James Cameron's Avatar

[eugimon]

I believe both movies were actually hammering messages in-your-face, but the message in District 9 is rarely depicted in the way it was (I personally found it really funny), so it gets bonus points for that. Avatar also had plot holes of course, but nothing that couldn't be explained by a bit of stitching here and there with more fiction, as expected of fictional stories Personally, I'd like The Hurt Locker to win the awards. Why? Because District 9, though I like it, really has its plotholes riddled in it conveniently. Avatar on the other hand would probably not be as good if it didn't have cutting edge graphics (would you rate it as highly if you saw it in 2D?). The Hurt Locker on the other hand, was simple enough yet emotional enough, had a good script, and delivered its message well.

Oh, I agree, Hurt Locker is by the far the superior film compared to either D9 or Avatar. I'm just saying that D9 wasn't a particularly subtle or nuanced movie. Avatar, at least, didn't pretend to be.

Edited February 11, 2010 by eugimon

[mike_s_6]

Oh, I agree, Hurt Locker is by the far the superior film compared to either D9 or Avatar. I'm just saying that D9 wasn't a particularly subtle or nuanced movie. Avatar, at least, didn't pretend to be.

Did D9 deliberately pretend to be a subtle or nuanced movie? I really don't think so. Some people just didn't expect what they saw.

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

I just think Avatar deserves to be bashed far more than district 9 since it had come around with a lot more pre-release hype imo.

Cameron hadn't released a movie in a long time so expectations were higher for it to be great than distrct 9 having to be good. Having higher expectations mean higher chance of a negative-sounding review. Because you expect much more from a well-known guy than an unknown.

In a way it's like the bandai vs yamato toy company debate. You like both companies but who impressed you more? I think D9 had way deeper characters that made me care about them vs avatars ones. You avatar lovers are just in damage control mode because you never set your expectations as high as others imo. Cameron could do better with the story but I don't think he put as much effort into that vs the effort put into the 3d technology.

Avatar is to district 9 what macross zero is to macross plus. Plus was more impressive to me for its time and limits than macross zero was to me for its time. Although Macross Zero has better visuals than Macross Plus with the 3d valks and realistic looking dogfights, I preferred macross plus because it was Top Gun with robots. Zero's focus on just telling us about magic priests and religious artifacts which came from space seemed more adventurous and epic, but it had a slower pace to it that could bore you more easily. Same with Avatar. It was meant to be a relaxing experience not action packed and loud.

If Avatar ran at a quicker pace, maybe 2-2.5 hours perhaps it would have recieved a more positive response from those who didn't go to see a relaxing movie?

Remember the days when movies only ran at about 1.5 hours long? Big effects-driven stuff like king kong and avatar could be just as good if not better if they were not these 3 hour epics. But I personally don't mind long movies, just saying that others might.

Edited February 14, 2010 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[Gubaba]

Hurt Locker, eh?

I have to say...I'm surprised, but not disappointed.

[anime52k8]

Hurt Locker, eh?

I have to say...I'm surprised, but not disappointed.

I'm eating a brownie right now, It's very rich, moist and flavorful despite being a few hours old. I to am surprised but not disappointed.

[Einherjar]

Hurt Locker, eh?

I have to say...I'm surprised, but not disappointed.

Thank goodness, Avatar was entertaining and everything, but definitely not Oscar worthy.

[eugimon]

Thank goodness, Avatar was entertaining and everything, but definitely not Oscar worthy.

no kidding, I couldn't even believe it was nominated. Director, eh.. sure why not... blah blah technical marvel blah blah, but best picture?

then again... Gladiator...

[Gubaba]

then again... Gladiator...

Titanic...

[Beltane70]

I was hoping for either District 9 or Avatar to win Best Picture, but that's because I'm biased in favor of science-fiction films over all other types of films.

The worst part of this year's awards was James Taylor's rendition of "In My Life". Barbara Streisand's outfit is a close second!

[taksraven]

Not surprised by any of the results, esp. Avatar losing out.

Taksraven

[Twoducks]

Avatar deserves the best special efects and that's it. It was really fun, had a great time but that's it (yes, little details like how the planet rotates on the background, and other blah,blah nobody notices until they tell you, are nice but a good screenplay should be more important).

Now The Road not getting nominated for anything was a real shame. Now THAT was a good Sci-fi flick... well, you could slap a lot of genre tags on that beauty.

