Avatar

Post by **yovargas** » Sat Jan 02, 2010 5:12 pm

I suppose "killing people to take their stuff is bad" could be seen as a political message. Not one much worth thinking about though.

The visual effects everyone keeps raving about were pretty at best, and gaudy at worst.

Thank goodness, someone who agrees with me!

Post by **River** » Sat Jan 02, 2010 5:19 pm

My brother and sister make me look like a right-winger. They're refusing to see the movie because of it's politics - they both feel that, because one of the heroes is a human in a Na'vi body, an invading outsider who goes native, it's too colonial. Honestly, I'm not sure what sort of story in that setting would please either of them - if the natives threw off the humans all by themselves, they'd probably be whining that the natives looked like violent savages. I'm mentioning this just case you thought the politicization of Avatar was one-sided.

Post by **Crucifer** » Sat Jan 02, 2010 8:43 pm

I suppose "killing people to take their stuff is bad" could be seen as a political message. Not one much worth thinking about though.

My point exactly. The 'politics' in this are nothing more than Montessori school lessons, or the song "The more we get together" from Barney. You may as well say that Riverdance has a political message because it shows dance styles from several different cultures integrated. It's just a spectacle, and not a very good one at that!

The visual effects everyone keeps raving about were pretty at best, and gaudy at worst.
Thank goodness, someone who agrees with me!

I think we're in the minority, Yov.

Post by **yovargas** » Sat Jan 02, 2010 10:05 pm

I know we're in the minority.

Post by **vison** » Sat Jan 02, 2010 10:15 pm

I liked the movie a lot. I don't think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it's a cool movie.

I have not much in the way of artistic sensibility, I guess. I was really impressed by the world of Pandora - it might have been too colourful and cheezy, but by gum, it was REAL.

Post by **yovargas** » Sat Jan 02, 2010 10:19 pm

I mainly kept thinking how far better looking LOTR was despite Avatar's clear tech advantage...

Post by **Padme** » Sat Jan 02, 2010 10:22 pm

Most of my Navajo friends liked the political message a lot. The we're taking your stuff is fairly fresh in their cultural memories. I think it's important that this message continues to be harped on, because apparently we still haven't learned it. But I agree it is a very worn message.

The eye candy is best thing in the movie, the acting sure wasn't.

Yov,
I was thinking how much improved the Hobbit movies are going to be with the tech available.

Post by **Elentári** » Sat Jan 02, 2010 10:22 pm

Yov wrote:

I mainly kept thinking how far better looking LOTR was despite Avatar's clear tech advantage...

Ah...you can't beat actual location shooting (even if the finished result is enhanced

)

Post by **vison** » Sat Jan 02, 2010 10:22 pm

yovargas wrote:I mainly kept thinking how far better looking LOTR was despite Avatar's clear tech advantage...

The scenery in LOTR was all real Earth stuff. The sets? Wanna talka bout cheezy? Rivendell? Minas Tirith as seen from the plain? Ugh. I mean, UGH. Moria was great, Meduseld was great, Bag End was great. But it will be long, long even in the measurement of the Eldar, before I forget the cheeze that was Rivendell . . . .

Post by **Elentári** » Sat Jan 02, 2010 10:25 pm

I loved the art nouveau aesthetics of movie Rivendell...but I agree it wasn't the Rivendell in the books...

Post by **Padme** » Sat Jan 02, 2010 10:25 pm

Vison

To me Rivendell looked like a painted back drop from some 50's movie. It could have been spectacular. Don't even get me started on the armies of the dead....who ya gonna call? Ghostbusters.

Post by **vison** » Sat Jan 02, 2010 10:27 pm

Padme wrote: Vison

To me Rivendell looked like a painted back drop from some 50's movie. It could have been spectacular. Don't even get me started on the armies of the dead....who ya gonna call? Ghostbusters.

Oh, dear. I suspect some of us are going to be smote.

Post by **Padme** » Sat Jan 02, 2010 10:30 pm

only by the movie fans.

I liked Rivendell plenty, but it could have been so much more. So. Much. More. I was totally disappointed in Grey Haven, totally. Even being abandoned like it was it should have been something more....

This is why I think the technology that is in Avatar will be helpful in the upcoming movies.

But hey I thought GdT's Pan's stuff was pretty damn good.

Post by **yovargas** » Sat Jan 02, 2010 10:41 pm

How bout Minas Tirith, or the Towers, or Lothlórien, or Minas Morgul or....um, every other location in LOTR, which were all way more beautiful to look at than anything in Avatar. IMO!

