Avatar- the WOW! factor

[Thomas W. Bethe]

From our local in town one screen movie theater's promo

We can’t show the 3-D version but the regular version is just as good! (and cheaper than paying the 3-D glasses cover charge) so come see it today!

<GRIN>

[Patch Morrison]

this is rather tremendous...

[BIGBANGBUZZ]

I went and saw this @ imax in 3d.
Great movie, however the 3d kinda a feels like soft focus at times.
it really did my head in. I wish I had seen it in 2d.

Really liked the sound design and mix, sounded like lot of low end sweeteners where used. Sounded fantastic in the Imax theatre was very loud in parts though.

[Smallbudgetguru]

don't mean to be a negative nancy but am I one of the 5 people in north america who thought avatar was a lame rip off of Pocahontas in space? I was really not impressed at all. come to think about it
the music was recycled too, horner has done much better work than this .

[cinealta]

Amazing in IMAX 3D. Besides the visuals, the music and sound were fantastic.

[henryrobinett]

After having just seen The Hurt Locker, I can't help but feel Avatar is the better movie. Locker had great acting and a great story an was very well directed that had no need for huge budget. Great movie. Avatar just reached so far and set new parameters. It was just in a different category. It's only problem is it was kind of a cartoon that reached across age barriers.

[santacore]

I agree that Avatar was great movie. The visual effects were certainly stunning and groundbreaking. I also enjoyed the new language that they created for the film. The sound design and music were fun, and kept me immersed in that world. Sadly that's kind of where it ends for me. The story was nice, but very unoriginal. The acting was good, but not great. Two major components of a great movie, that I feel it fell short in. It was one of those movies that I enjoyed while I was there in the moment, but when I came home and thought about it, was less impressed.

It's going to be fun to see how it all plays out tonight at the awards.

[cinealta]

Originally Posted by Jfriah

Latest Mix Magazine gives a nice article on Mr Boyes and Mr Teague and crew. I predict Sound Editing Oscar. But Sound Mixing will, of course, go to Nine.

Nine is not nominated for Sound Mixing. It may get Best Original Song.

I predict a big night for Christopher Boyes, James Horner and Avatar (Sound Editing, Sound Mixing & Original Score).

[Teddy Ray]

the only thing "wow" for me is that humans can enjoy (and AWARD!!) such pathetic, trifling ***TRASH***

rife with cliche(white people screwing up mother earth), pathetic acting. storyline that could be outdone by Captain Kangaroo casted by a troupe of ayahuasca doped monkeys.

.
the movie was horrible in every sense of the word.

the only way I could enjoy this movie is if I were dosed on a sheet of high grade black geltabs. sober, the movie is absolute pants.

dfegaddfegaddfegaddfegaddfegaddfegad

[Teddy Ray]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

After having just seen The Hurt Locker, I can't help but feel Avatar is the better movie. Locker had great acting and a great story an was very well directed that had no need for huge budget. Great movie. Avatar just reached so far and set new parameters. It was just in a different category. It's only problem is it was kind of a cartoon that reached across age barriers.

what. the . hell?

i agree about the different category of hurt locker though.

shit(avatar) vs un-shit(hurt locker)


Cmon. henry..comparing Avatar to Hurt Locker is like comparing Robot Monster to Citizen Kane.. preposterous!!!!


seems as if these standards have trickled over to pro audio.

no wonder we are in such a sad state of affairs.

we embrace mediocrity instead of rejecting it and demanding better.

[bcgood]

Originally Posted by Teddy Ray

what. the . hell?

i agree about the different category of hurt locker though.

shit(avatar) vs un-shit(hurt locker)


Cmon. henry..comparing Avatar to Hurt Locker is like comparing Robot Monster to Citizen Kane.. preposterous!!!!


seems as if these standards have trickled over to pro audio.

no wonder we are in such a sad state of affairs.

we embrace mediocrity instead of rejecting it and demanding better.

Whoa easy there buddy, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Personally, I really enjoyed Avatar, it was the most immersive movie experience I've had in awhile maybe ever. I personally feel that it should have won for best picture. Traditionally the Oscars don't award best picture to sci-fi films. I also think that the majority of voters who are actors don't like the CGI actor aspect of the movie and thus where prejudiced against it.

I'm eager to revisit Pandora once it comes out on DVD.

[Enos]

I watched Avatar back when it first came out in IMAX 3D not knowing exactly what to expect. I must say I was blown away with the film visuals and VFX elements and I truly believe the film has taken a big step in technology and in improving 3D cinema. The sound design was cool and I did feel inmersed in the film and locations. However, thats as far as it took me. Story? Like someone mentioned it is Pocahontas in space and has less depth than a sheet of paper. Characters? No depth and very mediocre acting. Music? Nothing new at all...just more of the usual..but in a way I expected that. Sound design, like I said, was cool, but not amazing. Did anyone think of Jurassic Park? After all, both Gary Summers (rerecording mixer) and Christopher Boyes (sound designer) both worked on Jurassic Park as well as Avatar.

Conclusion, Avatar fully deserved its Oscar in visual fx. Best film and best director? No.


