Kevin's Watch

Posted: **Sun Jan 24, 2010 2:39 am**

The pacing was damn good, but the rest of it...the acting, utter lack of suspense, dialogue - all mediocre at best and crappy much of the time.

Posted: **Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:05 am**

Kil Tyme wrote:Oh, there's a plot and an intense story line, but it is a reused theme, a la "Dancing With Wolves", "Little Big Man", "A Man Called Horse", etc. This is really a Western theme and so Avatar is a SciFi/Western movie, of sorts; they even have bows and arrows in the flick. Anyway, I liked the movie in general, but agree that with all this time to think, ponder and then work the film, Cameron should have come up with better dialog. I'd be embarrased if I were him to let this film out with the lines they gave the merc leader. My 13 yo niece even groaned at some of those lines. Some stupid stuff happened in this flick and I reject as believable the premise of the mercs wanting to blow the cats away just to get at some rock under a big tree, but I enjoyed the ride anyway; some really excellent action seqs despite a tired general plot.

Yeah I thought of DWW and AMCH too, but then realised where I'd seen this before, when it was called the Last Samurai.

Having said that I loved it and watched in twice whilst travelling in both 2D and 3D.

Posted: **Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:48 am**

jacob Raver, sinTempter wrote:
StevieG wrote:Well, that's not my opinion - I found Titanic sort of interesting but (I'm not sure if this is valid, but as an Aussie, I notice it) too bloody American (runs for cover).

Avatar interested me more. So I guess the moral is, go check it out for yourself. IMO, it had some good tension in the second half.
What would you consider an Aussie film then? Just wondering what you mean.

Sorry, just caught up

Montressor wrote:I would sadly consider almost all Australian films made too Australian. It's the reason why the Aust film industry is a lame horse. The best stuff are the films which aren't so concious of the fact that they are Australian, in my opinion.

I wasn't really talking about the Australian film industry but now that it has been brought up I totally agree with the above statement, and would expand it to other countries also. I do like films that show the culture/landscape etc of a country or town, but when they're heavy-handed and lacking in subtlety it distracts from the film itself.

When I said "too American" I meant perfect characters (looks-wise) with huge egos, talking cliches, side characters that give their life, hollywood formulae, people all being experts in their field, no-one interrupting each other in a room full of "experts" and all manage to say something profound... I'm not saying Titanic had all those particular traits, but that's the sort of thing I meant.

Sometimes I enjoy films with all those attributes if they are well-acted and engaging, it then becomes personal opinion.

Posted: **Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:25 am**

Rigel wrote:
Tjol wrote:For starters, Pandora doesn't actually exist, Unobtanium doesn't exist, Navi don't actually exist, so how does the movie equal a metaphor for this planet or the noble savage?
Because that's what a metaphor is? It's not something real, it's something imagined which is analogous to something real.

People complain about the metaphor because it's a metaphor for an imagined ideal.

I complain about the movie because, apart from the CG, it wasn't a very good movie.

For a good metaphor though, it has to be analagous...and I don't think anything in the movie is analagous to our reality.

Now as far as complaining about the movie in general, I won't suggest it's an all time great, it is aesthetically wonderful in my opinion... which is all any aesthetic assessment can be... an opinion.

Posted: **Mon Jan 25, 2010 12:46 pm**

Avatar just went past Titanic. (but not adjusted for inflation...so take it for what its worth)

www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2414728620100124

LOS ANGELES, Jan 24 (Reuters) - "Titanic" just hit an iceberg named "Avatar."

James Cameron's sci-fi spectacular replaced his maritime melodrama as the biggest international release of all time during the weekend and is on the verge of claiming its worldwide crown, which also includes North American receipts, distributor 20th Century Fox said on Sunday.

The News Corp (NWSA.O)-owned studio said "Avatar" has sold $1.841 billion worth of tickets worldwide during its unbroken six-week reign, and was a day or so away from surpassing the seemingly insurmountable $1.843 billion racked up by "Titanic" in 1997-1998.

The international portion stands at $1.288 billion, eclipsing the $1.242 billion haul of "Titanic."

In North America, "Avatar" may have to wait up to two weeks to sink the $601 million total of "Titanic," Fox said. Moviegoers in the United States and Canada have chipped in $552.8 million, enough to replace 2008's "The Dark Knight" ($533 million) as the second-biggest movie of all time.

Data are not adjusted for inflation, and "Avatar" ticket sales got an additional boost from premium pricing for 3-D screenings. Imax Corp (IMAX.O) said its big-screen engagements have sold a record $134 million worth of tickets worldwide.

The biggest movie of all time in North America -- adjusted for inflation -- is 1939's "Gone with the Wind," with sales of almost $1.5 billion, according to tracking firm Box Office Mojo. "Avatar" ranks No. 26 by that measure.

