Escape to the Movies: Avatar

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

mr Awsome:

orangeapples:

mr Awsome:
[quote="orangeapples" post="6.162366.4162604"]
and to answer the question above "Why do all the animals have six legs except for the Na'vi?"
Thats like saying why dont humans have four legs like all the animals on Earth. They all have six legs on Pandora just like they all have four legs on Earth

well, the thing is that you're doing a 180 turn on your outlook from bad to awesome which is why it is great, but I'm only doing a 90 turn from mild interest to awesome which is not that great to me.

and for that last part: kangaroos and birds have 2 legs. Not "all the animals on Earth" have 4 legs

oh true i didnt think about them...but all we saw in the movie were horse-like things, dragon-like things, rhino-like things, and tiger-like things and im pretty sure those animals all have four legs in real life.....if dragons existed that is... so maybe the animals in the movie that correspond to the animals in real life all have less legs than the rest of the animals in the movie

All animals on earth have 4 limbs. Humans, Kangaroos, Dogs, Birds, Lizards, Fish, all of them. Hmmm, maybe I should clarify that a little more; All animals with backbones, past and present, have four limbs (that should clear up the "Octopus, Squid, Snail and Slug" Brigade). Arachnids and insects are not animals, btw.

All animals, with backbones, in the past had four limbs. The MegaFauna fossils show this, the dinosaur fossils show it as well.

All animals that we saw in Avatar, except the Na'vi, had 6 limbs. This is why I found it weird that the Na'vi didn't have the same number of limbs as the rest of the fauna on the planet. For some reason, Na'vi had 4 limbs. Maybe they didn't evolve on the planet? Maybe that is the plot-line for the inevitable sequels.

The Wah:

Arachnids and insects are not animals, btw.

They sure as hell aren't plants or fungi. They aren't vertebrates, and so can't be used againt your "all animals with a backbone" whatsit, but they are animals.

The Na'vi have four limbs because four limbs are easier to animate and from an evolutionary standpoint just get in the way once you're standing upright, unless you're built like a centaur.

The Wah:
All animals that we saw in Avatar, except the Na'vi, had 6 limbs. This is why I found it weird that the Na'vi didn't have the same number of limbs as the rest of the fauna on the planet. For some reason, Na'vi had 4 limbs. Maybe they didn't evolve on the planet? Maybe that is the plot-line for the inevitable sequels.

According to Tvtropes on the Avatar page: due to the fact that they (Na"Vi) evolved from the monkey-like Prolemuris, which has six limbs, but two arms that bifurcate into four forearms. These forearms fused into two by the time the Na'Vi had evolved, leaving them the only ones with four limbs.

Apparently the Na'Vi are highly evolved creatures, more so than humans supposedly. None of that is revealed in the movie though, so it's kind of pointless.

funguy2121:

I personally lost all respect for Ebert when he gave the thumbs up to Speed II: Cruise Control and Batman and Robin. I also gained quite a bit back when he was the only reviewer I encountered who did his research on the film Funny Games and was the only person who could see that movie's weaknesses instead of cumming on himself for its strengths. I would never use the argument "critic X said the movie was really good" unless, of course, that critic were Joe Bob Briggs. That being said, it is amusing to see all these folks on here talking about how stupid the movie is when they've only seen 90 seconds of it.

I don't expect anyone to respect or not respect Ebert. I used him as a counterpoint to the "limited intelligence" jab is all. I think it's universally understood that Ebert is quite intelligent. :)

bartholen:
"The plot was kept so basic to not distract us from all this immersion"?????!!!!????

I laughed my ass off when I saw Avatar's trailer. If there's one thing I can't stand about movies, it's clichés. What does Avatar have that hasn't been done a billion times before? Kinda reminds me of Gears of War: compensating poor story with amazing visuals. If I don't care about the characters or their motivations, I can't give less of a shit about the rest of the whole movie.

Please, somebody tell me that Avatar has some unique twist, turn, moment, character, new idea or ANYTHING that would make me want to watch massive battle scenes again. What I've seen thus far doesn't give away any of the previously mentioned.

