Avatar

[Adami]

I can't speak for TL, but you seem to be just listing genres you don't care for and say that they're ruining cinema or something.

But, I think one of the issues is the milking for money that the people behind Avatar are clearly doing. Rereleasing it into theaters for 9 extra minutes? Releasing ANOTHER dvd later on with more footage? This isn't Star Wars, it hasn't been out for 20 years. It pretty much just came out, there's no reason they couldn't thrown all of that stuff into the already released DVD.

[Tick]

I can't speak for TL, but you seem to be just listing genres you don't care for and say that they're ruining cinema or something.

But, I think one of the issues is the milking for money that the people behind Avatar are clearly doing. Rereleasing it into theaters for 9 extra minutes? Releasing ANOTHER dvd later on with more footage? This isn't Star Wars, it hasn't been out for 20 years. It pretty much just came out, there's no reason they couldn't thrown all of that stuff into the already released DVD.

 I totally agree about not throwing the extras on the current DVD. Its quite weak indeed to put out a cheesy edition and then wait no doubt for the holidays to add extras and release it again.

[RandalGraves]

I can't speak for TL, but you seem to be just listing genres you don't care for and say that they're ruining cinema or something.

But, I think one of the issues is the milking for money that the people behind Avatar are clearly doing. Rereleasing it into theaters for 9 extra minutes? Releasing ANOTHER dvd later on with more footage? This isn't Star Wars, it hasn't been out for 20 years. It pretty much just came out, there's no reason they couldn't thrown all of that stuff into the already released DVD.

 I totally agree about not throwing the extras on the current DVD. Its quite weak indeed to put out a cheesy edition and then wait no doubt for the holidays to add extras and release it again.

I would agree, except for the fact it was announced way in advance that a special edition was in the works.  The alternative would be releasing a Blu-ray with special features thrown together at the "last minute."  I think the first release was a good compromise, that way if people wanted to at least rent the flick (or purchase), they could.

[zerogravityfat]

So blame the industry or Cameron.  If Chino is entertained by the movie and perfectly willing and eager to see it again, why bash him just because he enjoys something you don't?

that's it, we are taking chino, everybody get the flammables i'm torching that motherfucker right now.

[Chino]

The reason it all wasn't included from the beginning was because Cameron was unsure if people eyes and minds could stand almost three and a half hours of hardcore 3D. The first 2 times I saw it I got severe headaches after a while. The next longest 3D movie prior to Avatar was under 2 hours. James Cameron has said multiple times that they were unsure of the effect, therefore were conservative. What is this milking bull shit. It's called fucking business. If people are willing to see it more times, willing to spend the money, and are willingly doing it, I don't see whats so wrong about it. The deluxe edition is going to be jam packed with shit. Not just all three and a half hours of the movie, but probably hours upon hours of bonus features. I am honestly hoping for the movie in studio form, from beginning to end. I think that would be kind of cool to see how they made every scene.

/rant

spoilers


Now about what I saw today. The extra footage was actually pretty cool. Right when Grace, Norm, and Jake got off the helicopter the first time, they walked into a near by shack. You soon find out it was once the school, and you got to hear some cool background stuff. We got to see a hunt on a huge scale and some other cool odds and ends. The ending gave me chills this time. Tsu'tey not only passes the leadership onto Jake, but has Jake stab him to death. He gave a little speech how he will go down has a worrier, who not only fought along side Toruk Makto (last shadow), but he was also killed by him.

[Dimitrius]

I'll just wait for the Blu-ray release to see all this footage, I'm not paying $10 again.

[RandalGraves]

Not particularly new info, but still interesting tidbits on the upcoming SE of Avatar:

https://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=5056

[orcus116]

Just read this on Wikipedia:

Cinema audiences in Russia have noted that Avatar has elements in common with the 1960s Noon Universe novels written in the Soviet Union by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky, which are set in the 22nd century on a forested world called Pandora with a sentient indigenous species called the Nave.

Fucking lol.

[Sigz]

I'm sure it's a coincidence, like In the Presence of Enemies.

[ariich]

I can't speak for TL, but you seem to be just listing genres you don't care for and say that they're ruining cinema or something.