But, more controversial, even the creature designs were far more interesting. Avatar didn't have a lot of creatures compared to LOTR but Avatar's rhino-things weren't nearly as cool looking as PJ's elephant things, and neither of Avatar's flying creatures could hold a candle to how great the Nazgûl's winged creatures looked or the Eagles. Not to mention the Navi themselves who looked very real but also look pretty silly with their bright-pastel-blue skin; slightly less real Gollum was a far more visually interesting creature.

Ents FTW!

Post by **Elentári** » Sat Jan 02, 2010 10:54 pm

I think a major success of LotR was the way everything was made to feel more or less believable - with a few exceptions, obviously...but for the first time a fantasy film was able to convince a much wider audience to buy into its premise. Middle-earth felt real!

Post by **Padme** » Sat Jan 02, 2010 11:03 pm

yovargas wrote:How bout Minas Tirith, or the Towers, or Lothlórien, or Minas Morgul or....um, every other location in LOTR, which were all way more beautiful to look at than anything in Avatar. IMO!

But, more controversial, even the creature designs were far more interesting. Avatar didn't have a lot of creatures compared to LOTR but Avatar's rhino-things weren't nearly as cool looking as PJ's elephant things, and neither of Avatar's flying creatures could hold a candle to how great the Nazgûl's winged creatures looked or the Eagles. Not to mention the Navi themselves who looked very real but also look pretty silly with their bright-pastel-blue skin; slightly less real Gollum was a far more visually interesting creature.

Ents FTW!

We're going to agree to disagree. I was thinking how much better the wargs were going to look with advanced technology. I thought the rhino things were really well done. I also thought the Navi were better done than Gollum and I like Gollum. I also thought Pan's creatures were very good. Gollum was more interesting as a character because he had a better backbone story writer.

But I imagine in 20 years they will all be like watching A New Hope, most of us (as there are people who really hate all Star Wars stuff) thought it was cutting edge and cool at the time, now well it looks really dated and old.

Post by **yovargas** » Sat Jan 02, 2010 11:18 pm

Padme wrote:I thought the rhino things were really well done. I also thought the Navi were better done than Gollum and I like Gollum.

I'm not questioning that Avatar's weren't well-done in the sense of looking realistic, I'm saying they were realistic and boring. The creature's designs were unimaginative and forgettable and good design is ultimately far more important than better tech.

Post by **vison** » Sat Jan 02, 2010 11:26 pm

yovargas, you and I are, sadly, doomed to disagree. How shall I survive?

I didn't think the Pandorean critters were boring, and besides, they weren't that big in the story, when you get right down to it. The Na'vi themselves were excellent, and I think they were very cool.

I always thought Gollum was dreadful. It never looked, not for one second, like a real being. NEVER. I truly, without sarcasm, think the part should have been played by Andy Serkis.

As for the Oliphaunts? *gag* Elephants with makeup on. Big deal. And please don't get me started on the stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, boring, tedious, tiring, crappy, dumb, endless, numbingly inane battle with hordes of herds of Oliphaunts and that idiotic bit with Legolas. Ack. Words fail me.

Post by **sauronsfinger** » Sat Jan 02, 2010 11:33 pm

There were no real sets in AVATAR to compare with what we saw in LOTR. I agree with yovargas that the environs of Middle Earth were far more impressive. Like Elentári said - it was believable. AVATAR was not at all believable.

I loved the sets..... Barad-dûr, Minas Morgul, Rivendell, Minas Tirith, Helms Deep, Weathertop, Osgiliath, The Black Gates, Hobbiton and especially the Grey Havens which I thought was truly amazing. I would love to have a model of that to go along with my others. When I saw the giant model of the Barad-dûr in Boston I kept thinking "how do I get this out of here". It was only after many minutes of plotting that I figured I could not get something over twenty feet high under my jacket.

Post by **Nin** » Sat Jan 02, 2010 11:36 pm

I liked Gollum, because he was a good character. And there was a good actor behind him. The Na'vi are not characters. And Avatar has no acting, even when the humans are themselves.

Padme, you know when I watch "A New hope" (or King-Kong 1939 or Jurassic Parc), I still think that it is mighty cool, because there is a good story. Avatar is visually stunning (and the 3D did it for me!), but the story line is

. But that's what I expected from Cameron and it's the problem with many movies which are written by directors whose job is not story-telling.