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)
Review Sucks (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In reality....
They nuked them from orbit when they left...... Just to be sure....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXraSkgssFk [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The company would appeal to the marines to 'protect their interests' just like what happened in Hawaii.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it features humans coming back to Pandora with 100x more firepower :o
I am going to see it anyway, just to prove you wrong!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Nuke them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
So, adding to an already long, mostly pointless movie... doesn't add anything? SHOCKER.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (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.
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I pretty much agree with the parent. The plot sucked, the dialog was sloppy and the characters were not that deep.. I haven't seen the movie in 3D and I suspect that is what most people were gushing over. The special effects were pretty good, but in the days of computer animated everything, its not really that surprising.
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.
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:Really? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm pretty sure "The Second Coming of Citizen Kane" would be a terrible movie that would be universally reviled. Would Kane be an undead revenant trying to find his sled or something? Or would it turn out he faked his death? In any case, it would be a poorly written opportunistic sequel rushed out by Hollywood to capitalize on the popularity of the original.
Re: (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 characte
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I realize that, given enough thinking, you can extrapolate any rationalization for a weak point in a movie. But the problem is, the filmmakers didn't clearly answer those questions during the movie.
Consider for a second a theoretical movie: it consists of one shot of egg. 10 seconds into this shot, the egg disappears. The movie ends.
Now, you could find some rationalization for why the egg disappeared; perhaps it was just a hologram. Your rationalization may even be halfway plausible. But the fact remains th
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
"They were cat-smurfs."
Or as we call them over here in Belgium, Thunder-Smurfs.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
It didn't have a happy ending or great production values, but
Re: (Score:2)
http://worldfilm.about.com/od/independentfilm/fr/wristcutters.htm [about.com] are you talking about that one? It was actually a very good movie I enjoyed as well! or a older American one.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_Don't_Cry_(film) [wikipedia.org]
Absolutely fantastic movie to watch. Not like this no soul drivel we get from Hollywood.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Really? (Score:4, Funny)
a terrifying journey into a living hell of depravity
They are covertly inserted into the Obama administration by Steve Jobs with a mission to replace all the XP machines with iPads. Captured by Steve Ballmer, they have an "exit interview" in a room filled with thousands of "smart chairs" which have only 640K of memory and are constantly "squirting".
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, I have get into this "movie sucks" bandwagon because I also thought that as a movie Avatar sucked.
See, I saw the movie first in 2D and *then* in 3D, both in the theater. When I first saw it in 2D I though it sucked; it reminded me of Final Fantasy movie... just a bunch of computer animation with a *veeeeery* thin storyline which is a rehash of Dance with Wolves (I like the name someone gave "Dance with Thundercats").
Then I saw it in 3D and I thought the 3D effects made the movie OK, just OK for the
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately(?) Avatar Special Edition isn't to Avatar what Advent Children is to Spirits Within.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
Advent children was awesome and the sound track is great..
I don't knock the original FF movie because of a couple of things.. First it was way ahead of it's time in terms of render and animation quality - as far as i'm concerned it put toy story to shame (especially when you look at the time lines for when rendering started) It's only major flaw was being called FF.. people expected something like Advent Children and not what they got.. if they had given a better name it don't think people would bash it as much.. but then again not nearly as many people would have watched it.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Informative)
BTW, to answer your question of "which movies I think are good" I can mention you one 3D movie which I think has both i) A good story and ii) Nice use of 3D effects, and that is Coraline.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Blue people make good soldiers, when led by white officers.
Re: (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: (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
Re:Really? (Score:5, Funny)
There's really a trend in going all "That movie sucks!" against every popular movie, and I'm getting tired of it.
That's pretty much anything popular ever, at least on the internet.
