Avatar

[Super Dude]

Hollywood has tried to sell Americans on 3D at least three times: once in the early to mid-50s, once in the 90s, and then starting with Avatar. Each time, the studios that introduced/reintroduce it think this is going to be the time that it works. So far this time around (with the exception of Avatar and to a lesser extent Toy Story 3), the primary function of 3D seems to have been (in most cases, but not all) to artificially hike ticket prices on films that seem certain to sleep or bomb without it.

[hefdaddy42]

Now, if some of that new technology or new kinds of cameras had become commonplace in other movies and that had become somewhat of a new standard, then I guess it could be seen as revolutionary.

Kind of like the Hobbit films and the 48 fps.  Yeah, it's a new thing for big budget films.  But it's only revolutionary if it catches on and becomes standardized.  Otherwise it's just a novelty.

[jammindude]

Watching the coverage of Avatar in BBC's new series The Real History of Science Fiction (Part 2: Space). 

It seems apparent in retrospect that it could have been a potentially genius move to keep the storyline both "banal" and "familiar".     Mostly because the *primary* focus of the first film is THE WORLD.    I mean, possibly more so than any previous film, the world becomes a character in the film.   I mean, it's funny, because every single character in that movie is two-dimensional....except the world, which is not.   It's a complete reversal of what most stories are. 

So, my new attitude about the film is that Cameron was throwing SO MUCH at the audience that was new, surreal, and like nothing anyone had ever seen before, that he had to make the story as absolutely palatable, simple and "baby food" as possible.   

Only the sequels will tell if Avatar is truly as groundbreaking and "revolutionary" as it's vying for.    But if he develops the story further and takes a few more chances (now that the world is established) then the first movie could simply be viewed as the introduction to the central character...Pandora.

[orcus116]

But what was unique about the world? Pandora did not impress me at all because 90% of it looked exactly like Earth. Even the extra stuff like the floating mountains and glowing plants are such a been there, done that thing. There was nothing about Pandora that makes me think Cameron actually took some serious time thinking up.

[Super Dude]

 

So, my new attitude about the film is that Cameron was throwing SO MUCH at the audience that was new, surreal, and like nothing anyone had ever seen before, that he had to make the story as absolutely palatable, simple and "baby food" as possible.   

Not even what orcus said, but even (or especially) if that's true, pretty visuals will only impress me for the first viewing, maybe the second tops. Already by that second time in theaters, I could feel my interest in Pandora waning considerably. Which is funny, in a way - if I'd only seen Avatar once and left it at that, I'd probably be defending it as ardently as Chino, et al right now. Because of that pedestrian storyline with its cardboard characters, it just doesn't hold up after first impressions.

[jammindude]

But what was unique about the world?

Detail and submersion that were completely unprecedented.   The submersion may have been all technology...but the detail, not completely.   It's like when they put real lining on the inside of the costumes on LOTR.   All the actors who wore those costumes said that they were *SO REAL*...even to the point of things the audience would never ever see...that it brought all the performances and the films to a whole new level.   

The level of detail and the kaleidoscope of different yet familiar things from our own planet...all thrust into something that people could both view as different and yet relate to.

If you think there wasn't any thought put into Pandora...you're also one of those people that says, "I could write a million dollar pop song! Have you heard how simple and mindless that crap is?"

[Kotowboy]

But what was unique about the world? Pandora did not impress me at all because 90% of it looked exactly like Earth. Even the extra stuff like the floating mountains and glowing plants are such a been there, done that thing. There was nothing about Pandora that makes me think Cameron actually took some serious time thinking up.

Well most of Pandora was based on real world locations AND the whole point of the movie is - look ! We have a beautiful planet RIGHT HERE that we should be marvelling at / taking care of.


RE : stuff you don't even see. That reminds me of Star Trek Into Darkness behind the scenes where Khan / Spock chase at the end through San Fran - they would build the city in CG - and have reflections in the windows of buildings that aren't even on screen - and you see it for maybe a split second - if at all.

