Avatar is being released on Thursday

[GMichael]

Is it me, or does this seem a little fast? When did the movie come out?
Is anyone planning on picking this up? Will a 3d version be released around the corner.

[ForeverAutumn]

ACK! I haven't even seen it in the theatre yet! I tried twice and it was sold out both times.

[GMichael]

Only $20 for BR. I'm thinking of pre-ordering.

[nightflier]

I'm pretty sure that the critics of this movie pretty much unanimously said that it wasn't that impressive, aside from the 3D. It's a story-line that's been done to death already, the acting is so-so, the special effects are nothing new, and the soundtrack is OK. While I'm sure it will do well enough just based on the fact that it was such a hit in theaters, but it does have the problem that many people have seen it already on a better screen, with better sound, and in 3D. Even at $20, is it worth it w/o the 3D?

[GMichael]

I'm pretty sure that the critics of this movie pretty much unanimously said that it wasn't that impressive, aside from the 3D. It's a story-line that's been done to death already, the acting is so-so, the special effects are nothing new, and the soundtrack is OK. While I'm sure it will do well enough just based on the fact that it was such a hit in theaters, but it does have the problem that many people have seen it already on a better screen, with better sound, and in 3D. Even at $20, is it worth it w/o the 3D?

You must have better theaters where you are than we have around here. :smilewinkgrin:

[Smokey]

Is anyone planning on picking this up? Will a 3d version be released around the corner.

You probably alreaday know this that this version will be a single disc bare bone version without even a trailer or extars. An ultimate multi discs version (non 3-D) is on schedule for November release, so you may want to hold off till then.

If you want the 3-D version, it probably be sometimes next year at the earliest :)

[recoveryone]

IMHO, I think the Blu ray will look much better on my HT system than the 3D Version I saw. Not that my system is top end, just that I will have a sweet spot to view it and I felt the 3D version was not all that to began with.

[RGA]

Frankly it was a pretty stupid movie. I enjoyed it on a leave my brain at the door level when I went to the theater but thinking it over some more I could not imagine sitting through the glorified poorly acted Disney like flick again. And I was not all that impressed by the 3D which still looks like you are looking at one screen sitting in front of another screen - not seamless.

Atomic Adam posted this review a while ago and this guy is absolutely hilarious reviewing movies. Watch his reviews on the Phantom Menace and Star Trek Generation which he calls the worst movie ever made hahaha. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJarz7BYnHA

[GMichael]

Frankly it was a pretty stupid movie. I enjoyed it on a leave my brain at the door level when I went to the theater but thinking it over some more I could not imagine sitting through the glorified poorly acted Disney like flick again. And I was not all that impressed by the 3D which still looks like you are looking at one screen sitting in front of another screen - not seamless.

Atomic Adam posted this review a while ago and this guy is absolutely hilarious reviewing movies. Watch his reviews on the Phantom Menace and Star Trek Generation which he calls the worst movie ever made hahaha. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJarz7BYnHA
Sounds like my kind of movie. I have found that whenever the critics love a movie, I end up not liking it. When they hate a movie, it turns out to be a favorite of mine.

[GMichael]

You probably alreaday know this that this version will be a single disc bare bone version without even a trailer or extars. An ultimate multi discs version (non 3-D) is on schedule for November release, so you may want to hold off till then.

If you want the 3-D version, it probably be sometimes next year at the earliest :)

Isn't that how they always work it?
1st release: bare bones movie
2nd: Extra features
3rd: Directors cut
4th: 3D bare bones
5th: 3D with extra features
6th: 3D directors cut
7th: 3D super duper has everything but the kitchen sink full featured directors cut with a cherry on top

[RGA]

Sounds like my kind of movie. I have found that whenever the critics love a movie, I end up not liking it. When they hate a movie, it turns out to be a favorite of mine.

You're better off just watching Aliens - a much better movie than Avatar - even if it is 2D.

If you're a Star Trek fan at all you have to watch his reviews of the movies. He is actually quite correct. The movies never lived up the television series ideology which is rather sad.

Star Trek: Generations - The Stupidest movie ever made - it ruined not just Star Trek but everyyyything. I just like the slow droll the way the guy talks. Spending an evening listening to his reviews is better than most movies...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h06WKYFYdlo&feature=related

[thekid]

I will honor its release by watching my copy of "Pocahontas"........ :D

[emaidel]

I'm pretty sure that the critics of this movie pretty much unanimously said that it wasn't that impressive, aside from the 3D.


