Avatar

[gstelmack]

I loved this:

Avatar Plot Fail or Observation Win? « FAIL Blog: Epic Fail Pictures and Videos of Owned, Pwnd and Fail Moments

[DaddyTorgo]

still haven't seen it...

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

Note to anyone else reading this: DO NOT DO THIS.

The movie would just be total 'meh' without the 3D effect (and if you've got an IMAX option, go for it).

This movie is about nothing but it's groundbreaking visuals... so dont skip that but keep the mediocre writing.

[jeff061]

Yeah, I finally saw it. Everyone should get out and see it in the theater. I couldn't see myself watching it on the small screen.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I loved this:

Avatar Plot Fail or Observation Win? « FAIL Blog: Epic Fail Pictures and Videos of Owned, Pwnd and Fail Moments

I think that had already been posted, but, yeah, it's funny.

SI

[Izulde]

As I said on facebook a few days ago, this was the prettiest movie I've -ever- seen. I particularly enjoyed the night scenes, because those luminescent flowers and plants were the -exact- image I had in mind when I wrote up a small piece on night flowers in case I ever decide to write a fantasy novel.

Yes, the plot is predictable to the Nth degree and the message has zero subtlety to it, but so what?

For all its predictability, for all its transparency, this is a movie I fell in love with. I became emotionally invested in the characters and the storyline and in this case, the long run time felt just about right. I knew what was going to happen, knew how it was going to end, and I didn't care. I just enjoyed the beautiful, thrilling ride that it was.

I agree with those who say the first half was much stronger than the second half, but I enjoyed the second half anyway, because for me personally, the first half did such a good job of making me give a damn about the characters and the situation.

I would've liked to have seen the backstory between the brothers developed more, but if Cameron's planning to make sequels, then okay, fine, since I imagine he'll go back to that and fill it in with the later movies.

And yes, it's definitely a must-see in theaters. The sheer artistry of the thing is what carries the film and much of it would be lost in translation to a small screen. Some people would say that makes this lesser of a movie, but I'd disagree, because it's one of those movies that's *meant* to be seen in all its bold, majestic glory in 3D/IMAX.

In short, it's a beautiful, fantastic escape. I would like to point out one character detail that I thought worked excellently to that end, but I'll spoiler it, even though it's a small one.

Spoiler

The male lead as a disabled person I think plays a fairly significant role in the power of the emotional connection and the audience's rooting for him. Not out of pity, but out of empathy with him, because he and the story reflect our own desires.

How many of us will never achieve our highest and most powerful dreams, because of lack of opportunity or lack of ability? We, too, are disabled in our own way and prevented from having the hopes and wishes we had as children come true. This movie, in a very quiet way, lets us go to a place where we can achieve our lost dreams. The protagonist was able to find the physical freedom he lost when he became wheelchair bound and the love he lost when his twin brother died. That's a powerful, if overlooked story of redemption and restoration in its own right.

[ISiddiqui]

Just saw it on IMAX 3D. The visuals were absolutely brilliant. I mean, wow. Some of the scenes just took your breath away. Especially the first time seeing the Na'vi lands in the dark and the waterfalls. Just jaw dropping and especially in 3D.

As far as plot... meh. It's very predictable and cliched. Dances with Wolves 2 or Ferngully for Adults.

7/10 for the stunning visuals.

[Lathum]

I thought it was absolutely amazing. I go to a movie expecting to be taken away for a few hours and this movie did that and then some. Was it predictable, sure, but it was how they got to the predictable ending that made it so phenomenal.

Something funny my wife and I were discussing. Cameron has now directed the two top grossing films of all time, and in both films the ending was not any surprise at all.

[Raiders Army]

We saw it on the IMAX 3D. It was good, but not good enough IMHO to justify the expense....I mean, it's better than a chick flick and the whole family liked it, but the 3D wasn't what I expected at all.

To describe it, it seemed as if there were a few things that popped out but the predominant 3D effects were into the screen instead of coming out. It seemed as if the screen were the beginning and the other objects were inside of it. I don't know if the Real 3D experience was the same, but that's my two cents.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

We saw it on the IMAX 3D. It was good, but not good enough IMHO to justify the expense....I mean, it's better than a chick flick and the whole family liked it, but the 3D wasn't what I expected at all.

