Toughts on Avatar, is it the next Titanic?

[beautywickedlover]

Posted: 1/3/10 at 10:34pm

Looks like James Cameron did it again. The film has already made $1 billion worldwide. It's getting so much Oscar buzz and it may even supass "Titanic" as the highest grossing movie of allt-time. I may go see the movie this week. What did you all think of it?

http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/01/03/box-office-avatar-soars-past-1-billion-worldwide/

Updated On: 1/3/10 at 10:34 PM

[Pgenre]

Posted: 1/3/10 at 10:45pm

We REALLY needed this thread.

REALLY.

P

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 1/3/10 at 10:48pm

Updated On: 1/3/10 at 10:48 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/3/10 at 10:59pm

I'd rather read this than about a Stephen King/John Cougar musical.

[Pgenre]

Posted: 1/3/10 at 11:03pm

There's this new website you might have heard of named IMDB and its sole purpose is for discussion of cinematic crap like this and NINE. Check it out. There's lots of people "like you" there, Namo.

The MUSICAL by King/Mellencamp, on the other hand, is totally appropriate for a BROADWAY board. Who knew!

P

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 1/3/10 at 11:44pm

Except that the King/Mellencamp musical isn't OFF-TOPIC.

A science-fiction fantasy film, on the other hand, is OFF-TOPIC.

Good for James Cameron. People always write him off, and then he returns in a big way.

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 1/3/10 at 11:53pm

ANY topic that ISN'T musical related is good for this board.

[givesmevoice]

Posted: 1/3/10 at 11:54pm

P, have you ever been to the IMDB boards? They're horrible.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/4/10 at 12:24am

Thanks gang, for pointing out the obvious to the oblivious.

Maybe PG woulda tinkled if John Cougar had recorded the Avatar theme song?

[Q]

Posted: 1/4/10 at 12:26am

Updated On: 1/4/10 at 12:26 AM

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/4/10 at 12:27am

" pointing out the obvious to the oblivious. "

That's what Dr. Phil's profession is.

[Luscious]

Posted: 1/4/10 at 7:16am

Saw it this weekend and thought it was (and I hate this word) awesome, in the true sense of the word. It truly is unlike anything I've seen before (visually, not story wise). I became immersed in the world that Cameron created. If you're going to see it, see it in the best theatre you can find and definitely see it in 3D. To not see it in 3D would be like seeing Star Wars for the first time on a 13" black and white T.V. The 3D aspect is definitely part of the overall experience. Does the film hold up in 2D, without the 3D gimmick? I think it would, and I'll def buy it on Blu-ray when it's released. Although, I must say that it's the first 3D film I'm ever seen that doesn't make the 3D aspect seem like merely a gimmick. It feels organic to the film. Seeing it in 3D on a big screen turns it into an “event” movie going experience. See it!

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 1/4/10 at 7:53am

P - and that is why you started a NINE review thread prior to the movie coming out and THEN started another one to post your own review? You smell that? It's called hypocrisy.

Updated On: 1/4/10 at 07:53 AM

[2Acting]

Posted: 1/4/10 at 7:56am

I loved this movie. It's long, but you don't get bored at all. The characters were great, the effects were amazing and the story line was interesting.

[James885]

Posted: 1/4/10 at 10:26am

I loved it. I don't know if it'll be the next Titanic, but I'm glad that it's doing phenomenally well at the box office. I saw it in 3D IMAX and it was absolutely stunning.

[uncageg]

Posted: 1/4/10 at 11:25am

I am so out to lunch on this. I saw Titanic and while I didn't hate it, I never watched the whole thing again. I think I have seen about 15 minutes of it since. And I don't really care for Cameron. He annoys me. I know this should have no bearing on his filmmaking and me enjoying one of his films, but it does. Just like Tom Cruise. I will never pay to see another one of his films. Maybe I should just get over it and see this movie. Although the trailers really don't excite me. I am more excited about seeing Sigourney Weaver in the movie.

[justagirl2]

Posted: 1/4/10 at 11:50am

I feel like I saw a completely different movie than...oh, the rest of the world (yes, I saw it in 3-D IMAX). I was bored and the dialogue (and storyline, occasionally) was laughably bad. Yes, impressive visuals. That makes it an impressive movie. In my opinion, it's not even close to a good movie. I know, I know, haters to the left.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 1/4/10 at 11:57am

JG2 - I am kinda with you. The visuals and effects were out of this world but there was almost no plot (other than the Ferngully one) and until the last 45 minutes or so, I was bored to tears. I still say go see it in 3D (IMAX 3D if possible) just to witness the effects but I really don't think I am ever going to watch it again

[Roscoe]

Posted: 1/4/10 at 12:00pm

I saw the whole IMAX 3-D experience thing, and found the effects and action sequences thrilling. There were elements of the story that I like very much, like the film's environmental and ecological themes, but there's just no denying James Cameron's desperate need for a script doctor.

Plot elements are forecast hours in advance. The heroine tells the hero "You are not ready" and later, of course, she tells him, "You are ready." Another character says that something has only happened 5 times Since The Old Songs Were First Sung, a sure indicator that Time #6 will happen before the credits roll.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/4/10 at 12:11pm

The story and the script aren't nearly as memorable or compelling as Titanic, which was based on a historical tragedy. And Titanic had its share of script problems, too.

But Avatar's basic story and dialogue are so derivative and cliche in all respects, with a lackluster ending. I think everyone (myself included) was "blinded by the light" of the jaw-dropping visuals.

Take the effects away, and you have "Dances With Smurfs" or "The Matrix Regurgitated."

It might end up being as popular as Titanic, meaning with box office dollars, only because ticket prices are a good 3-5 dollars more now than they were in 1997. Take inflation away, and you take away its glory.

I also think Avatar will be nominated for a slew of Oscars, but it will win only in the technical categories. There will be no acting awards, script or director awards, and ultimately no Best Pic win. Too many flaws in the structure.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 1/4/10 at 12:13pm

A mixture of the dazzling and the boneheaded. TITANIC has not aged well and I doubt this one will as well.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/4/10 at 12:39pm

I saw Titanic again recently and thought it held up fairly well. Not the same "glow" as during its original "heady days." I was watching it on a 58" plasma TV, though, so that helped a lot. I admired it very much.

Still, some of its "quality" (real or imagined) has faded a bit in time. Forest Gump has suffered the same fate. Not aging as well as other Best Pics.

On a tangent note: a Best Pic that has gotten BETTER with age is "Driving Miss Daisy."

[uncageg]

Posted: 1/4/10 at 12:45pm

Besty, I have never watche "...Daisy" in its entirety but I have to now because my ex just brought me back 2 Piggly Wiggly "green" shopping bags from the store in Wisconsin! I love carrying them around the supermarket!

[Roscoe]

Posted: 1/4/10 at 12:49pm

Well, FORREST GUMP was crap when it was first released, to those who weren't so dazzled by the technological stuff and in diabetic shock over the film's ceaseless sugar rush.

Likewise TITANIC, a silly bloated mess with cool effects when it was released, and now just a silly bloated mess. It takes one of the defining moments of the 20th Century and can only extract "Make It Count!" as a message.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/4/10 at 12:56pm

one word: unobtainium.

i think it'll be the next titanic for me in that i hated titanic for years sight unseen until i finally saw it. and then i hated it even more and it made me re-evaluate everything cameron had ever done. while puking uncontrollably.

but never say i didn't learn my lesson. i have no plans to invest a dime or a moment in this now or ever.