Is anyone excited about the movie "Avatar"?

[mores]

Originally Posted by NormHart

*fullquote*

What he said!

I am easily contented when it comes to movies, but not easily impressed. I mentioned my feeling of OHMYGODTHISMOVIERULES in another thread

But am I the only one who thinks that the concept of a planet being a "network" where its inhabitants can link up is a pretty interesting one? As far as I know, this has not been done before so I would call it pretty original, despite it being a "humans bad, aliens good" film.

3D worked amazingly well, it was nice and subtle and rarely caused eye strain. The only thing that didn't work out were depth-of-field combined with 3D ... trying to focus on a blured background that somehow has a 3D effect added does kind of hurt.

Edit: I went to an IMAX 3D show. I just read the post where there seems to be a "normal 3D" version too. This movie might just be one of those where I actually pay to watch it twice.

Oh, and I HATE it when people clap, whoop, cheer, or even breathe loudly. I regularly have phantasies of smacking people when they annoy me. I don't, of course, because I am too chicken to suffer the consequences. But I haven't been to a cinema theatre in a while because I just can't enjoy a film when I hear people discussing the movie while watching it. This time I went to see a 5pm show (less people, and less drunk people) AND watched the more expensive 3D edition which, I think, filtered out the idiots and made sure the room was only filled with movie buffs.

[montsnmags]

Originally Posted by mores

...
But am I the only one who thinks that the concept of a planet being a "network" where its inhabitants can link up is a pretty interesting one? As far as I know, this has not been done before so I would call it pretty original, despite it being a "humans bad, aliens good" film.
...

I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know if it's the same thing, but the "Gaia" concept has been used in fiction before (e.g. Asimov's Foundation's Edge actually using the name "Gaia", and perhaps Tepper's Raising The Stones and Grass). I don't know about movies though...a semi-random linking took me too Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, it having a specific "Gaia" reference as a core part of the plot. I specifically mention it because of its earlier example of CGI.

Cheers,
Marc

[Timoleon]

I saw it this evening at the IMAX in 3D, and it was an amazing experience. Not bored for a second during the entire movie, and I thought I was going to fall through the screen a couple of times! The Pandora world was beyond compare. The plot was familiar --- but aren't there only about nine plots in existence, anyway?

[mores]

Originally Posted by montsnmags

I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know if it's the same thing, but the "Gaia" concept has been used in fiction before (e.g. Asimov's Foundation's Edge actually using the name "Gaia", and perhaps Tepper's Raising The Stones and Grass). I don't know about movies though...a semi-random linking took me too Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, it having a specific "Gaia" reference as a core part of the plot. I specifically mention it because of its earlier example of CGI.

No, Gaia is an ersatz-religion. In Avatar, all of the plants' roots are connected and there is an energy current flowing, just like in our brain. Plus, the inhabitants as well as a lot of the animals have "connectors" that they can use to physically link their brains to other animals or trees and such. So the "smurfs" can connect to a tree and up/download memories (hearing their ancestors, for example) as well as control animals making things like flying dragons and riding horse-like creatures much easier.

[montsnmags]

Originally Posted by mores

No, Gaia is an ersatz-religion. In Avatar, all of the plants' roots are connected and there is an energy current flowing, just like in our brain. Plus, the inhabitants as well as a lot of the animals have "connectors" that they can use to physically link their brains to other animals or trees and such. So the "smurfs" can connect to a tree and up/download memories (hearing their ancestors, for example) as well as control animals making things like flying dragons and riding horse-like creatures much easier.

I realise what Gaia is...I just mean that the concept has been expanded in fiction similarly, and, actually, similar to what you now describe (I think Raising The Stones might have addressed this "network"). Obviously particulars may differ, but the concept you describe sounds similar in many ways to the examples I mentioned.

Cheers,
Marc

[mores]

Then I misunderstood. I do know Final Fantasy and there was no "connecting" going on, at least in Spirits within. Must check out Raising the Stones then!

[montsnmags]

Originally Posted by mores

Then I misunderstood. I do know Final Fantasy and there was no "connecting" going on, at least in Spirits within. Must check out Raising the Stones then!

You may like it. Of the examples I offered (Final Fantasy was offered before your more detailed explanation, and I haven't seen Avatar yet), it may be more akin to that idea of a network (it's a book, but Tepper can be a wonderful writer. If you like it, read Grass too.)