To describe it, it seemed as if there were a few things that popped out but the predominant 3D effects were into the screen instead of coming out. It seemed as if the screen were the beginning and the other objects were inside of it. I don't know if the Real 3D experience was the same, but that's my two cents.

That makes a huge difference for most of us though. The difference between the screen seeming like the beginning of a stage, or just like an ordinary screen. (With the occasional pop-up book effect if we are talking old school 3D.)

[jeff061]

I didn't really have any expectation either way. I can say I much prefer it being into the screen , which I think is more immersive. Popping out at you is distracting, good for some scenes but not continually.

[Icy]

Just back from seeing it in 3D, totally agree with Izulde post, even with the spoiler.

Awesome visuals, predictable story but with nice characters that make you immersed in the movie. Even knowing what was going to happen all the time, i was excited waiting for it.

I also agree that the whole avatar thing would be a dream for me, to have the chance to live other lives... come on, who of us wouldn't want to be an NFL QB?

[bob]

Just saw this yesterday, and had a question.

Spoiler

Did they ever explain why the corporation bothered with the alien-body avatars to begin with? I mean, the aliens (can't remember what they were called) knew they were dreamwalkers / humans anyway, so it wasn't to sneak in and infiltrate. Obviously it is necessary for the storyline that was developed, but I can't remember why they went to all that trouble.

[Dutch]

I rarely go to the movies anymore, but did for Avatar because everybody told us we should see it in the theater. Here in Germany that cost me $81 at a regular theater (using 3D glasses) for me, my wife and my two teenagers to see it. We each got a coke and we split 2 large popcorn's between the four us.

Hopefully it's not that expensive for a family of four to see a movie in the states.

[mauchow]

$40(tix)+12(popcorn)+20(soda)= $72 about in America.. Sounds about right. That is disgusting. I get upset if my wife and I spend more than 20 at the theathre.

[Lathum]

Plus the3d adds a few bucks to each ticket. I think it was 13 for our tickets so about 80 fir family if 4 is accurate.

[terpkristin]

I wasn't going to bring it up, but since this thread has been bumped, I'll just briefly mention it. My big gripe with the movie was that the story sucked, and I am not one who can just watch movies for the amazing sights. I agree that the visuals in the movie were, in some cases, breathtaking, but without a decent plot, I got horribly bored and felt, in the end, that it was a waste of my time (and money).

Anyway, I was listening to the Skepticality podcast this past weekend and they had Phil Plait, a/k/a The Bad Astronomer on. They asked him what he thought of the movie and he confessed he didn't see it. He had heard that the story wasn't worth the price of admission, and he couldn't be bothered to pay all that money just to see spectacular sights, as he sees them everyday (for free). I think he's dead-on. Especially to somebody in his line of work who gets paid to look at literally out of this world images from Hubble and the like, even the world of Pandora seems dull by comparison.

Anyway. Can't fault people for liking the movie for the effects, but it still wasn't for me. I need a story.

/tk

[JeeberD]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I rarely go to the movies anymore, but did for Avatar because everybody told us we should see it in the theater. Here in Germany that cost me $81 at a regular theater (using 3D glasses) for me, my wife and my two teenagers to see it. We each got a coke and we split 2 large popcorn's between the four us.

Hopefully it's not that expensive for a family of four to see a movie in the states.

Was that the base theater or on the economy?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by terpkristin

I wasn't going to bring it up, but since this thread has been bumped, I'll just briefly mention it. My big gripe with the movie was that the story sucked, and I am not one who can just watch movies for the amazing sights. I agree that the visuals in the movie were, in some cases, breathtaking, but without a decent plot, I got horribly bored and felt, in the end, that it was a waste of my time (and money).

Anyway, I was listening to the Skepticality podcast this past weekend and they had Phil Plait, a/k/a The Bad Astronomer on. They asked him what he thought of the movie and he confessed he didn't see it. He had heard that the story wasn't worth the price of admission, and he couldn't be bothered to pay all that money just to see spectacular sights, as he sees them everyday (for free). I think he's dead-on. Especially to somebody in his line of work who gets paid to look at literally out of this world images from Hubble and the like, even the world of Pandora seems dull by comparison.

Anyway. Can't fault people for liking the movie for the effects, but it still wasn't for me. I need a story.

/tk

I have to disagree here to some extent, but really only as a matter of semantics.

The story didn't "suck". It's not a bad story. In fact, it's an incredibly archetypal story and really quite a good one. It's just not an "original" story. It's been told dozens of times before and told better.