[Ghost Train]

Cameron got ownd by his ex-wife ... twice

[Duke Togo]

Now The Road not getting nominated for anything was a real shame.

^^^ this

Avatar deserved all the technical awards it could get its hands on. I am not sure how the cinematographer won, as a majority of the movie was "shot" inside the confines of a computer. It never was in any serious contention for best picture; the script was bad and the acting mediocre. I think The Hurt Locker is a very good film, but for my money, Inglorious Basterds was best picture, with Up in the Air second (I'd say THL was third).

[Noriko Takaya]

YES! The Hurt Locker!

[CoryHolmes]

Cameron got ownd by his ex-wife ... twice

Which one? He's had, like, five or so.

[Ghost Train]

Which one? He's had, like, five or so.

Kathryn Bigelow, director of Hurt Locker.

[Vepariga]

im actually happy hurt locker won, funny tho how camerons ex wife was sitting behind cameron himself and she won, snap.

Avatar was great tho,i enjoyed it for the entertaining romp it was,and i enjoy that kind of story,its a timeless one that always works up to a good battle.

[dreamweaver13]

Cameron got ownd by his ex-wife ... twice

Hey, i wouldn't mind getting pwned, as long as I got to tap that. bigelow's hot.

I would've been fine if either one won.

Edited March 9, 2010 by dreamweaver13

[areaseven]

[areaseven]

On this week's issue of Newsweek, Roger Ebert voices out (not that he physically can anymore) his displeasure of Hollywood jumping the 3-D bandwagon following Avatar's success.

Roger Ebert: "Why I Hate 3-D (and You Should Too)"

[one_klump]

MaxiVision48 sounds pretty interesting, would have loved to have seen it in action.

[Lonely Soldier Boy]

Avatar deserves the best special efects and that's it. It was really fun, had a great time but that's it (yes, little details like how the planet rotates on the background, and other blah,blah nobody notices until they tell you, are nice but a good screenplay should be more important).

Now The Road not getting nominated for anything was a real shame. Now THAT was a good Sci-fi flick... well, you could slap a lot of genre tags on that beauty.

IMHO, the Best Movie category has always been a political one for the Academy. Nominating Avatar for best movie the Academy is sending a message to the whole industry stating that they will recognize the movies that cost more, invest more money on promotion and drag the most people to the box office no matter the quality of the overall product. Same goes for Titanic, Ben-Hur and so many others. In other cases, the Academy awards the movies that result more morally and politically favored at the deliberation table were Washington surely has a chair of honor.

[Penguin]

On this week's issue of Newsweek, Roger Ebert voices out (not that he physically can anymore) his displeasure of Hollywood jumping the 3-D bandwagon following Avatar's success.

Roger Ebert: "Why I Hate 3-D (and You Should Too)"

I agree with pretty much everything in that article. I'm getting aggressively disinterested in 3-D movies, to the point where I won't go to see it if it's only in 3-D.

[eriku]

I agree with pretty much everything in that article. I'm getting aggressively disinterested in 3-D movies, to the point where I won't go to see it if it's only in 3-D.

I'm neutral towards 3D as long as I still get a 2D option. But I agree, if something I wanted to see was only available in 3D I would just wait for the DVD. Luckily I haven't run into that yet.

[Snail00]

I just think Avatar deserves to be bashed far more than district 9 since it had come around with a lot more pre-release hype imo.

Cameron hadn't released a movie in a long time so expectations were higher for it to be great than distrct 9 having to be good. Having higher expectations mean higher chance of a negative-sounding review. Because you expect much more from a well-known guy than an unknown.

In a way it's like the bandai vs yamato toy company debate. You like both companies but who impressed you more? I think D9 had way deeper characters that made me care about them vs avatars ones. You avatar lovers are just in damage control mode because you never set your expectations as high as others imo. Cameron could do better with the story but I don't think he put as much effort into that vs the effort put into the 3d technology.

Avatar is to district 9 what macross zero is to macross plus. Plus was more impressive to me for its time and limits than macross zero was to me for its time. Although Macross Zero has better visuals than Macross Plus with the 3d valks and realistic looking dogfights, I preferred macross plus because it was Top Gun with robots. Zero's focus on just telling us about magic priests and religious artifacts which came from space seemed more adventurous and epic, but it had a slower pace to it that could bore you more easily. Same with Avatar. It was meant to be a relaxing experience not action packed and loud.

If Avatar ran at a quicker pace, maybe 2-2.5 hours perhaps it would have recieved a more positive response from those who didn't go to see a relaxing movie?

