I watched Avatar

First off, go see it its awesome...

What does it have to do with MI you ask?

well I was watching it and everytime the Pandorans were on screen I couldnt tell the difference between the males and females and it made me think of MI's own Slender 98% naked blue skinned beings. So if you were wondering what the Merfolk looked like when they had legs look no further than Avatar.

250px-Neytiri.jpg
200px-Anemone.jpg
«1

Comments

  • edited December 2009
    Hmmm that is awesome, I need to see that movie.
  • edited December 2009
    I don't think they're all THAT similar. After all, the Na'vi generally have a strong similarity in facial features to their mocap counterparts, and you generally get the sort of feminine or masculine faces of their actors. I guess it's kinda similar, though. And I suppose I'm only speaking from what I've seen of promo material, too.

    I'm kind of incredulous that this film will do for 3D what The Jazz Singer did for sound, what The Wizard of Oz did for three-strip Technicolor, or what Star Wars and ILM did for special effects in the industry. Granted I haven't seen the film yet, but I just don't see Avatar being the next American Classic.
  • edited December 2009
    Avatar in 3D is simply amazing. The story and all, it's OK. But I watched it for the special effects, and wasn't disappointed.

    I didn't think of the merpeople at the time, but now that you mention it...
  • edited December 2009
    Avatar had brilliant visuals but there were too many extended periods of nothing-ness. It was an okay movie though. I give it 72%.
  • edited December 2009
    So you all enjoyed it? I might have to go see it then.
  • edited December 2009
    Friar wrote: »
    So you all enjoyed it? I might have to go see it then.

    Yeah, it's worth seeing if you're a sci-fi fan. There are some very cool creatures and a lot of luminous plant life in the Pandora jungle which are best experienced at the cinema.
  • puzzleboxpuzzlebox Telltale Alumni
    edited December 2009
    It looks like an absolutely beautiful movie! I've been waiting for it to come out. I don't go to the cinema that often, but will definitely go for this.
  • edited December 2009
    I thought the story was touching and sweet... I'm an instant rabid fanboy.
  • edited December 2009
    i thought it was an outstanding movie, the scenes were breath-taking, the creatures and characters were brilliant, they had alot of culture to them, alot of depth...i saw it in 3D in normal cinema but ive got to see it in IMAX....also i cant wait for Sherlock Holmes.....but anyway on the topic of Merfolks....i always thought of pandorans looking more feline type then aqua, i could see the stuture for the new Thundercats movie by there faces...but the skin tone would do justice to the merfolk if there were featured in a Monkey Island live action movie
  • edited December 2009
    Wolfstar27 wrote: »
    also i cant wait for Sherlock Holmes.....

    Ew...
  • edited December 2009
    i want that blue chick! she looks hot!!
  • puzzleboxpuzzlebox Telltale Alumni
    edited December 2009
    Cyphox wrote: »
    i want that blue chick! she looks hot!!

    What, this one?

    smurfette6.jpg

    Oh right, you mean the one from Avatar. Well you'd better treat her right, because I think she'd be about twice your size and pretty strong!
  • edited December 2009
    Falanca wrote: »
    Ew...

    why is that ew...??? its directed by Guy Ritche (lock stock, snatch) and has Robert Downey jr and beautiful Rachael McAdams
  • edited December 2009
    Falanca wrote: »
    Ew...
    Wait, why ew? I can see why someone can object to Avatar on sight, but the Sherlock Holmes film? Short of depicting his drug addiction and toning down the explosions, it looks to be a pretty faithful adaptation. Casting was brilliant, and I'm looking forward to it.
  • edited December 2009
    What Wizard of Oz did for technicolor? It was a legendary flop that took another 30 years to become a cult hit by being sold into cheap syndication, and color took another ten plus years to become used on a regular basis in film.

