Avatar Discussion (Spoilers Ahead)

[Riverwolf]

That's the problem: it wasn't done very well. Star Wars characters were pretty stock, and I guess IJ were, too.

Dude, I've been watching the Indiana Jones movies all afternoon, and I must say: there isn't anything about them that ISN'T stock, especially when you consider the fact that they're basically rip-offs of the old Adventure films (at least from the clips of those films that I've seen in comparison with Indy.) Star Wars, at least A New Hope, is nearly the same way: hero rescues damsel in distress and combats an evil empire. Been done a million times before and since.

But they actually were done very well, meaning the actors did a great job with them.

Well, sort of. Mark Hamill isn't that great of a live-action actor, and neither is Carrie Fisher. (Harrison Ford is ALWAYS awesome, but Hamill is really at his best as a villainous voice actor.) The best performances really came from the villains. (And Sir Alec Guinness.)

I didn't think any of the performances in Avatar were particularly engaging.

I disagree. I think they did well. I was engaged during the whole movie, and really cared about the characters.

 

[JMorris]

the acting in avatar is the worst ive seen since The Happening. and i loved how they beat you over the head with a club about how the blue people where "space indians". Michelle Rodriguez's ridiculous use of cleavage to distract from plot holes had more subtlety. & where ever they found main actor guy, they should return him there.

 

[Watchmen]

the acting in avatar is the worst ive seen since The Happening. and i loved how they beat you over the head with a club about how the blue people where "space indians". Michelle Rodriguez's ridiculous use of cleavage to distract from plot holes had more subtlety. & where ever they found main actor guy, they should return him there.

The "main actor guy" is the new Kool-Aid. His name is Sam Worthington. We saw him summer 2009 in Terminator: Salvation. He is currently in Avatar. And we lookforward to another unemotional performance in Clash of the Titans (due later this year, I believe).

I don't get why this guy is getting big gigs, either.

 

[idea]

I liked the movie - liked, not loved. It had some very good points on how two different cultures can misunderstand one another. It didn't need to make most people out to be such evil idiots though.

 

[Riverwolf]

I liked the movie - liked, not loved. It had some very good points on how two different cultures can misunderstand one another. It didn't need to make most people out to be such evil idiots though.

It's not a progressive film; it's a classic good vs. evil story.

Even so, the villains were hardly simple evil, at least not the corporate spokesperson. A few times, it seemed like he was genuinely ashamed of what he was doing.

 

[Sunstone]

I saw it last night. I thought it was a good movie.

 

[Magic Man]

Been done a million times before and since.

Yup, but it was done well.

Well, sort of. Mark Hamill isn't that great of a live-action actor, and neither is Carrie Fisher. (Harrison Ford is ALWAYS awesome, but Hamill is really at his best as a villainous voice actor.) The best performances really came from the villains. (And Sir Alec Guinness.)

Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher aren't great actors, of course, but they did well with those characters, and the main thing is that the movies focused more on the characters. Avatar didn't focus much on the characters. It spent most of its time showing the world and all of the cool visuals. That's fine, and it was enjoyable, but it doesn't make for very good characters.

 

[Riverwolf]

Yup, but it was done well.

And I feel the same with Avatar.

Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher aren't great actors, of course, but they did well with those characters,

They were passable, and in my book, that's all that's necessary. If I see a character instead of an actor, I'm satisfied. Unless I'm watching Amadeus, I'm not going to expect or require the very best acting to enjoy the story and characters.

and the main thing is that the movies focused more on the characters. Avatar didn't focus much on the characters. It spent most of its time showing the world and all of the cool visuals. That's fine, and it was enjoyable, but it doesn't make for very good characters.

Funny, considering I didn't really notice any of the special effects, and only saw the story and the characters.

The acting in Avatar was passable. I saw the characters, not the actors. (It might help that I haven't seen any of them in anything else, with the exception of Sigourney Weaver and the guy who played the corporate douche-bag, whom I recognize from The Dark Knight.) I ask for nothing else.

EDIT: Specifically, I ask for nothing else in a film like Avatar. It is only in the Drama genre that I ask for more compelling acting, mainly because that genre is very boring otherwise.

 

[Willamena]

It's been done a million times since, and will be done a million times hence. I liked the new way it was done.

 

[Magic Man]

And I feel the same with Avatar.

Well, all I'm saying is that we disagree there.

Funny, considering I didn't really notice any of the special effects, and only saw the story and the characters.

Really? Wow.

(It might help that I haven't seen any of them in anything else, with the exception of Sigourney Weaver and the guy who played the corporate douche-bag, whom I recognize from The Dark Knight.) I ask for nothing else.