It's crazy level of detail.

[jammindude]

Essentially, Cameron knew that if the world wasn't "real"...as in, the closest thing to virtual reality we've ever seen in a movie theater...the whole movie was dead in the water. 

He succeeded in that aspect...and the story took a backseat.   Don't get me wrong...  If the story had been horrible, it would not have worked either.   That's why he went for a story that was "tried and true", familiar, done to death....but it was a formula that had proven repeatedly effective.   The story was familiar and safe.    Leave the "risks" to the technology, but make the story as A, B, C as possible.    The more I think about it, the smarter it seems.   But we'll see...

[Kotowboy]

I agree with you that the simple story made you appreciate the visuals more.

Cameron did indeed say the same thing himself.

[orcus116]

But what was unique about the world? Pandora did not impress me at all because 90% of it looked exactly like Earth. Even the extra stuff like the floating mountains and glowing plants are such a been there, done that thing. There was nothing about Pandora that makes me think Cameron actually took some serious time thinking up.

Well most of Pandora was based on real world locations AND the whole point of the movie is - look ! We have a beautiful planet RIGHT HERE that we should be marvelling at / taking care of.

I'd rather just watch Planet Earth.

[Mister Gold]

But what was unique about the world? Pandora did not impress me at all because 90% of it looked exactly like Earth. Even the extra stuff like the floating mountains and glowing plants are such a been there, done that thing. There was nothing about Pandora that makes me think Cameron actually took some serious time thinking up.

Well most of Pandora was based on real world locations AND the whole point of the movie is - look ! We have a beautiful planet RIGHT HERE that we should be marvelling at / taking care of.

I'd rather just watch Planet Earth.

^

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

Sometimes I just wish people would acknowledge the art of CGI more and the work behind it. There's really not much that can top a beautiful photograph of nature on earth but to recreate that same photo in CGI and the process behind it is equally amazing to me. Especially when everything starts with zeros and ones. It's art in it's deepest form, to bad stuff like that gets second hand or even ignored when a script or something else sucks. I don't take Avatar so seriously and therefor I just see it for what it is just like Jammindude: A work of art in CGI following the classic story format with a love story, bad guys, save the world and underlying message.

[Chino]

But what was unique about the world? Pandora did not impress me at all because 90% of it looked exactly like Earth. Even the extra stuff like the floating mountains and glowing plants are such a been there, done that thing. There was nothing about Pandora that makes me think Cameron actually took some serious time thinking up.

Well most of Pandora was based on real world locations AND the whole point of the movie is - look ! We have a beautiful planet RIGHT HERE that we should be marvelling at / taking care of.

I'd rather just watch Planet Earth.

If they made a fake nature documentary of Pandora, I'd pay good money to see it.

[Kotowboy]

It seems that some people just love to bitch about the movie no matter what is presented to them.

[Mister Gold]

It seems that some people just love to bitch about the movie no matter what is presented to them.

Or perhaps we just expect more from the film? I know for a fact that I do. I've always been more interested in the plot and characters of a film than I have the special effects. Sure it's an important element to filmmaking, but without the other two elements, I feel that the film lacks substance. Look at the upcoming Godzilla flick; it appears to have spectacular visuals, but it's immediately clear that the story and (human) characters take precedence. Even if it turns out to be a mess (which I doubt), I immediately hold more respect for that film than Avatar because it attempted to go for the full monty.

Jammindude brought up an excellent point yesterday; if the sequels can actually do something more original with the plot and characters and actually make the Avatar series stand on merits other than its visuals and special effects, then it'd be something revolutionary.

But as it currently stands? Nope, not in my book.

[Super Dude]

It seems that some people just love to bitch about the movie no matter what is presented to them.

