I forced myself to watch Avatar last night

[Amputate Your Head]

I don't see what all the hype was over.

It was okay. I thought the premise was interesting... a nice reversal of the typical aliens-come-to-Earth-impersonating-us-and-harvesting-our-resources movies. But a lot of the acting was weak, and some things were just downright stupid. "Unobtanium"? That's the best they could think up?

All in all, just another CG movie that was about 1.5 hours too long. The hysteria over this movie makes no sense to me.

[Agent 488]

yeah saw it recently after the hype died and it kinda sucked.

[Paul Markham]

It was in 3D.

[Amputate Your Head]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

It was in 3D.

Another reason I waited so long to watch it. I hate 3D.

[DEA - banned for life]

i didnt see what all the hype was about either..all i kept thinking was this is just a typical "cowboys vs indians" movie

[iSpyCams]

It wasn't all that, I watched it without having been exposed to much of the hype and I liked it a lot.

What I think happened with that movie is that it was pretty good, and most movies coming out now straight suck.

[cherrylula]

I was really disappointed it was another mankind destroying another lifeform movie. Always making humans out to be so terrible. The plot had some potential but the military dude with his haircut and his coffee just ruined it for me.

[seeandsee]

its stupid boring movie with no reason for hype.

[Amputate Your Head]

Originally Posted by cherrylula

I was really disappointed it was another mankind destroying another lifeform movie. Always making humans out to be so terrible. The plot had some potential but the military dude with his haircut and his coffee just ruined it for me.

He was my least favorite actor in the whole thing. Sigourney Weaver wasn't that great either.

[pornmasta]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_influence

edit: btw someone could write a book:
"how to make money with shit and social influence in the entertainment industry"

[MattO]

The story was shit but it was a nice escape feel to look at the pretty images, one of the first 3d movies that didn't feel like it was forcing a bunch of "look at this shit flying at your face" gimmicks. I enjoyed the visuals but don't plan on watching it again.

[MattO]

Here's some 3d for ya

[Martin]

It's called group think Amp. Sorta like this World Cup BS. All my friends are interested in foot ball all of a sudden.

[Atticus]

It was shot in a different technology that was meant to immerse the audience in the movie. Of course it doesnt hold up as well when viewed on DVD or even BluRay. It had a ton of hype (rightfully so) leading up the launch so that helped drive ticket sales. When Steven Spielberg calls something in the movie industry a game changer people listen.

[Amputate Your Head]

Originally Posted by Atticus

It was shot in a different technology that was meant to immerse the audience in the movie. Of course it doesnt hold up as well when viewed on DVD or even BluRay. It had a ton of hype (rightfully so) leading up the launch so that helped drive ticket sales. When Steven Spielberg calls something in the movie industry a game changer people listen.

That's all good and well, but if it's going to be labeled a "game changer" it should be based on storyline and acting, not gimmicks like 3D glasses. If the movie doesn't get it's supposed awesomeness across without wearing a $.10 cent piece of cardboard, it doesn't really deserve that level of hype.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by cherrylula

I was really disappointed it was another mankind destroying another lifeform movie. Always making humans out to be so terrible. The plot had some potential but the military dude with his haircut and his coffee just ruined it for me.

just an updated 'desert toad' story eh?

[sinclair]

It was a James Cameron vehicle, what did you really expect? What has he done that wasn't all style and no substance?

[TyroneGoldberg]

Originally Posted by Martin

It's called group think Amp. Sorta like this World Cup BS. All my friends are interested in foot ball all of a sudden.

i was about to fall for it, also. i was going to watch some games (i guess they call it matches) and i thought what they fuck i wanna watch soccer for. i rather beat off.

[David!]

The movie was watchable but nothing to dream about. However, it has to be the best marketing coup in recorded human history !

[GetSCORECash]

I saw it and it was ok nothing radically impressive, but as those who have commented have mentioned it's a movie that needs to be watched in 3D.

I couldn't sit through it, I'm sure sloped a few parts.

[Scott McD]

Still haven't seen it. The lengh of time it's on and all the hype that comes with it actually puts me off...

[Amputate Your Head]

Originally Posted by Scott McD

Still haven't seen it. The lengh of time it's on and all the hype that comes with it actually puts me off...

Yeah, I almost didn't watch it because it's nearly 3 hours long.

[TrainWreckContent]

i actually fell asleep at the theater lol not becuase it was a bad movie just was out the night before having a few too many beers...to date i still havent seen the whole movie and probably never will....

[DonX]

I thought it was an okay movie, nothing to jump up and down and fart rainbows about, but it was okay

[FrozenJag]

Avatar was a great movie IMO. Especially in 3d at the theatres it blew any other 3d movie out of the water.

