Avatar Is Like The iPhone Of Movies(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Avatar Is Like The iPhone Of Movies
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/12/19/avatar-is-like-the-iphone-of-movies/
22 comments
> Avatar, like Titanic, is one of those movies you’ll want to see over and over.
Wait, what? Am I the only one that thought Titanic was 2 hours of my life that I regret wasting?
Of all the stories to be told about that fateful night, it was a travesty that the film was dedicated to the story of two horny teenagers hooking up. Bleh.
Wait, what? Am I the only one that thought Titanic was 2 hours of my life that I regret wasting?
Of all the stories to be told about that fateful night, it was a travesty that the film was dedicated to the story of two horny teenagers hooking up. Bleh.
Don't worry, Avatar and Titanic are nothing alike. Titanic is a big-budget chick flick, Avatar is a pure action/adventure movie without much sappiness
When I saw the title, I thought the comparison was going to be that it was beautiful and polished, but the storyline/features weren't too amazing.
What I find amazing is the amount of people who have no knowledge of Avatar. This movie is an event among events.
And even the author says he only started reading about it a week ago, which I find amazing. Not at all like the iPhone in this regard.
----
Downvoters: So, what exactly did I say that merits downvotes?
And even the author says he only started reading about it a week ago, which I find amazing. Not at all like the iPhone in this regard.
----
Downvoters: So, what exactly did I say that merits downvotes?
[deleted]
On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate Avatar?
9. Went in with high expectations, and they were exceeded, which is rare for me. Most of the criticisms of Avatar are for its somewhat trite storyline, but for me, it definitely worked. The movie runs long at ~2h40m - it takes its time to develop characters and show off its fantasy world, but never does it feel like a drag. I can't recommend it enough.
8 for me. It's a very good sci-fi/fantasy movie, but I was probably more impressed with the CGI than immersed in the story. Star Trek was a better movie in terms of story and I actually felt fear, suspense and other emotions while watching it.
9. I saw it on Imax at 7:00 on Friday. I definitely recommend seeing it on Imax first.
Some of the characters are pretty cardboard, and the theme doesn't really get to the depth it should. Also, calling it a low-gravity world doesn't excuse some of the world-building sins committed
But the graphics are truly amazing. It is seamless. Forget the wooden people in Beowulf or Zemeckis. The humans and tall aliens are somewhat segregated so you only get the sense of scale in a few scenes, but they work very well.
The other thing is that you sort of have to learn how to watch it. The camera presents different parts of the picture as in focus and you have to constantly shift where you are looking to follow the focus.
Some of the characters are pretty cardboard, and the theme doesn't really get to the depth it should. Also, calling it a low-gravity world doesn't excuse some of the world-building sins committed
But the graphics are truly amazing. It is seamless. Forget the wooden people in Beowulf or Zemeckis. The humans and tall aliens are somewhat segregated so you only get the sense of scale in a few scenes, but they work very well.
The other thing is that you sort of have to learn how to watch it. The camera presents different parts of the picture as in focus and you have to constantly shift where you are looking to follow the focus.
5. Saw it in 3D on a non-IMAX screen. I know enough to know that I'm supposed to be impressed by the CGI in the skin/eyes of the Na'vi and other creatures. And given that I'm supposed to know that, they (generally) succeeded. The 3D wasn't really any different than any other Real 3D movie, and I really didn't see any difference in the quality of the CGI landscapes versus LoTR or even Jurassic Park (which were just arial shots). The story, of course, is Dances with Wolves in Space.
I wish I went to Up in the Air instead.
As to the ZOMG: Glengarry Glen Ross could have been filmed in the 1930s, but it's one of the best films in my lifetime. To say that Avatar changes movies forever is insane.
I wish I went to Up in the Air instead.
As to the ZOMG: Glengarry Glen Ross could have been filmed in the 1930s, but it's one of the best films in my lifetime. To say that Avatar changes movies forever is insane.
Really? GGG as best film of a lifetime? The acting is spectacular, but I don't really feel like there is much of a story. Just a showcase for good acting. Felt like broadway on film.
