Avatar Movie

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ahtman**

Kid_Kyoto wrote:No. Vision plays a role as well.

The amazing thing about Avatar is it looked like the Amazon rain forest, but then it went 3 steps beyond. The plants, the luminesence, the animal life, it was amazing.

LotR in contrast gave us some tree houses (very nice tree houses) and called it a magical land of wonder. Of course Jackson was limited by what could be done, what he could afford to do and bound to the books, but all in all suddenly my memories of Middle Earth are not too impressive.

Everything you are describing is a special effect. The jungle was generated, not real. The plants didn't exist and had to be generated. You aren't saying the story was so much better, or that the acting was so much better, or that you connected to the characters in a meaningful way, or that the cinematography was the best you've ever seen; you are giving it some artificial bump over a superior film because, and only because, it's artifice is slightly less noticeable.

**Frazzled**

What isinteresting to me is that Cameron is know for tight plotlines. T and T2 were tight, crisp ideas-essentially good stories. Titanic, was essentially a good story to get you emotionally involved in the wreck itself.

This one didn't seem tight at all.

**Ahtman**

Frazzled wrote:This one didn't seem tight at all.

There is a joke here, I just know it.

**Frazzled**

Ahtman wrote:
Frazzled wrote:This one didn't seem tight at all.

There is a joke here, I just know it.

Probably.

**Black Blow Fly**

I thought the storyline was fine. I never once found myself checking my watch and I watched the movie twice in a row.

G

**sebster**

I thought it was a really great movie. There's a lot to be said for taking a simple story and telling it really well.

**Wolfstan**

mattyrm wrote:Ugh.. saw it yesterday in the IMAX 3D place at Bradford.
Visually it was excellent, awesome action, and im glad i saw it.. but...

Ridiculously bad story, possibly the corniest film i have ever seen.

I cant believe some of you guys! The plot wasnt brilliant?

It was shocking! It was basically dances with wolves with blue people crossed with fern-gully.

Seriously, i will reel off the things i found to be ridiculously cheesy and see if you guys can help me out, i know i have seen them in tons of films but i cant put my finger on it.

Foreign Man trying to fit in with natives, everyone laughs at him when he falls off a horse

Foreign Man is mocked and everyone says "he will die now" but he suprises them and is pretty good at stuff.

Man is disliked in a childish way by natives, but then they all love him when he learns their ways.

Man gets forced to be "tutored" by woman who complains "its not fair" but really you know for a fact she is going to start banging him

Man sleeps in bizzare cocoon like web thing after climbing down loads of branches (what do you do if you need a piss in the middle of the night?)

Man is outcast when the other Foreign Man turn up and start burning things

Foreign Man is reaccepted with crap speech.

Foreign Man ends up the leader

Foreign Man has a mano e mano fight with a big boss at the end.

It was absolutely shocking. Worse then the Ewoks beating the Stormtroopers.

And how come the arrows bounced off the gunships at the start but killed everyone easily at the end?

And WARPAINT on a HELICOPTER?!!

Jesus!

I could go on all night..

Honestly, i would still say go and see it, i mean, its only 6 or 7 quid, and it looks great.. but christ... its just a little kids film with no broader appeal. Starwars is kinda childish if you are being critical, but at least it was not utterly purile like this.

This is why you & my father made it as Bootnecks

No soul!!

He's the same, he'd of liked the look of the movie, but not the content. Me?... I'm a dreamer and liked the "theme" of the movie, even if it is corny

Just to add fuel to the military paranoia... I finished Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 yesterday, that's 2 stories that involved yanks being the bad guys, and both made by American company's!!

**BrookM**

I uh.. damn. Visuals are great but the rest, ugh. Good fights and oooh, alien genocide. But all in all, not as great as I hoped it to be. At least the battles with the armoured suits looked great, but the whole deus ex machina in the end was horrible.

**Sidstyler**

And WARPAINT on a HELICOPTER?!!

You know you would.

Also:

**Wolfstan**

It would be great if he developed the military stuff into a movie where you could get behind them. The kit and the characters were awesome so would love to see them in their own movie.

