Liverpool FC Forum

by **laza** » Thu Jun 10, 2010 3:21 am

Avator was alright but didnt live up to hype for me and I found storyline very ho hum
I thought Dance with Wolves did it so much better

Just watched Wolfman, really wanted to enjoy it with cast and storyline involved.

Though while it had its good parts overall was disappointing for me

by **tubby** » Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:59 am

Emerald Red wrote:
bavlondon wrote:Really? I thought it was fantastic. Also read it is now the 2nd grossing film of all time... is it wrong that I am suddenly attracted to that Neytiri? Id give her one for sure!

Anyway im looking forward to the 2nd one although I imagine it will be a few years before it's finished production.

It's the top grossing film of all time, by a mile. It smashed Titanic's record and it almost made 3 billion. Not bad for a so called bunch of bollox. It wasn't agreat film, but it was decent and it was different no matter what the doubters try to say about it. 3d in a film like that is an experience and I thought it was absolutely fantastic. Roll on the second one and flesh out the story.

Do you know when the 2nd one is going to go into production? Is JC going to be directing this again? Hope so

by **dawson99** » Thu Jun 10, 2010 10:05 am

Avatar was sh!t.. sorry but it was ferngully and Dances with Wolves but with special effects, the sotry was bland, so was the acting. It was just a big pile of rubbish, give me a good story over this dross any day

Yeah top grossing movie after titanic, Titanic was sh!t as well.

by **Bad Bob** » Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:00 pm

dawson99 wrote:Avatar was sh!t.. sorry but it was ferngully and Dances with Wolves but with special effects, the sotry was bland, so was the acting. It was just a big pile of rubbish, give me a good story over this dross any day

Yeah top grossing movie after titanic, Titanic was sh!t as well.

Nail. on. head.

by **tubby** » Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:03 pm

Bad Bob wrote:
dawson99 wrote:Avatar was sh!t.. sorry but it was ferngully and Dances with Wolves but with special effects, the sotry was bland, so was the acting. It was just a big pile of rubbish, give me a good story over this dross any day

Yeah top grossing movie after titanic, Titanic was sh!t as well.

Nail. on. head.

The problem is everyone is a critic and everyone thinks they have the best taste when it comes to films or music. The fact that it was the 2nd highest grossing film of all time speaks for itself regardless if it doesn't appeal to some.

by **dawson99** » Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:09 pm

bavlondon wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:
dawson99 wrote:Avatar was sh!t.. sorry but it was ferngully and Dances with Wolves but with special effects, the sotry was bland, so was the acting. It was just a big pile of rubbish, give me a good story over this dross any day

Yeah top grossing movie after titanic, Titanic was sh!t as well.

Nail. on. head.

The problem is everyone is a critic and everyone thinks they have the best taste when it comes to films or music. The fact that it was the 2nd highest grossing film of all time speaks for itself regardless if it doesn't appeal to some.

And isnt X Factor the top selling single, does it make X Factor good? Or does it make t good, for sheep?

Look at Sam Rockwells moon, didnt even get a theatrical release.. its about what will be seen by the most people, not what is artistically best

by **Bad Bob** » Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:14 pm

bavlondon wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:
dawson99 wrote:Avatar was sh!t.. sorry but it was ferngully and Dances with Wolves but with special effects, the sotry was bland, so was the acting. It was just a big pile of rubbish, give me a good story over this dross any day

Yeah top grossing movie after titanic, Titanic was sh!t as well.

Nail. on. head.

The problem is everyone is a critic and everyone thinks they have the best taste when it comes to films or music. The fact that it was the 2nd highest grossing film of all time speaks for itself regardless if it doesn't appeal to some.

Sorry, Bav, but I personally put very little stock in how good a movie is based on how much it grossed. Same's true of music sales etc. There are an awful lot of teenage girls/boys that go to the movies and download from iTunes these days so I need more than big box office to be convinced. In the case of Avatar it really was, IMO, a case of a very cliched story repackaged in a shiny new format. Fair play if you loved the new format but I didn't. It gave me a headache inside of 20 minutes and it seemed like a massive waste of time and money to turn live actors into walking cartoons just to tell a recycled story of valiant natives fighting off the rapacious advances of the evil colonizers. Dawson's spot on, IMO: the story has to come first and Avatar's story was lacking.

by **tubby** » Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:31 pm

I guess one way to look at it is it's good for some not for others.

by **tonyeh** » Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:54 pm

dawson99 wrote:Avatar was sh!t.. sorry but it was ferngully and Dances with Wolves but with special effects, the sotry was bland, so was the acting. It was just a big pile of rubbish, give me a good story over this dross any day

Yeah top grossing movie after titanic, Titanic was sh!t as well.

At least the last hour of Titanic was decent.

by **laza** » Thu Jun 10, 2010 3:28 pm

Only part of Titanic that was decent was Leo becoming a lifeless corpse

by **Emerald Red** » Thu Jun 10, 2010 8:56 pm

Bad Bob wrote:
dawson99 wrote:Avatar was sh!t.. sorry but it was ferngully and Dances with Wolves but with special effects, the sotry was bland, so was the acting. It was just a big pile of rubbish, give me a good story over this dross any day

Yeah top grossing movie after titanic, Titanic was sh!t as well.