Its definetly the new benchmark for other movie makers to go off of.

You guys saying it was just ok... LOL, you actually loved it but dont want to admit.

[Dcat]

My copy is still sitting under the TV. I can't muster up enough enthusiasm to watch it.

This thread doesn't help any.

[Atticus]

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

That's all good and well, but if it's going to be labeled a "game changer" it should be based on storyline and acting, not gimmicks like 3D glasses. If the movie doesn't get it's supposed awesomeness across without wearing a $.10 cent piece of cardboard, it doesn't really deserve that level of hype.

How exactly would something be labeled a game changer based on the acting? A game changer is a movie or technology comes out that affects the industry or movie going experience in a profound way. In an age of piracy Cameron made a movie that had to be seen in a theater to get the entire experience. It wasnt a 3D "gimmick" of a sword flying at you. The technology he helped create put you in the movie.

[CarlosTheGaucho]

I practically never watch those totally super block busters

Once you create the hype around something to make it a "blockbuster" the chain reaction starts and everybody hauls their ass into the cinema, it doesn't tell practically anything about the movie though.

I've never seen "Titanic" for example, and have no desire to do so, although I sure have a lot of respect for James Cameron

[Atticus]

Originally Posted by sinclair

It was a James Cameron vehicle, what did you really expect? What has he done that wasn't all style and no substance?

Are you really going to say that Aliens, True Lies, Terminator, Abyss, Titanic etc etc are not good entertaining movies?? I mean, what the hell do you want?

[Amputate Your Head]

Originally Posted by Atticus

How exactly would something be labeled a game changer based on the acting? A game changer is a movie or technology comes out that affects the industry or movie going experience in a profound way. In an age of piracy Cameron made a movie that had to be seen in a theater to get the entire experience. It wasnt a 3D "gimmick" of a sword flying at you. The technology he helped create put you in the movie.

Well, it didn't "put me in the movie" any more than any other movie. I didn't watch the 3D version and didn't wear any cardboard glasses. That makes it a gimmick in my view. Nor is 3D "new technology". Show me a 3D movie I can watch and get the full experience from without needing CrackerJack box glasses and I'll start coming around.

If someone told me there was a "game changing" book out there, but you have to read it with special glasses, I would probably ignore that too. It doesn't "change" any of the game for me. It just requires more effort and "equipment" and probably sacrificed quality for a gimmick.

[Atticus]

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

Well, it didn't "put me in the movie" any more than any other movie. I didn't watch the 3D version and didn't wear any cardboard glasses. That makes it a gimmick in my view. Nor is 3D "new technology". Show me a 3D movie I can watch and get the full experience from without needing CrackerJack box glasses and I'll start coming around.

If someone told me there was a "game changing" book out there, but you have to read it with special glasses, I would probably ignore that too. It doesn't "change" any of the game for me. It just requires more effort and "equipment" and probably sacrificed quality for a gimmick.

A. You didnt see the movie in the theater and in 3D so you really have no idea how the movie experience went. Your basically saying it doesnt matter how a movie is shot, just the acting and script that makes it good and that is completely untrue. You could take Citizen Kane and shoot it with one camera and one angle and it wouldnt be enjoyable.

B. And again its not the movie that is the game changer, its the technology behind it. Yes 3d is nothing new but they improved upon it. Avatar was the vehicle that allowed the public to view this technology for the first time.

C. There is a game changer out there for books. Its the Kindle and iPad. Again, not 1 book, but the technology to view books in a different way.

[Doctor Dre]

Frankly I really loved it in the theatre. Not for the story (wich is basicly pocahontas), but the 3d technology gave us intense and insane visuals.

I would not watch it again on DVD.

[Amputate Your Head]

Originally Posted by Atticus

A. You didnt see the movie in the theater and in 3D so you really have no idea how the movie experience went. Your basically saying it doesnt matter how a movie is shot, just the acting and script that makes it good and that is completely untrue. You could take Citizen Kane and shoot it with one camera and one angle and it wouldnt be enjoyable.

No, I agree with you that the way it's shot absolutely affects the final product.

Originally Posted by Atticus

B. And again its not the movie that is the game changer, its the technology behind it. Yes 3d is nothing new but they improved upon it. Avatar was the vehicle that allowed the public to view this technology for the first time.

And? 3D is still a gimmick.

Originally Posted by Atticus

C. There is a game changer out there for books. Its the Kindle and iPad. Again, not 1 book, but the technology to view books in a different way.

Haven't bought a Kindle or iPad either. Probably never will.

[Doctor Dre]

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

Well, it didn't "put me in the movie" any more than any other movie. I didn't watch the 3D version and didn't wear any cardboard glasses. That makes it a gimmick in my view. Nor is 3D "new technology". Show me a 3D movie I can watch and get the full experience from without needing CrackerJack box glasses and I'll start coming around.