The Hurt Locker is a much lower budget film and again, there was no need for a great budget considering the style of the film. Some decent acting, nothing amazing but enjoyable. Considering the subject of the film and the main purpose of creating that tension and putting you there, the cinematography and direction were great and fully supported the script and story. Was it an amazing story? No. In fact, there wasn't that much of a story. However, that was not the point. The point was being there, feeling the tension and feeling an emotion. Being placed in the shoes of the characters and that is what film is about and The Hurt Locker achieves that well.

Sound design was brilliant! Again, less crazy roaring and surreal backgrounds than in Avatar but the use of sound in telling the story and supporting the visual style was brilliant! Paul Ottosson did a brilliant job there and Kathryn seems to have been great in supporting that sonic style. The whole film contains very little music and when it does, not only is it mixed really low, but it is very slow and almost more of a drone than it is music. For the rest of it, the sound is all VERY real. So real that, unlike films with large explosions and creature vox reminding you its a film, Hurt Locker makes you feel like it is a real event, a documentary and that is what unsettles you and causes the tension. The use of realism in the explosions and sniper shooting thinking in how sound travels and how speed affects sound and so on make even the large explosions very original and real. Brilliant use of high speed shooting in closeups of gravel, and dirt lifting from a car chassis give room for sound to be microscopic. One thing I liked was how, whenever we entered a hostile area or an unknown territory for the squad to disarm a bomb, all background and atmos dissapeared and we could only hear the onscreen foley. This put the audience in the character's shoes and restricted the audience from knowing where they were and thus placing them in that hostile or unknown territory. Tasteful, simple, effective and totally deserved the Oscars for sound.

[Thomas W. Bethe]

Originally Posted by Teddy Ray

the only thing "wow" for me is that humans can enjoy (and AWARD!!) such pathetic, trifling ***TRASH***

rife with cliche(white people screwing up mother earth), pathetic acting. storyline that could be outdone by Captain Kangaroo casted by a troupe of ayahuasca doped monkeys.

.
the movie was horrible in every sense of the word.

the only way I could enjoy this movie is if I were dosed on a sheet of high grade black geltabs. sober, the movie is absolute pants.

dfegaddfegaddfegaddfegaddfegaddfegad

Did you ask for your money back?

[henryrobinett]

Teddy Ray - I got no dog in this fight. I didn't make the movie, didn't sponser it. I loved the movie. As for cliches - I haven't SEEN a movie not rife with them. At a certain point you (I) gotta go, "yeah, alright." Every story line has been covered a trillion times already. There are only so many times to swing a story.

That said I liked what Avatar had to say. I thought the movie was huge and bent some previous boundaries. As a being it uplifted me and I was in awe at the possibilties. It said something, certainly not original, but still profound about humanity.

Hurt Locker was, to me, a very good war movie. But one I've seen time and time again. And as in all war movies, not really true. The acting was stupendous, which is something you can't say for Avatar.

Hurt Locker was just OK in my book. He was rogue because he needed his fix to give him purpose to go on living. Acting was great. Story was good. Direction was great. Nothing against that movie. Portrait of a man kind of gone crazy to keep sane. Interesting, because it took you deeper into why some heros are heros.

But Avatar took me some place else. And I've said elsewhere in this thread it was a remake of Ferngully. So in the f what?

Listen I'd say sorry, but there's no reason to apologize. I think arguing about movies is fine, but being disrespectful and attacking a person for his love of art is beyond my bounds.

[henryrobinett]

I think Hurt Locker won because it was time. Also it was an actors movie. I heard somewhere actors make up the majority, by a long shot, of the voting Academy. Also a lot of the Academy voters are older. AND Cameron has not ingratiated himself to Hollywood actors, who had had it with his ego. He knew, more than anyone, what a long shot he was. Plus they give out those advance copies for the Academy voting members to view on DVD. CGI looks lame on TV screens. Older folk are thinking, "What's the big deal? This is a cartoon!"

And Cameron has threatened actors by more or less kicking them to the curb in importance. HE's the movie , not the actors, as he has indicated from his directing time and time again. I don't think an Oscar was in the cards for him, and he knew it.

[Teddy Ray]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

But one I've seen time and time again. And as in all war movies, not really true.

man, I was in Iraq...for a long time. It was the most accurate depiction I have seen(other than *Brothers*--which is also a great movie).

I just get sick of seeing style chosen over substance..this culture of on-the-surface , shallow "art". I see it in movies, music, books even.

there are glimpses of hope(see DAPTONES thread, read jindrich's posts) but gosh... we are in Dire straits.

there is no deeper meaning. just bling, copycat, android, mass market drivel.

[Teddy Ray]

Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe

Did you ask for your money back?

Yes, I did actually. well, truthfully, I was so chuffed that I lost a couple hours of my life.. I demanded it back. that didn't go over too well, though.

[henryrobinett]

I read and heard several Iraq ordinance experts come down hard against the rogue aspects and detail inaccuracies in the movie. It seemed real to me. But you know, unlike yourself, I wasn't there. And Band Of Brothers has got to be one of the hands down best war movies ever.

