All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
It's not welcome when your every post is beating it into the ground. We get it Dressel, you didn't like Avatar. You're a rebel.
Beating it into the ground? I take it you've never come across an internet troll. Those guys beat their dislike of films into the ground, and they're not nice about it. Have I been unreasonable in my objections towards "Avatar"? No. I've backed-up my reasoning and haven't been dickish about it. Perhaps you might have found the FAIL post a little much, but I have friends who loved "Avatar" that found it "amusing". Which is what it is.
Still, you post something like that on a thread were the majority of the posters have enjoyed the movie, then you get mad when decadence tried to stick up for the movie? It just seems like you're looking for an argument.
You're right. I forgot a healthy sense of humor wasn't welcome when discussing "Avatar".
Chill out man.
I couldn't care less if you spend an hour every day screaming Baltis-like obscenties about it. I didn't direct or write it and even if I did, you'd be entitled to your opinion.
I was just pointing out that you can do it for every film going.
I couldn't care less if you spend an hour every day screaming Baltis-like obscenties about it. I didn't direct or write it and even if I did, you'd be entitled to your opinion.
I was just pointing out that you can do it for every film going.
Woah, comparing me to Baltis....not cool.
I think what I noticed between what you linked to and what I did was that mine was a lot more specific, and so I found that more amusing. But yeah, I'm not looking to fight. I think arguing on internet message boards is a pretty big waste of time (see previous Religion thread as an example).
I think what I noticed between what you linked to and what I did was that mine was a lot more specific, and so I found that more amusing. But yeah, I'm not looking to fight. I think arguing on internet message boards is a pretty big waste of time (see previous Religion thread as an example).
I haven't actually posted my thoughts on this film so far, but I will say this: while I enjoyed it, and found the level of technology on display to be very impressive, I don't think it's a worthy winner of this year's Best Picture Oscar, which it is being tipped for. Titanic is widely regarded as one of the most undeserving winners of all-time...I'd say Avatar would slot into that category, too. The numbers are impressive, but strip away the techno-wizardry and what have you got left?
An impressive technical feat, yes. An enjoyable movie-going experience, certainly. But the best film of the year? Quite simply, no. I've been banging The Hurt Locker's drum ever since it came out, and I'm still banging it now. It's not as technologically advanced, but it's a better film. So is Up in the Air. It just wouldn't be right if it won. Give Cameron Best Director - he has, after all, been working on this movie for 12 years. But give Best Picture to a more worthy winner.
I haven't actually posted my thoughts on this film so far, but I will say this: while I enjoyed it, and found the level of technology on display to be very impressive, I don't think it's a worthy winner of this year's Best Picture Oscar, which it is being tipped for. Titanic is widely regarded as one of the most undeserving winners of all-time...I'd say Avatar would slot into that category, too. The numbers are impressive, but strip away the techno-wizardry and what have you got left?
An impressive technical feat, yes. An enjoyable movie-going experience, certainly. But the best film of the year? Quite simply, no. I've been banging The Hurt Locker's drum ever since it came out, and I'm still banging it now. It's not as technologically advanced, but it's a better film. So is Up in the Air. It just wouldn't be right if it won. Give Cameron Best Director - he has, after all, been working on this movie for 12 years. But give Best Picture to a more worthy winner.
Disagree entirely.
Hurt Locker was an intense film, a very good war film, but it was more than a little silly.
It perverted the truth to make a more intense film and it was a good example of how to make suspenseful and tense scenes, but an Oscar winning war film needs to be a little more realistic in my opinion.
They blow up bombs with C4, they don't send guys out with pen knives to do it.......
The scene with the SAS when they run away is perhaps the most absurd in filmmaking history.
I also think judging Avatar by stripping it of what made it so good is unfair.
Strip away the intensity of Hurt Locker and what are you left with? A completely unrealistic film that breaks all military protocol and sense.
That's not to say that I didn't enjoy it, because I did. However when dealing with real world subjects I think the Production team has a reponsibility to deal with the material more intelligently.
I think Avatar should and will win Best Picture. Better than Precious, right? As much as I'd like Inglourious Basterds to win, I think it was too disjointed a film to bare the title Best Picture and all that entails. I think IG had a lot more to offer than Avatar (or at least it suited my tastes a lot more) but Avatar was a much more focused and consistent film. Sounds like Best Picture to me.