Posted: **Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:49 am**

At least it's not as bad as Pirates 3...I guess.

Posted: **Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:16 am**

I thought Titanic's box office record was next to unbreakable.
But then I thought the same of Jurassic Park. And E.T. before that. And Star Wars before that.

But I really, really thought Titanic was untouchable!

Still, it managed to last a dozen years at the top. Star Wars ruled for "only" five years before E.T. surpassed it.

How does Cameron keep doing it?
(Waits for snarky responses from Avatar-haters.)

The "adjusted for inflation" measurement is pretty much irrelevant to me.
If they want to trot out Gone With The Wind every time box office stats come up, that's their business.

Posted: **Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:15 am**

If it were up to me, I'd just go by the number of tickets sold....the whole adjusting for inflation business seems unnecessary if you just compare apples to apples. But, I will tell you this, Gone With The Wind is a way better film than Titanic or Avatar.

Posted: **Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:33 am**

I just don't know why trash like Gone With the Wind gets recognized as a classic while really good films like Killer Clowns From Outer Space go unnoticed and unrecognized for their greatness

Posted: **Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:03 am**

I watched the movie a second time last saturday, together with a group of friends... as far as I am concerned, although the story is hardly original, it's also true that there are few stories that are original anymore. True, he could have come up with some unexpected twists and turns (who didn't see it coming when

Spoiler

Neytiri spoke of the Toruk and said it was nearly impossible to tame, that only five people had done so in recorded history

that he'd do it later in the movie? Who didn't see it coming that the Colonel

Spoiler

while escaping from his plummeting ship, just happens to land near the spot where the control unit was hidden

?) but on the whole, the execution of the story was really very well done, I think. And of course, the visuals were stunning - even more so on a second viewing (at least, it seemed I could see the 3D much more than the first time, perhaps because my eyes knew what to expect?). I also noticed several little details which I hadn't noticed the first time, such as

Spoiler

how the stone arches where the Tree of Souls is hidden are shaped like magnetic fields, in much the same way as iron filings would shape themselves around the poles of a magnet - adding to the idea that beneath the Tree, the magnetic disturbance was the most intense

).

Posted: **Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:39 pm**

The "adjusted for inflation" measurement is pretty much irrelevant to me.
If they want to trot out Gone With The Wind every time box office stats come up, that's their business.

truthfully the best measure of a films success is the number of times people paid to see it in a theatre. Number of tickets sold.
But no one uses that one...

Posted: **Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:44 pm**

Usivius wrote:
The "adjusted for inflation" measurement is pretty much irrelevant to me.
If they want to trot out Gone With The Wind every time box office stats come up, that's their business.
truthfully the best measure of a films success is the number of times people paid to see it in a theatre. Number of tickets sold.
But no one uses that one...

Well, an even better measure would be number of people who went to see the movie - but that doesn't necessarily correlate with the number of sold tickets, because of course some people may watch a movie more than once.

Posted: **Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:30 pm**

Xar wrote:
Usivius wrote:
The "adjusted for inflation" measurement is pretty much irrelevant to me.
If they want to trot out Gone With The Wind every time box office stats come up, that's their business.
truthfully the best measure of a films success is the number of times people paid to see it in a theatre. Number of tickets sold.
But no one uses that one...

Well, an even better measure would be number of people who went to see the movie - but that doesn't necessarily correlate with the number of sold tickets, because of course some people may watch a movie more than once.

I disagree there.
If someone pays to see a movie more than once, it would only prove it is more popular with those people, no? The number of people who paid to see the movie in the theater is what should be the measure, as far as I'm concerned. Free viewings or free passes shouldn't count. But if someone pays to see it again, that should count.

Posted: **Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:00 pm**

When looknig at the box office numbers you also need to account for the fact that when showing in 3D you have fewer screenings for higher ticket prices.

Posted: **Sun Jan 31, 2010 3:43 pm**

Speaking of the IMAX showings, we're planning on going down to Orlando around Valentine's Day. From no IMAX to a choice of several! If Avatar is still being shown in IMAX format in a couple of weeks.

That said, there seems to be a selection of two types of IMAX theaters in Orlando which is showing Avatar in 3-D: the classic design featuring a flat screen that ranges in size from 51'x37' to 117'x96' and a "multiplex" design which features a slightly curved screen that ranges in size from 47'x24' to 74'x46'. While I can tell which type of screen the theater has, I have no way of finding out screen size without calling the theater.

But, I'm not really concerned about screen size. What I am curious about is which IMAX format is better in 3-D to see Avatar? Has anyone experienced both the classic and the multiplex formats? Which is better?

