Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

ITT: People with a superiority complex.

So I'm asking you guys, was anyone else disappointed?

Never got the chance to watch it. But I've heard from all my friends it was the very best thing they've ever seen.
I might just have to go and see it.

At 1/1/10 09:10 PM, sirbobsalot2 wrote: I liked it.

Though the main bad guy (Who was awesome) had the most clichéd death I have ever seen

Well, most characters were stereotypes, so that wasn't really surprising...the "hardened war veteran" is hard to kill, and fights till his last breath...

Hollywood sucks so I'm not surprised that this isn't the exception.

Let me add to the number of people who say this movie sucked:

I've never watched dancing with the wolves or any of the other movies people say Avatar's plot was copied from and i STILL thought the plot was retarded. While yes the special effects were pretty cool, and I especially liked the imaginative fauna and creatures they created, the action was pretty.

However this movie fails for one reason: the plot. Its not only that the plot is predictable and has been copied and done before, its that is BORING. Considering that the movie clocks in at almost 3 hours (i.e. Lord of the Rings movie length), Cameron does a piss-poor job of weaving a captivating narrative. There is just no emotional involvement whatsoever in this movie. We are asked to empathize with a giant blue aliens...why? Because they love their planet? Cameron then resorts to demonizing humans instead to make us cheer for the other team. To move the story along, he cuts corners in stupid ways (SPOILER - like the stupid consciousness transfer thing from the human body to the Avatar, or the animals of the forest attacking at the end) that are unimaginative overdone and so cliched it's criminal.

The there's the really annoying Eco "green movement" grandstanding that's becoming more and more commonplace in movies this day. Suddenly humans as a whole have become the villains of the big screen, with their big bad polluting ways. While i think that movies is a great medium to get social messages across (while people pay you to do it), and green issues are important today, what Wall-E accomplished with deft brushstrokes, Avatar attempted to do with a sledgehammer and chainsaw. Grandstanding and preaching rarely sits well with people. After all you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

At 1/2/10 09:34 AM, HeavyTank wrote:

At 1/1/10 09:10 PM, sirbobsalot2 wrote: I liked it.

Though the main bad guy (Who was awesome) had the most clichéd death I have ever seen

Well, most characters were stereotypes, so that wasn't really surprising...the "hardened war veteran" is hard to kill, and fights till his last breath...

Stereotypes and un-originality are fun though.

Whats better than an old war veteran who won't give up?

One in a fucking robot suit.

Yesssssss

Have we seen Avatar before?

sucked i havnt seen it but one name sums it all up.....john claude van damme, and i heard a rumor that in 3d it makes you naucious or something cause of the color mixture in some parts but yeah, just a rumor

Guys, the movie cost six bazillion dollars to make. Do you think any studio anywhere would be willing to fund anyone, even King Shit of Fuck Mountain James Cameron that much money to make a movie that was new, progressive and experimental?

PROBABLY NOT. If you want a kickass 3-D movie with lots of crazy visual shit going on in it, you're not going to get a story to match. It still costs too much money to make it. You're basically going to get the tried and tested standard epic storyline that people will be satisfied with, but not blown away by.

Compare with Primer, which was a good movie, but the presentation and plot were risky enough that the movie had to be made for like six bucks.

The antagonist was a flat character, laughable when he talked, predictable. He had no character arc.

The plot was predictable and unoriginal. Dances with Wolves, Last Samurai. (Some say Pocahontas as well). The script was made 10 years ago, update it before sending it out to the public.

The script was made for children. A good story for adults has writing mechanisms, like symbolism, or metaphor, that adults can comprehend. The only thing this had was a loose political comparison to current wartime.

For a creative person, this movie was particularly annoying. Everything was handed to you. You did not wonder anything. Much like the updated Burton Willy Wonka version. There was no mystery, no room for the viewer's imagination. It was 3 hours of someone else having fun and me enduring someone else's imagination that was not engaging for me.

The graphics rocked! 3/10.

At 12/18/09 07:08 AM, HighWayStar365 wrote: All it was is just 3d eye candy. No real plot, just explosions and shit.

thats definitely more fitting of Watchmen.. i thought that movie was absolutely horrible...

i went into the theatre with pretty low expectations for Avatar however and was pleasently surprised. i liked the plot and i actually thought it could have used MORE explosions... definitely not Cameron's best work or even a 5 star movie.. but it was pretty damn good in my opinion.