The problem with Avatar is that, beyond the incredible effects, it really didn't add anything new to this archetypal story. It was very much by the books and many of the scenes from the movie were taken almost directly from other movies that told this same age old story (i.e.m "Dances With Wolves", "Braveheart" (to some extent), "Last of the Mohicans" and others). The dialogue wasn't all that great either, which didn't help.

So, the problem with Avatar's story was that it wasn't "original", not that it "sucked".

[terpkristin]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I have to disagree here to some extent, but really only as a matter of semantics.

The story didn't "suck". It's not a bad story. In fact, it's an incredibly archetypal story and really quite a good one. It's just not an "original" story. It's been told dozens of times before and told better.

The problem with Avatar is that, beyond the incredible effects, it really didn't add anything new to this archetypal story. It was very much by the books and many of the scenes from the movie were taken almost directly from other movies that told this same age old story (i.e.m "Dances With Wolves", "Braveheart" (to some extent), "Last of the Mohicans" and others). The dialogue wasn't all that great either, which didn't help.

So, the problem with Avatar's story was that it wasn't "original", not that it "sucked".

I take your point (I've taken a few classes in classic myth and storytelling, I know what you're saying here). Though I know what you're saying about the classic storyline and agree it was a classic archetype, I will also say that part of storytelling is making your audience interested, and making them care about what's going on. Not only did I not care about the characters, I was BORED by them.

Opinions can differ, I totally respect that, but even with a standard plot, by my standards, this one sucked (for me). I've read many books and seen many movies with the typical plot that this one used and wouldn't put them into the same "suck" category I put this one into.

/tk

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by bob

Just saw this yesterday, and had a question.

Spoiler

Did they ever explain why the corporation bothered with the alien-body avatars to begin with? I mean, the aliens (can't remember what they were called) knew they were dreamwalkers / humans anyway, so it wasn't to sneak in and infiltrate. Obviously it is necessary for the storyline that was developed, but I can't remember why they went to all that trouble.

From what I remember, they mentioned something about the aliens finding it easier to relate to something that looked like them.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I rarely go to the movies anymore, but did for Avatar because everybody told us we should see it in the theater. Here in Germany that cost me $81 at a regular theater (using 3D glasses) for me, my wife and my two teenagers to see it. We each got a coke and we split 2 large popcorn's between the four us.

Hopefully it's not that expensive for a family of four to see a movie in the states.

Probably about that much, but I can't remember the last time I bought a coke or popcorn in theaters because suddenly your expenses go from $50 for that family of 4 up to $81.

SI

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JeeberD

Was that the base theater or on the economy?

The $81 was on the economy...(60 Euros).

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Probably about that much, but I can't remember the last time I bought a coke or popcorn in theaters because suddenly your expenses go from $50 for that family of 4 up to $81.

SI

You're not the first person to say this. But my insistance on having popcorn and a coke is a holdover of my youth when every trip to the movies had those things. I hate spending that kind of money and not having those things...so I make it worse by spending more...but at least I feel right while watching the movie.

[bob]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

From what I remember, they mentioned something about the aliens finding it easier to relate to something that looked like them.

Seems kinda flimsy - not sure wearing blackface when talking to leaders in Africa would go over so well.

[stevew]

I think it was so that they could move freely through the country, without need of gas masks, etc. Plus you're also talking about 6 years to bring in reinforcements, so every person is vital.

[Sgran]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

From what I remember, they mentioned something about the aliens finding it easier to relate to something that looked like them.

Right. It was basically the Peace Corps getting some token money to sugar coat the military presence. There was also a blatant quote like "so much for diplomacy." For an admitted left-winger it was one of those "yeah, the heart was in the right place but the delivery was ham-fisted and clumsy" type stories. It reminded me of the Day after Tomorrow in that sense. I imagine it's how true conservatives cringe when listening to Rush or Palin.

[JeeberD]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The $81 was on the economy...(60 Euros).

Duh, Jeeber. Avatar won't be at the base theater for another six months, at least...

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Huge first day sales for Avatar on Blu-ray format. Previous first-day sales record on Blu-ray was 600K for Dark Knight. Avatar destroyed that record. It sold 1.5M Blu-ray copies on its first day of sales.