I think you're confusing the corporate ********* with someone else. Giovanni Ribisi wasn't in The Dark Knight.

EDIT: Specifically, I ask for nothing else in a film like Avatar. It is only in the Drama genre that I ask for more compelling acting, mainly because that genre is very boring otherwise.

As I said, it was good enough. The acting and characters didn't really detract from the movie, but I didn't think it was an asset. I think without the wonderful special effects and cool stuff to see, the movie would have failed.

 

[Riverwolf]

As I said, it was good enough. The acting and characters didn't really detract from the movie, but I didn't think it was an asset. I think without the wonderful special effects and cool stuff to see, the movie would have failed.

Sometimes, in order to make a story successful, the presentation must be good. It could very well be that the reason the story has failed in the past was because the presentation of the story wasn't very good. I haven't seen Dances With Wolves, but Ferngully was bogged down in preachy environmentalism, all kinds of factual wrongs, and magic that makes no sense. Pocahontas had no historical accuracy to back it up. The Last Samurai had Tom Cruise.

Presentation is often as important as the story itself. After all, Interview With the Vampire (the book, not that lame movie adaptation) wouldn't have been all that great if it weren't for Ann Rice's superb writing. Back into the realm of film, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock had a great story and great elements, but because of its poor presentation, it was a mediocre film.

Ask this: if A New Hope had special effects worthy of 60s television, would the film have been as good?

 

[Watchmen]

Sometimes, in order to make a story successful, the presentation must be good. It could very well be that the reason the story has failed in the past was because the presentation of the story wasn't very good. I haven't seen Dances With Wolves, but Ferngully was bogged down in preachy environmentalism, all kinds of factual wrongs, and magic that makes no sense. Pocahontas had no historical accuracy to back it up. The Last Samurai had Tom Cruise.

Presentation is often as important as the story itself. After all, Interview With the Vampire (the book, not that lame movie adaptation) wouldn't have been all that great if it weren't for Ann Rice's superb writing. Back into the realm of film, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock had a great story and great elements, but because of its poor presentation, it was a mediocre film.

Ask this: if A New Hope had special effects worthy of 60s television, would the film have been as good?

Dances with Wolves buries Avatar in terms of story.

And...STIII is underated.

 

[Riverwolf]

Dances with Wolves buries Avatar in terms of story.

And...STIII is underated.

Isn't it the same story?

Besides, dude... Kevin Costner. KEVIN COSTNER!

 

[Magic Man]

Isn't it the same story?

Besides, dude... Kevin Costner. KEVIN COSTNER!

I think he was including presentation. The story was similar, but the presentation was much better in Dances with Wolves. And Kevin Costner did a good job in it. I mean, you're comparing him to whatever the main dude's name in Avatar is. It doesn't take much to outdo him.

 

[Alex_G]

I thought it was a great movie, all told.

I didn't like Trudy's death, though. I so wanted her to ram the lead ship before she got shot down.

Yeah i enjoyed it aswell. It was a bit corny, but in a good way, as it was trying to be that.

I thought it echoed Pocahontas quite alot, not a bad thing mind.

 

[JMorris]

you cant compare Kevin Costner to the main guy from avatar. Kevin Costner may have done some bad movies, but he is a much better actor than wooden puppet they had in the main role in Avatar. hell, michelle rodriguez's gratuitous cleavage was a better actor.

 

[Riverwolf]

I think he was including presentation. The story was similar, but the presentation was much better in Dances with Wolves. And Kevin Costner did a good job in it. I mean, you're comparing him to whatever the main dude's name in Avatar is. It doesn't take much to outdo him.

I wasn't saying anything against Costner. I was just saying his name. Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves was even more unintentionally awesome because he had an American accent!

Like I said, I haven't seen Dances With Wolves, so I can't make any comparisons, but I will say: I much prefer fantasy to reality in my stories.

 

[Riverwolf]

Yeah i enjoyed it aswell. It was a bit corny, but in a good way, as it was trying to be that.

I thought it echoed Pocahontas quite alot, not a bad thing mind.

Pocahontas was trash! What're you talking about?! The only good thing about it was the incredible music.

 

[Riverwolf]

you cant compare Kevin Costner to the main guy from avatar. Kevin Costner may have done some bad movies, but he is a much better actor than wooden puppet they had in the main role in Avatar. hell, michelle rodriguez's gratuitous cleavage was a better actor.

I thought he did alright. I wouldn't call him a wooden puppet. Who's Michelle Rodriguez?

He was good enough to get the story across. Like I said: that's all I ask for in a movie like this.

 

[MoonWater]

did anyone else notice this "gratuitous cleavage" that morris keeps talking about?