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?
May not be safe for work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJarz7BYnHA (part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLzKwTcGO_0
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
There might be a reason for that...
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
it's the last review.
I'm curious about the timing here. The movie came out, had a long run, came out on BR, and now back in theaters just when kids (and some adults) are going back to school. Too soon. If they had waited a year or so I might be tempted to see it again on the big screen. As it is, I'm kind of tired of the movie. The cynic in me says they just threw it out now so the new BR could be out in time for Xmas shopping season.
"I'm not a quack, I'm a mad scientist! There's a difference." - Dr. Cockroach
I absolutely agree. I enjoyed the movie when I saw it in IMAX 3D. After trying to watch it on my laptop, I realized the draw I had to the movie was the incredible visual effects. I have to give Cameron serious props: he raised the bar for everyone in terms of "3D done right" and the power of CG. I still find it hard to believe the movie was completely CG.
Once the shock and awe of the stunning visuals and beautiful soundtrack and effects wore off, I realized it wasn't that great of a movie. Fairly basic in plot, and completely predictable. Enjoyable merely because I saw it on an enormous screen, in 3D, with a very loud (and expensive) sound system.
It's actually only eight minutes longer. Over the whole running time, it strikes me as not a great reason to go back.
I know plenty of people who dislike the movie. People aren't "sheep", and brainlessness is as much as a turn-off as running time for many of them.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
The special effects were superb, the writing... not so much. I don't think I would be interested in enduring an extended edition unless James Cameron actually rewrote and reshot (for the better) some of the hokier dialogue and contrivances.
With a few minor exceptions, this review was a rehash of prior reviews.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
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.
Every director has about 10 years of peek creativity, give or take a few years. And Cameron is well past his creative prime (basically from about 1983 to 1992).
There are some notable exceptions to the 10-year-rule, BTW. I would argue that Stanley Kubrick and John Sayles are two of the VERY rare exceptions. Many would include Scorsese as well.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/aliens_avatar Pretty much sums up Avatar pretty well.
Life was once calm, now the waves are coming.
did we really expect to see anything added to the movie with a directors cut?
I thought that the director's cuts of the LOTR movies added something good, but in general I agree with you, longer isn't always better and is frequently worse.
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
In the movie the passengers said they were in hibernation for six years. So I assumed it was near light-speed travel. You accelerate at one gee for about half year, travel for five years, then decelerate.
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 maybe it did not have a above average script, but did anyone really think that it would have one?
Some of us would like movies with nine digit budgets to, you know, toss a few bucks into the script. Why can't a big action flick have a decent script? Why must I be told continually to "shut off my brain" when walking into a theater?
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...
...I am still astonished that the movie was shot in 16:9 and the original BluRay was released in 16:9. In a big home theater a 2.35:1 Avatar would be AMAZING (it still looks great in 16:9 but my subconscious keeps noticing the empty space to the left and right of the image that could hold movie...) Apparently Cameron had framed all the shots in the movie for 2.35:1 even though the camera used was natively 16:9, but later changed his mind. If the new BluRay is 2.35:1, I'll be lining up to get it of course. Otherwise, no thanks, there'll be another "Special Edition, Director's ORIGINAL original cut" out in a few more months.
Loading...
Oh, I get it, it was supposed to suck.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
So, adding to an already long, mostly pointless movie... doesn't add anything? SHOCKER.
Read the articles from time to time, you might be pleasantly surprised. In fact, in this one it says:
Avatar, on the other hand, is still comparatively fresh in its audiences' minds, and those returning to their local multiplex expecting to see a startling new side to Pandora are almost certain to be disappointed.
Instead, what we've been given is a second chance to see Avatar on the big screen, with the added bonus of a few more minutes of flora and fanciful creatures.
The 'extras' are just a handy excuse to get your wife to agree to the ticket price...