‘Avatar’ Blu-Ray Sets 1st-Day Sales Record – Deadline.com

[stevew]

I like how they're double dipping with the 3d Blu Ray to be released in the winter. And, actually, I will say that it seemed to sell well as I couldn't find more than 1 copy at my local WalMart. $25 is too much for a meh movie. And I will probably get the 3D stuff in the fall, so I don't want to buy two copies of it.

[sterlingice]

As much as I loved seeing it in theaters, bringing it home to a smaller screen doesn't hold much appeal to me. For instance, Dark Knight, I definitely wanted a home copy. Avatar, I'm not sure. Again, I think Avatar was an amazing in-theater experience and should have been awarded/rewarded for that but a large part of that was the spectacle of the in-theater experience. I'll probably get a copy of it when it gets cheaper but as I don't have a BluRay player or a nice HD tv, it loses a lot of appeal.

SI

[PilotMan]

What would be the youngest age kid that you would take to see this?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

What would be the youngest age kid that you would take to see this?

I have the same question. This was the first preview on the "Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel" Blu-Ray (really? Avatar in front of this one?) so both kids now want to see it. I figure this is a clear "Mommy and Daddy preview it first" kind of movie, so I need to wait for it to hit Netflix.

[lungs]

I've had this on DVD for months

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

What would be the youngest age kid that you would take to see this?

It is rated PG-13. My oldest daughter is 10 and I definitely wouldn't take her to see it or let her see it on dvd but I may just be a stick in the mud.

One of the sites I use at times for this type of thing is this:

Avatar [2009] [PG-13] - 5.7.4


Generally though any movie like this I'd personally review first. I don't honestly feel comfortable telling you or Greg what you should let your kids see or not see, so that site I listed above does a pretty decent job of listing out all of the "questionable" material for kids and lets you decide which would be too much or not too much for your specific parenting style.

[PilotMan]

I saw the movie today, and it wouldn't be very good for my 8 or 6 year old. Personally, it was quite graphically intense. Lots of action and thrilling scenes along with some swear words I am sure my kids hear on the bus but don't really need to hear in a movie (and on a tangent, Back to the Future has way worse language then I remember). The bad guy is pretty intense and vile, and there are a number of scenes of sadness and loss. All of that is really too much for the younger kids. Although I will say that one of my 8yr old's second grade classmates told him when he was here for a birthday party that he was going home to watch Zombieland. I was blown away by that. To each his own.

It's way more of a boy movie, and I think that perhaps when they get to 10 or 11 I could see letting them watch it with us. Hope that helps Greg.

[MacroGuru]

Meh...I took my 4 yr old, 9 yr old and 12 year old to see it when it came out at the IMAX.

My kids loved it, it kept everyone glued to it, my 4 yr old loved it, knew the story line and what not, so I wasn't to concerned with it....then again...my 4 yr old is crazy and wants to watch zombie movies when he sees them on our netflix streaming account on the xbox360.

Again, to each their own...

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

Meh...I took my 4 yr old, 9 yr old and 12 year old to see it when it came out at the IMAX.

My kids loved it, it kept everyone glued to it, my 4 yr old loved it, knew the story line and what not, so I wasn't to concerned with it....then again...my 4 yr old is crazy and wants to watch zombie movies when he sees them on our netflix streaming account on the xbox360.

Again, to each their own...

yeah, that is why I gave the URL link that I did that explains everything in the movie. I fully understand that other parents have a different standard of what they will or won't let their kids see. I don't feel it my place to say what other parents do.

So the URL I provided pretty much lists all of the "issues" in the movie and then a parent can determine what is best for their kids I suppose. (Even though I still tend to preview anything I consider borderline just to be sure ahead of time.


Once again though, I may just be a stick in the mud

[gstelmack]

Yeah, our plan was to watch it first definitely, we just weren't sure if it was even worth trying.

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by Alan T

yeah, that is why I gave the URL link that I did that explains everything in the movie. I fully understand that other parents have a different standard of what they will or won't let their kids see. I don't feel it my place to say what other parents do.

So the URL I provided pretty much lists all of the "issues" in the movie and then a parent can determine what is best for their kids I suppose. (Even though I still tend to preview anything I consider borderline just to be sure ahead of time.


Once again though, I may just be a stick in the mud

No...I had talked to others before going to determine if I should take them. I was given a slight warning about the language and the battle.

Other wise, I am a stick in the mud 70% of the time.

[JeeberD]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Although I will say that one of my 8yr old's second grade classmates told him when he was here for a birthday party that he was going home to watch Zombieland. I was blown away by that. To each his own.

