Originally Posted by danallan

the story is average at best.
but, holy crap, your eyes will have the best day of their lives.
the best movie i saw in 2009 fo' sho based on visuals alone.

I agree with everything but the last line. This is a year where we got District 9, Inglorious Basterds, and The Hangover. Avatar wasn't the best movie, thought it was the most visually stunning thing I have ever seen. It's worth watching for the visuals alone and the people saying the story was bad are exaggerating, the story was horribly average and cliche, but the movie overall is worth recommending.

the storyline wasn't original, but then again this movie wasn't suposed to have a good storyline. It was all about the graphics and CG effects, and I have to say they were awesome.

Originally Posted by feonateresa

I haven't seen this movie, and I don't plan to. I never from the beginning understood the craze that surrounded this movie. But from several reviews from somewhat reliable sources (friends & MI) then, there's nothing special about it. It's just another Transformers or 2012.

All effects, no substance.

That's not even true. Believe me, it's nothing like the crappy 2012 or Transformers. This is James Cameron we're talking about. The guy who won 11 Oscars from Titanic. He doesn't do superficial movies like Michael Bay does.

There's a lot of science in this movie which I really like. What I love about this movie is that it makes you think about the world of Pandora. They don't just write a science fiction film, they make it a science fact as well.

I don't understand this obsession? 've never even heard of this movie until it actually came out. Is it based off a book or something? Like, what the hell is the big deal. o_O

**Just watched the trailer on youtube... It does resemble Pocahontas, haha. o_o And the blue people look fake as hell.

Edit: Seriously, the trailer was average. Frig, that one with Leonardo coming out in Feb (shutter island?) looks more kick ass. (H)

Originally Posted by mumbojumbo

That's not even true. Believe me, it's nothing like the crappy 2012 or Transformers. This is James Cameron we're talking about. The guy who won 11 Oscars from Titanic. He doesn't do superficial movies like Michael Bay does.

There's a lot of science in this movie which I really like. What I love about this movie is that it makes you think about the world of Pandora. They don't just write a science fiction film, they make it a science fact as well.

The science is pretty superficial, like all SciFi it's full of holes, and unlike hard SciFi (SciFi that attempts to be as realistic and internally consistent as possible) this movie basically played it by ear. My GF and I walked out of the movie and immediately started making fun of the weak science in the movie (but then again, we're both science majors, so we know what we're talking about, I doubt the average viewer would pick up on most of what we did).

yea like those floating mountains...i was thinking...if those mountains can float...wouldnt it mess up more than just your radar

I watched it. I liked it. That said, it wasn't as spectacular as so many are saying.

Apparently, people get depressed after watching the movie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcL5Wghm7-s

Originally Posted by Tailsnake

The science is pretty superficial, like all SciFi it's full of holes, and unlike hard SciFi (SciFi that attempts to be as realistic and internally consistent as possible) this movie basically played it by ear. My GF and I walked out of the movie and immediately started making fun of the weak science in the movie (but then again, we're both science majors, so we know what we're talking about, I doubt the average viewer would pick up on most of what we did).

What weak science are you talking about exactly? It's set in the future, so that can easily explain all the advanced technology. You do realize what a science fiction film is, right?

Originally Posted by lawleypop

I don't understand this obsession? 've never even heard of this movie until it actually came out. Is it based off a book or something? Like, what the hell is the big deal. o_O

**Just watched the trailer on youtube... It does resemble Pocahontas, haha. o_o And the blue people look fake as hell.

Edit: Seriously, the trailer was average. Frig, that one with Leonardo coming out in Feb (shutter island?) looks more kick ass. (H)

Judging a movie based off a trailer, you're smart.

Originally Posted by Tailsnake

The science is pretty superficial, like all SciFi it's full of holes, and unlike hard SciFi (SciFi that attempts to be as realistic and internally consistent as possible) this movie basically played it by ear. My GF and I walked out of the movie and immediately started making fun of the weak science in the movie (but then again, we're both science majors, so we know what we're talking about, I doubt the average viewer would pick up on most of what we did).

Yes it may be weak far-fetched science but it is a science fantasy after all. However, it is the weak science that inspires us to do the impossibility. Take the original Star Trek in 1966 for example. It may be science fiction built on weak science facts but not everyone knows that it was Star Trek that inspired a lot of aerospace engineers in NASA during the moon launch in '69.

This same science fiction in Avatar may hopefully inspire science geeks like us to do the impossible and hopefully, some aspects in Avatar like the biological Avatar program, and space exploration that inspires humanity to advance technology.