Nail. on. head.

The both of you are totally missing the point of this film. Avatar was more or less about the technology behind it and what it can do for the film industry. It's pushing 3d into the mainstream and developing future success for that concept. Like it or not, 3d is now here to stay and will be a vital aspect in more or less the next generation of visual entertainment. TV's will have it as standard, as will things like SKY TV, PC's and future gaming consoles.

The 3d aspect aside, there were other technologies that were groundbreaking in the film. The fact that most of this film is actually CGI and look that good is staggering. Cameron said they only just scratched the surface of what the tech is capable of. Previously things that were impossible are now possible. For example, compare Jar Jar Binks in the latest Star Wars films to the Na'vi. The biggest complaint about those films were that the characters were blatent CG when on screen with the live actors. When the Na'vi are on screen with live actors in this, they look like they are actually there with them and were believable. It's been said that for Terminator 2 to be made, the groundbreaking special effects used in Cameron's previous film, The Abyss, had to be made for it to be possible.

Do you know when the 2nd one is going to go into production? Is JC going to be directing this again? Hope so

The second Avatar will no doubt be made considering the massive success of the first. It's been left open for a sequel, but I think a prequel is better suited.Cameron will no doubt have something to do with it, but I don't think he'll direct it. The reason being is that he's work on Battle Angel (an Anime), which will use the technology that he created for Avatar. Funnily enough, a live action version of Battle Angel would have been impossible previously, but for a very interesting and strange reason other than technology restraints. The fact that the star of the comic is a little girl and at times is naked would breach the child pornography law if a live actor were to be used. The fact that the girl can now be rendered by CGI alone gets round that law as they won't be using an underage minor.

by **Bad Bob** » Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:21 pm

Emerald Red wrote:The both of you are totally missing the point of this film. Avatar was more or less about the technology behind it and what it can do for the film industry. It's pushing 3d into the mainstream and developing future success for that concept. Like it or not, 3d is now here to stay and will be a vital aspect in more or less the next generation of visual entertainment. TV's will have it as standard, as will things like SKY TV, PC's and future gaming consoles.

Oh, I don't think we missed these points, mate, we (well I at least) just don't value them very highly. The 3D thing does nothing for me except give me a headache and I cringe at the thought of this becoming widespread. Just like shakey cam work for fight scenes, I think 3D falls into the trap of thinking that audiences want to be fully immersed in the action. Well, at least a few of us don't want that at all. I spend all of my other time fully immersed in a 3D environment so that's not what I want or need from a movie. Give me a director and DOP that know how to tell and shoot a good story any day over the migraine-inducing hyperreality of 3D films.

As for these vaunted innovations in CGI, again it strikes me as a misplacing of priorities. By and large I don't want my movies to look like a video game and my characters to look like cartoons. Just as real tads are far superior to fake silicon implants, I generally prefer to see real flesh and blood actors practicing their craft rather than a bunch of CG creatures. Most of all, I'd prefer that the CGI, 3D or whatever technique or tool you care to name serve the story rather than the other way around. If you want to applaud Avatar because it put technology above story-telling then that's your prerogative but, IMO, that's precisely why Avatar and the rest of the CG-driven junk it will spawn will never rank as quality work: it got the principles of good film-making exactly backward.

by **In and Out** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:28 am

Bad Bob wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:The both of you are totally missing the point of this film. Avatar was more or less about the technology behind it and what it can do for the film industry. It's pushing 3d into the mainstream and developing future success for that concept. Like it or not, 3d is now here to stay and will be a vital aspect in more or less the next generation of visual entertainment. TV's will have it as standard, as will things like SKY TV, PC's and future gaming consoles.

Oh, I don't think we missed these points, mate, we (well I at least) just don't value them very highly. The 3D thing does nothing for me except give me a headache and I cringe at the thought of this becoming widespread. Just like shakey cam work for fight scenes, I think 3D falls into the trap of thinking that audiences want to be fully immersed in the action. Well, at least a few of us don't want that at all. I spend all of my other time fully immersed in a 3D environment so that's not what I want or need from a movie. Give me a director and DOP that know how to tell and shoot a good story any day over the migraine-inducing hyperreality of 3D films.

As for these vaunted innovations in CGI, again it strikes me as a misplacing of priorities. By and large I don't want my movies to look like a video game and my characters to look like cartoons. Just as real tads are far superior to fake silicon implants, I generally prefer to see real flesh and blood actors practicing their craft rather than a bunch of CG creatures. Most of all, I'd prefer that the CGI, 3D or whatever technique or tool you care to name serve the story rather than the other way around. If you want to applaud Avatar because it put technology above story-telling then that's your prerogative but, IMO, that's precisely why Avatar and the rest of the CG-driven junk it will spawn will never rank as quality work: it got the principles of good film-making exactly backward.

Nail. On. Head. :nod

by **laza** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 7:24 am

Good post and spot on BB

by **Ciggy** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 8:46 am

The new Shrek was a disappiontment :shifty

Such a shame for the final one aswell.

Liverpool FC Forum

Movies - What have you been watching ?

Who is online