I see the original poster's point. Look at the Ten Commandments, Ben Hur ... you could argue Star Wars (the first one), and probably a bunch of others I'm not thinking of. They have well-known plots, archetypal characters, and big effects. You can't toss Transformers in there because there's quality control to meet this genre. Aliens doesn't fit either -- that's just a really great action film. You might mention Serenity but that has stronger characters than the other films mentioned.
Dances with Wolves, about the same plot as Avatar, fits this category as well. Different but same.
He should have thought about fixing some of the massive goofs in Titanic first!
My web domain.
The "civilized man goes native" motif isn't anything new, even to Fern Gully. I just watched Thunder Heart this weekend which was the same plot as Avatar, except with real Native Americans and a uranium mine instead of unobtanium.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
People sometimes forget just how wacked the idea of FTL is, and that if FTL is possible, then it means we have drawn the wrong conclusions from all our observations of the universe up until now. But just which of those conclusions was wrong?
What I'm getting at, is that FTL is magic.
For all you know, FTL is accomplished by space men praying to Apollo, "My Lord, deliver me unto that star, and I promise that I will solely use Your holy weapons [gunpowder] and deliver any messages by hand [no FTL comm w/out also travel]." All your nit-picking about energy and other common sense, is wrong because you ignored the will of the gods.
FTL fiction isn't akin to works a hundred years ago that predict men some day building rockets that can travel to the moon; FLT fiction is much more akin to works which say Gandalf can kill goblins by means of casting a spell that makes a pine cone explode. We like to pretend otherwise, but that's really how it is.
If you're going to argue about Pandora travel time, then I'm going to argue that Aragorn should have defeated Sauron by transmitting a computer worm over the inter-Palantir telecommunications network. You might end up sounding saner but in reality we're on equal footing.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I haven't seen them, but I suspect that the added stuff was good because it was in the books to begin with. In other words, it wasn't added after the fact, but rather was there from the beginning and just cut from the theatrical release.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
...and nobody puts Aliens in a corner!
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
"meh."
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
I'd see these in an instant.
option a) Zombie Kane goes on a rampage to kill those that destroyed his precious. Somehow the original movers/people that were hired to clean out the estate all had kids who turn out to be super hot chicks that happen to all go to the same college. roosseeebudd.... roooseeebudd.... braiiinnnsss brainnsss... Kane burn and smash like you smash and burn rosebud...
option b) Kane fakes his own death to become a fighter of crime, and volunteer at orphanages around the world. Next years 'surprise' 'indie' hit. A kind of Batman written by Chris Ware. Starring Philip Seymour Hoffman or Paul Giamatti in the title role.
These are freebies!
How much Jar-Jar is in this edition?
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
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.
Uh, what? Aren't almost all Hollywood movies special effects bonanzas with archetypal (cliched) plots?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I suppose I worded it rather poorly. By "archetypal" I meant "story and characters we are already familiar with, even if they are new".
Another major feature of spectacle films is that the scene and effects dictate the story, not vice versa. Avatar was as much about the planet as it was about the characters. I wouldn't be surprised if Cameron designed the locations first, then wrote a story that would visit all of them.
Probably the biggest difference between a spectacle film and regular Hollywood shovelware, though, is the amount. A spectacle film is a movie cranked up to eleven. It's bigger, louder, shinier, and above all more expensive than other films.
I'd also dispute your conflation of "archetypal" and "clichéd". Lord of the Rings was built on archetypes, but I doubt most would consider it cliché, at least at the time. The main difference is that archetypal characters fill a well-defined role, while clichéd characters have no depth beyond their specific role.
My farts smell better than many other peoples farts. Doesn't mean you want a lung full.
Good luck. Gargamel has been trying to get info on that place for decades, but keeps getting foiled at the last minute. Azriel has had no luck, either.
Sorry to be the big kid who told you that Santa Claus didn't exist when you were at school, but Pandora is an entirely fictional world which exists only in the confines of the film Avatar.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it