I still get bummed out when certain films get awarded Oscars over others but I'm starting to get less and less pissed off. Let's face it. It's not the Palm D'Or. The Oscars are what they are. You can't always count on them to make the right decision or even a good decision.
That said, while I liked Avatar, I can't believe how much people consistently brush off the Pocahontas and Fern Gully comparisons (Dances with Wolves isn't a sufficient comparison). It's more than just a template. Avatar featured scenes with a native placing the protagonist's hand on a tree, a giant bulldozer mowing down a forest full of tiny (in comparison) creatures, the protagonist climbing onto said bulldozer in an attempt to stop it and a scene with natives huddled around a giant glowing tree. These scenes aren't part of the "Hero's Journey" template. They're imagery are practically exclusive to Fern Gully.
Not trying to start an argument. It took Cameron over a decade to make the film. Lots of stuff came out in that time. Pocahontas is a classic story. Maybe the similarities are deliberate. The Pandora universe is his own so put him on a pedestal if you like. But you can't deny the countless parallels between the other two films. They're facts, plain and simple. I doubt any fans will care if Avatar does indeed win the Oscar.
I think Avatar should and will win Best Picture. Better than Precious, right? As much as I'd like Inglourious Basterds to win, I think it was too disjointed a film to bare the title Best Picture and all that entails. I think IG had a lot more to offer than Avatar (or at least it suited my tastes a lot more) but Avatar was a much more focused and consistent film. Sounds like Best Picture to me.
I still get bummed out when certain films get awarded Oscars over others but I'm starting to get less and less pissed off. Let's face it. It's not the Palm D'Or. The Oscars are what they are. You can't always count on them to make the right decision or even a good decision.
That said, while I liked Avatar, I can't believe how much people consistently brush off the Pocahontas and Fern Gully comparisons (Dances with Wolves isn't a sufficient comparison). It's more than just a template. Avatar featured scenes with a native placing the protagonist's hand on a tree, a giant bulldozer mowing down a forest full of tiny (in comparison) creatures, the protagonist climbing onto said bulldozer in an attempt to stop it and a scene with natives huddled around a giant glowing tree. These scenes aren't part of the "Hero's Journey" template. They're imagery are practically exclusive to Fern Gully.
Not trying to start an argument. It took Cameron over a decade to make the film. Lots of stuff came out in that time. Pocahontas is a classic story. Maybe the similarities are deliberate. The Pandora universe is his own so put him on a pedestal if you like. But you can't deny the countless parallels between the other two films. They're facts, plain and simple. I doubt any fans will care if Avatar does indeed win the Oscar.
I don't think anyone is brushing them off as such or at least denying them, and obviously a lot of what you have said is directed towards what I said, it's just feels irrelevant.
It felt like a very different film to Pocahontas and Fern Gulley, even if some of the specific visuals were of the same type or even the same. I even commented that it looked just like Fern Gulley on the rumours page on here before I saw it...
I've said many times that the genius of the film was not the story, it was the way it immersed you in a fully realised Alien World. Neither of the animated films you mentioned could do that.
Avatar was a genuine cinematic experience and it was so good at what it did well that no-one really cares about what it may have resembled in the past. It just got swept away in the sheer grandeur and brilliance of the setting.
I have a question for you: would you buy it on DVD? And I don't mean if you had a state-of-the-art HDTV 3D, surround sound, home cinema system with Blu-Ray costing thousands of pounds. Your average guy, the one with the standard system - would he buy it? And if he did, would it be a waste of his time?
Just seems to me that while I totally agree that it was "a genuine cinematic experience", that is in fact almost ALL it is. It's not a film that you could really watch at home. Seeing it on a huge 3D screen was undoubtedly an awesome experience, but if it's not an experience you can possibly recreate, if it's something that loses a lot of its value when you take away all the expensive technology it takes to enable you to fully enjoy it, then doesn't that work against its fundamental value as a movie?
That's what I feel, anyway. If it does win, people who didn't catch it at the cinema will buy the DVD when it comes out, put it on at home, watch it, and go, "What was all the fuss about?" A truly great film shouldn't require a certain set of screening conditions, IMO.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it. It wasn't a disappointment. But I do think it was more a brilliant cinematic experience than actually a brilliant motion picture.
