First Review of Avatar Special Edition 387
brumgrunt writes "Den Of Geek has the first review of James Cameron's extended cut of Avatar. Its thoughts? 'As opposed to, say, the extended cuts of Aliens, Terminator 2 or The Abyss, the new scenes add little of particular note to everything we've already seen.'"
I doubt it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
So, adding to an already long, mostly pointless movie... doesn't add anything? SHOCKER.
Re:Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
I gotta say (Score:3, Insightful)
Avatar as a film is so-so...it's entertaining enough, but it's fairly brainless. That being said, I don't think there has ever been a better movie to show off your home theater. The Blu-Ray looks and sounds amazing on a good TV/sound system.
The Fountain is also an amazing movie to show off your home theater.
Special Edition? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod the parent up. I walked out 45 minutes in at the theaters and it took 5 sittings to get through on DVD. Am I missing something?
I'm interested in hearing what movies you actually think are any good?
There's really a trend in going all "That movie sucks!" against every popular movie, and I'm getting tired of it.
It might not be original, and maybe people can say "Oh pocahontas did it first!" but that doesn't change that it was a suspenseful, well-made film with some good points that people could think about.
no, really? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Blockbuster movie producers attempt to convince fans to buy a special edition that has little to no added value."
Whoa. Shocking.
Seriously, what were we expecting?
Re:Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
You didn't like it when specifically going to a cinema to see it, yet tried to watch it FIVE times?
Why would you do that to yourself?
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's really a trend in going all "That movie sucks!" against every popular movie, and I'm getting tired of it. It might not be original, and maybe people can say "Oh pocahontas did it first!" but that doesn't change that it was a suspenseful, well-made film with some good points that people could think about.
I would compare it to Star Wars, really. It was an ambitious movie with a cliche plot, passable acting, and very impressive special effects. I enjoyed it in the theaters and now own it on blu-ray. It's not The Usual Suspects, by a long shot, but it is a satisfying movie in its own way.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
It didn't have a happy ending or great production values, but
Re:Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
It may have been an entertaining sort of flick, but I wouldn't give it suspenseful. Nor would I give it particularly any credit for being particularly thought provoking.
To be suspenseful, it would have required that the story was not 99.9% predictable. In a single viewing of a 90 second trailer, the entire plot is already known, all plot twists are pretty well trivially guessed because we've seen this same basic film countless times already. You simply can't build suspense in that sort of flick.
To be thought provoking, it would have to be subtle or somehow distinct from the general sentiment beaten into the minds of the general populace over and over and over again by simply looking at TV or internet for about 15 seconds.
It was about as suspenseful and thought provoking as a fireworks show. Sure, it can be fairly called good by some standard, it's shiny and nice to look at and has 'oohs' and 'aahs', but it doesn't have any particular depth that warrants points in the suspense/thoughtfulness aspect of evaluating a movie.
Re:Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
Probably has something to do with the fact that at this point Cameron can put whatever he wants in the original cut, as he should be. With him I've never felt like I was watching hours and hours of OMG, this guy needs an editor.
I think he showed the world his ability to make a long movie people would watch with Titanic (not my cup of tea, but it was a whole lot of peoples). I would imagine that any issues you had with Avatar are more with the pointless part, than the length, an even chopped to 90 minutes you would simple feel "adding to an already pointless movie ... doesn't add anything..."
I enjoyed Avatar, and felt it was a good throw away visual movie, and the length did not remove my enjoyment. This actually surprises me, as if someone said, "do you want to see an epic throw away movie?" I would think, "oh, God no, keep it to 90 minutes please.", but somehow the sentiment was avoided. I guess there is a reason he makes highest grossing films ever, without relying on it being a squeal/prequel even (I'm looking at you Lucas). I mean, Avatar unseated his other long movie as the number one box office gross. The guy is good at something, and I don't think it's just marketing, as I really thought Avatar would be barfingly unwatchable until I saw it.
I heard rumors of alien sex though, is that not in it now?
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the first movie that has ever had visuals like that. Why would you walk out? It's like walking out on the first "talkie" because the story was boring.
Usually the goal of a movie is to entertain you, not to be a technology showcase. If he was not entertained, it's pretty normal he walked out. A movie that is all technology and no story doesn't seem really appealing to me.
Re:Really? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I wasn't impressed with it at the theatre (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the main thing is that it was a "spectacle film". That's an almost unheard-of genre, especially nowadays. The whole point of that genre is an archetypal storyline and a huge focus on scenery and special effects.