If someone told me there was a "game changing" book out there, but you have to read it with special glasses, I would probably ignore that too. It doesn't "change" any of the game for me. It just requires more effort and "equipment" and probably sacrificed quality for a gimmick.

You're straight up hating without any facts to base your argument on right there bud. I've seen a few 3d movies before (imax and others). I thought it was mostly gimmicks too before watching this one. Avatar is way beyond any production value I've seen as far as 3d goes. I brought my 55 years old father too see it with me, he thought it was a gimmick too... he was really impressed and thanked me.

The story sucked, but it was great entraintement. The 1.5 hours you think is useless was actually the great part about the movie because of the 3d.

P.S.
The glasses are way more confortable, and they aren't the red and green cardboard glasses.

[Amputate Your Head]

Originally Posted by Doctor Dre

You're straight up hating without any facts to base your argument on right there bud. I've seen a few 3d movies before (imax and others). Avatar is way beyond any production value I've seen as far as 3d goes.

The story sucked, but it was great entraintement. The 1.5 hours you think is useless was actually the great part about the movie because of the 3d.

P.S.
The glasses are way more confortable, and they aren't the red and green cardboard glasses.

I'm not "hating" Dre, it's just an opinion. I just didn't think it was all that.

It's a wonder I watched it at all. I normally don't watch movies that far out. i.e. Lord of The Rings movies, Harry Potter, Star Wars, etc.... not really into the troll/hobbit/wookie/alien fantasy stuff.

[Juicy D. Links]

I saw it on Blu Ray when it came out.... the movie dragged on and on... the effects were good Ill give em that but this shit was overhyped and all us sheep myself included bought into it..

And they are gonna have another Blu Ray release soon with "extra shit" so they can cash in some more..

[Atticus]

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

And? 3D is still a gimmick.

I guess I'm not following how you determine what technology is a gimmick and what isnt? Is BluRay a gimmick? You're saying that anything that increases your enjoyment of the movie going experience outside of the storyline and acting is a gimmick.

[Agent 488]

people still defend that show like a religion. odd.

[sandman!]

The only way this movie was watchable was in 3D i was it at the Imax and with the 3D special effects its was pretty decent i could not imagine watching it again on a normal tv without the 3D special affects the movie is pointless to watch

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

Another reason I waited so long to watch it. I hate 3D.

[Amputate Your Head]

Originally Posted by Atticus

I guess I'm not following how you determine what technology is a gimmick and what isnt? Is BluRay a gimmick? You're saying that anything that increases your enjoyment of the movie going experience outside of the storyline and acting is a gimmick.

Things like 3D, revamped or not, that aren't widely accepted standard practices = gimmick. Blu-ray & HD DVD are a little different. They were emerging technologies involved in a war for the public. Not so much a gimmick as the normal fight to be be top dog.... i.e. BetaMax v. VHS v. LaserDisk. There's nothing competing with 3D.

When you're blasting your promos & advertising with things like "In Amazing 3D!" it's a marketing gimmick. It doesn't sustain itself to the other media it must carry through to eventually, like DVD or Pay-Per-View. If it were a true "game changer", then all future movies should be adopting it immediately. That's how game changers work.

[bronco67]

When a movie like Avatar can make some people go "ehh whatever", you know we're living in some jaded times. If you don't realize how groundbreaking Avatar is, it's probably because the tech behind it is transparent to you.

As a movie itself, I'm not really that crazy about it, but it really brings digital animation to another level.

I miss the days when everything new was cool, and people didn't think everything was overrated or overhyped.

[Amputate Your Head]

Originally Posted by bronco67

When a movie like Avatar can make some people go "ehh whatever", you know we're living in some jaded times. If you don't realize how groundbreaking Avatar is, it's probably because the tech behind it is transparent to you.

As a movie itself, I'm not really that crazy about it, but it really brings digital animation to another level.

I miss the days when everything new was cool, and people didn't think everything was overrated or overhyped.

Yeah, the CG was fantastic. Props to the animators.

[ShellyCrash]

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

"Unobtanium"? That's the best they could think up?

I know, I laughed a little when I first heard them say it too.

I think the draw with Avatar, for me anyway, was the 3d theatre experience. It was neat. W/o the 3d it would not have been as enjoyable. Like Sandman! is saying, I totally agree.

The CGI was impressive but the characters were flat and poorly written, everything was super predictable but it didn't really bother me because I don't expect anything more from James Cameron in that department.

What I really don't get is all the people that said the movie depressed them. I'm talking adults saying they were bummed out that they would never get to visit that alien world. WTF! Even seeing it in 3D I never lost touch with the reality that I was watching a movie based on fantasy land. I don't understand why people would get all bent out of shape about avatar but not something like What Dreams May Come or Neverending Story.