And before you all start ripping my post to pieces: my opinion is based entirely on what I've seen and heard about the movie, I haven't seen it.

Who died and made you the king of intellectual story-telling?

All of this raving is retarded, this movie is awesome and it is damn well more original in it's storytelling then almost everything that comes from hollywood these days, also Cameron has proven time and again that he knows what the fuck he is doing.

Best goddamn movie i've seen since the LOTR trilogy.

Everybody should stop quoting south park now and GO SEE IT because IT IS AWESOME.

Cheers.

ostro-whiskey:

CrispyMyth:

ostro-whiskey:
I generally agree with Movie Bob, but this is bs. This movie is just visual masturbation, I would prefer to spend my money on a flm that actually has depth, and can immerse me.

It should have been pointed out that this movie is designed to appeal to people with a limited mental capacity.

Troll.

And yes, I am falling for your troll. I am hardly a person of "limited mental capacity" and I thoroughly enjoyed Avatar. Of course, you don't know me, and need not take my word for it that I am quite intelligent. Let me make a couple points however...

First, Roger Ebert has given Avatar 4 out of 4 stars and stated Cameron is "king of the world" again. I would like to see you call out Roger Ebert as someone of "limited mental capacity." Go ahead, try to do that. Back up your assertion with some kind of fact to that matter while you do it, though, or you just prove you're a pathetic troll.

Second, you obviously haven't seen the movie, how can you pretend to have anything of relevance to say about it? I will not ever take any criticism seriously when the individual hasn't even seen, read, or *been there* to actually know what they are talking about.

Your attempt at a jab is facile, and you should be ashamed to ever post here again.

Yeah, perhaps I did go alittle far in my condemntation, R. Ebert is certainly no brainless yokel. Had I known this prior I wouldnt have been so self righteous, but you can hardly call me a troll for simply stating my opinion. I do however, stand by the premise that the film is simply visual masturbation, had it been some unkown director without Camerons vision and cinematographic skill, I assure you the film would have been viewed as a shallow, cliched flop. The 3D certainly didnt hinder it either.

I apologize for calling you a troll. I think you might want to be more careful how you put your opinion across is all. For some reason, your comment about "limited mental capacity" really bothered me. I felt it was quite offensive, hence my rather too blunt response.

I really think you need to see a movie before you make the kind of statement you did, however. I stick by that. You REALLY aren't seeing the movie in the trailers, trust me. The ending actually surprised me, and I am VERY rarely surprised by ANY movies anymore (it really bugs the hell out of my Daughter too, I am not allowed to talk while we watch rentals anymore).

I'll leave you with this thought: If Avatar doesn't succeed, do you think we'll be seeing much of this new 3D and mo-cap CGI? EVERYONE, even the ones that didn't review the movie positively as a whole, have said the technology is astounding, and it is. Frankly, I would really like to see this tech with even more of a fleshed out story and characters (I don't think the story for Avatar was bad, but it could have been better, certainly). For that reason, I think all movie lovers should see Avatar, and hope it succeeds.

GLXRBLT:

bartholen:
"The plot was kept so basic to not distract us from all this immersion"?????!!!!????

I laughed my ass off when I saw Avatar's trailer. If there's one thing I can't stand about movies, it's clichés. What does Avatar have that hasn't been done a billion times before? Kinda reminds me of Gears of War: compensating poor story with amazing visuals. If I don't care about the characters or their motivations, I can't give less of a shit about the rest of the whole movie.

Please, somebody tell me that Avatar has some unique twist, turn, moment, character, new idea or ANYTHING that would make me want to watch massive battle scenes again. What I've seen thus far doesn't give away any of the previously mentioned.

And before you all start ripping my post to pieces: my opinion is based entirely on what I've seen and heard about the movie, I haven't seen it.

Who died and made you the king of intellectual story-telling?