Probably the only other well-known example would be "The Ten Commandments", which was one of the last. Huge production costs, big-name people, and what the 1950s considered top-of-the-line special effects. You can see elements of the genre elsewhere ("2001" is a well-known partial example), but there are very, very few pure examples dated after WW2.
People don't watch a spectacle film for the interesting, innovative story. They watch it because of the scenery and special effects and the sheer spectacle of it all. The early ones were basically "look how much I spent making this movie", back when "making this movie" was enough to get viewers.
If you came into it expecting a good sci-fi movie, of course it won't meet those standards. That's like judging a Bond movie by sci-fi standards: it doesn't compare well because it isn't supposed to be compared at all.
On a more personal note, I watched it months after release, on a rented DVD, headphones, and laptop. It was still an interesting movie, better than much of the stuff Hollywood puts out. Not an "instant classic" or anything, but it wasn't horrible, in my opinion.
Re:I wasn't impressed with it at the theatre (Score:5, Insightful)
I never really understood peoples problem with it. It seemed to me to at least have a better plot then many many other movies, not that that is saying all that much.
So maybe it did not have a above average script, but did anyone really think that it would have one? Personally I thought Titanic was pretty stupid, and its main gimmick was also having the top graphics technology of the time, far surpassing all other films.
Personally I really enjoyed Avatar and thought it should of been longer, but then I was more interested in learning more about Pandora the world then the story.
Re:Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
To be suspenseful, it would have required that the story was not 99.9% predictable.
I didn't think it was predictable at all. I mean, who could have predicted that the natives, following the lead of a trained soldier, would mount a cavalry charge, head on, against a vastly superior force that possessed dramatically more firepower rather than utilize their superior knowledge of the terrain and abilities to blend in to attack from stealth...
:)
Or, to put it more bluntly, who could have predicted that this movie would manage to make Ewoks look like strategic geniuses?...
But, yeah - the plot was obvious from the get-go. I just felt the need to vent a bit about a painfully stupid moment in the movie.
Re:I doubt it... (Score:1, Insightful)
Why it would be the perfect chance for a large rival corp to buy low, wipe them out and sell high!
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Mod the parent up. I walked out 45 minutes in at the theaters and it took 5 sittings to get through on DVD. Am I missing something?
You may be missing your ADD meds. No offense, but people like you must have a hell of a lot of money to blow if you would budget 3.5 hours of your time to go see a movie (travel+film) only to walk out and then have to figure something else to do with your remaining ~3 hours.
I just can't imagine someone having such a low tolerance that they would walk out of a movie like Avatar. It's not Citizen Kane, but it's not Manos: The Hands of Fate either.
Besides, what the hell did you expect? You are obviously someone who has very particular taste, how could you not know what you were walking into?
At $13/ticket (don't know what 3d costs around you) I could probably find something in even some of the most boring movies. Hell, mocking the movie with my friends is easily worth that amount.
Big science plot hole (Score:3, Insightful)
Everybody has been creaming themselves over how well the "science" holds up - as if this were really a hard science movie.
I don't understand this, as there was a plot hole so glaring to me that even as I marveled over the storytelling and the effects it continued to eat away at my Circle of Suspension of Disbelief.
OK, so Pandora is supposed to be in another star system - as I understand Proxima Centari. Let's take a distance of 4.3 lightyears for discussion. Now, at a minimum there had to be 2 trips from Earth to Pandora, and possibly as many as 4:
1) We had to identify that there was unobtanium there: if that required a probe to be sent that is 1 trip there, plus one communication back. If there is some way to detect it by observation then no trip is needed, so let's assume that to be nice.
2) We had to send a probe there to get the Na'vi DNA, and somehow communicate that back to Earth. That is at least one trip there + one communication back (the reason for the distinction will become clear shortly).
3) We had to send people + Avatars from Earth to Pandora.
There are three possible assumptions: .9c) - trips take about 8 years, communications 4 years. Minimum time is thus 8+8+4 = 20 years, plus another 8 years before unobtanium would be flowing back to Earth. That's a long time to wait. Moreover, if you can do .5c ships, you are able to manipulate energies much higher than we can now, so again, no chemical projectile weapons.
1) Humans have faster than light travel. Thus a "trip" and a "communication" are the same, and take some time less than 4.3 years as viewed from Earth. However, I would assert if we know enough to do FTL, we aren't going to be using chemical projectile weapons in a fight. (it also seems likely we would be able to synthesize a room-temp superconductor, but I digress).