[Agent 488]

sure you could watch a retard try and put together a puzzle of a cow in a pasture for 3 hours but just because it's in killer 3-d does not make it inherently watchable or interesting.

[Atticus]

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

Things like 3D, revamped or not, that aren't widely accepted standard practices = gimmick. Blu-ray & HD DVD are a little different. They were emerging technologies involved in a war for the public. Not so much a gimmick as the normal fight to be be top dog.... i.e. BetaMax v. VHS v. LaserDisk. There's nothing competing with 3D.

When you're blasting your promos & advertising with things like "In Amazing 3D!" it's a marketing gimmick. It doesn't sustain itself to the other media it must carry through to eventually, like DVD or Pay-Per-View. If it were a true "game changer", then all future movies should be adopting it immediately. That's how game changers work.

That's ridiculous. Not every movie needs the 3D experience to enhance it. You're not going to put The Hurt Locker in 3D. I think you're forgetting the ultimate point of the movie business and that's to entertain and make $$.

I also never saw promos for Avatar exclaiming "In Amazing 3D". I guess I missed it when they used 1950 style tag lines to promote the movie.

How many movies came out in 3D last year? in 2008? Now how many have already come out since Avatar? How many on the schedule. A hell of a lot more. And most of them were shot in traditional format and then 3D added in post production. You cant really be arguing Avatar's influence in this are you?

The quote from Spielberg after seeing a screening in December:

"the most evocative and amazing science-fiction movie since 'Star Wars.'"

[Amputate Your Head]

Originally Posted by Atticus

That's ridiculous. Not every movie needs the 3D experience to enhance it. You're not going to put The Hurt Locker in 3D. I think you're forgetting the ultimate point of the movie business and that's to entertain and make $$.

I also never saw promos for Avatar exclaiming "In Amazing 3D". I guess I missed it when they used 1950 style tag lines to promote the movie.

How many movies came out in 3D last year? in 2008? Now how many have already come out since Avatar? How many on the schedule. A hell of a lot more. And most of them were shot in traditional format and then 3D added in post production. You cant really be arguing Avatar's influence in this are you?

The quote from Spielberg after seeing a screening in December:

"the most evocative and amazing science-fiction movie since 'Star Wars.'"

I think The Hurt Locker would be awesome in 3D. There's a movie I would actually put the glasses on for.

[WarChild]

Originally Posted by cherrylula

I was really disappointed it was another mankind destroying another lifeform movie. Always making humans out to be so terrible. The plot had some potential but the military dude with his haircut and his coffee just ruined it for me.

Yeah I cried when Colonel Duke Nukem died too. Very sad when the blue hippies killed the hero.

[Agent 488]

Originally Posted by Atticus

T

The quote from Spielberg after seeing a screening in December:

"the most evocative and amazing science-fiction movie since 'Star Wars.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

it`s ultimate influence on film will be a mere footnote. the movie was weak.

[Sly]

Originally Posted by Atticus

That's ridiculous. Not every movie needs the 3D experience to enhance it. You're not going to put The Hurt Locker in 3D. I think you're forgetting the ultimate point of the movie business and that's to entertain and make $$.

I also never saw promos for Avatar exclaiming "In Amazing 3D". I guess I missed it when they used 1950 style tag lines to promote the movie.

How many movies came out in 3D last year? in 2008? Now how many have already come out since Avatar? How many on the schedule. A hell of a lot more. And most of them were shot in traditional format and then 3D added in post production. You cant really be arguing Avatar's influence in this are you?

The quote from Spielberg after seeing a screening in December:

"the most evocative and amazing science-fiction movie since 'Star Wars.'"

They didn't push the 3-D angle with Avatar, but every movie since they have. Every movie commercial you see now is "in 3-D!" and I have yet to hear one person tell me that Alice in Wonderland was much better in 3-D.

I haven't seen Avatar yet, in 3-D or not, so I can't fully judge... but the idea of 3-D really doesn't impress me all that much. I think it's a gimmick as well. Right now it might be hot, but the practicality of people getting together and sitting down on the couch watching TV with their friends and 10 pairs of $150 glasses just doesn't work. In the movie theaters? Sure, maybe for a while.

[Atticus]

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

I think The Hurt Locker would be awesome in 3D. There's a movie I would actually put the glasses on for.

You complain about gimmickry yet then say that The Hurt Locker would be great in 3D? Why? so the bomb parts would fly out at the audience? That would be the ultimate in gimmicks. You clearly didnt see Avatar in the theater in 3D and do not realize how the 3d was implemented thus making your opinion on the subject meaningless.