But, I think one of the issues is the milking for money that the people behind Avatar are clearly doing. Rereleasing it into theaters for 9 extra minutes? Releasing ANOTHER dvd later on with more footage? This isn't Star Wars, it hasn't been out for 20 years. It pretty much just came out, there's no reason they couldn't thrown all of that stuff into the already released DVD.

Dude, if enough people WANT to go into the cinema to see it on a big screen again that they can make money from re-releasing it, then of course they're going to do it. That's not money milking, it's just good business sense.

I agree with your first point though. People need to stop getting so worked up by cinema. Considering how many damn good films have come out recently, the idea that anything is "killing cinema" is bullshit.

[TL]

I can't speak for TL, but you seem to be just listing genres you don't care for and say that they're ruining cinema or something.

But, I think one of the issues is the milking for money that the people behind Avatar are clearly doing. Rereleasing it into theaters for 9 extra minutes? Releasing ANOTHER dvd later on with more footage? This isn't Star Wars, it hasn't been out for 20 years. It pretty much just came out, there's no reason they couldn't thrown all of that stuff into the already released DVD.

 I totally agree about not throwing the extras on the current DVD. Its quite weak indeed to put out a cheesy edition and then wait no doubt for the holidays to add extras and release it again.

This is the essence of what I'm referring to this time around.

Chino, I just want to make it clear that I have no ill will toward you. Basically, I feel strongly about this, and don't have a way of yelling at James Cameron directly. There are worse things in the industry than this, but this is a very clear and visible example.

[InTheNameOfGod]

I can't speak for TL, but you seem to be just listing genres you don't care for and say that they're ruining cinema or something.

But, I think one of the issues is the milking for money that the people behind Avatar are clearly doing. Rereleasing it into theaters for 9 extra minutes? Releasing ANOTHER dvd later on with more footage? This isn't Star Wars, it hasn't been out for 20 years. It pretty much just came out, there's no reason they couldn't thrown all of that stuff into the already released DVD.

Dude, if enough people WANT to go into the cinema to see it on a big screen again that they can make money from re-releasing it, then of course they're going to do it. That's not money milking, it's just good business sense.

I agree with your first point though. People need to stop getting so worked up by cinema. Considering how many damn good films have come out recently, the idea that anything is "killing cinema" is bullshit.

Just out of curiosity, what are these damn good films you speak of?

The last damn good film I watched was, suprisingly, Avatar.

I enjoyed Inception, but I don't consider it to be a masterpiece that others will argue.

[ariich]

I don't include Avatar actually, but Inception and Toy Story 3 were both incredible, and in the last couple of years we've also had Kick-Ass, An Education, District 9, Moon, Up, Coraline and The Reader, as well as plenty of other films that I've really enjoyed like Sherlock Holmes, Burn After Reading and Fantastic Mr Fox.

[hefdaddy42]

Just read this on Wikipedia:

Cinema audiences in Russia have noted that Avatar has elements in common with the 1960s Noon Universe novels written in the Soviet Union by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky, which are set in the 22nd century on a forested world called Pandora with a sentient indigenous species called the Nave.

Fucking lol.

[InTheNameOfGod]

I don't include Avatar actually, but Inception and Toy Story 3 were both incredible, and in the last couple of years we've also had Kick-Ass, An Education, District 9, Moon, Up, Coraline and The Reader, as well as plenty of other films that I've really enjoyed like Sherlock Holmes, Burn After Reading and Fantastic Mr Fox.

Minus Moon, i'd consider Avatar to be better than all of those films.

[ariich]

Fair enough, I like Avatar as the visuals were incredible and the characters themselves were great, I just thought the story, while nice enough, was very straightforward and it seemed like Cameron had put very little effort into it. As I said though, there was definitely enough to enjoy in it

[Tick]

Fair enough, I like Avatar as the visuals were incredible and the characters themselves were great, I just thought the story, while nice enough, was very straightforward and it seemed like Cameron had put very little effort into it. As I said though, there was definitely enough to enjoy in it

I like the movie. I saw it in the theater twice, and once on DVD, but its not an original story at all. It really is Pocahontas in space.