Frank is just trying to stray form the norm in order to gain attention to his fat, jelly roll self. Carry on.

At 12/18/09 05:16 PM, Frank wrote:

At 12/18/09 08:06 AM, Mechabloby wrote: I've yet to see it, but I am surprised that people aren't enjoying it like they thought they would.

Don't take my review as the general consensus, everyone is loving it but me. I'm just trying to find people on the same page as me. I think it's simply an okay movie, not a masterpiece on the same level of Star Wars as everyone else is saying.

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace is obviously the only masterpiece of that otherwise shit-storm that is the Star Wars Saga.
.
.
lol

anyway, in all seriousness:

At 12/19/09 03:48 AM, copteroftehrofls wrote: Dude..terminator 2 was epic fail. all it was was action and more explosions....and naked Arnold

You're a fag bro.

At 12/19/09 03:03 AM, SessileNomad wrote: not many ppl are saying this in threads about this film, but i honestly think its the best movie iv'e ever seen

needless to say the visuals were very nice, and im not even talking about the EXPLOSIONS!!!, cuz usually i hate that kind of eye fucking, just the whole world was incredibly beautiful, the water, the trees, the people

acting was awesome, voice acting fit soooo well with the CGI parts

the musical score was fucking great, nothing bad to say about that

creature and landscape concepts, ive never seen anything like that b4 in my life, just made me want to see more

to the guy saying 'why did we have to learn about the entire Na'vi lifestyle', i thought this was an awesome part of the movie, you feel closer to the people by the time its over, like emotionally closer

the plot was fucking great, i honestly dont know why people didnt like it, it was one of the most original plots iv'e seen in fucking forever, most shit nowadays is just a remake or a sequel

the movie never ever gets boring, mabye it was just me, but i was always interested

atmosphere was phenomenal, there were times when i really jjust wanted to live in there world rather than my own, is that crazy?

possibly a bold statement for some, but hands down, best movie iv'e ever seen, very few even come remotely close

5/5

10/10

if you can think of a better movie, let me know, so i can have a laugh

I agree totally, same here btw

After seeing this movie I felt like our world was a peice of raped shit

If you watch the movie and aren't so cynnical you can establish assumptions about the main characters that we were probably ALL supposed to naturally come to make in order to enjoy it but I figure james cameron thought it would be obvious enough.

let me guess what you guys thought is so wrong with it:SPOILERS BELOW
-why did the baddest chick get with the dork she had to save a million times instead of sticking with the greatest warrior in her tribe like was arranged?
-why is it a white guy saving the native ppl.. how racist
-did he not show them ALL how to ride their own giant terrodactyl for the sole purpose of restoring drool to his warrior princess's lips over him and for her people see him as badass chosen one at the cost of their lives during the big fight for the sake of his ego?
-"we aren't in kansas anymore"? wtf it's the future OZ should be long gone

well if you're optimistic and don't think the worst of everyone you can conclude that the warrior princess gets turned on by the taboo of forbidden love. it happens all the time. it doesn't always make sense on a level of materialism, logic or even what's healthy.. usually that makes it even hotter. because he had no use of his legs in real life he had an obvious over zealous approach to their avatar system, as depicted in the movie, where he finally had legs and, like a nerd with video games, jumped into it more enthusiastically than someone happy with their life's current disposition.

with her guiding his physical training and agility he was able to become an above average na'vi despite the natives having been born there with innate instincts and so on perhaps is far fetched but still he obviously enjoyed that world far more than being human, like a nerd with video games, and so surpassing na'vi standards he was no longer a goof and she grew attracted to him.. a little fast and hard but i'm sure that's where the taboo kicked in... it's happened before to many people who didn't expect to be attracted to the person they were starting to get to know.

the white guy saving the coloured natives.. that sounds a little wrong. i didn't notice it til i heard people complaining about it. but i agree that sucks.

maybe one day we can have a movie about a black guy going to a white town and becoming sheriff and getting the baddest chicks or something and have it not be a comedy (respect to mel brookes)

back to the movie tho... with a little optimism you can assume he didn't show them all how to ride one because it gave him mystery and reverence to work with and so even though he didn't believe in that juju he was their chosen one without question believed and respected by even the most skeptical of the tribe. so he could get them to attack the weaker parts of the flying tanks and they'd listen to him without suspicion and he let them belief it's impossible for any na'vi to get a giant terrodactyl because that was their best chance, letting them think he was sent there by the powers that be to help them (maybe 50 giant terrodactyls flew by na'vi would have worked well too but whatever)

and finally, in the future, should they still use that phrase... they probably don't even remember where the saying "we're not in kansas anymore" even comes from... it's just a figure of speech adopted from ancient pop culture that stuck from generation to generation like "it's raining cats and dogs outside" yet it's been a millenium since we've used hay roofs which our animals sleep on.. and gets slippery when wet and they fall off of, which is where the saying supposedly comes from. things stick okay?