**BrookM**

A potential sequel would probably need even more brutal humans who will fight the filthy alien cat people with guerilla warfare not much unlike Rambo. That or the humans deploy more filthy cat people of their own.

**Aduro**

I assume they painted the copter so they knew which side it was on.

And with the arrows, first time, they're firing from a standing position. Second time they're in a full dive on their birds, adding to the inertia of the shot.

**Black Blow Fly**

Exactly.

I thought Worthington did a fine job.

G

**Ahtman**

Aduro wrote:I assume they painted the copter so they knew which side it was on.

And with the arrows, first time, they're firing from a standing position. Second time they're in a full dive on their birds, adding to the inertia of the shot.

That still wouldn't crack the canopy on a modern Apache, let alone a vehicle that far into the future.

**Black Blow Fly**

Yeah the lack of solid realism always has turned me off to hte scyfy genre in general. What were they thinking???

G

**Cane**

Ahtman wrote:
Aduro wrote:I assume they painted the copter so they knew which side it was on.

And with the arrows, first time, they're firing from a standing position. Second time they're in a full dive on their birds, adding to the inertia of the shot.

That still wouldn't crack the canopy on a modern Apache, let alone a vehicle that far into the future.

These are Pandora arrows and gravity we're talking about! C'mon, the blue aliens after all have naturally reoccurring carbon fiber underneath their skin.

**Ahtman**

Green Blow Fly wrote:Yeah the lack of solid realism always has turned me off to hte scyfy genre in general. What were they thinking???

G

It was never a question of realism, though JC has gone to great lengths to explain to us how much time they spent trying to make it as such. It is a question of a film following it's own internal logic, of which this had none. It would constantly change the rules and for no apparent reason. One moment Arrows don't penetrate bulletproof glass, the next they go through it no problem. That is poor writing, not fantastic.

Also, science fiction, real science fiction is supposed to be based on a foundation of reality. That is why it is science fiction, not fantasy. The uniformed tend to call anything in space Sci-fi, but that isn't correct. Your reasoning doesn't hold up specifically because it is sci-fi. They put a great deal of time into trying to create a realistic environment and science behind the species, a real sense of verisimilitude in the integration of all the elements. Then they turn around and just say screw it on occasion and it just screws the movie. You can try and rationalize it all you want but it doesn't change that it is poor writing. The fact that you have to stretch so far to manufacture justifications is just further proof of it.

@Cane: Again, one moment stone and wood arrows can't penetrate, the next they can.

**Cane**

To the arrow's credit we have no idea if they were loaded up differently since they were only effective after they realized how bad their first volley was. Not only that but they were fired point blank on top of very quick flying dinosaurs which may have an impact on the movie's physics.

And this is all nitpicking and something that happens in just about any movie especially in scifi. You do seem to not like Avatar also which is understandable why you focus on such details like these

**Ozymandias**

Different ships. The first time they are firing at the main ship and the other times they are firing at the smaller ships. I don't remember seeing any arrows penetrating the main ship in the final fight sequence.

Oh and I thought it was pretty obvious (and kinda cool) that they painted the 'rebel' copter so that the Navi would be able to tell it from the enemy.

**Ahtman**

Cane wrote:To the arrow's credit we have no idea if they were loaded up differently since they were only effective after they realized how bad their first volley was. Not only that but they were fired point blank on top of very quick flying dinosaurs which may have an impact on the movie's physics.

DING DING DING: poor writing alert.

Sci-fi doesn't get a free pass for inconsistency and bad plotting. You are thinking of fantasy where you can use the excuse "it's magic, I ain't gotta explain

".

Ozymandias wrote:Different ships. The first time they are firing at the main ship and the other times they are firing at the smaller ships. I don't remember seeing any arrows penetrating the main ship in the final fight sequence.

Oh and I thought it was pretty obvious (and kinda cool) that they painted the 'rebel' copter so that the Navi would be able to tell it from the enemy.

It makes little sense that the materials would be that radically different. I also didn't have a problem with the war paint on Trudy's Scorpion. It made sense.

**Ozymandias**

Ahtman wrote:

It makes little sense that the materials would be that radically different.