[TL]

I don't include Avatar actually, but Inception and Toy Story 3 were both incredible, and in the last couple of years we've also had Kick-Ass, An Education, District 9, Moon, Up, Coraline and The Reader, as well as plenty of other films that I've really enjoyed like Sherlock Holmes, Burn After Reading and Fantastic Mr Fox.

Minus Moon, i'd consider Avatar to be better than all of those films.

Better than them, or you enjoyed it more than them? There's an important difference.

[ariich]

I don't include Avatar actually, but Inception and Toy Story 3 were both incredible, and in the last couple of years we've also had Kick-Ass, An Education, District 9, Moon, Up, Coraline and The Reader, as well as plenty of other films that I've really enjoyed like Sherlock Holmes, Burn After Reading and Fantastic Mr Fox.

Minus Moon, i'd consider Avatar to be better than all of those films.

Better than them, or you enjoyed it more than them? There's an important difference.

Not really. There are objective qualities and characteristics, but whether a film is good or not is down to the individual viewer.

[TL]

I don't include Avatar actually, but Inception and Toy Story 3 were both incredible, and in the last couple of years we've also had Kick-Ass, An Education, District 9, Moon, Up, Coraline and The Reader, as well as plenty of other films that I've really enjoyed like Sherlock Holmes, Burn After Reading and Fantastic Mr Fox.

Minus Moon, i'd consider Avatar to be better than all of those films.

Better than them, or you enjoyed it more than them? There's an important difference.

Not really. There are objective qualities and characteristics, but whether a film is good or not is down to the individual viewer.

While true, how much someone liked a film is entirely opinion based, while the quality of a film is much more quantifiable.
For example, if someone were to say they liked The Expendables more than The Godfather, you can't dispute them because it's entirely their opinion. If they were to say The Expendables was a better film than The Godfather though, you could definitely dispute that.

Now, there is obviously room for opinion when it comes to quality, and the closer the films in question are in terms of quality, the more likely it is that people will disagree about which is better. For example, while I doubt anyone would claim that Paul Blart: Mallcop is a better film than Silence of the Lambs, there would probably be disagreements if the two films in question were something like Layer Cake and Saving Private Ryan.
Personally, while I don't think Avatar is an absolutely terrible film, I also don't see anything special about it beyond the visuals, and I don't feel that visuals alone can carry a movie. Out of the films mentioned in that post that I've seen, I feel that some are just objectively better than Avatar (though not all).

[ariich]

I guess really it depends on whether you see film making as an art or a technical exercise. If it's technical, then sure something can be objectively better than something else. But as an art form, it's all about what makes someone enjoy it. Again there are some objective characteristics such as effects, sound editing, etc (which Avatar does very well), but in terms of whether those make it a good film, it's down to the individual.

[TL]

I'm not talking about the technical elements. I'm approaching this from an artistic perspective. There's just something intangible but present that makes some films better than others. It's like how, even if someone didn't really enjoy The Godfather, they'd be able to tell that it was good, even if they'd somehow magically never heard anyone else's opinion of it.

[ariich]

Then I don't understand you. If you don't like a film then, to you, it's not good.

[orcus116]

For example, while I doubt anyone would claim that Paul Blart: Mallcop is a better film than Silence of the Lambs

Armond White would in a heartbeat. Here are some classy examples:

https://www.nypress.com/article-19237-better-than-list-2008.html

[Chino]

Would Jurassic Park been as big of a success if the dinosaurs didn't look real? Independence Day would not have been possible. Even though I hate them, the Pirates of the Caribbean and Harry Potter films would have sucked, even with the same story.

[Sigz]

For example, while I doubt anyone would claim that Paul Blart: Mallcop is a better film than Silence of the Lambs

Armond White would in a heartbeat. Here are some classy examples:

https://www.nypress.com/article-19237-better-than-list-2008.html

Twilight BETTER THAN Let the Right One In

Holy christ I raged. This guy is a god-tier troll.

[Dimitrius]

No better way to get attention than hate what everyone likes.