Remember the days when movies only ran at about 1.5 hours long? Big effects-driven stuff like king kong and avatar could be just as good if not better if they were not these 3 hour epics. But I personally don't mind long movies, just saying that others might.

I remember how much I got blasted for saying how bad avatar was before seeing the movie. Sometimes you can tell by the promos and trailers how bad a film will be. The feeling I get now is that people are slowly recognizing the movie really lacks. I dont think 3d was promoted now and with every film for the sake of making the viewing experience better. I think its a gimmick to bring more revenue because modern man is gimmick driven. And also it prevents piracy which studios claim creates a drop in revenues ( yeah right they still live in multi million dollar mansions). I had the same problem when I talked how shitty ROTF would be. And now the famous board Mod and owner saw it the other day and said it was the worst movie he EVER saw. His board is devoted to the franchise yet he is a true fan that can admit when something is bad. Being a fan of something should not diminish your senses. Was Avatar absolute poo. No it wasnt. But its a movie you can see once and never again. It was definitely better the ROTF but worse than a lot of other summer blockbusters. Seeing the trailers for Iron Man 2 I get the same feeling all fluff and no substance. Maybe hollywood forgot how to make good stories and jumped on the hard drive band wagon. If Avatar 2 does come out it will be more of the same because the studio would want the same format that generated the revenues from the first one. Too Bad because its the public that decides what movies are to be made.

A friend the other day told me that Samsung or some other company did a study on the effects of 3d on the brain and it said it was very harmful. Because our eyeballs are never stay fixed and are constantly moving in micro millimeters the over stimulation can cause mild seisures over time

Edited May 6, 2010 by Snail00

[kanedaestes]

Yeah I have seen Avatar once in IMAX 3D and that was it. Same for Trannies 2, Wolverine, etc. Also another interesting fact as great as HD is the human eye doesn't actually see in HD. So technically all this HD stuff is more crisp and clean than we see. Plus film looks great as is, but when ported to HD it loses something to me, it's no longer the same feeling. Though videogames and sports look awesome in HD and are pretty much the only thing I care to see in HD.

[Keith]

I actually thought Avatar was worse than ROTF. Or rather, ROTF would have had the two twin ratbots on screen non-stop, with no other character having dialogue, to reach the "stupid and ignorant like a child" level of Avatar.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Keith

[Einherjar]

A couple of months ago, in a local theater I saw bins with 3D glasses probably going to be used for some new kiddy movie at the time. I didn't know that kind of stuff is back in style.

I really feel old now.

[Keith]

There is only one movie that should ever be in 3D, and that movie, is "Captain E/O

Speaking of which, I wonder if we'll ever get "Love & Pop" on bluray...

[areaseven]

There is only one movie that should ever be in 3D, and that movie, is "Captain E/O

Nonsense. Jaws 3-D and Freddy's Dead were both epic in 3D.

[Keith]

Nonsense. Jaws 3-D and Freddy's Dead were both epic in 3D.

OMG, I totally forgot, is Avatar the first sign that what Back to the Future Part II predicted will come to pass in 5 years? Will we have a 3D holographic billboard with a crappy CG Jaws coming out of it that soon? Will I be able to race Flea on my hoverboard? I CAN'T WAIT!!

[Gui]

On this week's issue of Newsweek, Roger Ebert voices out (not that he physically can anymore) his displeasure of Hollywood jumping the 3-D bandwagon following Avatar's success.

Roger Ebert: "Why I Hate 3-D (and You Should Too)"

The intelligentsia said the same thing about sound first, then about colors, back in the days: I don't see anything new in this article. Such "conservatism" doesn't fit any artistic field IMO

I agree with the marketing aspects though: it clearly is the new "give us your money" thingie that Hollywood found. Let's see how long it'll last: this looks like a simple trend atm...

As for the study about brain damages: it seems to be far too much soon to judge. Hell, even mobile phones still are under the scrutiny of researchers and medics

[areaseven]

HI all,

All that i've found on the net is the Mattel release of Toys for this film, are there any models, specifically of the Scorpion gunship in a larger size?

Nope. No model kits yet.

[areaseven]

Avatar returns to digital 3D and IMAX theaters on August 27, with over 8 minutes of additional footage. Now I know why I decided not to buy the Blu-ray early.

Edited June 17, 2014 by areaseven

[taksraven]

I thought that the "additional footage" was on the Blu-ray?