Slashdot Mirror
First Review of Avatar Special Edition
brumgrunt writes "Den Of Geek has the first review of James Cameron's extended cut of Avatar. Its thoughts? 'As opposed to, say, the extended cuts of Aliens, Terminator 2 or The Abyss, the new scenes add little of particular note to everything we've already seen.'"
I doubt it features humans coming back to Pandora with 100x more firepower :o
If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
So, adding to an already long, mostly pointless movie... doesn't add anything? SHOCKER.
Avatar as a film is so-so...it's entertaining enough, but it's fairly brainless. That being said, I don't think there has ever been a better movie to show off your home theater. The Blu-Ray looks and sounds amazing on a good TV/sound system.
The Fountain is also an amazing movie to show off your home theater.
Living With a Nerd
Special edition or regular edition it will still never get anywhere near "Aliens." Sorry, Cameron, but the thirty years of experience you have gained and the extra production budget have actually made you worse. Go back to your roots.
"Blockbuster movie producers attempt to convince fans to buy a special edition that has little to no added value."
Whoa. Shocking.
Seriously, what were we expecting?
Well, the main thing is that it was a "spectacle film". That's an almost unheard-of genre, especially nowadays. The whole point of that genre is an archetypal storyline and a huge focus on scenery and special effects.
Probably the only other well-known example would be "The Ten Commandments", which was one of the last. Huge production costs, big-name people, and what the 1950s considered top-of-the-line special effects. You can see elements of the genre elsewhere ("2001" is a well-known partial example), but there are very, very few pure examples dated after WW2.
People don't watch a spectacle film for the interesting, innovative story. They watch it because of the scenery and special effects and the sheer spectacle of it all. The early ones were basically "look how much I spent making this movie", back when "making this movie" was enough to get viewers.
If you came into it expecting a good sci-fi movie, of course it won't meet those standards. That's like judging a Bond movie by sci-fi standards: it doesn't compare well because it isn't supposed to be compared at all.
On a more personal note, I watched it months after release, on a rented DVD, headphones, and laptop. It was still an interesting movie, better than much of the stuff Hollywood puts out. Not an "instant classic" or anything, but it wasn't horrible, in my opinion.
I never really understood peoples problem with it. It seemed to me to at least have a better plot then many many other movies, not that that is saying all that much.
So maybe it did not have a above average script, but did anyone really think that it would have one? Personally I thought Titanic was pretty stupid, and its main gimmick was also having the top graphics technology of the time, far surpassing all other films.
Personally I really enjoyed Avatar and thought it should of been longer, but then I was more interested in learning more about Pandora the world then the story.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Everybody has been creaming themselves over how well the "science" holds up - as if this were really a hard science movie.
I don't understand this, as there was a plot hole so glaring to me that even as I marveled over the storytelling and the effects it continued to eat away at my Circle of Suspension of Disbelief.
OK, so Pandora is supposed to be in another star system - as I understand Proxima Centari. Let's take a distance of 4.3 lightyears for discussion. Now, at a minimum there had to be 2 trips from Earth to Pandora, and possibly as many as 4:
1) We had to identify that there was unobtanium there: if that required a probe to be sent that is 1 trip there, plus one communication back. If there is some way to detect it by observation then no trip is needed, so let's assume that to be nice.
2) We had to send a probe there to get the Na'vi DNA, and somehow communicate that back to Earth. That is at least one trip there + one communication back (the reason for the distinction will become clear shortly).
3) We had to send people + Avatars from Earth to Pandora.
There are three possible assumptions: .9c) - trips take about 8 years, communications 4 years. Minimum time is thus 8+8+4 = 20 years, plus another 8 years before unobtanium would be flowing back to Earth. That's a long time to wait. Moreover, if you can do .5c ships, you are able to manipulate energies much higher than we can now, so again, no chemical projectile weapons.
1) Humans have faster than light travel. Thus a "trip" and a "communication" are the same, and take some time less than 4.3 years as viewed from Earth. However, I would assert if we know enough to do FTL, we aren't going to be using chemical projectile weapons in a fight. (it also seems likely we would be able to synthesize a room-temp superconductor, but I digress).
2) Humans have relativistic flight (.5c to
3) Humans have non-relativistic flight (.1c or less) - trips take 400 years, communications 4 years. Again, that's just too long to wait.
"What if you cannot use energy weapons on Pandora because of energy fields?" OK, but that still doesn't prevent a ship in orbit from slamming a large mass into the One Tree at great speed, with a much more efficient and devastating effect on Na'vi morale. Again, tell me why they used massed rockets rather than a small rock?
www.eFax.com are spammers
I don't get why people expect the high end of the creative spectrum to remain there for life, anymore than someone would expect an olympic level running to still be getting the gold at age 60. The mind comes from the brain, and the brain is an aging and dying piece of meat the same as the heart or any other part of the body.
Everything will be taken away from you.
Not that I believe in such a silly rule, but what about Clint Eastwood? :)
If Avatar wasn't at least technically and artistically creative, then you have a very narrow definition you're working with.
I have mod points, but I already commented. Otherwise I would have modded as funny as sarcastic is not an option.
In case you where serious:
I would say almost every movie you see now is about an archetypal storyline and a huge focus on scenery and special effects.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
So the only review (so far) is from someone who didn't particularly like the movie to begin with, and they didn't like the new release very much either- because 9 minutes didn't add enough to overcome their previous feelings...
One thing that does amaze me about this movie is the fact there there doesn't seem to be any real middle-ground. People either love it to the point of excess (which I'll admit- I do), or they hate it and call it self-indulgent garbage that ripped-off other movies.
At least it wasn't yet-another re-make of a '70s or '80s TV show or movie, or the 6th sequel to a series that should have died after the 2nd.
I really can't blame Cameron or the studio for wanting to re-release it, and I appreciate the fact that they added content that many super-fans wanted to see. They got screwed over by some awful 3D releases that took over the screens from them this last Spring. A lot of people also regretted not seeing it in theaters, in 3D, after they saw it for the first time on Blu-Ray or DVD. Now they have a chance, although for a slightly different version. Beats the hell out of crappy 3D fish movies shot with '60s 3D movie values...
But the big action flicks are made for the masses who would not like them to have complicated plots that they have never seen before.
The only way they would ever make the money back to pay for the film is to pander to the lowest common denominator.
Big Budget will never do unique plots.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
I don't know if I'm counter-counter culture or what
You are.
But that's okay -- I liked Avatar both times I saw it. It's simple in its story, characters, plotlines and cliche in those areas as well. But it chose a good story to base itself on and told it in a very entertaining way. Any movie that actually gets me emotional (like the army vs tree scene) gets a boost in my rating. Consider that the next time you watch a movie -- did it move you in any way: angry, sad, happy, excited, scared? Most movies don't.
But don't dis the ultra-violence.
What bothers me most about this review is that the reviewer walked into the cinema having already seen and hated the film and full knowing he will hate it again. Why should we value what this guy has to say? A large part of the re-release was the fact that places like IMAX was fully booked out the entire time Avatar was showing right up until the moment IMAX was contractually obliged to change to the next feature of waterfalls or dolphins or whatever it is they show these days. The release is for people who wanted to see the film in such environments but couldn't last time around and adding some deleted scenes is just further enticement.
My biggest worry about the review is that this reviewer, Ryan Lambie might actually be getting paid for his jaded opinions.