All of this raving is retarded, this movie is awesome and it is damn well more original in it's storytelling then almost everything that comes from hollywood these days, also Cameron has proven time and again that he knows what the fuck he is doing.

Best goddamn movie i've seen since the LOTR trilogy.

Everybody should stop quoting south park now and GO SEE IT because IT IS AWESOME.

Cheers.

I very much second this opinion.

And yes, bartholen, there is at least one MAJOR twist that actually caught me by surprise (though I tried to keep my exposure to the story to a minimum). I won't spoil it, but the ending was quite different IMHO.

GO.....SEE.....THE.....MOVIE.....!

Adaephon Delat:
I REALLY want to see this film!

It was beautifull

Hints at spoilers, so be warned.

Just saw it, have to say--Michelle Rodriguez breaking the fourth wall was absolutely brilliant. It may not have been intentional, but to me, it was as if she the actor stepped out of the screen to say that, and I absolutely loved it.

Though, while I accept the romanticism that developed throughout the movie, that upon first meeting they immediately establish 'I love you' is pretty freaking weak. Watching someone almost get gnawed to death by what very distinctly looked like displacer beasts from any Forgotten Realms piece does not give them "a strong heart". Establishing it like that is kinda cheating for how the rest of the film went. Was it bad? Eh...not really. Just...really, really weak as an epitomizing moment of 'I'm falling in love with you.'

I just saw this movie today and i was blown away. Like bob said, the plot isnt anything new but the way its told makes the ride so enjoyable!!! The three d version of this movie will immerse on a brand new level you didn't even think was possible for a film to have. This movie IS EPIC folks. Everything that's CGI looks real and I honestly can not stop saying good things about this movie. You should see it, you should all see it, it should win All the academy awards it can this years because simply put ladies and gentlemen: This movie fucking rocks.

I really enjoyed Avatar. The graphics are absolutely gorgeous, it's sometimes predictable (aka, female...blue kitty person saves him, you know it's the love interest of the main character (SPOILER)), but it still is an awesome movie.

Going to see it again at an IMAX theater for best quality (in 3D, I hear it's astounding in 3D).

Saw Avatar today. Damn good film. Maybe a bit derivative in that they used some fairly tried and true conversions throughout, but it's interesting how well they explored every angle.

i cant wait to play the jurrassic park theme over every scene.

i never caught the dances with wolves thing.. but has anyone noticed that this IS the plot to ferngully??

saw it a few days ago in 3D ... the 3D was awful and it was ass numbingly long, after every hour there was a cut to black where I actually hoped the film was finished. the script was painful, there was so many cliches that all they needed was for the old army dude to say "I'm to old for this shit" and they'd have the whole cliche collection.every person i went to see the film with said it looked amazing visually, but i just thought it looked like a cartoon.
ps. this film is not a rip off of dances with wolves, it's a rip off of the last samuri.
PPS. i didn't actually watch the review at the time of writing this, so ill just do that now

just watched the review, i wish people would stop butt kissing this film, they were looking for something called freaking unobtainium for gods sakes, maybe that should have given them a clue that they were never going to obtain it! it's rare to watch a film and be more interested in cleaning my 3D glasses, then look up at the screen only to say "why does a giant robot suit need a giant knife, why not just have more guns"

projectCHIMP:
just watched the review, i wish people would stop butt kissing this film, they were looking for something called freaking unobtainium for gods sakes, maybe that should have given them a clue that they were never going to obtain it! it's rare to watch a film and be more interested in cleaning my 3D glasses, then look up at the screen only to say "why does a giant robot suit need a giant knife, why not just have more guns"

So you wish people would stop liking this film because you don't like it?... people aren't butt kissing this film... they simply went to see it and enjoyed it. You went to see it and you didn't. That's your opinion and your entitled to it just like every one else is, just don't complain when some one disagrees with you.

what like your doing now, if you've seen it, watch it again and for 5 seconds stop looking at the "amazing visuals" and you'll notice it truly is a bad film on so many levels.

projectCHIMP:
just watched the review, i wish people would stop butt kissing this film, they were looking for something called freaking unobtainium for gods sakes, maybe that should have given them a clue that they were never going to obtain it!