I've said many times that the genius of the film was not the story, it was the way it immersed you in a fully realised Alien World. Neither of the animated films you mentioned could do that.
Avatar was a genuine cinematic experience and it was so good at what it did well that no-one really cares about what it may have resembled in the past. It just got swept away in the sheer grandeur and brilliance of the setting.
Don't agree. Frankly, I just couldn't ignore the Fern Gully similarities. The films are more similar than any other two, right down to the glowing mushrooms. I got over it though. It's not like I hated Fern Gully. I loved the amount of stuff that was recycled from Aliens too. James Cameron knows what he's doing. I never felt like he was leaching off other's material.
That's just me though and of course this isn't a subject that can be debated objectively. I'm not a CGI guy. Occasionally, I am impressed. Avatar and King Kong both did. But I've never been as impressed as anyone else and the "wow" factor wares off me quick. I was over Avatar by the next day. I liked it. I really did. I thought I'd hate it and there wasn't a moment where I felt like I might. It's just not what I look for in films.
I have a question for you: would you buy it on DVD? And I don't mean if you had a state-of-the-art HDTV 3D, surround sound, home cinema system with Blu-Ray costing thousands of pounds. Your average guy, the one with the standard system - would he buy it? And if he did, would it be a waste of his time?
Just seems to me that while I totally agree that it was "a genuine cinematic experience", that is in fact almost ALL it is. It's not a film that you could really watch at home. Seeing it on a huge 3D screen was undoubtedly an awesome experience, but if it's not an experience you can possibly recreate, if it's something that loses a lot of its value when you take away all the expensive technology it takes to enable you to fully enjoy it, then doesn't that work against its fundamental value as a movie?
That's what I feel, anyway. If it does win, people who didn't catch it at the cinema will buy the DVD when it comes out, put it on at home, watch it, and go, "What was all the fuss about?" A truly great film shouldn't require a certain set of screening conditions, IMO.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it. It wasn't a disappointment. But I do think it was more a brilliant cinematic experience than actually a brilliant motion picture.
I wouldn't buy it on DVD, but I'm sure I'll watch it again on the little screen at some point, just to remind myself of the experience.
As for what defines "a truly great film", that's up to you to decide. Do I think a truly great film has to work on the small screen? It's an interesting question, but I would say no.
Is the Mona Lisa as good in a photograph as it is in real life?
Avatar was specifically designed to work as a 3D, large scale presentation.
With home entertainment becoming increasingly sophisticated it's important that film evolves and keeps cinema alive. Avatar was a bold step in that direction.
Avatar was specifically designed to work as a 3D, large scale presentation.
With home entertainment becoming increasingly sophisticated it's important that film evolves and keeps cinema alive. Avatar was a bold step in that direction.
That quite nicely sums up what the movie achieved, and we all agree on that. The story is the sticking point, and quite simply some enjoyed it, some didn't.
Don't agree. Frankly, I just couldn't ignore the Fern Gully similarities. The films are more similar than any other two, right down to the glowing mushrooms. I got over it though. It's not like I hated Fern Gully. I loved the amount of stuff that was recycled from Aliens too. James Cameron knows what he's doing. I never felt like he was leaching off other's material.
That's just me though and of course this isn't a subject that can be debated objectively. I'm not a CGI guy. Occasionally, I am impressed. Avatar and King Kong both did. But I've never been as impressed as anyone else and the "wow" factor wears off me quick. I was over Avatar by the next day. I liked it. I really did. I thought I'd hate it and there wasn't a moment where I felt like I might. It's just not what I look for in films.
Each to their own. There are films some consider all-time classics that I consider downright poor.
With the CGI, for me it wasn't about how good it looked. It just totally immersed me and I was just totally sucked into a totally different way of living for a short time.
It just connected with me and in a way that no other film has ever done in truth. It went beyond the usual excitement of a good story, it was the closest thing to a genuine experience I've had in the cinema.
I'm really looking forward to where they can take this technology. I'm already thinking about how I'd use it in horror films and such.
I hope that a film is released that is able to connect with the people who didn't enjoy it that much, in the way that it worked for me, because it was just a totally novel experience.
Pages: 
Author
Avatar
Logged
Locked Board