Absolutely dead wrong. Avatar was one of the most highly praised films of the year by almost every film major film critic (The New York Times; Newsweek; Time; Roger Ebert, etc.)

Personally, I thought the movie was nothing less than outstanding. While I was very happy "The Hurt Locker" won for Best Picture, I thought the choice between it and "Avatar" was a tough one.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Absolutely dead wrong. Avatar was one of the most highly praised films of the year by almost every film major film critic (The New York Times; Newsweek; Time; Roger Ebert, etc.)

Personally, I thought the movie was nothing less than outstanding. While I was very happy "The Hurt Locker" won for Best Picture, I thought the choice between it and "Avatar" was a tough one.

I think you need to brush his crap aside. Obviously he has not seen the movie(nightdummy) and relies on the word of others to shape his opinion, because he thrives on second hand information rather than thinking for himself.

Because of the subjective nature of opinion, one has to decide for themselves whether this movie is worth purchasing. The reason for releasing a bare bones Bluray stem from the fact that Cameron wanted the best possible picture and sound for this release. If that is your forte', and extra content is not, then this will be worth purchasing if you are not interested in 3D in the near future.

Parrots can be annoying because they cannot think for themselves.

[Woochifer]

I'm pretty sure that the critics of this movie pretty much unanimously said that it wasn't that impressive, aside from the 3D. It's a story-line that's been done to death already, the acting is so-so, the special effects are nothing new, and the soundtrack is OK. While I'm sure it will do well enough just based on the fact that it was such a hit in theaters, but it does have the problem that many people have seen it already on a better screen, with better sound, and in 3D. Even at $20, is it worth it w/o the 3D?

Looks like 82% of critics aren't as unanimous as you presumed they are.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/avatar/

[Woochifer]

I planned to skip this release and wait for the more full featured version due out in November, but the $20 pricing I see everywhere on the Blu-ray combo pack is mighty tempting. This is pretty much exactly how I said it would play out a few weeks ago. Avatar's release is an event launch, so stores are pulling out the stops to draw customers through the doors.

Target adds another $3 discount if you buy from a list of other Fox titles, all of which are sale priced at $15. Fry's Electronics has their own offer of $25 off if you buy Avatar with a Panasonic Blu-ray player.

[Woochifer]

Is it me, or does this seem a little fast? When did the movie come out?
Is anyone planning on picking this up? Will a 3d version be released around the corner.

It only seems fast because Avatar stayed in theaters so long. Recall that it came out in early December. With movie releases so front loaded nowadays, it's very rare that you get a movie with "legs" that holds the audience from one week to another. Typically, a movie will come out, attract huge box office numbers the first week, and then drop about half of its audience the following week, and disappear from the top 10 within a month. By the time most movies come out on DVD/BD, they've been out of theaters for close to three months.

The last big blockbuster movie that held its audience as well as Avatar was Titanic. Obviously, Cameron knows something that the rest of Hollywood doesn't.

[GMichael]

You're better off just watching Aliens - a much better movie than Avatar - even if it is 2D.

If you're a Star Trek fan at all you have to watch his reviews of the movies. He is actually quite correct. The movies never lived up the television series ideology which is rather sad.

Star Trek: Generations - The Stupidest movie ever made - it ruined not just Star Trek but everyyyything. I just like the slow droll the way the guy talks. Spending an evening listening to his reviews is better than most movies...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h06WKYFYdlo&feature=related

I have seen Aliens many times. Just watched it again a couple weeks ago. It's one of my favorites. But I saw Generations too. As much as I've seen that movie ripped apart by critics, I still like it. I don't know why, but it entertains me. It takes me away from the real world for a couple hours.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I have seen Aliens many times. Just watched it again a couple weeks ago. It's one of my favorites. But I saw Generations too. As much as I've seen that movie ripped apart by critics, I still like it. I don't know why, but it entertains me. It takes me away from the real world for a couple hours.

I feel exactly the same way about this movie. One thing is for certain, we look for an escape, and critics are looking for high art. I am not sure there is a accessible bridge between the two. They are looking to attract eyes to a web page or newspaper, and we are just looking for an escape. Different objectives will often lead to different opinions.

