So what's the big deal with Avatar?

[lolzgreg]

Posting hot chicks is always acceptable.

She also happens to be talented.

 

[TheDriller]

Avatar is a masterpiece, even if it builds on clichés.
Blame the script or what ever.. but the acting was great(Apart from that absolutely horrible Stephen Lang..).

But it seems to have been given "masterpiece" status based solely on the CG.
If Avatar were not the first film of this kind, say there were already a few films that exploited this amazing technology, would Avatar still stand up as a "masterpiece" on its own merit?

i don't think so. I thoroughly enjoyed watching it, but it falls pretty far from masterpiece status, because once you remove the fact that its the first film to reach this level of CG quality, you're left with pretty much nothing.

 

[Notuern]

From what I have seen it seems like more people praise it here than hate it...

It just seems like when I talk to people about it, they say it was an amazing movie because of the CG. When I ask them what else makes it a good movie, they seem to say there was nothing else good about it. Just makes me mad that movies are being judged solely on 'looks' these days. I'll take a shitty looking movie with a good storyline/plot any day over a bad movie that looks amazing.

To each their own I suppose.

Really? I must have missed something, because i have seen more posts about how much it sucks then how much it pwns. ;P
Im not amazed by the CG, nor the 3D(As i have been playing all the latest games on a 3D-screen for the past year or so.).. granted the CG really is great, im not that amazed by it(Especially not since i have been involved in the game-making "scene".).

- Within the first 30 minutes the script was figured out and there were no surprises anymore

Like every single movie ever made.. i cant remember a single movie where i didnt figure out the rest of the movie within the first 30 minutes.. maybe im special on that part.

- Graphics looked like a Disney film

Yes, it did look great, didnt it?

- 3D Aspect sucked major ass, especially since they've promoted it. We got a trailer in 3d of Alice in Wonderland, now THAT looked and felt 3d!

"sucked major ass"? Are you serious?
And even if it did suck ass, keep in mind that this movie was made with brand new technology.. after this post im seriously doubting the fact that you have even seen this movie(Considering that even the haters thought the CG and 3D was epic.).

- It seems that with the proper promotion you can even make a movie about some blue turds famous

Yup, its about blue turds.. just like Lord Of The Rings is about a midget with hairy feet carrying a ring, or

But it seems to have been given "masterpiece" status based solely on the CG.
If Avatar were not the first film of this kind, say there were already a few films that exploited this amazing technology, would Avatar still stand up as a "masterpiece" on its own merit?

i don't think so. I thoroughly enjoyed watching it, but it falls pretty far from masterpiece status, because once you remove the fact that its the first film to reach this level of CG quality, you're left with pretty much nothing.

I watched it 2 times, just because i saw so much people bashing it over that the "CG made it amazing".. but i thought it was equally good the second time.
The plot IS cliché/very hollywood, but that alone doesnt make the movie bad.
The way the story progressed was great, the action scenes where great, the acting was great as well.. just because its cliché and doesn't feature either Marlon Brando, Dustin Hoffman or Robert De Niro, that does not make it a bad movie.

Its fine to not like the movie, but saying that the only reason people like it is because of the CG is just ignorant.. the same goes for claiming that the acting is "horrible".

 

[updog]

Some people just set different standards for the movies they like. I think it's pretty much the same with music. Some people refuse to like some artists, because of the way their music is made, even though they might love the exact same chord progression in another song in another genre.

I heard the graphics team was the same as with Lord of the Rings, but that this movie wasn't really at the edge of the new technology visually. I haven't seen the movie myself, and I have no plans to go see it.

I feel the DVD sales will not be exactly phenomenal... This movie just seems relying on the 3d thing.

 

[TheDriller]

Its fine to not like the movie, but saying that the only reason people like it is because of the CG is just ignorant.. the same goes for claiming that the acting is "horrible".

Thats not what im saying.

As i said, i totally enjoyed it, im just playing devils advocate and wondering wheter if Avatar were not such a stunning technical achievement (say hypothetically, that a few other ultra-high-tech CG films had already been done) would it still be a "masterpiece"?

to my mind, "masterpiece" is reserved for films/art/music that would stand up regardless of how much technology or money was involved.

The Godfather could have been shot in black&white, with a smaller budget and would still be a shockingly awesome movie.
same goes for Pulp Fiction, or almost any other true "masterpiece".

don't get me wrong, Avatar was damn good, and a colossal leap forward for the technology. but if you remove the Technology and the Money from it, there isn't much left to make it a "masterpiece".

IMO of course

 

[Metaltastic]

I haven't seen it, but I want to, and IMO there's nothing wrong with telling the same old story if a) it's classic (and wasn't exactly groundbreakingly unique even when it was "first" done) and b) if it's done well!

 

[Notuern]

Thats not what im saying.

As i said, i totally enjoyed it, im just playing devils advocate and wondering wheter if Avatar were not such a stunning technical achievement (say hypothetically, that a few other ultra-high-tech CG films had already been done) would it still be a "masterpiece"?

to my mind, "masterpiece" is reserved for films/art/music that would stand up regardless of how much technology or money was involved.