    And while I haven't seen any ads (well, trailers) for the Holmes movie, I cannot see how it has brilliant casting. Neither actor looks anything like how Holmes or Watson are described in the stories or even portrayed in Paget's illustrations. I'm not saying it mightn't be a good film, although the explosions line does have me a bit worried, and it can't be worse than Jeremy Brett's show, so who knows?
  • edited December 2009
    I actually thought the film was below average. The look of the film was great but it was just really cheesy and far too long. I actually found myself not caring about the film towards the end which is unusual for me. And I didn't care too much for any of the characters or what would happen to them. It was just a bit standard.

    Better than the usual blockbuster, yes. But not a good James Cameron film at all.

    I guess it just wasn't my type of film.
  • edited December 2009
    Lena_P wrote: »
    What Wizard of Oz did for technicolor? It was a legendary flop that took another 30 years to become a cult hit by being sold into cheap syndication, and color took another ten plus years to become used on a regular basis in film.
    What? I think you have your history mixed up.

    While The Wizard of Oz did not make a huge profit upon release, it did make one. It was very favorably recieved though, it got an Academy Award, and was nominated for others. It's often said that later Technicolor fantasy films of the time had something to do with The Wizard of Oz.

    Now, your last point did have some merit, in that the film wasn't a major financial success, and some could say that is all that matters. But the latter makes no sense at all, really. First of all, the point wasn't for all Technicolor, but rather the Three-Strip Technicolor process. The Two-Color process came out in 1917, though that was used in one film by Technicolor themselves and was more or less a demo of the technology that is pretty much lost to time. All the same, we then have Two-Strip Technicolor that had its first film in 1922, and their third process had a film in 1928. If it wasn't for the Great Depression, black and white films would have likely become completely phased out by the early 1930s. Three-Strip Technicolor was first used in a live-action film a few years earlier than Wizard of Oz, but films were using and being filmed exclusively in color processes before Oz came out in 1939. And we're not even considering the history of color film before Technicolor.

    And I suppose what I was really driving at, from more than a financial standpoint, was legitimizing the format in terms of "real moviemaking", rather than as an effects gimmick.

    (Though I personally love many films in color before 1939, specifically the hand-colored stop-motion short film "Song of the Nightingale"
    And while I haven't seen any ads (well, trailers) for the Holmes movie, I cannot see how it has brilliant casting. Neither actor looks anything like how Holmes or Watson are described in the stories or even portrayed in Paget's illustrations. I'm not saying it mightn't be a good film, although the explosions line does have me a bit worried, and it can't be worse than Jeremy Brett's show, so who knows?
    I suppose I'm jumping on a bandwagon of hype on this one. Looking over my Holmes volume, I suppose I can't find any counter explanations. I'm just glad to see Holmes FIGHTING again, smoking the right pipe, and wearing a pretty faithful costume in a film adaptation. He acts like I'd expect Holmes to mostly, sans the drug habit, sadly. And I trust Robert Downey Jr. to be able to ACT as Holmes, and not as the somewhat inaccurate Holmes caricature we get in most contemporary Sherlock media.
  • edited December 2009
    Lena_P wrote: »

    And while I haven't seen any ads (well, trailers) for the Holmes movie, I cannot see how it has brilliant casting. Neither actor looks anything like how Holmes or Watson are described in the stories or even portrayed in Paget's illustrations. I'm not saying it mightn't be a good film, although the explosions line does have me a bit worried, and it can't be worse than Jeremy Brett's show, so who knows?

    i think Robert Downey jr will be awesome for the role, he's a great actor...check the IMDB

    http://www.imdb.com/media/rm4059794944/tt0988045

    although he doesnt have the iconic hat that you see sherlock holmes usual wear, i guessing its a young version of Sherlock holmes, but i cant wait to see it...do check out the trailer
  • edited December 2009
    I'm was also a bit disappointed by Avatar. I think it lacked some kind of humour, the plot was cliché-ridden, and it was far too long. But indeed, it was beautiful to look at. Good thing I didn't pay.