2) Humans have relativistic flight (.5c to
3) Humans have non-relativistic flight (.1c or less) - trips take 400 years, communications 4 years. Again, that's just too long to wait.
"What if you cannot use energy weapons on Pandora because of energy fields?" OK, but that still doesn't prevent a ship in orbit from slamming a large mass into the One Tree at great speed, with a much more efficient and devastating effect on Na'vi morale. Again, tell me why they used massed rockets rather than a small rock?
Re:Big science plot hole (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Big science plot hole (Score:3, Insightful)
Assuming that anyone with FTL will have practical energy weapons is probably a big fail. There's still no evidence that it is actually physically possible to deliver more energy with one than with a kinetic kill weapon. Keep in mind that all matter is energy at a different frequency (or spin or something) anyway... The best energy-based weapon is a slug-thrower.
Beam weapons will have their uses. But missiles and projectiles are likely to continue to be some of the most effective options for some time to come, and possibly will continue to be so forever... or until we move to another level of existence :p
Re:The 10-year-rule (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Blue people make good soldiers, when led by white officers.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Plot summary: "smurfs with penises on their heads use gay beastiality to mind-control animals into helping them defeat the evil white man"
Terrible summary. They were cat-smurfs.
Re:I gotta say (Score:2, Insightful)
You guys sounds like children when you get all into the "too cool for the room" posture. Much cooler to hate it, than to like a big budget blockbuster, right?. Well, I thought it was great, saw it twice in the theater - not an original plot, hell everything is derivative at some level.
Oh, and in their delicious campiness, I love Galaxy Quest and Armageddon too. I try to leave my pretentiousness at the theater door.
Re:The 10-year-rule (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that I believe in such a silly rule, but what about Clint Eastwood? :)
If Avatar wasn't at least technically and artistically creative, then you have a very narrow definition you're working with.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
I did however enjoy the movie and i guess that's the point. I don't love the movie like everyone else seemed to, but I don't hate it either.
Yeah I'm kind of surprised at how many people here are ragging on it so hard.
The movie isn't the second coming of Citizen Kane, but if you've seen the trailer or commercials for it, you pretty much know what you're getting into if you go see it. If you like that kind of movie, it's at least watchable in the theatre. I put people who went to see Avatar and now have to talk about how it was a giant stinking pile in about the same category as my friend who keeps dating strippers and then complains that his girlfriends are always crazy, materialistic, and cheat on him.
Maybe the problem is that kids these days are spoiled and didn't live through the relative drought of good sci-fi movies that we did. (And don't even get me started on fantasy.) Back in the day we had to walk through snow and razor blades uphill both ways to see even terrible sci-fi movies because that might be all you got in a given year. Also, somebody should get off my lawn.
Re:Big science plot hole (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, I thought Avatar was a great entertaining movie. It wasn't incredibly realistic and the story was a rehash of the same story we have heard so many times, yet still entertaining. That said, while the movie has a few realism problems I find your argument a bit silly.
You missed a few important details and possibilities.
- The humans came to Pandora not with the goal of wiping out the Na'vi, but with just digging some rocks out of the ground. Some military was sent along to encourage the locals to cooperate, but the original mission was not anything like "destroy worldtree".
- As you have shown, it's a very long round-trip. After deciding to attack the Na'vi, it's not like the humans can run back to earth and grab the big guns, they had to use what was available.
- Your basic premise "well if we have fast spaceships we must have amazing laser guns too" isn't really a valid argument. look at the past 50 years, computers and technology have made amazing leaps and bounds, but we still put on pants one leg at a time. Great advancements in spaceflight doesn't automatically mean we would also have equal advancements in weapons.
- The natives used bows and arrows, which couldn't even pierce the armor on the human aircraft without additional velocity. Projectile weapons are plenty enough to kill them and energy weapons could have been considered crazy overkill.
- The humans on Pandora were from a corporation with some hired ex-military mercenaries. Even if earth has developed stronger energy weapons, it's very possible such "WMDs" are limited to the government military, I don't see GM and Ford running around with nuclear bombs so I don't see why a corporation of the future would have free access to the latest and greatest weapons we have developed.
- Long trip, limited energy. Maybe energy weapons just aren't feasible given that the majority of energy collected needs to be used to power the vehicles, mining equipment, life support, and ships.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Hmm... (Score:2, Insightful)
One thing that does amaze me about this movie is the fact there there doesn't seem to be any real middle-ground. People either love it to the point of excess (which I'll admit- I do), or they hate it and call it self-indulgent garbage that ripped-off other movies.
