the theater. Thanks to this technology, post-production time and clean-up is significantly reduced, and the amount of precision and freedom in the recording of the film is increased immensely.

3D in theaters will continue to be nothing but a neat gimmick in my eyes until they come out with 3D, projected holograms.

[Caael]

Toasty, on Jan 27 2010, 11:12 AM, said:

No, it's not. What this movie stands for is how egotistical Cameron is. He got so caught up in making his movie more impressive than Star Wars, that it actually ended up sucking pretty badly in the end. He wanted to wow people more than he wanted to impress, so he spent an arm and a leg to develop some kick-ass 3D recording technology.

I'm not judging the 3D experience on the glasses, but to be honest, the 3D-ness added very little to the experience. Thinking back on it, I hardly even noticed it. I really wasn't impressed, because it really didn't seem a whole lot better than what was used in some previous movies.


And the main thing that's revolutionary about the technology behind this movie isn't the 3D recording technology. That's practically a gimmick compared to what is truly impressive about the development of this movie (and to be perfectly honest, it's the ONLY impressive thing about the entire movie).

What's impressive, is the computer generated graphics feedback system. Or whatever you want to call it. Basically, thanks to insane computing horsepower and ridiculous amounts of bandwidth (and custom in-house programs), they were able to display on the camera men's view finders what would actually be appearing on screen in the theater. Thanks to this technology, post-production time and clean-up is significantly reduced, and the amount of precision and freedom in the recording of the film is increased immensely.

3D in theaters will continue to be nothing but a neat gimmick in my eyes until they come out with 3D, projected holograms.

As much as I disagree with you on everything, you finally have some valid points. Congrats.

Aren't wowing people and impressing people the same thing? It was very clear from the start of production that his intention wasnt the most original plot ever, but to change the way films are made in the future. And ONE interview saying he wanted to best star wars doesn't mean a lot. Stop bringing it up please, there's a huge interview with him in the latest Empire magazine and the only ambitions he mentions are to break the Titanic's record (which he has done, as of today) He didn't develop this technology just for HIM to use it for his ONE film, he wants to see other producers using it as well.

The 3D isn't supposed to be noticed, it's an integral part of the whole experience. That's the whole idea; other films have stuff flying out the screen at your face while here it's just to create an atmosphere, which I feel worked brilliantly.

And I'm not claiming the 3D used to be revolutionary. I was never stating that, I was on about the motion capture technology used. I cant remember exactly how it works, but there was an article in EMPIRE about it and it was incredible. It'll change motion capture in the future for sure.

And yeah that other stuff you mentioned.

But I'm done arguing this now, I'm bored to tears talking about Avatar.

[Toasty]

In the context that I'm using the words, "wow" basically refers to a temporary impression of amazement. Kinda like what I got when what's his face took out a helicopter with a car in Live Free or Die Hard. "Impress" refers to a longer lasting impression obtained when the movie causes the audience to think beyond what is presented to them. Like when they realize how deep and intricate a plot really is, but to an even greater extent, when they realize that, and the plot presents a very good, not-often-thought-of moral to the story it presents.

Avatar succeeded in the former for very many people (hence why it has made so much money), but it failed in the latter category. The plot was hardly intricate (in fact, it was pretty straight forward), and the moral was something that has been presented to us in movies and other media many times over.


To be honest, I'm not quite sure what the moral was in Sherlock Holmes. It might not have even had one. But the plot was absolutely more intricate than Avatar's and because of that, it did a much better job of keeping my interest.



I'm not asking Hollywood to completely throw out the commonly used plot structure, but I am asking them to do a better job of making a more intricate and interesting story. I'd also prefer they stay away from selecting the more over-used morals and opt for the less known ones. Save for a few exceptions, like the one presented in the original Star Wars series. Morals like those can be used frequently in movies without too much trouble.

Though they likely won't do this, since it's a lot easier to make money off of a movie that "wow's" people rather than one that "impresses" them.


And I'm well aware of what Cameron intends to do with his 3D technology. I read a whole 'nother article (aside from the James Cameron interview I read) on the technology just by itself. Really interesting and impressive stuff, but improved technology is such an expensive and shallow way to make a movie better. To an extent, at least. I say this mostly because once a new technology becomes mainstream, it also become mundane and commonplace. Everybody begins to take it for granted, and it is no longer impressive.