Originally Posted by RockerSocker

The people that are saying the plot is bad are pretty ignorant imo, it has a classic and timeless story which covers a huge array of themes, it's sad the intricate and subtle plot got lost on some people and went right over their head.

I wouldn't call them ignorant, they can dislike the plot and think its awful, that's their own perogative.

That said I think there will always be people who will hate some deliberately just b/c its popular. If this were just another random movie and not as hyped and popular many of the people who claim to hate it and think its the worst piece of crap ever likely wouldn't feel as strongly, they'd just be like meh, I didn't care for it.

Also as evidenced by some on this forum a lot of people are pre-judging it or judging it without actually seeing it for themselves. "Oh I heard from some people who saw it that the plot was bad, therefore it is, no need use my own brain to judge it..."

Perhaps more annoying than both of those things are the echos, people who just echo the same negative comments about the film constantly. You hear very similiar or exactly the same critiques come out of people's mouths about the film constantly. Perhaps there's some truth in these claims about the plot but a lot of the time it seems to go back to those people who purposely dislike something popular and they use other people's ideas and claims about the plot to somehow justify their position. If I hear "its Pocohontas in space" one more time I might throw my fist through a wall. Are you incapable of using your brain and describing your own thoughts on the plot? One of the early reviews threw out that idea and now people are just throwing it out there every time someone asks them about Avatar.

All that said I'm not going to pretend it had the best plot ever, I just personally don't feel its as bad as many of the hardcore Avatar haters like to say it is by using other people's justifications and using their own free thought to decide on the plot. The plot was not genius by any means but as a whole it is a wonderful film, at least in my opinion and I would urge people to judge for themselves and not just say, "its not for me" or "I heard it was crap."

In any case people who've seen it can dislike it, its plot, James Cameron, anything else about it as much as they want, again thats their perogative and I can't definitively say they're wrong, I'd just like to see a bit more original thought coming from the nay on Avatar side. (This is not to say there aren't people who claim to enjoy the movie who are also incapable of excerising original thought in justifying why its a good movie. There are factions on both sides of the issue who can't seem to say anything more than generic, overused justifications.)

anyone wanna see it with me

Originally Posted by RockerSocker

it's sad the intricate and subtle plot got lost on some people and went right over their head.

It wasn't lost me. it just sucked. Theres a difference.

Originally Posted by RockerSocker

What weak science are you talking about exactly? It's set in the future, so that can easily explain all the advanced technology. You do realize what a science fiction film is, right?

The advanced tech isn't an issue ( the only pieces of tech that were really far fetched were the cryo-stasis, mechs, and avatar linking devices and like you said, those can be explained away by "tech advances").

What I had an issue with is the weak science:

• Animals with those neural connection bits that don't seem to have any use other than letting the NaVi control them
• The ability to upload/download memories (usually flies in SciFi since most people think the brain is like a computer, but ask anyone with a NeuroSci background about it and they'll explain why that's so horribly implausible)
• The planet supposedly being like a brain yet using direct electrical connections (which are almost never used in animal nervous systems for good reason)
• Animals that seem ill suited for their habitat (both the rhino-like animal that seems to have to take down have the forest to move anywhere in a group and the panther-like animal that seemed almost completely incapable of hunting Jake because of the trees)
• The redundant evolution of a third pair of legs in many of the animals
• The NaVi knowing how to download the memories of a novel species into an artificial body
• The BS "magnetic field that only affects the mountains and radar, but nothing else" explanation for the floating mountains

those are the ones I remember picking up on while watching the movie which really killed the world for me. SciFi can be done with few inconsistencies (ex District 9), but this obviously wasn't and it's probably perfectly fine for a non-scientific crowd.

Originally Posted by mumbojumbo

Yes it may be weak far-fetched science but it is a science fantasy after all. However, it is the weak science that inspires us to do the impossibility. Take the original Star Trek in 1966 for example. It may be science fiction built on weak science facts but not everyone knows that it was Star Trek that inspired a lot of aerospace engineers in NASA during the moon launch in '69.

This same science fiction in Avatar may hopefully inspire science geeks like us to do the impossible and hopefully, some aspects in Avatar like the biological Avatar program, and space exploration that inspires humanity to advance technology.

The original Star Trek was definitely soft SciFi, but later series went to great lengths to explain their science and keep things as believable and internally consistent as possible. Avatar feels closer to Star Wars on scientific accuracy, than most of Star Trek (which I think is an apt comparison considering how engrossing the worlds built in both Avatar and Star Wars are).