yeah but how is not knowing what dinosaurs really look excuse avatar? we dont know how a mutated overgrown jaguire with eye stalks/antennae would look like in real life either but it still looked fake compared to dinosaurs created in 1991.
__________________
Last edited by AthenasTrgrFngr on Dec 21st, 2009 at 11:46 PM
Seriously? Uh, okay. We don't know what dinos looked like exactly, so therefore any modern non-cartoony approach to putting them on-screen is going to look realistic. For all we know, Jurassic Park probably put realistic looking dinos, or probably missed the ball completely by not maing their dinos eccentric colors like they probably were. In Avatar, the goal was known, and an alien planet was achieved. Saying that it was unrealistic only gives them props. I've heard people complain theey hates the movie because it looked like a cartoon, they wanted realistic looking aliens. People in suits, maybe? To me, that would look silly.
and for the record, im not saying avatar should look real. im saying it failed to look like it wasnt completely computer animated. the dinosaurs cgi didnt look like they were cgi in any of the shots.
avatar looked like a really well animated pixar movie imo.
__________________
Last edited by AthenasTrgrFngr on Dec 21st, 2009 at 11:50 PM
I personally wouldn't want the Na'vi to look any other way. I like the fact that they aren't 100% real looking, I liked how the CGI made them look a little dreamy. I loved to see a CGI world. if it had looked 100% real, it wouldn't have had the same magical charm to it.
That's the thing though, the aliens in Avatar were created from scratch, their envisioned look is what they would look like in real life, ya know? Dinos are different, they existed at some point. Not to mention the fact that a lot of scenes in Jurassic Park had animatronic dinos, yet people still saw those scenese and went: "Damn, the CG is amazing!"
i see where youre coming from. i dunno. i guess i was just disappointed. i kind of expected the most expensive movie ever created in life to look like more than a really well done cartoon.
I don't know why everyone say the plot was predictable/already done. I didn't get that.
Unless you want to pass off the "avatar" as a giant metaphor from the mostly false version of Pocahontas, and throw in some environmental protection B.S....
But, that's making things too complicated. It is its own unique story with elements similar to other stories. That's it. No reason to pretend it's something it's not.
I did NOT like the unrealistic/illogical technology from 2154. A soldier "stealing" an aircraft? pfffffft in 2154, huh? That's just plain stupid. An external breathing apparatus? Lame. They can construct avatars for people by creating a neurological compatibility with the human...all from the genetic ground up. But, they can't use gene therapy to alter the human's physiology in any way? (I'll give you a hint, the former is much more difficult to do and has not been done yet while the latter is something already being done...on humans.)
I would have been a tad more kosher with the technology had it been the year 2030...but even then, they would have still made stupid tech mistakes with the current version.
Also, the mech thing is just retarded. IF bipedal mechs were even feasible as jungle battle units (cause they are absolutely NOT feasible in any way), then they would be controlled remotely through a similar neural interface as the one used to control the avatars. Same with the ships. I guess this film is a case of combining tech from now with tech that is Waaaaay far down the road...making things seem very illogically out of place.
let's put it this way: We are working on guns that authenticate and interface only with a specific user. Prototypes exist. The organic technology in District 9 was more realistic than the tech in this film.
Also, why the hell did so many animals evolve with what I've called "macro-dendrite interfaces"? Someone please explain to me how multiple species that are vastly different from each other, somehow evolved a neuronic interface that just happens to be compatible/works with the Na'Vi species?
Other than the lack of realistic science/intelligence being put into the world, creatures, and technology, the film was AWESOME. Story was great, characters were real, visuals were great, and the sound was awesome. I can't give any film a 10 out of 10. No film can possibly earn that rating. this film BARELY got a 9.
This was my first 3D film. I don't like 3D. I didn't get a headache at all...but...I DID go into the theater WITH a headache and walked out without one. It DID make me sleepy. Weird. There wasn't that much 3D to make it worth watching in 3D. It would probably have been better in 2D.
The character models, the facial expressions, and the color used was simply the best out of any film ever made. There is no debating this as this is very much a factual statement and can be quantified.
Why did the Na'Vi look like cats, though?
Also, I understand the gravity makes the creatures bigger, but there was obviously no difference in gravity, as seen on camera, compared to the Earth's. True that it would have been harder to make it look like the gravitational constant was 7 m/s/s, but would still have added to the realism of the adventure.
This is an extremely epic movie. EPIC.
Also, I read earlier in this thread where someone said that it was stupid or ridiculous that Jake Sully did everything better than the Na'Vi after only 3 months. That is factually incorrect. Jake Sully did NOT do ANYTHING better than the Na'Vi minus two items:
[SPOILER - highlight to read]: 1. H2H combat which comes from his Marine training, obviously. Humans are more violent and destructive: shouldn't be a surprise that our species would make their H2H combat skills look tame. Just his combat sense, in general, was better than any single Na'Vi.
2. "taming" that toruk was obviously not somehing done very often. He used his own "predator" insight into figuring out that the toruk wouldn't suspect him from above as it would have no natural predator from above. That's just him being smart would be unrelated to him "doing something" better. It's possible that the previous 5 riders had figured out the same thing.
Other than that, Jake did EVERYTHING worse than the Na'Vi.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Dec 22nd, 2009 at 06:06 AM
I did too, though it still looked pretty. I sort of expected like a 3D film that shot out of the screen at least a little, and I was a bit upset that it looked just like every other 3D film. I think my expectations on the film were too unrealistic.
The most visually arresting and absorbing film I've ever seen. The world was fleshed out so beautifully and completely, it felt like a real place. It was so rich, I feel like I need to go see it again.
The story was by no means original, but who cares. How many plots are truly original these days? You can boil down any storyline of any movie in recent memory to sound like a cliche, because everything has already been done in some form or another. Effectiveness trumps originality, and the story here was extremely effective.
Also, I saw it in 3-D, and it was the best 3D movie I've yet seen. Others seem to use 3D as a crutch, as a way to show off. It tends to be over done and distracting and gratuitous, but it was very subtle here, simply used to make you feel as if you're in that world. And it worked wonderfully.
Easily one of the best movies of the year. I'll probably see it again in theaters.
good reviews guys. man, i can't wait to see this movie.
Here are aome more reviews:
Film critic Roger Ebert called the film "extraordinary" and gave it four stars out of four. "Watching Avatar, I felt sort of the same as when I saw Star Wars in 1977. That was another movie I walked into with uncertain expectations," he said. "Avatar is not simply a sensational entertainment, although it is that. It's a technical breakthrough."
Kirk Honeycutt of The Hollywood Reporter gave the film a positive review. "The screen is alive with more action and the soundtrack pops with more robust music than any dozen sci-fi shoot-'em-ups you care to mention," he stated.
Critic Armond White of the New York Press described the film as a "simple-minded anti-industrial critique" and also as the "corniest movie ever made about the white man’s need to lose his identity and assuage racial, political, sexual and historical guilt".
"The holy grail of 3-D has finally arrived," said Jeff Bock, box-office analyst for Exhibitor Relations. "This is why all these 3-D venues were built: for Avatar. This is the one. The behemoth."
- wiki
__________________ "The darkside, Sidious, is an illness no true Sith wishes to be cured of, my young apprentice .."
KMC Community Forums
Dec 21st, 2009 11:37 PM