[RGA]

Film critics tend to see a lot more movies and so they can be harder on the recent romantic comedy that we like. When they've seen 350 romantic comedies all following the same structure then they may rip one apart. If you've only seen 4 in the last 2 years you might go a LOT easier on the same movie.

Then there is personal taste - some hate horror movies (and some critics) and while they may rate Halloween higher than Friday the 13th because they recognize quality over trash they personally may not care for it.

I like most of the Star Trek movies even the ones like Generations which had many glaring problems as Mr. Pinkett noted in his hilarious reviews. If we pick them apart they lack any logical connection to the TV series. His review of First Contact (one of the best TREK movies) is a long session of ripping all the plot holes. I liked the review - and I think he is absolutely right on every point he makes - nevertheless I enjoyed the movie and still enjoy it because I take the films as a separate entity from the TV series. Still Star Trek IV was arguably the only Trek film that had any real sense of what Roddenberry had in mind and it was by far the most popular of the all the Trek movies and IMO the best one. The Wrath of Khan was an action picture and a good one and a close second. Some will flip the two but whatever. Part 4 was the one that made social commentary in the guise of Science Fiction - that is Star Trek at its core.

Avatar was hugely popular - Pocahontas/ Dances with Wolves meets Aliens - his review is bang on. The bad guys are cardboard characters and the acting was uninspired. It, like plenty of other big Hollywood - all spectacle and little substance.

The 3D was better than I have seen 3D before but it's hardly perfect. Clash of the Titans was completely rubbished for its use of 3D. So what people are going to replace their Televisions for mediocre 3d quality( way better than Jaws 3 but...) for one truly successful 3D movie in Avatar?

I can't imagine that people are truly going to sit home and watch this film over and over. It doesn't have an emotional impact. It doesn't really have any interesting characters, and very long sequences of walking in the colourfuls forest and flying around. At least Jurassic Park had dinosaurs that eat people like Newman - that's always rewatchable for a laugh.

But hey people loved the LOTR movies which I still can't figure out. Can't argue with the formula's.

In a sense Plinkett argued that Titanic did the same - in fact so did the first Terminator which is no doubt why you stay with what works. Although IMO the Terminator is a way better movie than Avatar and despite the now hoaky looking effects - I will watch the Terminator many more times in my life - and I won't say that about Avatar despite the impressive effects.

[Feanor]

I feel exactly the same way about this movie. One thing is for certain, we look for an escape, and critics are looking for high art. I am not sure there is a accessible bridge between the two. They are looking to attract eyes to a web page or newspaper, and we are just looking for an escape. Different objectives will often lead to different opinions.
Bang on about critics, (most critics), looking for high art. Damned effete snobs; p!ss on them. I watch movies for one reason only -- to be entertained. (Come to that, that's why I listen to music.)

I was hugely enterained by Avatar. Do I give a crap that the whole thing was one cliché after another? No, what I care about was that the clichés were used appropriately and effectively to entertain me.

Aliens / Dances with Wolves / Pocahontas / FernGully, all wrapped in one?? Great by me! :thumbsup: It worked. (Anybody remember FernGully: the Last Rainforest (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104254/)(1992), the animated kids' flick? Cameron stole from it directly.)

[GMichael]

Film critics tend to see a lot more movies and so they can be harder on the recent romantic comedy that we like. When they've seen 350 romantic comedies all following the same structure then they may rip one apart. If you've only seen 4 in the last 2 years you might go a LOT easier on the same movie.

Then there is personal taste - some hate horror movies (and some critics) and while they may rate Halloween higher than Friday the 13th because they recognize quality over trash they personally may not care for it.

I like most of the Star Trek movies even the ones like Generations which had many glaring problems as Mr. Pinkett noted in his hilarious reviews. If we pick them apart they lack any logical connection to the TV series. His review of First Contact (one of the best TREK movies) is a long session of ripping all the plot holes. I liked the review - and I think he is absolutely right on every point he makes - nevertheless I enjoyed the movie and still enjoy it because I take the films as a separate entity from the TV series. Still Star Trek IV was arguably the only Trek film that had any real sense of what Roddenberry had in mind and it was by far the most popular of the all the Trek movies and IMO the best one. The Wrath of Khan was an action picture and a good one and a close second. Some will flip the two but whatever. Part 4 was the one that made social commentary in the guise of Science Fiction - that is Star Trek at its core.