For example, just tossing this out there
I like the following
-Rap music
-Halo 3
-Team fortress 2
-Sex
-The Matrix
-Inception
-Beer
Anyone care to comment on... hang on, just got a text that TF2 is extremely overrated and blah blah blah.. and oh, I've just been tapped on the shoulder and someone is telling me that sex is overrated. My wife.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, come on, you like TF2, but Halo over Half-Life? :(
(For the record I like all three)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
and oh, I've just been tapped on the shoulder and someone is telling me that sex is overrated. My wife.
I'm devastated. I thought she was enjoying it.
Re: (Score:2)
Machete, that's a GREAT movie.
Go see that one, it's grungy, edge of your seat and true to the roots of the director instead of the wishy washy hollywood crap.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Avatar was crap and there were quite a few films I liked in 2009. Up, Watchmen, Moon, Taken, Zombieland, and Sherlock Holmes were all movies I thought were at least good. Moon is the only one in that list I wouldn't categorize as popular. Most of those films are rehashes of old plots, but none of them are white messiah films. And none of them bludgeon me over the head with their moral message because I REALLY hate that sort of thing. So as far as I'm concerned, Avatar sucks. And it's not bec
Re: (Score:2)
Most of those films are rehashes of old plots, but none of them are white messiah films
When it comes to invading (hostile) aliens, you are going to need at least one of them to switch sides and lead you if you hope to stand a chance.
Higher in the gravity well = you win.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait.. what? What other movie called Taken was released in 2009? That thing was full of moral messages being thrown at you - maybe Liam Neeson kicking ass distracted you enough from that? :)
Re: (Score:2)
I see it like this:
If a movie is so horribly unoriginal, or cliche, or badly acted, or badly written, that it keeps me from suspending my disbelief or drops me back to reality over and over, then it's a bad movie.
It doesn't have to be thought-provoking or artsy or complicated, but if I keep remembering that I'm watching a movie while I'm in the theater then there's something wrong with it.
There was something wrong with Avatar.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
The storyline was so, so, so, apparent that there was no surprise or plot twists or anything and there definitely was no suspense (go watch Psycho or something, then come back about suspense).
Well, considering how poorly executed most plot twists and moments of suspense are in roughly 99% of all movies out there I actually found it rather relieving that Avatar didn't have a bunch of "gotcha!" moments that anyone with an IQ above room temperature could spot thirty minutes in advance. Really, if you feel the need to put a plot twist in your movie at least make it clever and new, if it's the same plot twist that's been used oh so many times before then it'll just annoy the audience (or at least those of us who actually pay attention to the plot).
And that's not to say the plot of Avatar was good, just that they at least seemed to resist their urges to add pointless gotchas and plot twists.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
A sense of when to let something go...?
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Presumably you're missing something better to do with your time, if you bothered going back 5 times to watch the rest of the film.
If I hadn't been there with my nephew, who loved it, I would have walked out as well. The 3D was quite impressive, but by an hour into the film I'd seen more than enough of that. And I can't believe anyone would bother sitting through the whole thing in 2D.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, when everyone was talking about how talkies are the cat's pajamas and the bee's knees the only way to keep your cred up with the flapper crowd would be to not like it, and to make a show of not liking it.
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: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.
Re: (Score:2)
Says the person who is defending a movie that was nothing but a series of "OOOH SHINY!!!" moments.
You mean: Says the person who wouldn't walk away from a fireworks display, advertised as '4th of July small town Fireworks show', because I for somehow confused it for an olympic-level Poi demonstration.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing you're missing is the discrimination to know it was crap without having to sit through it in the first place.
Re: (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
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is when they are going to release the 3D version on blu-ray for all those 3DTVs.
If there is anything that will convince home theater geeks with money to burn that they need to replace their perfectly good 2D setup with an expensive 3D setup, it will be Avatar in 3D. (everyone I know who is serious about 3D has said that Avatar is the best 3D film to date)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, brainless and brutally subtle in it's racist overtones.
Re: (Score:3)
I watched it for the 3D effects, and the 3D effects only. It looks beautiful. Though the only reason this movie will be remembered for longer than the time it's in the cinemas is because it's the first mainstream feature in 3D. And that part was pretty well done. For the rest... meh. Can't be interesting to watch on a flat screen. In 3D it was boring enough.