At least it wasn't yet-another re-make of a '70s or '80s TV show or movie, or the 6th sequel to a series that should have died after the 2nd.
I really can't blame Cameron or the studio for wanting to re-release it, and I appreciate the fact that they added content that many super-fans wanted to see. They got screwed over by some awful 3D releases that took over the screens from them this last Spring. A lot of people also regretted not seeing it in theaters, in 3D, after they saw it for the first time on Blu-Ray or DVD. Now they have a chance, although for a slightly different version. Beats the hell out of crappy 3D fish movies shot with '60s 3D movie values...
Re:Get Chris Nolan to write Avatar 2 (Score:3, Insightful)
But the big action flicks are made for the masses who would not like them to have complicated plots that they have never seen before.
The only way they would ever make the money back to pay for the film is to pander to the lowest common denominator.
Big Budget will never do unique plots.
Re:Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Me. The movie was already 2.7 hours long. A stealth response would have easily added another hour to the film. Furthermore, BIG battles and explosions are easier for youngsters and popcorn eaters to follow :-)
Re:The 10-year-rule (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know if I'm counter-counter culture or what
You are.
But that's okay -- I liked Avatar both times I saw it. It's simple in its story, characters, plotlines and cliche in those areas as well. But it chose a good story to base itself on and told it in a very entertaining way. Any movie that actually gets me emotional (like the army vs tree scene) gets a boost in my rating. Consider that the next time you watch a movie -- did it move you in any way: angry, sad, happy, excited, scared? Most movies don't.
But don't dis the ultra-violence.
Re:Big science plot hole (Score:3, Insightful)
FTL or relativistic travel vs no energy weapons.
Doing this on a large scale, where you can apply brute-force methods (solar sails, high capacitance batteries jammed into 90% of the ship's hull, etc) is a vastly different proposition from creating a small hand-carried (or even mech carried) laser weapon that's suitable for extended environmental combat use. Plus, something that works fine in terrestrial atmospheric conditions may not work properly in the Pandoran environment (which has other things in the atmosphere that make it poisonous to humans). The effects these things have on things like beam collimation, range, and beam diffusion are big unknowns. While differences in gravity and atmosphere can affect projectile weapons too, it's usually easier to overcome problems with ballistic weaponry than it is with exotic energy weaponry.
As for slamming an orbital impactor into the tree. Sure. Lots of heat, light, and radiation. Adverse weather effects. Etc.
1: If the ships in question have the equipment to latch on to such an object.
2: If the ships in question have enough power and control to actually capture the object once they attach. Remember, pushing to relativistic speeds doesn't necessarily require vast amounts of power for instant acceleration and maneuvering. You build up to it over time so you don't turn your crew into salsa inside.
3: If the ships can capture a large enough object to survive atmospheric entry to the ground.
4: If they can plot an atmospheric path to the tree that isn't blocked by the floating mountains.
5: Ask NASA how hard it is to hit a specific point (within say 1000 yards) with a projectile from space. Especially a "dumb fire" projectile like a meteor with no guidance or course correction after release.
Realistically, about the only ship capable of latching onto a large enough impactor would be the interstellar transport ship itself. Trying to use your only ride home (in case of disaster) on a risky object-capture mission that it likely was NOT designed for is, for lack of a better term, and trying to stay diplomatic COMPLETELY BAT-SHIT STUPID!
Re:no, really? (Score:2, Insightful)
And who the hell thinks the extended cut of "Terminator 2" was any good?
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? I found that aspect to be completely and easily believable -- the most so of any aspect of the movie. Not only has it happened many times in real life (both historically and currently), but the circumstances in the movie show the environment most conducive to it: the humans depicted weren't a cross-section of society; they were mostly ex-military (i.e., trained to perform distasteful or morally-iffy tasks without question) and working for a company devoted to exploiting the planet's resources. Once the natives started getting in the way of that, it's easy to see how they became pests to be exterminated in (most of) the humans' eyes.
That's the important thing, by the way: the humans weren't really genocidal in the sense that they wanted to destroy the natives on purpose out of malice; they just lacked empathy and saw the natives as beasts rather than people. Except for the military villain guy: the natives (and the protagonist) pissed him off enough that they went from "obstacle" to "enemy" for him.
The casual genocide depicted in Avatar is no different than has happened throughout history, from the Roman legions to the East India Company to Halliburton.
Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree. I think a lot of people (myself included) enjoyed watching the movie once in the theatre. Sure, the story was highly familiar from any number of places and even more predictable. It was pretty with nice special effects and a worthwhile imax/3D experience (though a little pricey compared to what I'm used to paying). I have no interest in paying much to see it again; I certainly won't buy the blu-ray disc, but somewhere down the line I may get it via Netflix.