[orcus116]

I still want to hate him but he clearly does his job without any real care for anything except pissing people off it's really not worth it. I like how he'll knock other movie critics down meanwhile his reviews consist of unnecessary vocabulary and comparisons between movies that aren't even related.

[robwebster]

I'm not talking about the technical elements. I'm approaching this from an artistic perspective. There's just something intangible but present that makes some films better than others. It's like how, even if someone didn't really enjoy The Godfather, they'd be able to tell that it was good, even if they'd somehow magically never heard anyone else's opinion of it.

In fairness, Van Gogh, one of the generally accepted greatest artists of all time, went to his grave thinking he was a hack. He had no reputation whatsoever and very few people of the time would have even called it artful, let alone good.

Not until a v. short while before his death did anyone cotton on, and even then very few.

Not that I'm comparing Avatar to it. Haven't even seen it. General consensus seems to be that it's a beautiful film which is a bit short on substance. Beauty is a valid criteria for artfulness, and it might be looked back on very fondly. I'm more interested in plot, so it's probably not for me, but then so were the French in Van Gogh's time. "Call them Sunflowers? They don't even look realistic."

[Adami]

I'm just curious. If Avatar is a good film because it created a beautiful world, then why are the Star Wars prequels not good films as well? They created extremely beautiful worlds, they even had better stories.

[Dimitrius]

Expectations is my best guess. Also, Hayden Christenssen

[orcus116]

Yeah I'd give Avatar the acting nod even if it wasn't anything spectacular. The only real annoying role in that movie was the business guy who tried to act like Ari Gold a little too much.

[robwebster]

I'm just curious. If Avatar is a good film because it created a beautiful world, then why are the Star Wars prequels not good films as well? They created extremely beautiful worlds, they even had better stories.

Like I said, I've not seen it. I don't have an opinion on it.

But visually, it's a work of art. Maybe one day plot will be considered less important, and we'll all be going on about how there's too much plot and it gets in the way of the effects. Avatar might be looked upon as a pioneer.

I like plot, myself. But that's just me. Audiences of the future might not be interested in storytelling, they could be more interested in seeing original vistas and glorious sunsets, all rendered in dazzling 3D and more real than the sun in the sky. The ability to look deep into the surface of a star without getting your eyes all stingy. Who'd be interested in plot? You can see plots in real life. Bah! Tell your mum her busters are saggy if you want to see a fight. Even better, tell her your dad said it! You can munch on some popcorn as the sparks fly. (Then get ready to run when they work it out. (God the future's a bleak place.))

Van Gogh's contemporaries were more interested in realism - or whatever. His artwork looked like a mess to them. To us, it looks glorious. Priorities change. What was "a bit rubbish" then is now a bit of a pioneer. For all we know a society in 100 years could look back at us and go "how could they SQUANDER this beautiful visual medium on something as ugly as The Godfather?" And yes, they might look at Star Wars and go "well, they've all got too much fighting and chatting, but at least 1-3 are kinda pretty for their time." 'Course, so were 4-6.

I'm just saying that objectivity can't really be applied, even when it seems obvious that it should be. I'm not calling Avatar a great film. By all reports I'd find it pretty hollow. But that's based on the places I look for depth. Visually, you'd be hard pressed to find a film with more depth. I've only seen trailers and I'm a little bit stunned by it.

[GuineaPig]

But then again, beauty is subjective too.  I find more beauty, cinematography wise, in a single episode of Mad Men then I did in Avatar.

[robwebster]

But then again, beauty is subjective too.  I find more beauty, cinematography wise, in a single episode of Mad Men then I did in Avatar.

Oh, yeah. Definitely. I'm simplifying massively. I've been watching Sherlock lately (alright, when it was on) - TV series directed by Paul McGuigan, who's a film director, and it really shows. Some gorgeous shots there.

I'm just saying that you can more or less put the boundaries anywhere and you're not necessarily wrong. Hate to keep bringing him up, but I don't think Van Gogh's critics were wrong. In fact, I'd say you can completely see where they were coming from, if you look at his paintings they're positively grotesque in comparison to other contemporary artists. Subjective.