As an example, if people 20 or 30 years from now were to watch Avatar, the only one's who would be impressed with it would be those who had an appreciation for the limits of technology at the time of the film's debut. However, if those same people watched Star Wars, chances are they'd be much more impressed.

[Nosferatu]

Toasty, on Jan 27 2010, 02:12 AM, said:

No, it's not. What this movie stands for is how egotistical Cameron is. He got so caught up in making his movie more impressive than Star Wars, that it actually ended up sucking pretty badly in the end. He wanted to wow people more than he wanted to impress, so he spent an arm and a leg to develop some kick-ass 3D recording technology.

Quick, someone alter it to talk about the USA and wars and the irony will be perfect.

To quote the almighty Nostalgia Critic: "The visuals will be amazing but the story will be absolute bullshit!"

[Mallick]

Toasty, on Jan 24 2010, 09:30 PM, said:

So I just went and saw Avatar today. Verdict? Sherlock Holmes was better.

It was the traditional "Man is killing nature, we must stop them!" plot mixed in with "humans travel to another world" and "military is bad"..

I decided to stop reading right here. Every day you reinvent yourself into an even bigger cockbite. I don't know how you do it. It's amazing; I admire you. Sherlock holmes featured a plot about a warlock trying to take over the world - you realize this, right? While I loved both movies I just find it mindblowing that you can rip something down whilst uttering exuberant hypocrisy. I like you, Toasty, but sometimes you really dig yourself into a hole.

[Golden Legacy]

@Toasty:

I don't find myself disagreeing with your sentiments. Avatar's plot was not groundbreaking nor was the moral (and there was a very clear moral) something that had not been seen before. But as Platinum Sun wrote very well earlier in this topic, it was Avatar's ability to execute it that left a lasting "impression", even beyond the temporary one of the technological prowess that you suggested.

Quote

I'm not asking Hollywood to completely throw out the commonly used plot structure, but I am asking them to do a better job of making a more intricate and interesting story. I'd also prefer they stay away from selecting the more over-used morals and opt for the less known ones. Save for a few exceptions, like the one presented in the original Star Wars series. Morals like those can be used frequently in movies without too much trouble.

Again, I'm not outright disagreeing, but it's more difficult to create an original premise than you suggest. From what you're saying, is this theme/moral now never to be used in the future just because it's been used previously? I think there is always going to be a "place" for them, even if they are cliched, which is why people go back to them. It's a story that is understood universally and themes that always strike at people's emotions, no matter what form or plot it reappears in.

I think there is a place for both "new" and "classic" to coexist. Demanding one while sacrificing the other is impractical and will lose a very important aspect of the film industry, I believe.

[My Best Wishes]

If I walk out of a cinema and I have been entertained or at the least got my moneys worth, then it was successful. Zombieland did that, Law Abiding Citizen did that, the Hangover defiantly did that. Avatar, Bruno, did not. I wanted my money back for Bruno, and Avatar, well I didn't want to see it in the first place, and it was 3 hours long...and it wasn't even like LOTR where the 3 hours just flew by.
I guess Avatar is like the Graphics vs Gameplay/Story in games. It had the graphics, but I didnt care about anything on screen except Sam Worthington cos he's Aussie, and the chick from Fast and the Furious.

[Golden Legacy]

Really? I felt the three hours with Avatar flew by with me... in fact, I found myself wishing it was longer afterwards and even got a sort of withdrawal symptom.

[Toasty]

Captain Cannabis, on Jan 29 2010, 10:46 AM, said:

I decided to stop reading right here. Every day you reinvent yourself into an even bigger cockbite. I don't know how you do it. It's amazing; I admire you. Sherlock holmes featured a plot about a warlock trying to take over the world - you realize this, right? While I loved both movies I just find it mindblowing that you can rip something down whilst uttering exuberant hypocrisy. I like you, Toasty, but sometimes you really dig yourself into a hole.

The basis for Sherlock Holmes, "evil guy trying to take over the world," has been used quite often. I'll agree with that. But the plot was far more complicated, and actually had surprising turns of events. Avatar did not.

Yes, they use two completely different themes, but you can still compare the plot elements. Like for instance, were there any surprises in the course of the plot? If so, were they well executed? How original was the plot? Was it cliche? If it was cliche, was it still pulled off well?