It does make it not a mistake though. Frankly we don't know if the mega ship has transparent aluminum windows and the little ships only get glass.

I also didn't have a problem with the war paint on Trudy's Scorpion. It made sense.

Yeah that part wasn't directed at you.

**Cane**

Ahtman wrote:
Cane wrote:To the arrow's credit we have no idea if they were loaded up differently since they were only effective after they realized how bad their first volley was. Not only that but they were fired point blank on top of very quick flying dinosaurs which may have an impact on the movie's physics.

DING DING DING: poor writing alert.

Sci-fi doesn't get a free pass for inconsistency and bad plotting. You are thinking of fantasy where you can use the excuse "it's magic, I ain't gotta explain ".

Sure it does otherwise people would nitpick their brains to death over all the details and inconsistencies present in every major scifi franchise. Focusing such angst and hatred over the details of an arrow really shows your agenda of just being negative. It'd be like constantly posting in the "new Nids thread" about how GW and the new Nids sucks.

Did you even watch the movie? The movie basically alluded to an "energy force" somewhat reminiscent of the "force" from Star Wars except it was driven from that planet's deity and ancestors. Thats a main reason why the protagonist and Co. succeeded in the film. So there's your "magic" for ya. Sci-fi movies do this all the time whether its Star Wars and the force or Serenity/Firefly and psychics. You just flat out don't like Cameron and Avatar

It makes little sense that the materials would be that radically different. I also didn't have a problem with the war paint on Trudy's Scorpion. It made sense.

Imo it also makes little sense to argue about details that we clearly don't have all the information on except for what we saw in the movie. So long range arrows fired at their heaviest gunship doesn't work, but flying on top of very fast dinosaurs and firing arrows point blank at the smaller vehicles does work. You don't have to like it but thats the movie's "logic'.

**Ahtman**

You listed Star Wars as Sci-Fi. That just shows how far you are willing to defend your delusions. It is hard to take anything esle you say about it that serieously when you don't know the difference between Science Fiction and Fantasy.

No one has said you can't think the movie is the greatest thing ever. With that in mind someone also thought Ernest Goes to Camp was the greatest movie ever so that doesn't really mean much does it? If you like it, that is fantastic, but don't try and sell the rest of us that a lump of crap is gold just because you REALLY REALLY want it to be.

**gretar**

- The arrows might have been made out of different material after the Na'vi saw that the originals did'nt work at first .

- The Na'vi are the good guys , they are SUPPOSED to win in the last fight ... its not only this movies logic , its like 99% of all movies logic . Even (some) horror movies use that logic .

- The Scorpions might have different fabric than the main ship . Kind of like a SM Land Raider must have stronger armour than an SM Bike .

- If the Na'vi were flying on high speed that would add more power to the impact of the arrows . That too might be a factor .

- The warpaint was most propably painted on to tell the diffrence between Trudy's Scorpion and the rest . Otherwice the Na'vi might shoot her down , taken that she looks exaclty like the rest of the enemy's .

**Cane**

Ahtman wrote:You listed Star Wars as Sci-Fi. That just shows how far you are willing to defend your delusions. It is hard to take anything esle you say about it that serieously when you don't know the difference between Science Fiction and Fantasy.

Delusions?

How about you also overlooking the fact that I mentioned Firefly/Serenity and their reliance on psychics which is more or less the same kind of plot characteristic as magic. You must also cringe whenever you see Star Wars on top of the "greatest scifi movies ever made lists" which it usually constantly ranks at the top in. And again this seems more like obsessing over minor points in order to just repeat your negative view on Avatar and Cameron.

No one has said you can't think the movie is the greatest thing ever. With that in mind someone also thought Ernest Goes to Camp was the greatest movie ever so that doesn't really mean much does it? If you like it, that is fantastic, but don't try and sell the rest of us that a lump of crap is gold just because you REALLY REALLY want it to be.