    Also, I don't think the point of Sherlock Holmes (the movie) is to be accurate or faithful to the books (vene though it might). It's more about Robert Downey Jr being awesome, and Jude Law providing some bromance.
  • edited December 2009
    Oh and also in avatar


    avatar_098.jpg
    300px-Smirkmugshot.JPG
  • edited December 2009
    Wolfstar27 wrote: »
    although he doesnt have the iconic hat that you see sherlock holmes usual wear, i guessing its a young version of Sherlock holmes
    An 1800s London resident would have been a good deal more likely to wear a bowler than a deerstalker cap. I'm pretty sure the hat was purely the invention of illustrations.
  • edited December 2009
    Regarding The Wizard of Oz, I'd heard that it did not recoup it's enormous cost or was favorably reviewed at the time, which I think it is quite likely when you look at how wildly different the film is from the original books and realize they were still hugely popular at the time of the release. Of course I'm not talking from personal experience :p so I suppose I could have my history wrong.

    And as regards Holmes and the deerstalker, he was only shown wearing it once while riding a train to a case in the country where his dressing as a hunter or gentleman fisherman would make sense. I think Basil Rathbone popularized the image of Holmes in the deerstalker more than anything. He's the one that really created the current "popular" notion of Holmes. Ironically I don't like his Holmes, which is strange, because he was of Scottish descent, resembled Paget's illustrations and was an Olympic quality fencer. He should have been perfect.
  • edited December 2009
    Lena_P wrote: »
    Regarding The Wizard of Oz, I'd heard that it did not recoup it's enormous cost or was favorably reviewed at the time, which I think it is quite likely when you look at how wildly different the film is from the original books and realize they were still hugely popular at the time of the release. Of course I'm not talking from personal experience :p so I suppose I could have my history wrong.
    I wonder where I can find accurate box office gross numbers for that first run. I got the Blu-Ray box set, so I own a reproduction of the film's budget sheet.

    Also, I'll defer to you on Holmes, considering you seem to know what you're talking about more than I do.
  • edited December 2009
    First off, sorry Irishmile. I hate to further derail your thread, but as a huge L. Frank Baum and Holmes fan I don't often find new victims to bore to death fellow fans to chat with.

    Second off, Rather Dashing according to the imdb the initial box office gross was $3,017,000, so it looks like you're right after all, it did make a profit of something like $300,000.

    Third off, I'm not actually a Holmes expert, I've just read all the stories and have a near photographic memory. And I'm a fan of Basil Rathbone. I'm sorry to say I've never actually read any of Doyle's other work. It's kind of hard to find.
  • edited December 2009
    You are so right on both calls Irishmile! The Na'vi reminded me of the Merpeople a bit while watching the movie too.

    And to anyone that hasn't seen it: the plot's the same as Fern Gully/a million others but it's really pretty (esp in 3D) and worth a watch.
  • edited December 2009
    meander wrote: »
    And to anyone that hasn't seen it: the plot's the same as Fern Gully/a million others but it's really pretty (esp in 3D) and worth a watch.

    Great movie for the action and special effects, but like meander said, it's got a tree-hugger environmentalist agenda. It also takes a few jabs at the war in Iraq.
  • edited December 2009
    Irishmile wrote: »
    Oh and also in avatar


    IG]IG]

    Wow, they are actually incredibly similair!
  • puzzleboxpuzzlebox Telltale Alumni
    edited December 2009
    I just saw it tonight, and... wow.

    Don't know about the Na'vi / Vacaylians comparison - the Na'vi were all definitely either male or female to me, whereas the Vacaylians are completely indeterminate.

    The movie is visually stunning though. It's such a beautifully rendered world, it feels like you could just dive in and start exploring. The first
    flight
    scenes gave me the shivers. You absolutely MUST go see this at the cinema!

    And if at all possible, see it in 3D so you can look totally dorky cool.