Cowboys and Indians with a sci-fi twist (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was not a big fan of this movie first time I watched it but the second and third time I got bored with it.
Same for me, except I didn't watch it a third time. Twice was more than enough.
The movie feels like Cowboys and Indians with a sci-fi twist.
Actually, I thought it started OK and looked initially like it might be a decent sci-fi movie. Then came the long downward spiral into New Age mumbo jumbo and superficiality. Coupled with a plot which went utterly awry and developed inexplicable holes after the first 15-20 minutes, it was a over-hyped disappointment. Fine as a logically weak fantasy with 3D effects, but barely even 1D as sci-fi.
Plus the movie is way to long.
I don't mind long movies - provided
Re: (Score:2)
Blasphemer!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hard.
Re: (Score:2)
It would never have gotten the budget if it weren't.
Special Edition? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Go back to his roots? Is he going to be working on Piranha 3D?
The 10-year-rule (Score:5, Interesting)
Every director has about 10 years of peek creativity, give or take a few years. And Cameron is well past his creative prime (basically from about 1983 to 1992).
There are some notable exceptions to the 10-year-rule, BTW. I would argue that Stanley Kubrick and John Sayles are two of the VERY rare exceptions. Many would include Scorsese as well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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: (Score:3, Funny)
Special edition or regular edition it will still never get anywhere near "Aliens." Sorry, Lucas, but the thirty years of experience you have gained and the extra production budget have actually made you worse. Go back to your roots.
See what I did there?
Re:Special Edition? (Score:5, Interesting)
Special edition or regular edition it will still never get anywhere near "Aliens." Sorry, Cameron, but the thirty years of experience you have gained and the extra production budget have actually made you worse. Go back to your roots.
Check out his TED talk [ted.com]...
1) Avatar was ALWAYS meant to be an eye candy spectacle. A proof of the capabilities of his company that he founded for the purpose of making 3D art.
2) Titanic was just an excuse to dive the real wreck...
3) He sought to make more films, but there wasn't any money in it, so he returned to make another Hollywood film.
4) Avatar's subsequent release merely funds his true passion of science and exploration.
I bring this up because you seem to be taking Cameron as some sort of artist who'd be interested in your critique. In reality, he's met all of his goals, and now has further funding for his true passion - exploration.
Rather interesting, don't you think?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Were those his goals before Avatar (and Titanic) were made, or is this
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?
A fun review of Avatar (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJarz7BYnHA [youtube.com] (part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLzKwTcGO_0 [youtube.com]
Hopefully, (Score:2)
it's the last review.
Avatar was already too long (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I saw the movie only in 2D... and I have to say, the movie DID suck. it was bad, very bad. 3d probably made it good, but I can't compare really.
As a normal movie, avatar was just plain bad.
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (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 com
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
I think it's quite reasonable that the Unobtainium mining project might have been running for a century or more. A huge amount of effort had been put into it.
What's really surprising is that the Na'vi learned English, but never bothered to try to understand what the humans wanted in all the time they'd been there. If the Na'vi had just bothered to figure this out, then some sort of arrangement could surely have been reached. The humans made every effort to communicate with the Na'vi, even dressing up as th
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.
Re: (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 a
Avatar vs. Aliens (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually only eight minutes longer. Over the whole running time, it strikes me as not a great reason to go back.
I know plenty of people who dislike the movie. People aren't "sheep", and brainlessness is as much as a turn-off as running time for many of them.
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: (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: (Score:2)
did we really expect to see anything added to the movie with a directors cut?
I thought that the director's cuts of the LOTR movies added something good, but in general I agree with you, longer isn't always better and is frequently worse.
Re: (Score:2)
The cynic in me says they just threw it out now so the new BR could be out in time for Xmas shopping season.
No shit? You thought they were doing this for anything other than to get more people to give them fists full of cash?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (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 worthwhi