if you want to enjoy the movie, with an open mind, you will
if you wanna pick it apart and assume the worst in everything about it you won't be that happy with it.

i didn't care how improbable it was that an organism so tied into the planet could wake up and control every lower life form to attack and pick sides in a war without the use of a hair usb plug. At the time i just wanted to see some disrespectful interlopers get their asses handed to them.

It was epic, but written by a fucking monkey.

At 1/5/10 10:18 PM, Elfer wrote: Guys, the movie cost six bazillion dollars to make. Do you think any studio anywhere would be willing to fund anyone, even King Shit of Fuck Mountain James Cameron that much money to make a movie that was new, progressive and experimental?

PROBABLY NOT. If you want a kickass 3-D movie with lots of crazy visual shit going on in it, you're not going to get a story to match. It still costs too much money to make it. You're basically going to get the tried and tested standard epic storyline that people will be satisfied with, but not blown away by.

The Dark Knight's budget was about $45 million less and yet it has what I certainly think is an amazing story. Give me examples of how many times its exact story was done. I'm not saying Avatar's story isn't at least somewhat unique, but I dunno; I find it has more in common with other movies than The Dark Knight does. The point is a movie that's "new, progressive and experimental" doesn't give it a free pass for its story. Studios and writers that think that way are lazy and probably only care about money.

Anyway, I wrote this as a response to someone's post from here:

"I saw the film yesterday and I have to agree the visual effects are fantastic. Director James Cameron said he wanted to evoke the images from 2001. He definitely does it with Avatar. The forest plants, for instance, are wonderful to look at, with their detail and colour. I can definitely see this film being nominated for an Oscar for its effects.

The only metaphor that immediately struck me is the Na'vi being like natives and getting wiped out by humans with technological advances. I didn't see the oil or Iraq War metaphors. Now that I think about it, there is an environmental one. However, I didn't feel like I was being preached to. These metaphors are no less subtle than WALL·E and District 9. I don't mind a little social commentary in movies as long as they're done with good intentions.

I admire the acting, both real and vocal. The marine played by Sam Worthington is a likable guy with a heart that audiences can probably care about. The Schwarzenegger-like colonel is an utter cliché, though. However, Stephen Lang does a convincing job playing him. The character is definitely not one to be rooting for.

I have absolutely no complaints about the effects. I can tell a lot of work went into making them and I respect that. There were even times where I couldn't tell if something was real or not, like a waterfall by a ledge the marine (as an avatar) jumps off of.

I agree it's not a milestone like The Dark Knight is to superhero films. Avatar's story is interesting, but there's parts that are somewhat predictable. For instance, (very mild spoiler) a character saying something to a loved one while lying on the ground, dying. That moment may only be a several seconds long, but it's right out of the movie book of clichés.

I definitely liked the movie. It's not without action scenes and they're thrilling to watch. I'm not really supporting the film for being nominated and winning Best Picture, but I am for Best Visual Effects, along with 2012. Don't get me wrong. Avatar is better than that film."

AGREED. THANK YOU!

Yeah it's just some guy who does some stuff and doesn't wanna go back because he's a fucking paraplegic.

At 12/18/09 07:05 AM, Frank wrote: I just couldn't get into it. It was just way too conventional and cheesy. The effects were very impressive, but the overall movie itself fell flat to me. I felt District 9 was a way better sci-fi/action movie, and Coraline's 3D animation blew me away more so than Avatar did.

James Cameron's Terminator 2 is one of my favorite movies of all time, I was just so disappointed that this was the best he could come up with 20 years later. I can't deny the film's technical achievements, but I expected so much better from him.

So I'm asking you guys, was anyone else disappointed?

Coraline is stop motion not 3d. and it's called CG. That alone makes your argument shitty. I will agree that district 9 was a better movie, but the CG was shit and I didn't buy 2 beings got in to a high security building all because they have alien weapons and not one person can take them out.