    Attachment not found.
  • edited December 2009
    Wha wha what? My cinema didn't have those kind of 3D glasses... I want a refund. All I got was some sort of Revenge of the Nerds type glasses.
  • puzzleboxpuzzlebox Telltale Alumni
    edited December 2009
    Gotta admit, I was massively impressed by the glasses. :p
  • edited December 2009
    Awww puzzlebox! I didn't know you were a Cyndi Lauper fan!
  • puzzleboxpuzzlebox Telltale Alumni
    edited December 2009
    You too can get the hot style - just wear a furry hood and walk on slippery icy pavements for half an hour, it's that easy. :D
  • edited December 2009
    Besides the all the new special effects (to which I got used to after the first 30 min.) the movie was total crap, just another mediocre disney-like story and the dialogue was so predictable and unbearable. It's really just this new 3d technology which doesn't make it a movie we have seen too many times before.
  • edited December 2009
    Pocahontas no Ferngully ehm Dances with Wolves uhm Avatar sucks.
    The movie is boring. But pretty. So it's pretty boring.
  • edited December 2009
    der_ketzer wrote: »
    Pocahontas no Ferngully ehm Dances with Wolves uhm Avatar sucks.
    The movie is boring. But pretty. So it's pretty boring.

    Looks like someone watched the bum today :D

    I liked it, not so much for the unoriginal story, but for the pretty CGI and the fight at the end.
  • edited December 2009
    Maybe I am a sap but I thought the love story was sweet... strange... but sweet.
  • edited December 2009
    I finally saw it last night (in four glorious dimensions![1]) and posted up my review.

    It is worth seeing in the cinema if you're a fan of movies. As mentioned, the plot isn't anything special, but the world of Pandora (both visually and story-wise) is incredibly detailed and something you will want to see.

    See the movie for the pretty-ness, not for the plot :)

    Oh and our 3D glasses make everyone in the audience look like Buddy Holly.


    [1] Time is a dimension. A film that only had length, width, depth but no duration wouldn't be much of a film.
  • edited December 2009
    Molokov wrote: »
    [1] Time is a dimension.
    This is debatable. Anyway, saying 3D is obviously referring to Euclidean space rather than Minkowski space, since the 3D is obviously referring to the depth of the frame. Spacetime is not really relevant here, where the emphasis is on the depth of the frame, so a fourth dimension would most likely refer to the theorized fourth SPATIAL dimension in this context. I see no reason to use Minkowski Space here.
  • edited December 2009
    Wolfstar27 wrote: »
    why is that ew...??? its directed by Guy Ritche (lock stock, snatch) and has Robert Downey jr and beautiful Rachael McAdams
    Wait, why ew? I can see why someone can object to Avatar on sight, but the Sherlock Holmes film? Short of depicting his drug addiction and toning down the explosions, it looks to be a pretty faithful adaptation. Casting was brilliant, and I'm looking forward to it.

    It's ew.

    Robert Downey Jr IS a great actor, I especially liked him in Iron Man (which is -except for the Dark Knight I still HAVEN'T watched- the only good Superhero movie in this... erm... 8 years), but the trailer shows us that this Holmes movie is not a, you know, HOLMES movie. Just like Lena_P tried to say. What I'd expect from Sherlock Holmes and Mr. Watson is to find clues, face tragedies, solve mind-boggling puzzles and make police arrest the bad guy. Explosions? A boxing scene? That jumping out of the window down to the river scene... Huh? I get that they try to make the movie dynamic, but Holmes is NOT dynamic, and that makes the atmosphere of it. I'm sorry, you guys will get a great action movie next year, but that'll be quite a disgrace to the name of Sherlock Holmes, if you ask me. I repeat, I believe this will be a great ACTION MOVIE with great visuals and explosions, but it won't be a good HOLMES movie. It'll be more like, you know, James Bond: Sherlock Holmes. Most of the Bond movies actually don't have "James Bond" in their names, so I can say I kinda do have a doubt...
  • edited December 2009
    Irishmile wrote: »
    Oh and also in avatar


    avatar_098.jpg
    300px-Smirkmugshot.JPG

    The tough, gray-haired army veteran has become a bit of a stereotype and is used in many games and films.

    Runaway 2
    1.jpg


    Futurama
    Picture+1.png

    ...and plenty others.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.