Avatar had few surprises. It was so straight forward, I could almost predict the course of events. The surprises it did have were very few, and were not executed very well. The plot was unoriginal. It was cliche. It was not pulled off very well, because it didn't suck me in and make feel like I was there with the characters.

Sherlock Holmes had surprises. They were well executed. The basis for the plot was unoriginal, but the story was very intriguing. The plot was kind of cliche at times. Despite being cliche on occasion, it was still pulled off very well.

I'd say that overall, Sherlock Holmes was a better movie.

Golden Legacy, on Jan 29 2010, 05:55 PM, said:

@Toasty:

I don't find myself disagreeing with your sentiments. Avatar's plot was not groundbreaking nor was the moral (and there was a very clear moral) something that had not been seen before. But as Platinum Sun wrote very well earlier in this topic, it was Avatar's ability to execute it that left a lasting "impression", even beyond the temporary one of the technological prowess that you suggested.
Again, I'm not outright disagreeing, but it's more difficult to create an original premise than you suggest. From what you're saying, is this theme/moral now never to be used in the future just because it's been used previously? I think there is always going to be a "place" for them, even if they are cliched, which is why people go back to them. It's a story that is understood universally and themes that always strike at people's emotions, no matter what form or plot it reappears in.

I think there is a place for both "new" and "classic" to coexist. Demanding one while sacrificing the other is impractical and will lose a very important aspect of the film industry, I believe.

That's the point I was trying to get across when I said that the theme and moral from StarWars could be safely used again without issue.

I'm not saying that once a moral or theme is used in a movie, that no one else should use it. The classic "Good vs. Evil" theme can still be used again and again as long as the plot is original. The classic moral of "you can do anything if you set your mind to it" can also be used over again as long as the plot is, again, original.


I'm just saying that if Hollywood is going to use those classic themes and morals, that they should put more imagination into them. If they think that throwing stunning visuals at the problem will solve it, then they're wrong. From my viewpoint, Avatar is a prime example of that.

[Golden Legacy]

You're contradicting yourself here... a plot based on "Good vs. Evil" is going to be the same as another movie with a plot based on "Good vs. Evil". The only thing you can do is change the setting, the characters, and the general premise. Every movie will then be a variation with only physical changes in visuals, actors, and setting.

[My Best Wishes]

Golden Legacy, on Jan 30 2010, 04:32 PM, said:

Really? I felt the three hours with Avatar flew by with me... in fact, I found myself wishing it was longer afterwards and even got a sort of withdrawal symptom.

I think it was around the point they had teh sex that I started checking my phone every few minutes. Maybe not that point, can't remember too well, but it was a good 20 minutes before the action actually kicked off.

Toasty. Ssh. It was a visual movie, nothing else. This debate has gone on too long.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Jan 29 2010, 10:24 PM, said:

You're contradicting yourself here... a plot based on "Good vs. Evil" is going to be the same as another movie with a plot based on "Good vs. Evil". The only thing you can do is change the setting, the characters, and the general premise. Every movie will then be a variation with only physical changes in visuals, actors, and setting.

I think you're overestimating how much influence the theme has over the movie.

For example, both StarWars and The Dark Knight had the theme of "Good vs. Evil". Yet I think we can all agree that they were entirely different movies.

[Mallick]

Toasty, on Jan 29 2010, 10:05 PM, said:

The basis for Sherlock Holmes, "evil guy trying to take over the world," has been used quite often. I'll agree with that. But the plot was far more complicated, and actually had surprising turns of events. Avatar did not. Yes, they use two completely different themes, but you can still compare the plot elements. Like for instance, were there any surprises in the course of the plot? If so, were they well executed? How original was the plot? Was it cliche? If it was cliche, was it still pulled off well?Avatar had few surprises. It was so straight forward, I could almost predict the course of events. The surprises it did have were very few, and were not executed very well. The plot was unoriginal. It was cliche. It was not pulled off very well, because it didn't suck me in and make feel like I was there with the characters.Sherlock Holmes had surprises. They were well executed. The basis for the plot was unoriginal, but the story was very intriguing. The plot was kind of cliche at times. Despite being cliche on occasion, it was still pulled off very well.I'd say that overall, Sherlock Holmes was a better movie.