God damn tree hugger movie that could have made a kickass fantasy film if it wasn't for the Humanity,Corporate, white man, etc bashing and unnecessary shift into a fucking war film towards the end. Biggest disappointment I've seen since GTA4.

At 1/7/10 06:28 PM, ChuckDude131 wrote: the effects were amazing

And nothing else.

At 1/7/10 06:28 PM, ChuckDude131 wrote: fuck you asshole avatar kicked ass and the effects were amazing, you liked it and you know it

the effects are great but some of it is just half made shit

It was great. You guys are just mainstream bashing schmucks.

I don't understand all the hate. If you actually took your time and enjoyed the movie rather than go all movie-critic on it and notice every single tiny flaw, then you might actually like it. Some of the scenes were very emotionally intense in my point of view.

The movie was awesome to me and (according to about 90%) revolutionary.
It racked in $352,114,898 bucks at the box office (breaking the Matrix record and falling just under Twilight) so really your opinion means less than you think.

I'm pretty sure almost half of you didn't even go to see the movie and just spoon-fed yourself others negative opinions (kind of like the 4chan hate)
And the other half are probably saying
"I sort of liked this movie, but I don't understand why it's so popular so Imma say I hate it."

now for the REAL CRITIQUE
James Cameron brings back some of that old terminator vibe with this movie.
It's suspenseful and the graphics are top notch as well as it's storyline will only minimal cliches

Alot of people often use popularity as an excuse to either like or dislike something, it's often some desperate attempt to either separate yourself from the mob by being different or conform by agreeing with everyone else. Although i must admit that over-hyping can be annoying with allthe merchandising and what not... and separating yourself from the mob is not a bad thing; these things should realy not be a factor in forming your own opinion about a movie. The story may not have been that orginal.... but come on... it was extremely entertaining & realy nice to look at, sometimes that can be enough... we will just have to see if this movie will pass the test of time, being so dependant on its visual effects...

At 1/8/10 07:14 AM, naronic wrote: It racked in $352,114,898 bucks at the box office (breaking the Matrix record and falling just under Twilight) so really your opinion means less than you think.

Lol. As if how much money it made at the box office says ANYTHING about the quality of a movie :p I doubt you can actually come up with a less valid argument than that when it comes to discussing movies.

Also out of all the opinions I heard about Avatar, you're the first person who says the plot is any good and non-cliche ;) Even most of the fans admit the plot is terrible/nothing special.

At 1/8/10 07:36 AM, Auz wrote:

At 1/8/10 07:14 AM, naronic wrote: It racked in $352,114,898 bucks at the box office (breaking the Matrix record and falling just under Twilight) so really your opinion means less than you think.

Lol. As if how much money it made at the box office says ANYTHING about the quality of a movie :p I doubt you can actually come up with a less valid argument than that when it comes to discussing movies.

Lol
actually yes it does, you see- if the movie is BAD (gets bad ratings) not many ppl go to see it therefore it make LESS money
When a movie gets good ratings and gets on TIME'S BEST list then a lot of ppl want to see it

Even most of the fans admit the plot is terrible/nothing special.

okay well you find me a FAN who says that.

i'm a fan, I loved it...and seriously, humanity as a whole should go suck a bag of dicks...,(something the movie also comes down to) that realy does mean that how many people go see it doesn't really matter... the majority of the people are pretty fucking stupid ... so how many go see a movie doesn't matter.

the story does kinda suck... it's just awfully cliched.... but simply told in a great way.

At 1/8/10 07:43 AM, naronic wrote:

At 1/8/10 07:36 AM, Auz wrote:

At 1/8/10 07:14 AM, naronic wrote: It racked in $352,114,898 bucks at the box office (breaking the Matrix record and falling just under Twilight) so really your opinion means less than you think.

Lol. As if how much money it made at the box office says ANYTHING about the quality of a movie :p I doubt you can actually come up with a less valid argument than that when it comes to discussing movies.

Lol
actually yes it does, you see- if the movie is BAD (gets bad ratings) not many ppl go to see it therefore it make LESS money
When a movie gets good ratings and gets on TIME'S BEST list then a lot of ppl want to see it

I don't know if you have seen the entire top box office list, but there are a crapload of movies in there with terrible ratings and reviews ;) But since they had fancy trailers or got hyped a lot in the media they attracted loads of visitors anyway.

Plus about 90% of the movies in there are made in the last 20 years or so, because it was nearly impossible for a movie to make $200,000,000 in the 70's and before.

Therefore the top box office list says jackshit about the quality of movies.