Avatar was hugely popular - Pocahontas/ Dances with Wolves meets Aliens - his review is bang on. The bad guys are cardboard characters and the acting was uninspired. It, like plenty of other big Hollywood - all spectacle and little substance.

The 3D was better than I have seen 3D before but it's hardly perfect. Clash of the Titans was completely rubbished for its use of 3D. So what people are going to replace their Televisions for mediocre 3d quality( way better than Jaws 3 but...) for one truly successful 3D movie in Avatar?

I can't imagine that people are truly going to sit home and watch this film over and over. It doesn't have an emotional impact. It doesn't really have any interesting characters, and very long sequences of walking in the colourfuls forest and flying around. At least Jurassic Park had dinosaurs that eat people like Newman - that's always rewatchable for a laugh.

But hey people loved the LOTR movies which I still can't figure out. Can't argue with the formula's.

In a sense Plinkett argued that Titanic did the same - in fact so did the first Terminator which is no doubt why you stay with what works. Although IMO the Terminator is a way better movie than Avatar and despite the now hoaky looking effects - I will watch the Terminator many more times in my life - and I won't say that about Avatar despite the impressive effects.

Critics are usually people who majored in literature. They are looking for great stories that are often complicated and force people to think. Those movies are ok, but often I just want an escape. A simple movie that takes my hand and leads me through the simple story while entertaining me is what I’m looking for.
I’m not saying that the critics are wrong. We just have different tastes.

[RGA]

GMichael

You are correct I think in that most critics have literature degrees and generally look for works whether film or novels that work on many layers and or can be interpreted and reinterpreted in many ways. I have a Lit degree but I usually rail against critics that ONLY consider the "art house" film as being worthy of being quality.

I think there can be a distinction between "art film" and "movie" the latter being an entertainment. Just like music you have "art music" (Classical) and bubble gum pop "Bananarama/Madonna) and one can enjoy one hate the other or like both.

I look at the intent and the result. One of my all time favorite movies is Raiders of the Lost Ark. The art house critic scoffs. I don't look at Avatar with my literature eye I look at it with my Raiders of the Lost Ark eye. I didn't hate Avatar - It was enjoyable enough when I saw it in the theatre but what I saw had no humour, or impact. The sad thing for me was that this film would have been WAY better if they created characters and plot in 3 dimensions and had left the visuals in 2D. Instead, they made flat characters and flat story and use the 3D to help you forget that the story is dumb and rippoffs of better movies, and characters that are completely unforgettable. The visuals are enough on the big screen to still be enjoyable. But on a 50inch LCD or Plasma where the "experience" of spectacle is greatly reduced - the brain will focus less on spectacle and more on story and characters. Two hours and 40 minutes! I don't see it as being rewatchable.

[GMichael]

GMichael

You are correct I think in that most critics have literature degrees and generally look for works whether film or novels that work on many layers and or can be interpreted and reinterpreted in many ways. I have a Lit degree but I usually rail against critics that ONLY consider the "art house" film as being worthy of being quality.

I think there can be a distinction between "art film" and "movie" the latter being an entertainment. Just like music you have "art music" (Classical) and bubble gum pop "Bananarama/Madonna) and one can enjoy one hate the other or like both.

I look at the intent and the result. One of my all time favorite movies is Raiders of the Lost Ark. The art house critic scoffs. I don't look at Avatar with my literature eye I look at it with my Raiders of the Lost Ark eye. I didn't hate Avatar - It was enjoyable enough when I saw it in the theatre but what I saw had no humour, or impact. The sad thing for me was that this film would have been WAY better if they created characters and plot in 3 dimensions and had left the visuals in 2D. Instead, they made flat characters and flat story and use the 3D to help you forget that the story is dumb and rippoffs of better movies, and characters that are completely unforgettable. The visuals are enough on the big screen to still be enjoyable. But on a 50inch LCD or Plasma where the "experience" of spectacle is greatly reduced - the brain will focus less on spectacle and more on story and characters. Two hours and 40 minutes! I don't see it as being rewatchable.

What if someone has a 106" screen?

