Visually AVATAR was 10x better then The Dark Knight. It was a much more beautiful film. AVATAR is also 10x more creative then The Dark Knight, the jungles, the creatures, its just great. But The Dark Knight has better writing, acting, and story. AVATAR does not have stupid or boring story, it's characters are engaging and by the end of the movie you feel some kind of a connection to them, and it's beautiful and creative. For those reasons it is a good movie, and for the other reasons The Dark Knight is a good movie. It is not black and white.
Why am I wasting my time on this?
Nevermind my criticism, Avatar is one of the monumental achievements in the history of mankind. When the effects age, Avatar will still remaine a masterpiece because of... ehh ... it's awesome and looked good when it came out.
When you get older and seen more films - you'll understand..
you can say that about any movie
a hundred years from now on, they will not care about dark knight, prestige, or memento...they will have their own movies. they will have their own masterpieces. there will be newer ground breaking work.
its incredible how close minded nolan stans are. This thread actually made me realize it, whereas i was unaware of it before. You would think they would be smarter than this. Actually, i should have known better because fanatics of intellectual artists are usually the most close minded, regardless of the form of art.
This has nothing to do with Nolan - get over the fact that Avatar is not a good film for people who likes a good story and dos'nt care for CGI. I think it's a piece of shit and can argue for that.
you can say that about any movie
a hundred years from now on, they will not care about dark knight, prestige, or memento...they will have their own movies. they will have their own masterpieces. there will be newer ground breaking work.
Wrong. Why do people still love Gone with the Wind today? Because it has a story that still works. And why are you bringing in Nolans films again?
its incredible how close minded nolan stans are. This thread actually made me realize it, whereas i was unaware of it before. You would think they would be smarter than this. Actually, i should have known better because fanatics of intellectual artists are usually the most close minded, regardless of the form of art.
This has nothing to do with Nolan - get over the fact that Avatar is not a good film for people who likes a good story and dos'nt care for CGI. I think it's a piece of crap and can argue for that.
you can say that about any movie
a hundred years from now on, they will not care about dark knight, prestige, or memento...they will have their own movies. they will have their own masterpieces. there will be newer ground breaking work.
Wrong. Why do people still love Gone with the Wind today? Because it has a story that still works. And why are you bringing in Nolans films again?
Wow, you guys are not that smart are you?
i could careless about gone with the wind....i find it hard to sit through old movies because of the diction the actors used, its so untruthful. And just like that, in 100 years people wont be able to stand the movies of our generation, because something better will be out there for them.
That may very well be the dumbest post I've EVER seen on internett. Made me laugh really hard though - and since laughter makes you live longer i guess i owe you a big thank you. Let's just end this discussion. I don't want to wast my time on people that is referring to box-office (like that matters on the quality of the film), tells me to shut down my brain and thinks "old films are boring".
What you don't seem to understand is that movies are not black and white (not refering to literal black and white). Some movies are good because of story and strong acting, others are lead by their beauty, escapism, and creativeness. Avatars story is used, but the way in which it is told is not. I go into Avatar wanting to watch a beautiful movie with good acting, directing, incredible CGI, incredibly creative creatures and landscapes and a new perspective of a classic story. Not all movies have to be made the same way.
What you don't seem to understand is that "others films are lead by their beauty, escapism, and creativeness" dosnt matter if the rest sucks. What you don't seem to understand is that this film LACKS good acting and directing. What you don't seem to understand is that it's not a new perspective of a classic story, it's just retold.
"Not all movies have to be made the same way" - then why is Avatar made like it' s dances with wolves or the 1000 other hollywood epics?
Robin wrote:What you don't seem to understand is that "others films are lead by their beauty, escapism, and creativeness" dosnt matter if the rest sucks. What you don't seem to understand is that this film LACKS good acting and directing. What you don't seem to understand is that it's not a new perspective of a classic story, it's just retold.
"Not all movies have to be made the same way" - then why is Avatar made like it' s dances with wolves or the 1000 other hollywood epics?
How did the directing suck? It was executed almost perfectly, whether you like the story or not.
How did the acting suck? Worthington did a good job, Saldana did a fantastic job as Neytri and everyone else was on par.
Have you seen Dances with the Wolves? Dunbar joins the Sioux tribe because he is lonely and curious. Jake joins the Na'vi to learn from them and convince them to leave. Stands with a Fist is a violent non native women who is grieving her husbands lose, and has no interest in Dunbar at first. Neytri is a warrior and after some reluctance helps Jake to become one of the people. The Sioux leader likes Dunbar, the Omatakaya leader hates Jake. The endings which I will not get into are also different. Same underlining story, told completely differently with very different characters and circumstances.
Robin wrote:That may very well be the dumbest post I've EVER seen on internett. Made me laugh really hard though - and since laughter makes you live longer i guess i owe you a big thank you. Let's just end this discussion. I don't want to wast my time on people that is referring to box-office (like that matters on the quality of the film), tells me to shut down my brain and thinks "old films are boring".
you say "lets" like somebody's forcing you to sit here and respond...the discussion can continue without you, piece yourself out of here.
Robin wrote:What you don't seem to understand is that this film LACKS good acting and directing. What you don't seem to understand is that it's not a new perspective of a classic story, it's just retold.
I disagree with the first part. The direction was very good, and the acting even better. Yeah, there are those really cheesy moments (like whenever one of the characters used the word "bitch"), but those are more self-referential than anything. Every Cameron movie has those cheesy moments, and I can guarantee you that Cameron is proud of them. Zoe Saldana gave one of the best performances I've seen this year. I hope she gets an academy award nomination, though I doubt she will. Her performance was so raw. Sam Worthington was good, too, and so was Sigourney Weaver.
Do I think Avatar was the best of the year? No. It's a good movie that, in my opinion, decreases in likeability the more I see it. I definitely agree with your second point that the Avatar story is not really original at all. It's basically a Fern Gully re-imagining on a different planet. Now, I'm not trying to bash Avatar in any way. The story wasn't meant to be revolutionary...it was the visuals.
This is sort of off-subject, but if Avatar wins Best Picture I will cry. If the Academy members are trying to redeem their reputation from not nominating The Dark Knight last year, they're making a mistake. The whole 10 nominees is a mistake. If Cameron wins Best Director, that's totally fine and well-deserved, but as a total package the film is not the best of last year.
Robin wrote:What you don't seem to understand is that "others films are lead by their beauty, escapism, and creativeness" dosnt matter if the rest sucks. What you don't seem to understand is that this film LACKS good acting and directing. What you don't seem to understand is that it's not a new perspective of a classic story, it's just retold.
"Not all movies have to be made the same way" - then why is Avatar made like it' s dances with wolves or the 1000 other hollywood epics?
the acting in this movie is actually good. giovanni ribisi turns in a well nuanced performance. stephen lang is convincing as a moral-less soldier. Zoe Saldana is powerful and emotional.