This was covered before:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtanium

In engineering, unobtainium is any extremely rare, costly, or physically impossible material needed to fulfill a given design for a given application.

oops didn't know it was a real thing, still how can you take a film seriously when they're trying to find unobtainium :P it still makes me laugh now

projectCHIMP:
what like your doing now, if you've seen it, watch it again and for 5 seconds stop looking at the "amazing visuals" and you'll notice it truly is a bad film on so many levels.

I don't think it's a bad film, that just my opinion. The films basic story isn't all that original but it's still brilliant. The film has good acting, a fun story and brilliant effects.

So what are you saying?, that the visuals of this movie are blinding me from seeing the actual story of this movie?. Well your wrong there, I know the story is at it's very basic is Pohcahontus on a different planet, however if I enjoyed the film then what does it matter. This story has been done over many of times as have many of stories. This shouldn't stop a film being good and the film should be judged on it's own merits.

projectCHIMP:
oops didn't know it was a real thing, still how can you take a film seriously when they're trying to find unobtainium :P it still makes me laugh now

How can you take any film seriously that has a robot sent back in time to kill the person who will lead a resistance?... a film that has a material called liquid polyalloy of which the main villain is made of which causes him to be able to shape his body into all manner of sharp objects along with regenerating him self?. That's basically Terminator 2, to which I add is a good movie.

i didn't say it had a bad story, although it does, I'm saying it's a bad film period. but i know I'll never get you to see that, and indeed anyone it would seem. we're just two guys with two different opinions i guess.

i would rather gauge my own eyes out than watch the hell that is the terminator franchise again, i curse the day when someone i know said "watch this it's good"

projectCHIMP:
i didn't say it had a bad story, although it does, I'm saying it's a bad film period. but i know I'll never get you to see that, and indeed anyone it would seem. we're just two guys with two different opinions i guess.

No you wont, nor will I get you to see that this movie is a good movie. We some times have to accept the fact that not every one has the same opinion or see's things the same as you or I do. There is possibly quite a few people out there that like you, hated the film while on the other hand there's probably a good amount of people out there who liked the film.

projectCHIMP:
i would rather gauge my own eyes out than watch the hell that is the terminator franchise again, i curse the day when someone i know said "watch this it's good"

Okay I guess you don't like the Terminator series either but my point was that many movies use silly plot devices and can still be good. To be honest the Unobtainium plot device isn't all that silly. The material exists we know that but on earth it's extremely rare, on Pandora it isn't all that rare but is found in areas guarded by the natives. This material is (because of it's rarity) worth a lot of money and the company in the movie wants to mine it. Because of frequent attacks from the natives the company hires Mercenaries to get rid of the natives so that they can mine this material.

i think im ready to formulate my comment on the avatar movie. im disappointed. at myself catching all the pre avatar buzz. prewievs, trailers, comments somehow made me expect the development of some archetypes - burke/selfridge, ripley/augustine (yes i know this one is quite far fetched). i left the cinema with images of final fantasy/ warcraft, memories of a distant harry harrisons novel deathworld - just because the planet itself rose up against the outlanders. this impression is nothing that would add to james camerons name, beautiful enough to make someone elses name famous. thanks for reading.

robbins123:

Oh, sorry? :P

But you seem to really be slighting Zimmer. Gladiator, THE FREAKIN' LION KING, and pirates of hte carribean all had amazing scores.

Edit- He was also picked to do Modern Warfare 2's
EDit2- He also did The Prince of Egypt and King Arthur as well.

Those are subjective statements. PIRATES was at least more thematic, but I wouldn't declare that music awesome. And the Lion King? Yawn.