[nightflier]

Looks like 82% of critics aren't as unanimous as you presumed they are.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/avatar/

That was for the 3D version. As the critics said, without the 3D it's pretty formulaic. Sure it was pure entertainment, and I respect people wanting that, but let's not fool ourselves, this story's been done before, the special effects were nothing new (aside from the 3D), and the acting was as expected of the actors in it.

And just to shut lil't up, I saw about half of the movie at a party where the kids were watching it, and frankly, the party was more entertaining. Even the kids weren't all that interested and could only rave about the 3D effects they had seen in the theater.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

That was for the 3D version. As the critics said, without the 3D it's pretty formulaic. Sure it was pure entertainment, and I respect people wanting that, but let's not fool ourselves, this story's been done before, the special effects were nothing new (aside from the 3D), and the acting was as expected of the actors in it.

The movie was designed as a total experience, not one to be parceled into small pieces. Almost all movies have been done before, so let's not fool ourselves into to thinking there are a bunch of original ideas floating around. I do not mind non original concepts being used, as long as they are done tastefully, and Avatar fits that bill.


And just to shut lil't up, I saw about half of the movie at a party where the kids were watching it, and frankly, the party was more entertaining.

The only thing you have told me here is that you are offering a half @ssed experience to go along with a half @ssed opinion. That is a small improvement on your usual no @ss experience with your no @ss opinion.

Frankly, I think you are lying through your teeth.


Even the kids weren't all that interested and could only rave about the 3D effects they had seen in the theater.

Wow, did you ask them all, or is this just another lie to make a point. Me thinks it is the latter since you have a long history of it.

[JoeE SP9]

I liked Avatar. It was silly, hokey, formulaic, and fun. One dimensional characters, stilted acting and Sigourney in a sexy outfit. What's not to like? I'm going to buy a copy. I've got all the Star Trek movies also. So there!

As I'm writing this they are running an add on TV for the latest remake of Nightmare On Elm Street. That's the real enemy to taste quality and good sense. Puleeeeze, wasn't the original enough?

[Geoffcin]

Hey guys, this isn't the "Steel Cage" so please tone down the personal attacks.

[bfalls]

I picked up a copy yesterday. I believe it's BD/DVD and also allows a digital copy. Not bad for $20. Sony performed the replication for 20th Century Fox, so I was able to view the movie a couple of weeks ago on my laptop. I liked it. It was entertaining, but there's really not a lot of substance. I can't wait to see it at home on my system where I can get the intended video and audio effects. I like 3D, but more than happy to wait until second generation hardware is available. I'll let someone else work out the bugs.

[Tarheel_]

I'm pretty sure that the critics of this movie pretty much unanimously said that it wasn't that impressive, aside from the 3D. It's a story-line that's been done to death already, the acting is so-so, the special effects are nothing new, and the soundtrack is OK. While I'm sure it will do well enough just based on the fact that it was such a hit in theaters, but it does have the problem that many people have seen it already on a better screen, with better sound, and in 3D. Even at $20, is it worth it w/o the 3D?

Well said...we were so under whelmed as this story has been beat to death...ho hum acting and no connection to the characters because the ending was so predictable. Having said that, most of the audience was smitten with the characters...but then again there were people laughing at the lame jokes in Transformers 2. Money back please?

[recoveryone]

OK folks, I picked up my copy last night and watch half of it then and the rest this morning. As I posted earlier, I was looking forward to seeing it on my system and I was not disappointed at all. The colors were rich, vibrant and deep,(much better than the 3D version I saw at the theater) The computer graphics (CGI) were done at top notch level. The Story is what it is, but the visual candy is more than enough to make up for the lack in character depth and story line (by the way I like the Colonel) Classic Marine, like me lol. The sound was right on, not overly done, surround effects added to the movie not distraction from what was happening on the screen ( In short a good sound Mixing job), Voices were clear from center and the right to left pan was dead on. So you can sit here and pick this movie apart, but it was a great deal for under $20 for a Blu-Ray title and it will make most HT setups shine, and be a show off to others to see. just my two cents.

[E-Stat]

Personally, I thought the movie was nothing less than outstanding. While I was very happy "The Hurt Locker" won for Best Picture, I thought the choice between it and "Avatar" was a tough one.
Agreed. I've been out of town all week and got in just before midnight only to discover that wifey bought me a BR copy!

rw