Overclock.net banner

1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,616 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So after all the hype has been said and done and internet boards have called it the greatest move ever, what do we all think now?

On my first viewing I gave it a solid 8/10. Now I give it 6.

The storyline was poor and the plot was full of holes. The characters were underdeveloped (apart from Neytiri) and they were uninspiring. The dialogue was not memorable and the ending was cliche. So what exactly did the movie have?

Personally, good looking visuals do not make a movie. They will be forgotten soon enough and all that will remain is the annoyance of 3D movies that will pop up everywhere (honestly, Alice in Wonderland did not need to be in 3D).

Does anyone else feel the same way?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,584 Posts
I'd watch it again. I liked it.

Perhaps that's because I went in expecting violence, stunning visuals, SPEHS MARINEZ and the like?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,845 Posts
eh 7/10 it was to long for what it was, good movie, im sure ill see it again, but probably wont enjoy it anymore than i did the first time.
saw it in 3d, it sucked. i would have much rather watched it in 2d or whatever. not in awe by the movie.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,489 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by Crazyman0005
View Post

oh.. and the mineral... unobtainium... really?.... i mean.... REALLY???

Wow, really? That's what they called the mineral???

That's a term long used by car and motorcycle racing fans to describe factory-supplied parts that can't be purchased. Seriously cheesey to call the mineral that.

Makes me want to see the movie even less...I thought I might rent it when it came out on DVD but probably won't even do that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,216 Posts
its probably not its technical name but you could imagine how flamed up people would get if they called the mineral some ridiculously hard to pronounce name. what could they have called it that would have made you all happy. tbh i think your just splittin hairs. they called the mineral needed to build the subterranean vehicle that was used to bore to the centre of the planet in the movie "the core" unobtanium as well and no one chucked a fit over it being to corny.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,369 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by e_dogg
View Post

Wow, really? That's what they called the mineral???

That's a term long used by car and motorcycle racing fans to describe factory-supplied parts that can't be purchased. Seriously cheesey to call the mineral that.

Makes me want to see the movie even less...I thought I might rent it when it came out on DVD but probably won't even do that.

There's a decent bit of silliness, the usual Hollywood "man hates nature and is pure evil" theme and so on, but it's a good watch. Technically beautiful, the story is well told for what it is, and the acting is good.
 

·
Taking it Easy
Joined
·
4,114 Posts
If you thought the plot was weak then you must have failed to recognize the other 5 concepts that were going on. Yeah the main plot was a rehashed plot, but what movie isn't? And one more thing, it was much more like the story of Shogun than it was like Pocahontas. Edumacate yourself.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,369 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by aaronman
View Post

If you thought the plot was weak then you must have failed to recognize the other 5 concepts that were going on. Yeah the main plot was a rehashed plot, but what movie isn't? And one more thing, it was much more like the story of Shogun than it was like Pocahontas. Edumacate yourself.

If you really think the plot was the strong point of the movie... eh...

Really, summed up it's evil humans/Americans attacking innocent nature/indigenous people. It's been rehashed and rehashed and rehashed and rehashed. Everything was predictable.

That said... I still thoroughly enjoyed it. The acting was fantastic (IMO) and the story was well told, even though it was predictable. You can have a rehashed story, and if it's well told and the characters are interesting and well developed, it's well done.

Yeah, most plots are rehashed, but I think the fact that a lot of people noticed the fact it's an incredibly rehashed plot says something.
 

·
Taking it Easy
Joined
·
4,114 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by Tainok
View Post

If you really think the plot was the strong point of the movie... eh...

Really, summed up it's evil humans/Americans attacking innocent nature/indigenous people. It's been rehashed and rehashed and rehashed and rehashed. Everything was predictable.

That said... I still thoroughly enjoyed it. The acting was fantastic (IMO) and the story was well told, even though it was predictable. You can have a rehashed story, and if it's well told and the characters are interesting and well developed, it's well done.

Yeah, most plots are rehashed, but I think the fact that a lot of people noticed the fact it's an incredibly rehashed plot says something.