Of course not but it'd be like a guy constantly posting why the new Tyranids, GW, and tabletop gaming/painting sucks in a thread about the new Tyranids. We all get your beef and some of the criticisms are sound but ultimately its a movie the industry and most movie goers enjoyed by quite a bit. In recent posts the minor detail of Pandora's arrows have already been discussed and the "movie logic" is there. Yeesh, I'm sure if the internet was around when Star Wars was released it'd have a similar reaction from that kind of crowd. You're basically being the guy you describe except harping on its negative qualities and coming up with ridiculous hyperboles in order to rationalize constantly posting negative posts and repeating your already heard views.

**Ahtman**

I never said the movie sucked. I said it was ok. I was entertained, but I've been entertained before and I'll be entertained again. The special effects were what was good about the movie, the rest is so-so. I never called for Cameron's head or hoped this would fail. I just have an objective view of the film. I tend to emphasize story and characterization, you prefer pew pew pew and pretty colors. Different strokes and all that. Enjoying something doesn't mean you can't be critical of it.

**Bookwrack**

Ozymandias wrote:Different ships. The first time they are firing at the main ship and the other times they are firing at the smaller ships. I don't remember seeing any arrows penetrating the main ship in the final fight sequence.

Oh and I thought it was pretty obvious (and kinda cool) that they painted the 'rebel' copter so that the Navi would be able to tell it from the enemy.

The craft taking arrows through the canopies were light VTOLs, whereas the big one was specifically referred to as a gunship, so it's not at all odd that the latter is much more heavily armored.

**Black Blow Fly**

Wow it's been a long time since I seen someone get as worked up as Ahtman over a movie. Movies are primarily intended as a form of entertainment, not a dissertation on spacial physics. Get over it already.

G

**sebster**

Ahtman wrote:It was never a question of realism, though JC has gone to great lengths to explain to us how much time they spent trying to make it as such. It is a question of a film following it's own internal logic, of which this had none. It would constantly change the rules and for no apparent reason. One moment Arrows don't penetrate bulletproof glass, the next they go through it no problem. That is poor writing, not fantastic.

There was one heavy craft that was described as a gunship. It deployed at the front of the formation and drew the arrows in the attack on the tree, and wasn't affected. In the later attack, led by a guy with military training, the na'vi ambush the convoy by allowing the heavy ship to pass and attack the light VTOLs. The na'vi have far greater success attacking the light aircraft.

Also, science fiction, real science fiction is supposed to be based on a foundation of reality. That is why it is science fiction, not fantasy. The uniformed tend to call anything in space Sci-fi, but that isn't correct. Your reasoning doesn't hold up specifically because it is sci-fi.

English is an evolving language and terms can come to mean a lot of different things. Sci-fi has changed its use considerably, so that a lot of people who know all about the term and its origins will use it describe fantasy movies set in space.

You can like that or not, but it is what it is.

They put a great deal of time into trying to create a realistic environment and science behind the species, a real sense of verisimilitude in the integration of all the elements. Then they turn around and just say screw it on occasion and it just screws the movie. You can try and rationalize it all you want but it doesn't change that it is poor writing. The fact that you have to stretch so far to manufacture justifications is just further proof of it.

I think you're putting a lot of emphasis on the idea that arrows penetrated the cockpits of aircraft. To the point where I have to admit to being quite baffled about what you look for in a movie.

**Ahtman**

I wasn't worked up about it, just discussing it. I disagree that it makes perfect sense. The Scorpions aren't light VTOL's either, unless an Apache is suddenly a Light VTOL. The big ship was a dedicated transport, more like an Osprey. The birds themselves did more damage then the arrows ever could anyway. The inclusion of the shot seems superfluous and ridiculous.

As far as science fiction goes, it isn't really a like or dislike scenario. It would be more akin to the pronunciation debate. My definition is perhaps more traditional, but that doesn't make it any more wrong than it makes someone elses loose definition right. Just having spaceships doesn't make something sci-fi any more than someone using a revolver makes them a cowboy.

I don't see why everyone thinks that be talking about this one scene it is a denigration of the whole plot. We aren't even actually talking about the scene, but just one moment in the whole scene. Again, being critical of something does is not the same as disliking the whole of something. Why so defensive because someone didn't fall in love with something you love? Do you really need others to feel the same way to justify your feelings for it?