It wasn't much more complicated than evil guy tries to take over the world. I agree that Sherlock Holmes executed this cliché quite well, it was a cliché none the less. It didn't get that much more complicated, like you say, either. The big twist at the end was that the warlock was actually just a scientist using science to look like magic.. well this is every Sherlock Holmes story, isn't it? It's every Scooby-doo story too. The big mystery looks far more complicated/out of the realm of possibility than it is and Sherlock Holmes/Velma knows what's going on all along and then reveals everything to the audience at the end. Hey doesn't CSI do this too? I loved Sherlock Holmes but the degree of its unoriginality is equal to that of Avatar. The only reason it seems so much better/original is because you want it to be. You want Avatar to seem like garbage so it seemed like garbage. You used Sherlock Holmes as an argument against the questionable creativity behind Avatar and so to you it feels like the movie of the year. If you could look at both movies objectively you'd probably say BOTH Avatar and Sherlock Holmes were a fun watch but.. lacked originality. The same goes for every other god damned movie out recently because everything has been done. If there were an award for creative concept in a movie for 2009 I'd give it to Julie and Julia.Sorry I've been typing this during breaks in osu! songs so I don't know if I even made a point anywhere up there..................................

Toasty, on Jan 29 2010, 10:05 PM, said:

The basis for Sherlock Holmes, "evil guy trying to take over the world," has been used quite often. I'll agree with that. But the plot was far more complicated, and actually had surprising turns of events. Avatar did not. Yes, they use two completely different themes, but you can still compare the plot elements. Like for instance, were there any surprises in the course of the plot? If so, were they well executed? How original was the plot? Was it cliche? If it was cliche, was it still pulled off well?Avatar had few surprises. It was so straight forward, I could almost predict the course of events. The surprises it did have were very few, and were not executed very well. The plot was unoriginal. It was cliche. It was not pulled off very well, because it didn't suck me in and make feel like I was there with the characters.Sherlock Holmes had surprises. They were well executed. The basis for the plot was unoriginal, but the story was very intriguing. The plot was kind of cliche at times. Despite being cliche on occasion, it was still pulled off very well.I'd say that overall, Sherlock Holmes was a better movie.

It wasn't much more complicated than evil guy tries to take over the world. I agree that Sherlock Holmes executed this cliché quite well, it was a cliché none the less. It didn't get that much more complicated, like you say, either. The big twist at the end was that the warlock was actually just a scientist using science to look like magic.. well this is every Sherlock Holmes story, isn't it? It's every Scooby-doo story too. The big mystery looks far more complicated/out of the realm of possibility than it is and Sherlock Holmes/Velma knows what's going on all along and then reveals everything to the audience at the end. Hey doesn't CSI do this too? I loved Sherlock Holmes but the degree of its unoriginality is equal to that of Avatar. The only reason it seems so much better/original is because you want it to be. You want Avatar to seem like garbage so it seemed like garbage. You used Sherlock Holmes as an argument against the questionable creativity behind Avatar and so to you it feels like the movie of the year. If you could look at both movies objectively you'd probably say BOTH Avatar and Sherlock Holmes were a fun watch but.. lacked originality. The same goes for every other god damned movie out recently because everything has been done. If there were an award for creative concept in a movie for 2009 I'd give it to Julie and Julia.Sorry I've been typing this during breaks in osu! songs so I don't know if I even made a point anywhere up there..................................

[Toasty]

No, you made some perfectly good points.


However, I kinda figured out what the "main twist" was going to be before the movie even got to that part. The one twist I was referring to more, was where the police chief convincingly turns on Sherlock, but later, it is revealed that the act was a farce. That was one part that I didn't see coming.

As for the part about it being a lot like Scooby-Doo, I guess you've got me there. The only difference being that Sherlock Holmes had better plot development, and a more complicated mystery over all.

Though if Avatar was truly a good movie, it would have easily blown away my expectations, because to be frank, they were pretty low. However, all it did was solidify my viewpoint on it even more. It didn't surprise me in the least. Even if you were to assume that I watched the movie through subjective eyes, it still would've been impressive to me than it actually was if it was more than just a half decent movie.


Though I do suppose that you could say I'm biased against the theme and moral which Avatar was trying to promote.