Or perhaps we just expect more from the film? I know for a fact that I do. I've always been more interested in the plot and characters of a film than I have the special effects. Sure it's an important element to filmmaking, but without the other two elements, I feel that the film lacks substance. Look at the upcoming Godzilla flick; it appears to have spectacular visuals, but it's immediately clear that the story and (human) characters take precedence. Even if it turns out to be a mess (which I doubt), I immediately hold more respect for that film than Avatar because it attempted to go for the full monty.

Jammindude brought up an excellent point yesterday; if the sequels can actually do something more original with the plot and characters and actually make the Avatar series stand on merits other than its visuals and special effects, then it'd be something revolutionary.

But as it currently stands? Nope, not in my book.

This. And yes, Pandora is beautiful, but as Mr. Boom inadvertently raised, what about the actual freakin' planet Earth?

[Kotowboy]

and as two of us replied - that's what the point of the film was.

[Chino]

It seems that some people just love to bitch about the movie no matter what is presented to them.

Or perhaps we just expect more from the film? I know for a fact that I do. I've always been more interested in the plot and characters of a film than I have the special effects. Sure it's an important element to filmmaking, but without the other two elements, I feel that the film lacks substance. Look at the upcoming Godzilla flick; it appears to have spectacular visuals, but it's immediately clear that the story and (human) characters take precedence. Even if it turns out to be a mess (which I doubt), I immediately hold more respect for that film than Avatar because it attempted to go for the full monty.

Jammindude brought up an excellent point yesterday; if the sequels can actually do something more original with the plot and characters and actually make the Avatar series stand on merits other than its visuals and special effects, then it'd be something revolutionary.

But as it currently stands? Nope, not in my book.

This. And yes, Pandora is beautiful, but as Mr. Boom inadvertently raised, what about the actual freakin' planet Earth?

The actual planet Earth is amazing and something I wish more people in this world would take seriously. I take hours out of every week learning about it, reading about its present and past, watching documentaries, etc.. I love it. But that doesn't mean I can't be captivated by Pandora when I like a little entertainment.

[Mister Gold]

and as two of us replied - that's what the point of the film was.

I think you're missing our point; if you're going to go that route, why not just make it Earth? Why even bother making another planet to act as a metaphor?

Or, if you are going to go that route, why have Pandora in such pristine condition? Is Earth in a state near ruin? If so, then why not show it to us? Hell, I'd actually love that. Cameron did a superb job of showing a nightmarish Earth in brief scenes in the first two Terminator films. They're not even long scenes, but their presence in both films make a big difference to me.

I just think that the metaphor needs more worl- er, universe-building here to work. You need both sides of the coin for it to really work.

For the record, I'm a stickler for these sorts of details because I'm aiming to go into filmmaking. I've been part of an amateur teen film group for the past three years and while our works are hardly great, they've given me more experience and a higher standard of what I want to aim for in a film. That standard bleeds into the films I watch too.

The actual planet Earth is amazing and something I wish more people in this world would take seriously. I take hours out of every week learning about it, reading about it's present and pass, watching documentaries, etc.. I love it. But that doesn't mean I can't be captivated by Pandora when I like a little entertainment.

Fair enough. Pandora is certainly a gorgeous world to look at visually.

[orcus116]

I think they did film scenes at Earth but it didn't make it to the final film. I don't really understand that decision if the whole point was to show the beauty of Pandora versus a devastated Earth. Surely some other scenes could've been cut back to incorporate that if they were worried about the length of the movie.

[Chino]

I think they did film scenes at Earth but it didn't make it to the final film. I don't really understand that decision if the whole point was to show the beauty of Pandora versus a devastated Earth. Surely some other scenes could've been cut back to incorporate that if they were worried about the length of the movie.