A couple of months ago I was talking to a guest while they were waiting for the rest of their party. The topic of kids came up, since he had a young daughter with him and my wife had recently given birth to our first kid. The dude proceeded to tell me how his 4 year old girl can recite entire scenes from "The Hangover" because it's her favorite movie and she watches it at least once a day. My jaw hit the floor...

[PilotMan]

That was a good link Alan, I hadn't seen that one yet, and I like their methodology. Thanks.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by stevew

I like how they're double dipping with the 3d Blu Ray to be released in the winter. And, actually, I will say that it seemed to sell well as I couldn't find more than 1 copy at my local WalMart. $25 is too much for a meh movie. And I will probably get the 3D stuff in the fall, so I don't want to buy two copies of it.

Hmmmm. I went to Wal-Mart yesterday and picked up the BR + DVD version for $20. There was plenty available. Heckuva deal to get both for $20 when the DVD version alone was $16.

[cuervo72]

I'd been semi-boycotting Avatar, but the parents of a friend of my daughter's sent it home with her to borrow so I kinda had to watch it with the kids. They're 10 and 8; my son thought it was "AWESOME!" (he had wanted us to buy/rent it anyway), and I guess my daughter thought it was ok. Neither really flinched at the action (my daughter was more concerned with a thunderstorm) and the language...well, it was tolerable (heck, they've seen Spaceballs, which was worse than I'd remembered).

My take: basically a really pretty action movie. Nothing really surprising with the plot (though I guessed the twist in Sixth Sense about 20 min in, so...). Good bad guy, and you end up rooting for the "underdogs". But certainly more notable for effects and artistry than story.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Blu-ray sales record set in four days (2.7M sold). It took Dark Knight over a year to compile the same sales numbers. Also, overseas sales has 60% of all unit sales as Blu-ray. Pretty impressive.

'Avatar' shatters DVD and Blu-ray records - Entertainment News, Box Office News, Media - Variety

[Castlerock]

Just saw it this weekend (3D). I had zero expectations going in and was blown away. As others have said, "The most visually beautiful movie I have ever seen".

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

So, the problem with Avatar's story was that it wasn't "original", not that it "sucked".

Yesterday, my kids were watching Disney's Pocahontas. It's the exact same plot. The story was good enough to keep me entertained while the visuals swallowed me. 9 out of 10. See this move as it was meant to be seen - in a theater - while you still can.

[whomario]

Just saw it again yesterday (on TV screen this time) and honestly can´t say i wasn´t highly entertained once again.
Sure the story isn´t original, but it´s not that terrible either that it would distract you from watching the movie. Actually rather like the basic idea of "dreamwalking" f.e., the video-log (and the premise of the story actually being told that way) was a nice touch.
Also thought the human actors weren´t half bad, really liked Sigourney Weaver brushing up her Dian Fossey (you could say that´s another non-original thing, but i liked it), also liked Joel Moore and for some reason even Rodriguez.
The villain role really wasn´t bad either.

Didn´t like the ending. Dunno how exactly to make that different, but was a little too straight-forward and black/white to me.

Then factor in the great visual elements and i saw a really good film.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Castlerock

See this move as it was meant to be seen - in a theater - while you still can.

Their bringing it back with an extended version of 6 minutes. Cameron admits that with the timing of other IMAX movies coming out the film didn't max out it's chance at being as profitable as possible. (cue snarky remarks) They are just waiting for the right timing so they can have another go with IMAX theaters. Case in point, my local IMAX theater didn't buy the IMAX version of the movie and I'm trying to recall if they ever did end up showing it. If they did, it was much later on and only for a small period of time since other films were coming out. Yep, the highest grossing film ever left money on the table.

[Pyser]

Originally Posted by Matthean

Case in point, my local IMAX theater didn't buy the IMAX version of the movie and I'm trying to recall if they ever did end up showing it. If they did, it was much later on and only for a small period of time since other films were coming out. Yep, the highest grossing film ever left money on the table.

are you serious? what did that genius theater run instead of the biggest movie of all time? there are only 2 imax theaters in los angeles, and they were sold out for about 3 months at peak times.

[stevew]

Went and saw the Special Edition last night. If you didn't see the movie before, you really should try to get there before it leaves the theatres for good. Yes, I know it's available on DVD now. But it should be experienced in the theatre.