Posted: **Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:40 am**

dANdeLION wrote:If it were up to me, I'd just go by the number of tickets sold....the whole adjusting for inflation business seems unnecessary if you just compare apples to apples.

If you want to break that down even further, one would have to consider the following: in Gone With the Wind days, video entertainment was much more limited than it is now. For that type of entertainment, you almost had to go to a movie theater to see a moving picture (I believe it came out right around the time when television was in its infancy). Now you have cable television with HD programming, DVR's, DVD players, Blu-Ray discs, and you can even watch most of your favorite shows on the internet. Personally, I have a pretty sweet home theater myself (projector, high quality surround sound) which means I purposefully wait to see some movies so that I can watch them in the comfort of my own home.

My point being that even if GWtW did better in ticket sales, maybe back in those days they sold a lot of the same kind of apple, but nowadays there is a dozen different kind of apples available at every grocery store.

Posted: **Mon Feb 01, 2010 5:01 am**

Menolly wrote:Speaking of the IMAX showings, we're planning on going down to Orlando around Valentine's Day. From no IMAX to a choice of several! If Avatar is still being shown in IMAX format in a couple of weeks.

That said, there seems to be a selection of two types of IMAX theaters in Orlando which is showing Avatar in 3-D: the classic design featuring a flat screen that ranges in size from 51'x37' to 117'x96' and a "multiplex" design which features a slightly curved screen that ranges in size from 47'x24' to 74'x46'. While I can tell which type of screen the theater has, I have no way of finding out screen size without calling the theater.

But, I'm not really concerned about screen size. What I am curious about is which IMAX format is better in 3-D to see Avatar? Has anyone experienced both the classic and the multiplex formats? Which is better?

You've gotta see this movie in 3-D, freakin' awesome! That being said, I'd opt for the curved screen. Even if it's a bit smaller, you can always sit up front to get the feel of a larger screen, and you probably don't want to be in front for a gigantic screen. I have only seen two movies at IMAX: Matrix Reloaded and Avatar. MR was packed and I got stuck in the very front row in front of a gigantic enormous ridiculous screen and while very breathtaking, it was a bit much(not to mention I had my neck cranked back 90 degrees...imagine being ten, twenty feet away from something several stories tall). I saw Avatar on a smaller screen, but it was still very immersive. That curved screen does wonders for pulling you inside of the movie.

Whichever you choose, though, be sure to see it in IMAX 3D, you WILL NOT regret it! Even if its not playing in a couple of weeks (surely it will be?) see something else, if possible. As a matter of fact, I plan on seeing it at least once more in an IMAX theater before its gone.

Oh yeah, another tip: if your orlando theaters are anything like Kansas City theaters, the earlier showings will be cheaper. We have three different IMAX's in KC, and all have four showings through out the day. While the times vary from theater to theater, the pricing was all the same: $9 first showing, $11 second showing, $13 third, $14 fourth. So really that first showing isn't much more than a standard ticket price.

Posted: **Mon Feb 01, 2010 5:08 am**

Shuram Gudatetris wrote:You've gotta see this movie in 3-D, freakin' awesome!

That we've already done, just on a standard screen.

Shuram Gudatetris wrote:That being said, I'd opt for the curved screen. Even if it's a bit smaller, you can always sit up front to get the feel of a larger screen, and you probably don't want to be in front for a gigantic screen. I have only seen two movies at IMAX: Matrix Reloaded and Avatar. MR was packed and I got stuck in the very front row in front of a gigantic enormous ridiculous screen and while very breathtaking, it was a bit much(not to mention I had my neck cranked back 90 degrees...imagine being ten, twenty feet away from something several stories tall). I saw Avatar on a smaller screen, but it was still very immersive. That curved screen does wonders for pulling you inside of the movie.

Nice to know, thanks!
I've been doing some reading, and have read that Cameron suggests seeing it on the classic, full size screen over the new curved ones. That may still influence our choice...

Shuram Gudatetris wrote:Whichever you choose, though, be sure to see it in IMAX 3D, you WILL NOT regret it!

Definitely.

Shuram Gudatetris wrote:Oh yeah, another tip: if your orlando theaters are anything like Kansas City theaters, the earlier showings will be cheaper. We have three different IMAX's in KC, and all have four showings through out the day. While the times vary from theater to theater, the pricing was all the same: $9 first showing, $11 second showing, $13 third, $14 fourth. So really that first showing isn't much more than a standard ticket price.

Thanks! I'll research that.

Posted: **Tue Feb 02, 2010 2:38 am**

Here's a good critique of Avatar if you didn't like the plot that Wired highlighted.

Posted: **Tue Feb 02, 2010 7:52 am**

Pefect and hilarious!