The Godfather could have been shot in black&white, with a smaller budget and would still be a shockingly awesome movie.
same goes for Pulp Fiction, or almost any other true "masterpiece".

don't get me wrong, Avatar was damn good, and a colossal leap forward for the technology. but if you remove the Technology and the Money from it, there isn't much left to make it a "masterpiece".

IMO of course

I really disagree with you here.. as new technology emerges, new opportunities does as well.
Saying that a movie cant be a masterpiece just because it cant be made using yesterdays technology is just ignorant.

Saying that a masterpiece is something that would be just as great even if it was made using an older technology is just dumb in my eyes.. would Mona Lisa still be Mona Lisa if you painted it on the wall of a cave, using your fingers dipped in charcoal?
I think that everything has its place where it really is needed.. you couldnt create Avatar without the CG, does that make it less of a masterpiece? Do you REALLY think that? Does that mean that every single movie using any kind of special effects cant be a masterpiece either?

Avatar may use the latest and greatest technology, and take that away and you will destroy everything.. you loose Pandora, you loose the Na'vi, you simply take away everything that was used to show you the world the movie was about.
But thats like saying that Star Wars is a bad movie because you cant take away the spaceships, laser swords and the aliens without destroying the entire movie.

 

[slashvanyoung]

Thats not what im saying.

As i said, i totally enjoyed it, im just playing devils advocate and wondering wheter if Avatar were not such a stunning technical achievement (say hypothetically, that a few other ultra-high-tech CG films had already been done) would it still be a "masterpiece"?

to my mind, "masterpiece" is reserved for films/art/music that would stand up regardless of how much technology or money was involved.

The Godfather could have been shot in black&white, with a smaller budget and would still be a shockingly awesome movie.
same goes for Pulp Fiction, or almost any other true "masterpiece".

don't get me wrong, Avatar was damn good, and a colossal leap forward for the technology. but if you remove the Technology and the Money from it, there isn't much left to make it a "masterpiece".

IMO of course

I absolutely agree. It would probably still be a "blockbuster", a hit movie, because this clished formula works so well all the time.

I, for one, can't look on something so shallow and completely regurgitated on the inside as a "masterpiece".

Avatar, to me, is like a tech demo of a new graphics engine. Completely substance-less. The "Nickelback" of movies.

And I CAN enjoy no-brainer movies... those which don't take themselves too seriously to begin with.

 

[Dalinkwent48@aim.com]

Id like to see a remake of gremlins with the modern cg they can do now

 

[slashvanyoung]

you couldnt create Avatar without the CG

Actually, you can. And it was done multiple times: Dances With Wolves, Fern Gully, Pocahontas etc.

 

[LeSedna]

I just feel people are actually bored in our modern times to say such bad things about this movie, as if nothing can impress them anymore. Seriously, if you have been bored by the visual aspect of this movie...

Also, they are right not to like something if it's mainly visually based, but saying this is "bad" is only their own jugement.

 

[slashvanyoung]

You know that's quite ironic... People, like me, who didn't particularly like this movie usually, while voicing their more or less drastic opinion, accept the fact that others completely enjoyed this.

But those who actually loved it, can't accept the fact that people might disagree and they eventually start to stereotype you as an artsy-fartsy movie snob.

 

[Notuern]

Actually, you can. And it was done multiple times: Dances With Wolves, Fern Gully, Pocahontas etc.

Yes, its really fair to compare a sci-fi taking place on a exotic distant planet to a movie taking place in america with native americans.
Im definitely not disagreeing on the similarities with those stereotypical story lines of those movies.. but what you just said was just ignorant.

Lets re-make fucking Star Wars, but replace the Jedi and the Sith with the Christians and the Muslims and have it take place during the first crusade!
That would be exactly the same as Star Wars, wouldn't it?

 

[TheDriller]

I really disagree with you here.. as new technology emerges, new opportunities does as well.
Saying that a movie cant be a masterpiece just because it cant be made using yesterdays technology is just ignorant.

Saying that a masterpiece is something that would be just as great even if it was made using an older technology is just dumb in my eyes.. would Mona Lisa still be Mona Lisa if you painted it on the wall of a cave, using your fingers dipped in charcoal?
I think that everything has its place where it really is needed.. you couldnt create Avatar without the CG, does that make it less of a masterpiece? Do you REALLY think that? Does that mean that every single movie using any kind of special effects cant be a masterpiece either?

Avatar may use the latest and greatest technology, and take that away and you will destroy everything.. you loose Pandora, you loose the Na'vi, you simply take away everything that was used to show you the world the movie was about.
But thats like saying that Star Wars is a bad movie because you cant take away the spaceships, laser swords and the aliens without destroying the entire movie.

