Seriously? No discussion about James Cameron's Avatar?

At this point in history is there such a thing as something that isn't a cliche?

Originally Posted by Khostya Razruchityel

At this point in history is there such a thing as something that isn't a cliche?

The cliche is that the writer thinks because it's in the future they can make anything up, no questions asked.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

No. You couldn't. Because they didn't try to be real.

No, but they were every bit as visually stunning from a CGI standpoint. Avatar wasn't any better than something Pixar is capable of, the only real difference is that Pixar has excellent writers and focuses primarily on story.

Originally Posted by Rhymnoceros

The cliche is that the writer thinks because it's in the future they can make anything up, no questions asked.

so basically you're saying movies can't have light speed, laser guns, and warp portals? Really who cares about the science behind it while they're watching the movie?

Originally Posted by Khostya Razruchityel

so basically you're saying movies can't have light speed, laser guns, and warp portals? Really who cares about the science behind it while they're watching the movie?

I never said that. I said it was a trope/cliche to do it. Like you said, what isn't a trope nowadays?

I like Fern Gully, too.

Originally Posted by Khostya Razruchityel

so basically you're saying movies can't have light speed, laser guns, and warp portals? Really who cares about the science behind it while they're watching the movie?

I do, believability is important in sci-fi.

Originally Posted by Andy

No, but they were every bit as visually stunning from a CGI standpoint. Avatar wasn't any better than something Pixar is capable of, the only real difference is that Pixar has excellent writers and focuses primarily on story.

Pixar is meant to look animated and cartoonish, this obvious property of their films keeps their animation from being considered 'realistic'. It's meant to be cartoonish, it's for children. That's the difference. The person you quoted was speaking of realism and immersion, you simply cannot compare a Pixar film to Avatar because they aren't that type of film.

The surface value of a pixar film might be childlike, but a large portion of the humor and references would go completely unnoticed by children in movies like say, Monster's Inc., The Incredibles, and Up. However, they do manage to make highly-realistic looking settings and objects. I remember the first time I saw The Incredibles, the first time Mr. Incredible was flying toward the island I was absolutely blown away by the depth and detail of the trees and the forest, how REAL it looked and how fantastic the animation was. Ratatouille has cartoonish characters and exaggerated animation for sure, but it was set in a very real place and was absolutely gorgeously realistic. When it panned the camera around on the rooftop place and showed the nighttime Paris, my mind was blown yet again.

Furthermore, Immersion and Realism are mutually exclusive. Though Pixar is certainly capable of both.

Avatar was fine and dandy, a great experience that I would opt to have again. It just doesn't compare to other CGI films that came before it, though, and certainly didn't do anything new and exciting like people claim it does.

Originally Posted by Andy

The surface value of a pixar film might be childlike, but a large portion of the humor and references would go completely unnoticed by children in movies like say, Monster's Inc., The Incredibles, and Up. However, they do manage to make highly-realistic looking settings and objects. I remember the first time I saw The Incredibles, the first time Mr. Incredible was flying toward the island I was absolutely blown away by the depth and detail of the trees and the forest, how REAL it looked and how fantastic the animation was. Ratatouille has cartoonish characters and exaggerated animation for sure, but it was set in a very real place and was absolutely gorgeously realistic. When it panned the camera around on the rooftop place and showed the nighttime Paris, my mind was blown yet again.

Furthermore, Immersion and Realism are mutually exclusive. Though Pixar is certainly capable of both.

Avatar was fine and dandy, a great experience that I would opt to have again. It just doesn't compare to other CGI films that came before it, though, and certainly didn't do anything new and exciting like people claim it does.

I'm not suggesting they are incapable of it, I am just noting the films are completely different types, not really comparable to the other type.

Mutually exclusive? Hardly. Being able to immerse yourself in a film contributes greatly to it''s realism.

Whether or not it dazzled comes down to personal opinion.

Up is hardly realistic in any sense, there's absolutely no arguing that unless you're bat**** insane. Yet I found it one of the most engrossing films I've seen.

Originally Posted by Andy

Up is hardly realistic in any sense, there's absolutely no arguing that unless you're bat**** insane. Yet I found it one of the most engrossing films I've seen.

Films like that are the perfect example of the difference between realism and believability. A film can be completely unrealistic and impossible, but as long as the events work within the world and don't feel out of place or as long as they coincide smoothly with the rest of the film, even the most preposterous events can be "believable," at least in entertainment media.

Haters wanna hate.

Lover wanna love.

I don't give a **** about none of the above; I wanna piss on you.

Avatar was the ****. Seriously, appreciate it.

Chappelle's Show. I don't actually want to piss on you. Maybe I do. Who knows. How much money you got?

I appreciate. Ahaha.

It was just. A movie I've seen before with money dumped on it. Sure it was fun to watch, but does that make it good? It's not this revolutionary film, it's just your run of the mill, decent films.

Taking Fern Gully and pouring money all over it isn't like, revolutionary or amazing. It's just amusing.

Originally Posted by raunm

It was just. A movie I've seen before with money dumped on it. Sure it was fun to watch, but does that make it good? It's not this revolutionary film, it's just your run of the mill, decent films.

A movie should be judged by the sum of it's parts. Sure the plot was unorgininal and predictable, along with a few one dimensional characters.

But in terms of cinematography it is certainly revolutionairy, especially in it's technological aspects. Also the acting was excellent, Zoe Saldana and the guy from Terminator, who played Jake Sully were simply amazing in the film.

One decent actor (Sam Worthington) + C-list actors + basic, predictable script + millions upon millions of dollars of CGI =/= an amazing movie.

This movie is basically the new Matrix. Been there, done that.

For me:

Positives:

-Take your brain out of the experience and it hardly matters that it is unoriginal.
-The previous claim is easily done by the gorgeous 3D.
-The 3D done in the movie was amazing, the visuals made even more breathtaking by it.
-The acting was good.
-The Na Vi will be a new form of fetish fuel.

Negatives:

-Promotes White Man's Burden ideas that have not died out. See Colonialism, Rudyard Kipling
-Storyline is entirely predictable even from the beginning. See Fern Gully, Pocahontas.
-Said predictable storyline seems too cleanly resolved.
-In all of the things above mentioned, it creates another flaw: unoriginality.

I believe it was also well directed and for the most part, excellently paced as well.

The flying your ikran scene could have been a bit shorter imo.

Originally Posted by Radek

One decent actor (Sam Worthington) + C-list actors + basic, predictable script + millions upon millions of dollars of CGI =/= an amazing movie.

This movie is basically the new Matrix. Been there, done that.

Sigourney Weaver is the one decent actor, and Sam Worthington was a C-list actor (this is specifically why he was chosen for the part of the main character), but apart from that you're singing my tune.