10.
Tech bloggers discussing art with marketing speak is the embarrassment of technology.
Hyperbole is like the bread and butter of journalists.
Hyperbole is the iPhone of (trash) journalists.
Surely cliché is the bread and butter of journalists?
I'm disappointed that Jar Jar Binks isn't in Avatar. That's the one thing that would make it worth seeing.
I haven't seen the movie yet but I saw the trailer a while ago and I just rewatched it then and from a pure CGI point of view it looks pretty meh. Like comparable to the first Final Fantasy movie perhaps but not much better. The first time I saw the trailer (at least two months ago, maybe an early cut?) I actually commented on how bad the CGI was before realising it was Avatar. Added to this story just sounds like an old retold story as Arrington highlights. I'm sure the film is actually really clever and the little I know of Cameron has led me to think he is a passionate and down-to-Earth guy so I'm sure it's good but I'm really not getting that impression so far. In fact, this has to be the most marketed film ever (I see adverts everywhere even online and in the App-Store as well as tie-ins with multiple TV shows (Entourage, South Park come to mind)) and this kind of marketing always makes me instinctively wonder why it's so heavily marketed. I've avoided learning too much about TC/Arrington because it seems there's often controversy but is this the kind of site where sponsored reviews ever appear?
So you haven't seen the movie and you don't know much about Cameron, Arrington or his site, and of those four things the one you are most interested in learning more about is TechCrunch?
No, I asked why this movie has been so heavily promoted, and if it's possible the Arrington/TC review was bought as it seemed a glowing endorsement of a film that I have not heard great things about elsewhere and which does not have great trailers. Clearly from the downvotes people think I was attacking TC et all, but as I've said I'm just asking as I have no idea why this review seemed so contrary to what I've found elsewhere to date.
I actually laughed out loud when i first saw the trailer on television for what seemed like very cheap and unbelievable CGI.
But by all accounts the film is groundbreaking in it's realism and depth. Interesting how the trailers for the film clearly do not do it justice. I look forward to seeing it in the cinema.
But by all accounts the film is groundbreaking in it's realism and depth. Interesting how the trailers for the film clearly do not do it justice. I look forward to seeing it in the cinema.
I went and saw Avatar yesterday and was blown away.
It was as good as when I first saw Star Wars the first time it was shown after wagging school and catching a train into the city. It was way better than the first Star Trek feature film first hit the cinema - those close-ups of the Enterprise still make me cringe. It was as good as Alien and Alien II which followed. I was trying to think why. Here's some of the reasons.
While most films shy away from the complexity of situations, this one didn't. I get the feeling Cameron had some unfinished business. A story not told, an alternate Aliens. The similarities are pretty striking. The film is about colonisation of a planet, with ruthless company yes-men backed up by Colonial Marines (or PMC's in this case). It even has Ripley. This time though we see colonisation and exploitation from the eyes of the conquered. We see what is lost. We see the consequences.
This isn't a re-make of Aliens two where the Colonial Marines blast away Ripley's bad-guys. Instead we are shown the complexity of a culture clashes, the conqueror and conquered. We see the relationship between locals and their environment, man made corporations and hired muscle and most importantly the consequences of War. It could be South America when Cortez arrived looking for gold, it could in the jungles of Sumatra now with timber ~ http://www.worldwildlife.org/what/wherewework/borneo/people.... The film is also is about as anti-mainstream as you'll probably get in popular culture.
Ask yourself what was the last time you saw a film that painted a beautiful picture of an environment and culture then see it destroyed in grisly detail before you... this is no ordinary Hollywood action flic. Sure the good guys win and the company men get packing. There are weak points in the film. I noticed even William Gibson was a bit shocked (my measure of what good writing is) ~ http://twitter.com/GreatDismal/status/6810783279 at name given to the exploited mineral "unobtanium" ~ http://twitter.com/GreatDismal/status/6810951397 being mined.
The strength of the film is that it mirrors enough of our own world right now and that and the richness of the characters and ideas in my mind makes up for any of the technical shortfalls.