As I say though, I haven't seen the movie, so, mores, take my suggestions and offers of similarities with a large grain of...unobtainium.

Cheers,
Marc

[markbot]

If this film were a cartoon, people would not think it was particularly good. Although, the expectations would be similarly lower....but still, I doubt if the majority of critics would give this a positive review. The storyline and philosophy espoused in the film are shallow and so derivative as to be plagiarism. The directing and acting are Saturday morning cartoon level. Great CGI doesn't make up for this to me.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by markbot

If this film were a cartoon, people would not think it was particularly good. Although, the expectations would be similarly lower....but still, I doubt if the majority of critics would give this a positive review. The storyline and philosophy espoused in the film are shallow and so derivative as to be plagiarism. The directing and acting are Saturday morning cartoon level. Great CGI doesn't make up for this to me.

I believe there's only a few of us who thought this movie was garbage. Everybody else seems to have been dazzled by the effects and didn't care about the plot or acting. Like if you put lipstick on a pig and then said the bacon tasted nicer because of it

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I believe there's only a few of us who thought this movie was garbage. Everybody else seems to have been dazzled by the effects and didn't care about the plot or acting. Like if you put lipstick on a pig and then said the bacon tasted nicer because of it

Kind of implies that people who enjoy it are a bit simple - is that what you meant?

Rottentomatoes has a mixed set of reviews, but the overall score is postive.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Kind of implies that people who enjoy it are a bit simple - is that what you meant?

Rottentomatoes has a mixed set of reviews, but the overall score is postive.

That may be what you think I'm implying (although I suspect you're doing it to provoke a confrontation more than anything else), but you would be wrong. I do believe that all the people who rave about this as the second coming of a cinematic Christ are somewhat stupid, yes, and I wonder did I see the same movie as them, or were they all drooling over the effects so hard that they steamed up their special glasses and never saw the gaping plot holes, the stiff acting, the terrible motion-capture and the absence of a script?

Reviews wise I've read the same thing over and over again but in slightly different ways - Plot and acting suck, but WOW!! 3D!! (and it's not really 3D either).

Ten minutes of Moon outacted, outscripted, out-effected Avatar. Now there's a story that moved me, took me into a world and kept me there. And not once was the fourth wall broken.

Unobtainium? Jesus, Cameron should be ashamed of that one.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

That may be what you think I'm implying ...but you would be wrong.
I do believe that all the people who rave about this as the second coming of a cinematic Christ are somewhat stupid, yes, ...

Thanks for clearing that up.

[NormHart]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I do believe that all the people who rave about this as the second coming of a cinematic Christ are somewhat stupid, yes,

Why, thank you. Always good to know where one stands.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I wonder did I see the same movie as them, or were they all drooling over the effects so hard that they steamed up their special glasses and never saw the gaping plot holes, the stiff acting, the terrible motion-capture and the absence of a script?

Or, possibly, just possibly, you were so bent on finding flaws that you forgot to watch the movie as a work of art and as an entertainment.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Reviews wise I've read the same thing over and over again but in slightly different ways - Plot and acting suck, but WOW!! 3D!! (and it's not really 3D either).

The plot was weak although I thought the acting was, at the least, adequate. We shall see what the industry has to say in the next few months but I suspect that you will find yourself in the minority. (Which is not to say that you are stupid.) As for "it's not really 3D either.", it is most certainly the closest we have managed to date. Perhaps, once the film industry has found the unobtainium required to create true 3D effects, you will be satisfied.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Unobtainium? Jesus, Cameron should be ashamed of that one.

Jesus, Moejoe, get a sense of humor. This was one of several sly little pokes/jokes at the expense of Science Fiction that were scattered throughout the film.

In any case I stand by my comments, this film is worth seeing and may, with the fullness of time, become recognized as introducing the technologies that may save the film industry and public theaters from the possible extinction threatened by home theaters and the internet.

[tomsem]

Unfortunately 3D is not an option at our local theater. The trailer did not grab me, but I'll probably wind up seeing it in 2D, with some trepidation: I'm generally underwhelmed by 'blockbusters' (e.g. "2012").

[Idoine]

I'll go see it, but on 3D. The theater I usually go don't do it that way, so I browsed the Net to find another one, not too far from the train station where I stop in Paris.
The plot may be a classical one, I don't care (it's a pretty ancient one, if we think about Conquistadores... ), but I think I must view it in the best conditions to appreciate it !