But this is art. Style very often trumps substance, every time. ART. That's what it is. The difference between a novel on non-fiction history or historical biography. The two really cannot be compared. Entirely different things.

[aracu]

The most amazing thing about that flick is how genuinely bad the screenplay is. Did anyone notice that the hero of the film elevated to mythical
stature is a dumbass american, on an alien planet exploited by dumbass americans??? The second most impressive thing is the high level of visual technology. But in the context of the film all that technology becomes an unpleasant, drawn out ordeal to sit through. A lot of money to spend on a superhero comic book. The music is like something out of a bad new age dream.

[henryrobinett]

Originally Posted by aracu

The most amazing thing about that flick is how genuinely bad the screenplay is. Did anyone notice that the hero of the film elevated to mythical
stature is a dumbass american, on an alien planet exploited by dumbass americans??? The second most impressive thing is the high level of visual technology. But in the context of the film all that technology becomes an unpleasant, drawn out ordeal to sit through. A lot of money to spend on a superhero comic book. The music is like something out of a bad new age dream.

I pointed that out earlier in the thread. I still hold to it, but I was egregiously shot down in my assessment of the white man/earth man coming to save the natives from the evil. It couldn't have bee one of the natives, which would have made the movie MUCH more alluring to me. That our hero would have caught on the ride and become an integral part of, but not the savior.

Yet and still I think it was a great movie.

[aracu]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

white man/earth man coming to save the natives from the evil

Although he can barely speak English, he also becomes fluent in their language, hits on the nicest babe, knocks out the strongest dude, tames the ultimate sci-fi equivalant of the american eagle symbol and communicates
and becomes one with the divine spirit after only a brief stay.

How great can a film be when the screenplay is completely lacking in credibility and coherency, is backed with a flawed, uninspiring and decadent symbolism, and tries to compensate for these deficiencies with violent hi-tech images of war and destruction?

The film is interesting in what it accidentally reveals of the inner life according to Hollywood and United States culture.

[henryrobinett]

Originally Posted by aracu

Although he can barely speak English, he also becomes fluent in their language, hits on the nicest babe, knocks out the strongest dude, tames the ultimate sci-fi equivalant of the american eagle symbol and communicates
and becomes one with the divine spirit after only a brief stay.

How great can a film be when the screenplay is completely lacking in credibility and coherency, is backed with a flawed, uninspiring and decadent symbolism, and tries to compensate for these deficiencies with violent hi-tech images of war and destruction?

The film is interesting in what it accidentally reveals of the inner life according to Hollywood and United States culture.

All true. But the film took my breath away, and all that tired, insipid, over used symbology worked on me, even though I saw them coming from a mile away. Go figure.

[aracu]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

All true. But the film took my breath away, and all that tired, insipid, over used symbology worked on me, even though I saw them coming from a mile away. Go figure.

Henry, you have a cool sense of humour, I really appreciate it.

[Thomas W. Bethe]

Originally Posted by aracu

Although he can barely speak English, he also becomes fluent in their language, hits on the nicest babe, knocks out the strongest dude, tames the ultimate sci-fi equivalant of the american eagle symbol and communicates
and becomes one with the divine spirit after only a brief stay.

How great can a film be when the screenplay is completely lacking in credibility and coherency, is backed with a flawed, uninspiring and decadent symbolism, and tries to compensate for these deficiencies with violent hi-tech images of war and destruction?

The film is interesting in what it accidentally reveals of the inner life according to Hollywood and United States culture.

As with most of science fiction you have to have some suspension of belief. Can Superman really fly? Can Spiderman spin webs from his hands? Can the whole Starwar's epic really have happened? If all you go to see are movies of this genre that are truthful and believable then I think you are missing out on a lot of great FICTION. I have been a science fiction fanatic since I was in 6th grade. I would say about 80% or more of science fiction is just that FICTION and the other 20% like the movie and book Andromeda Strain is based on fact.

What made this movie any less believable in your eyes from something like Star Wars or Transformers or War of the Worlds?

FWIW and YMMV

[aracu]

Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe

As with most of science fiction you have to have some suspension of belief. Can Superman really fly? Can Spiderman spin webs from his hands? Can the whole Starwar's epic really have happened? If all you go to see are movies of this genre that are truthful and believable then I think you are missing out on a lot of great FICTION. I have been a science fiction fanatic since I was in 6th grade. I would say about 80% or more of science fiction is just that FICTION and the other 20% like the movie and book Andromeda Strain is based on fact.

What made this movie any less believable in your eyes from something like Star Wars or Transformers or War of the Worlds?

FWIW and YMMV

All fiction films involve suspension of disbelief and as you suggest, this requires a certain collaboration on the part of the viewer. We have no disagreement on this point. We might as well accept the fact that we are two different people with different perceptions and opinions on the film, each opinion being neither right or wrong. Be happy that the film made billions of
dollars and that it is easy for you to find people with similar opinions to your own, masses of them.

"The mob is impressed by appearances and results and the world is composed
of the mob". -Machiavelli