A casual survey of people I know who watched the movie suggests that many are of my view; we aren't talking about the fanatical response where people went to see Titanic 5x in the theatre. It was an enjoyable action flick with really well done special effects that we'll see much more of in the next 10 years.
You want a truly love-or-hate movie? Try Lost in Translation, or Napoleon Dynamite.
Re:Big science plot hole (Score:2, Insightful)
Native Americans really didn't think that White European settlers would engage in total warfare against them, either. War between Native American tribes could probably be described more as a violent slug fest after which everybody would make up and go home, variously hurt, grumpy, or satisfied, but not crushed under foot, looted into poverty, and forced from their homes in humiliating defeat; The "burn you to a crisp" warfare was totally new to them and by the time they figured that out, it was way too late to get up and fight back effectively.
No, it doesn't surprise me at all that the Na'vi would be equally innocent in their outlook as to what's coming at them.
Re:Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with you that Dark Knight is a much better movie than Avatar, and generally we should try to encourage more of the former. (And understand, I am a big Nolan fan and I am not a big Cameron fan.)
I'd still argue that if you saw trailers/previews for both, you'd pretty well know what you were getting into with Avatar. That is to say, you'd be expecting an effects-heavy movie with a relatively cliched story, and that's exactly what you'd get.
With respect to this specific point:
It contains main characters -- the Na'vi -- who choose spectacularly ill-advised actions -- running their army of primitive warriors directly into a highly-advanced human force aided by machines. It also contains a very unlikely outcome of such a poor decision: The Na'vi win.
It's impossible to say for sure without a sequel, but seeing the movie, I always sort of got the impression that (unlike, say, the Ewoks vs. Stormtroopers), the Na'vi were actually the more technologically advanced race, or were at least the product of a more technologically advanced race. At least, I assumed the ubiquitous bio-USB ports on every damn animal were a result of someone's bioengineering and not evolution.
If you don't come to that conclusion I'd agree the ending is kind of stupid.
Re:Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
It was about as suspenseful and thought provoking as a fireworks show. Sure, it can be fairly called good by some standard, it's shiny and nice to look at and has 'oohs' and 'aahs', but it doesn't have any particular depth that warrants points in the suspense/thoughtfulness aspect of evaluating a movie.
You are underestimating how many people sit down in the movie theater or in front of a TV, let their minds go blank, and just let the show take them on a ride. It's like a roller-coaster (but a mental one) - if you look at it from outside you may know what to expect, but most people are not in it to analyze or evaluate it, they are just enjoying the ride. So, no, I bet most people didn't think of Pocahontas while they were watching Avatar and they let their minds fully absorb whatever suspense the show gave them.
Re:Review Sucks (Score:3, Insightful)
My biggest worry about the review is that this reviewer, Ryan Lambie might actually be getting paid for his jaded opinions.
Re:Special Edition? (Score:3, Insightful)
Were those his goals before Avatar (and Titanic) were made, or is this the director's version of tripping on your shoelaces then exclaiming "I meant to do it!"?
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Point
2. Yes, it's a good base. But it's still small and all surrounded by foreign potentially hostile land. Earth is 4.37 light years away, and supplies take 6.75 years to arrive, in very limited amounts. So if the humans send a message "Help! We need more bullets!", they can expect to get a shipment in 11 years the earliest. Even if a supply ship is already heading their way and happens to have the right stuff on it, it almost certainly isn't arriving next week.
So that means waiting for supplies is out. They have to manufacture on-site. But for that they have to go out, and the Na'vi can take their time, and just snipe people with bows when they find an opportunity. They'll probably clear the base before Earth gets the message that help is needed.
In my view, all that scary stuff they have there is mostly a deterrent. In a long term struggle it'd break down much faster than it could be replaced, and then they'd be screwed. Which is why they needed a way to land a crippling blow on the Na'vi.
3. I think this is pretty obvious from that they have the whole avatar program and scientists in place. If just rolling over the Na'vi was an acceptable option none of that would really be needed.
4. Given the distance they really can't have a meaningful conversation. But it was my understanding that what was sent to Pandora wasn't an annihilation force. Also, given the horrible expense of shipping stuff there, the shareholders most definitely won't want a war. It's their own money they're spending there, they're not a defense contractor that happily lives on tax money.
Re:Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
"They were cat-smurfs."
Or as we call them over here in Belgium, Thunder-Smurfs.