7
   

James Cameron's (Disney's) Avatar (Pochahontas)?

 
 
djjd62
 
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 05:48 pm
http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/3867/poca2u.jpg
 
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 05:52 pm
@djjd62,
While this movie was visually impressive, the characters were complete cliches and the storyline has been done before (by Disney of all people). I don't see why it gets the acclaim it does.
Seed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 05:56 pm
There are only, what? 7 original stories, everything else is just a degree of the same story. But yea, that is pretty much the same story
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 06:05 pm
@djjd62,
Most of the good reviews, I recall, complain of weak dialogue, story, and characters. Yep. Sounds like it stinks just like Disney's Pocahontas.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 06:09 pm
i'll certainly see avatar someday, but i'd settle for more story (especially originality) and less technology/special effects when it comes to movie making
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 06:56 pm
@djjd62,
Sadly, this is an accurate analysis of the story.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 07:00 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:
While this movie was visually impressive, the characters were complete cliches and the storyline has been done before (by Disney of all people). I don't see why it gets the acclaim it does.

I agree.

It's obvious to me that I'm not a "mainstream" movie goer, especially when it comes to Sci-Fi because I have different goals in mind for the stories I want to see. But it's still amazing to me that so many people are still entranced by the Avatar story (even though it's been done many times before). I guess it's an oldie but a goodie.

I hope Cameron makes billions on Avatar and Hollywood starts producing dozens of attempted copycat Sci-Fi films. Maybe a few of them will actually have an interesting story (probably by accident) amidst all the special effects.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 07:18 pm
a strange or unusual story has little to do with a movie being good. In fact, it is normally more of a negative than a positive.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 07:19 pm
@rosborne979,
I haven't seen the film, but I've read that the science in it is legit too. Things like consulting botanists to help create the flora in the new world Cameron was creating.

Did you have any impressions about the quality of science in the science fiction?
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 07:24 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
Things like consulting botanists to help create the flora in the new world Cameron was creating.


that would be more impressive if the female na'vi did not have tits, because science says that they would not. But, guys like to see female tits, so there they are.
Seed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 07:28 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Things like consulting botanists to help create the flora in the new world Cameron was creating.


that would be more impressive if the female na'vi did not have tits, because science says that they would not. But, guys like to see female tits, so there they are.


Honestly, I didn't even notice the breast of the Na'vi. The necklace was usually in the way. But curious, how does science way that they would not have breast?
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 07:29 pm
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:

i'll certainly see avatar someday, but i'd settle for more story (especially originality) and less technology/special effects when it comes to movie making


That's why I'm so skeptical about all of the glowing reviews. They seem to dismiss all of the negatives about the story for the visionary majestic groundbreaking visuals.
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 07:31 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

I haven't seen the film, but I've read that the science in it is legit too. Things like consulting botanists to help create the flora in the new world Cameron was creating.

Did you have any impressions about the quality of science in the science fiction?

That's James Cameron's cinematic OCD. Remember all of the nano-minute and anal detailing from his research about the Titanic? Still didn't save the film from being a dreadful bore of a well produced Lifetime Movie romance.
Seed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 07:35 pm
@tsarstepan,
No, but that OCD did make that move make almost 2 BILLION dollars. And Avatar is on the path to surpass that. Crazy.

I look at the movie Avatar int he way I look at some music. I can look past crappy lyrics if the music is good. Now generally I can not look past a bad plot, bad acting or just things that don't make sense. But really, this movie is far beyond anything visually that I can look past some of the negative things in the film.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  3  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 07:36 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
I haven't seen the film, but I've read that the science in it is legit too. Things like consulting botanists to help create the flora in the new world Cameron was creating.

Did you have any impressions about the quality of science in the science fiction?

I thought they did pretty well with the biology in the film. The animals were interesting and seemed to have a consistent body plan implying an evolutionary linkage (six limbs, along with some type of dual sensory organs protruding from the neck/head area). Unfortunately the Na'Vi didn't fit the body plan of the planet. And their extra-sensory organ was coming out of a braid of hair which didn't make much sense.

Another big disappointment from a science perspective was the "floating mountains" which just made no sense whatsoever. They definitely made for a cool visual element, but I couldn't see any other reason for them (or excuse for how they floated). Even assuming that the floating mountains might have resulted resulted from huge chunks of "unobtainium" which were floating in the mysterious flux vortex of the area, why wouldn't the evil corporate mercenaries just snag a floating chunk of unobtainium and fly off with it (instead of digging it out of the ground right below the natives home-tree).

Maybe the mega-sequel will explain it all. I liked Sigourney Weaver better when she was carrying a grenade-launcher/flamethrower and saying "get away from her you BITCH". Much more memorable.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 03:59 pm
@djjd62,
Funny stuff.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 04:37 pm
Well, I liked it. I went to see it twice. (Once with friends, once with my son.) The story is not new, not all of the scenes are new. (The one where the marine enters the Navi village is shot frame for frame from a half dozen Westerns, he is even struck on the face and chest the same way as the character is in the originals.)

The battle scenes aren't my cup of tea and I cannot example why, so far in the future, weapons are still using explosive projectiles (bullets and rockets). What? Everybody forgot about developing those plasma death rays?

I also cannot figure out why the Sigourney Weaver character smokes, forgodssakes, smokes cigarettes?? This is the future? This is a movie supposedly about the purity of the natural order? Way to go, tobacco lobby assclowns!

==
Here's my guess on the breasts. You got a planet with horse-like beasties and toothy-doglike beasties and that first big ugly thing, they all were apparently mammalian, so ...going to be some mammaries showing up on other critters including the Navi.

The sex thing, oops, the nerve-ending hook-up thingie, coming off the head IS a little strange. The horses have it AND the more reptilian flying dragons have it too. hmmmm. Very old linkage evolution-wise. (BTW there is a missing sex scene between what's her name and the marine that will be included in the DVD. whoopie. Making whoopie by litterally hooking up.) Shocked

==
Okay. One last thing. The mountains aren't the only things that float. Everything floats. All that "land" which you see is just swimming around on top of a liquid center. Floating mid-air like that party balloon the day after you buy it. Not enough lift to float away, just enough to keep it flying.

Next we tackle what gases make up the atmosphere? Not human breathable but thick enough to fly in?

Joe(pure nitrogen?)Nation

rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 05:58 pm
@Joe Nation,
Joe Nation wrote:
The battle scenes aren't my cup of tea and I cannot example why, so far in the future, weapons are still using explosive projectiles (bullets and rockets). What? Everybody forgot about developing those plasma death rays?

I read that Cameron did that intentionally to make the technology of the film "more recognizable/understandable" to the audience. I know, I know... an audience of people who pretty much grew up on phasers and photons. Don't ask me to explain it, I'm just reporting what I read. He also chose the "rotocraft" design instead of anti-grav floaters for the same reason.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 06:00 pm
@tsarstepan,
tsarstepan wrote:
That's James Cameron's cinematic OCD. Remember all of the nano-minute and anal detailing from his research about the Titanic? Still didn't save the film from being a dreadful bore of a well produced Lifetime Movie romance.


The latter precluded me from noticing the former. I hated Titanic and am rooting for any movie to knock it off the top of the box office charts.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » James Cameron's (Disney's) Avatar (Pochahontas)?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/22/2019 at 11:18:28