CrispyMyth:

funguy2121:

I personally lost all respect for Ebert when he gave the thumbs up to Speed II: Cruise Control and Batman and Robin. I also gained quite a bit back when he was the only reviewer I encountered who did his research on the film Funny Games and was the only person who could see that movie's weaknesses instead of cumming on himself for its strengths. I would never use the argument "critic X said the movie was really good" unless, of course, that critic were Joe Bob Briggs. That being said, it is amusing to see all these folks on here talking about how stupid the movie is when they've only seen 90 seconds of it.

I don't expect anyone to respect or not respect Ebert. I used him as a counterpoint to the "limited intelligence" jab is all. I think it's universally understood that Ebert is quite intelligent. :)

No, it's not, even though I think he's a smart guy.

PSA: WE KNOW ALL KNOW ABOUT FERNGULLY. THANK YOU FOR NO LONGER MENTIONING IT.

one of the very few reviews where i have completely disagreed with movie bob, this film sucked hard, and the amount of money used to create this poorly executed film, there were so many plot holes in this film and the characters were very bland in my opinion.
and yes the visuals are amazing, but that can only hold your interest for so long, i mean after an hour there really wasn't any wow factor.

the whole metaphor for capitalist imperialism didn't take more than 20min to sink in, and worst of all not only did it persist in pressing the issue but it continuously dumbed it down.

three hours of predictable plot and bland characters that i could not even make myself care about.

went to see this movie the other night

visuals were amazing. everything else was just meh, the sad predictability of the script and dialog had my eyes rolling out of the sockets...or there was a problem with the 3D

i was more amazed after leaving UP than i was with this, and if a movie apparently made for adults can't out do a kids movie for story/character/entertainment...

So....the message is once again "technology is EVIL!"...even though the same technology made the movie possible, and it is that thechology that allows us not to die of cholera, starvation or TB before we are 30.

James Cameron and a certain BSG mormon should go live in a jungle for a few months without any access to modern technology, and see how they like it.

This is literally the best movie ever. You must see it.

funguy2121:

robbins123:

Oh, sorry? :P

But you seem to really be slighting Zimmer. Gladiator, THE FREAKIN' LION KING, and pirates of hte carribean all had amazing scores.

Edit- He was also picked to do Modern Warfare 2's
EDit2- He also did The Prince of Egypt and King Arthur as well.

Those are subjective statements. PIRATES was at least more thematic, but I wouldn't declare that music awesome. And the Lion King? Yawn.

In art all statements are subjective so I don't see how that really means anything as I could have just said that at the beginning of this quoting and there'd be nothing else to be said. So now I'll say it, "those are subjective statements, and really I don't give a damn what you think" : )

I like MovieBob because we seem to be of one mind on most of the movies he reviews. This was also one of them. I wasn't enthusiastic about seeing Avatar, because it did look like "Dances With Wolves" (hadn't heard the Smurfs thing until this review), but checked it out yesterday anyway.

It was far better than I thought it would be. Bob's right: not a lot of original ideas, but executed brilliantly. The CGI is seamless, and this is the first 3D film I've seen where the 3D was consistently good throughout, instead of being used for a couple of "flying at the audience" gimmicks. And Cameron is still a better action director than most of these hacks working today. Also, big Sigourney Weaver fan and was happy to see her in the film.

There were a couple of, not quite twists, but pleasant surprises. The Na'vi are tree-hugging hippies, and that usually rubs me the wrong way, but in this story it works, because they actually neurologically interface with all the life forms on their planet. So when they're protecting their trees and livestock, they're actually protecting the library and archive of their entire history and culture. So the destruction of their hometree was the equivalent of burning down the Library of Alexandria to the Na'vi.

Also, as my friend noted, it's unusual to see Michelle Rodriguez play her usual "hardass Latina" shtick, and still come across as the softest female in the movie.

I did notice that the Na'vi have only four limbs while all other higher fauna have six; I can only assume this was done for pragmatism. It'd be harder for human actors to do motion capture for a six-limbed creature, and it'd be harder for a human audience to empathize with them.

It was better than expected, and quite frankly not much else appeals to me until Sherlock Holmes opens. But it is long. Pack a lunch.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here