You seem to have 100% missed the point of what i am trying to say

I am not for one second insinuating that only low-tech art is real,
or that it isn't possible to make a high-tech masterpiece, i mean fuck, we've had plenty of great films that illustrate that perfectly.

what i am saying is that in my opinion, although Avatar is a stunning visual work, it really lacks any depth or substance that will allow it to go down in history as one of cinemas greater works.

to use your own example of Star Wars, that's a film that was revolutionary in the effects department for its time, no doubt about that, but that's not what makes it a masterpiece.

when you strip away the technology and the money from Star Wars, there is still an amazing story, brilliant acting and direction and, for want of a better term, "substance" that has ensured its place in the history books as a stone-cold classic.


and thats why, even now that the Star Wars visual technology is so far out of date, it still stands up as a true masterpiece.

 

[slashvanyoung]

TheDriller is right on the money.

It's also the reason why there's hardly any remake of a classic movie that stacks up to the original: They upgrade the visuals but the "core" of the movies is often watered-down.

Amazing visuals and a great movie don't rule out each other, see: The Lord Of The Rings, first Matrix, Terminator 2 etc.

Star Wars was sooo much more original on multiple levels, not plainly visual. They added so much to the old "battle of faiths" paradigm that was original.

On the other hand, there was exactly one element in Avatar that I found to be original and that was the Na'vis ability to physically connect to the world surrounding them.

 

[Notuern]

You seem to have 100% missed the point of what i am trying to say

I am not for one second insinuating that only low-tech art is real,
or that it isn't possible to make a high-tech masterpiece, i mean fuck, we've had plenty of great films that illustrate that perfectly.

I didnt really mean to make it sound like i thought that you had that opinion either.

what i am saying is that in my opinion, although Avatar is a stunning visual work, it really lacks any depth or substance that will allow it to go down in history as one of cinemas greater works.

I do agree that the story might not be the deepest ever made.
But the way the story progressed through the movie, how the characters developed etc. is what made it a masterpiece in my eyes.
Making a movie a masterpiece is so much more then just having a really good story line.

to use your own example of Star Wars, that's a film that was revolutionary in the effects department for its time, no doubt about that, but that's not what makes it a masterpiece.

when you strip away the technology and the money from Star Wars, there is still an amazing story, brilliant acting and direction and, for want of a better term, "substance" that has ensured its place in the history books as a stone-cold classic.

I really do think that the acting and direction of Avatar was great, the story wasn't bad either.. what people have against the story is the fact that its a modernization of the "Pocahontas story", not that the story is bad in it self.
In my eyes, everything you are saying about what makes a movie a masterpiece is there for Avatar.. its just impossible to create Pandora and the Na'vi without CG, what you would have to do to lower the budget and use of effects is basically make it about native Americans, if you do the same thing to Star Wars, you have the first crusade.

 

[TheDriller]

Fair enough

I do get where you are coming from with that,
but i personally don't agree.

actually, another thing that i found kinda irritating about Avatar was that during the buildup and hype leading up to the release of the film, all anyone ever seemed to discuss was the money involved. i know it does hold the title of "most expensive movie ever made", but all one could ever hear or read about it was variations on "Avatar cost $xxxx to make", "the render farms cost $xxxx", "the studio spent $xxxx on y".

and very little attention being paid to the film itself.

i will say though, that it is wonderful to finally see some truly photo-realistic CG.

 

[slashvanyoung]

Yeah, you couldn't create a world like Pandora as it was presented without the CGI, no discussion. I think the question is: Is this world as it is substantial to the essence of the movie? And here is the problem for me, because I think it's not.

To me, Pandora is just an exaggerated rain forest, the Na'vi simply Native Americans with blue skin, all the other creatures based on earthly creatures etc.

So ITE Avatar was not even able to present me the same ol' in a new light.

And I don't think the acting was particularly bad or anything, just the essence that wasn't there for me. And I personally simply can't enjoy a overly clished fairytale. On the contrary, I feel pranked because this whole world just felt so extremely autotelic to me.

Dances With Wolves had nothing but a strong script, strong cast and good directing and it was ten times the movie that Avatar is to me. It's what I would consider to be a masterpiece.


To quote TheDriller:

I do get where you are coming from with that,
but i personally don't agree.

At all.

 

[JBroll]

Notuern, if you're telling me you had Dr. Strangelove, Blade Runner, and 2001 figured out 30 minutes in, you're completely and utterly full of shit.

James Cameron directed by numbers and focused on the most superficial bullshit possible to trick the majority of viewers into thinking it was revolutionary in every way imaginable. Emperor, meet a slight draft.

Jeff

 

[Skinny Viking]

Notuern, if you're telling me you had Dr. Strangelove, Blade Runner, and 2001 figured out 30 minutes in, you're completely and utterly full of shit.

James Cameron directed by numbers and focused on the most superficial bullshit possible to trick the majority of viewers into thinking it was revolutionary in every way imaginable. Emperor, meet a slight draft.

Jeff

I STILL don't have 2001 figured out

Just when I thought I did, 2010 came out and fucked me up even more!