I don't think that was the exact point I was trying to put into words. Let me try again. Yes, the main plot has been done many times before. No, it is not the strong point of the movie. Yes, it could have been better.

But if you're telling me that the concepts presented in the movie, such as the ability to move your consciousness through a computer and into another biological form, being able to share thoughts through a "biological computer," the people's ability to control the will of the lesser intelligent animals on the planet, didn't blow your mindhole at least 8 times, I can't believe that you seriously sat through and paid attention throughout the whole movie. Not only did it present all these ideas, but it made them believable as well. It was able to create a feel of realism that made you almost a part of the movie which is something that many movies attempt and very few succeed.

Avatar is a new kind of movie in the same way that electronic music is a new kind of music. No, it's not better or worse than the conventional form, it's just different and unable to be compared to anything that came before it. What I'm talking about is not to be confused with genre. Avatar presented new concepts in almost a "tech demo" form if you will but still in the form of a conventional movie almost as sci-fi does. But it isn't really sci-fi at all is it?

I'm now past the point where I don't even make sense to myself. I need to stop talking. But hopefully you get the gist right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,300 Posts
I'm a sucker for event movies. I love 'em. And Cameron makes event movies. T2, Titanic, Aliens, I think even The Abyss kinda qualifies. LOTR were definately event films. Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jaws, E.T...

(Just so ya know, transformers and gi joe are not event movies
)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,168 Posts
I haven't seen Avatar yet, but I did see Alice in Wonderland in 3D this last weekend. I agree with the OP, it did no need to be in 3D. While there were some cool moments, I found in the action scenes my eyes had a hard time 'keeping up' with having to focus on various parts of the screen and the action that is happening. A few times I had to avert my eyes because a something moved in an out of focus quickly while moving around the screen (when she fell down the hole especially). I don't know, it was a midnight show so maybe I was just tired.

I felt like my movie going experience in this case was hampered by the 3D effects more than enhanced by them. Maybe as the technology (both recording and viewing) matures it will get better but I think its more than that. 3D movies should really be shot differently than 2D ones. They're still shooting, framing shots, and choosing focus points like a 2D movie.

Basically, I think they need to make 3D movies that don't have a 2D counterpart if they really want people to be enveloped in the movie.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,479 Posts
^

Avatar's 3D effects were used to a much greater extent and much more well done extent than Alice In Wonderland's, in my opinion.

I was thoroughly underwhelmed by the 3D Effects in Alice In Wonderland.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
678 Posts
Did none of you guys see avatar in IMAX? I thought it took the 3D to a whole new level. A lot of the movie, you felt like you were actually in it. Other than that, I thought it was a solid movie. 8/10.

Visually, technically, and immersion, I give it a 10/10.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,489 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by thenutty1
View Post

Basically, I think they need to make 3D movies that don't require wearing silly glasses and don't have a 2D counterpart if they really want people to be enveloped in the movie.

Fixed...I won't watch an entire movie in 3D unless glasses aren't required. Wearing glasses over my glasses just sucks.
 

·
Taking it Easy
Joined
·
4,114 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by thenutty1
View Post

I haven't seen Avatar yet, but I did see Alice in Wonderland in 3D this last weekend. I agree with the OP, it did no need to be in 3D. While there were some cool moments, I found in the action scenes my eyes had a hard time 'keeping up' with having to focus on various parts of the screen and the action that is happening. A few times I had to avert my eyes because a something moved in an out of focus quickly while moving around the screen (when she fell down the hole especially). I don't know, it was a midnight show so maybe I was just tired.

I felt like my movie going experience in this case was hampered by the 3D effects more than enhanced by them. Maybe as the technology (both recording and viewing) matures it will get better but I think its more than that. 3D movies should really be shot differently than 2D ones. They're still shooting, framing shots, and choosing focus points like a 2D movie.

Basically, I think they need to make 3D movies that don't have a 2D counterpart if they really want people to be enveloped in the movie.

Avatar's 3D effects are much different from Alice in Wonderland's because the movie was actually shot in 3D.
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Top