The only Earth scene was the intro. First you see Jake in an apartment. There is a TV on in the background. The news is on and is talking about a zoo whose scientists successfully cloned and brought back a species of tiger that's been extinct for nearly a century (hinting at the advancement in DNA research). We are also given a small glimpse of the state of Jake's city. There are neon and holographic advertisements everywhere, and some people walk around with those germ masks I sometimes used to see Chinese students at my school wearing. You then see Jake in a bar with some friends. He's already in his chair. He wheels over to a guy he saw hit a woman. He ends up beating the hell out of the guy and gets thrown out. Some police guys come across him and he finds out about his brother's death shortly after. The movie then picks up where the theatrical release began. I'm really glad it was left out of the final cut. Part of the reason I love the original release is because, at the time, I had no inclination of what Earth is like in the future. It made the necessity for mining Pandora more of a mystery. I liked just seeing the future technologies though.

[Chino]

For anyone interested in the theme park. Here is some progress updates/speculation you probably won't see in the media.

https://www.themeparx.com/avatar-land-disneys-animal-kingdom/

[Chino]

So. Effing. Excited.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/j3fkuaQNGHI?wmode=opaque

[Kotowboy]

WHY IS HIS EAR MELTING

[rumborak]

I guess that's one place to keep your keys...

[Kotowboy]

To be honest I'm looking forward to Jim Cameron's Fantastic Voyage remake more than Avatars.

[MiracleSleeper]

Avatar has a fantastic story, but very poor visuals that hold it back.



...wait what??

[rumborak]

So, did I understand this correctly that they are shooting *3* sequels at once?

[Chino]

So, did I understand this correctly that they are shooting *3* sequels at once?

Awww yeah. From a financial standpoint, that's really the only way to do it... at least when you're making a movie like Avatar that doesn't really film in the conventional way.

It's not yet confirmed if they are all sequels. Avatar fans (or avatards as the internet chooses to label us) speculate that the next three movies are going to be the official Avatar trilogy with the 2009 release being the prequel. Others believe that the 2009 release was the first movie of the trilogy and the fourth film will be the prequel.  I'm personally hoping that the 4th installment is the prequel. I'd love to get into the nitty gritty of humans discovering Pandora and eventually making the decision to mine it. Getting to see first contact would awesome.

[Kotowboy]

I was onboard until he mentioned a 4th film. 3 direct sequels of a movie is too many I think.

Unless you can name a film which had three direct sequels where the 4th film was the best one ?

Lethal Weapon 4 ?
Indiana Jones & The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull ?
Rambo ?
Superman IV The Quest For Peace ?

I'm not counting Star Trek IV since The Motion Picture through Voyage Home were all stand alone movies and only had a loose arc from II - IV.

[Dream Team]

To be honest I'm looking forward to Jim Cameron's Fantastic Voyage remake more than Avatars.

When is that supposed to happen? I checked on IMDB and he's booked with Avatar/Terminator stuff until forever. I'm sure it would be great though, he always delivers.

[Chino]

I was onboard until he mentioned a 4th film. 3 direct sequels of a movie is too many I think.

Unless you can name a film which had three direct sequels where the 4th film was the best one ?

Lethal Weapon 4 ?
Indiana Jones & The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull ?
Rambo ?
Superman IV The Quest For Peace ?

I'm not counting Star Trek IV since The Motion Picture through Voyage Home were all stand alone movies and only had a loose arc from II - IV.

Rocky IV was my favorite.

[Kotowboy]

I'm thinking mainly of films where the 4th one was a tacked on film to a trilogy.

It could be good - all three Avatar sequels are being written as one film all with different writers expanding on Jim's original scripts.

Plus he says that each film will not only be a self contained story but will also carry on in the next film.

He says he hates " to be continued " so he's not going to leave any film on a cliffhanger - which I can more than agree with.

I hate really getting into a film and then noticing there's no way they can resolve it in the time remaining and knowing you'll have to wait for the next film.

[BlackInk]

I have no problem with that. If I know there is a next part defintely coming, I don't mind cliffhanger endings, especially if it's just a year of waiting.

And I do really like series of things that feels like one big story, so I'm not sure if I'd prefer this 'stand alone' thing over that, but I'm sure I'll enjoy it anyways.

[Kotowboy]

This is going to be both. One long story but each part will also have it's own ending.