Rate the last film you saw

[Wesley]

But it's like listening to an album with only one earphone in. You're not experiencing it as how it was created to be experienced.

 

That's rubbish.

 

With only one earphone you'd obviously have other noises, etc.

 

With non-3D it's not like you have random things messed up/missing/coming into the scene.

 

The fact is that great movies have been created for a very long time without this technology.

 

This new technology doesn't mean that that movies will finally be "good", or even mean that average films are now great.

 

It's just something else in the artists toolset, which - if used right - can help make that experience better.

[gaggle64]

Yeah, well I bet that you're homeless and female.

You wanna raise the stakes?

[Goafer]

That's rubbish.

 

With only one earphone you'd obviously have other noises, etc.

 

I think he means more that you'd be missing out on one half of a stereo track rather than interfering noise from the free ear. Being deaf in one ear is a similar example.

 

I still think 3D is good, as it makes the cinema experience something you can't get at home. With big screens and home surround sound systems, the cinema didn't really offer anything extra. Now it does again. At least until home 3D comes out (those crap different colour lenses don't count as they're shit).

 

It's never going to make or break a movie, but it enhances it nicely if done right.

[chairdriver]

That's rubbish.

 

With only one earphone you'd obviously have other noises, etc.

 

With non-3D it's not like you have random things messed up/missing/coming into the scene.

 

I was meaning that you miss out on the stereo effects, and background sounds of the song. Like, if you listen to The Tinderbox by Patrick Wolf, you hear the "Left, Right, Left, Right" in the appropriate ear.

 

I wasn't referring to the outside noise. If you listen to an album with one earphone in in a completely empty room you still don't experience it like its supposed to be experienced.

 

The fact is that great movies have been created for a very long time without this technology.

 

But the point I'm making is that James Cameron wrote the script 10 years ago, and waited until 3-D technology / CGI technology was accessible until he filmed it. Avatar is meant to be seen in 3-D. Otherwise, he'd have made it immediately after Titanic / Aliens.

[Fierce_LiNk]

That's rubbish.

 

With only one earphone you'd obviously have other noises, etc.

 

With non-3D it's not like you have random things messed up/missing/coming into the scene.

 

The fact is that great movies have been created for a very long time without this technology.

 

This new technology doesn't mean that that movies will finally be "good", or even mean that average films are now great.

 

It's just something else in the artists toolset, which - if used right - can help make that experience better.

 

If a film is created to use this technology, to use this tool, then surely you can see that you're not experiencing it how it was intended by the director if you watch the Non-3D version? It's like watching 2001 in black and white instead of colour. The film was designed to be in colour, so you're not getting the intended experience. You'll still be watching the same film (never seen it in black and white though, haha) but you won't be watching it how it was meant to be seen.

 

You wanna raise the stakes?

 

How can we do that?

Mmm, steaks.

[Daft]

But 3-D adds something. In the same way that colour is unnecessary (Cinema survived without it for however many years), but adds something. And in the same way that most stuff in good music is unnecessary, but adds so much. Like Bon Iver's use of the vocoder in Woods [/love that song too much], and the poignant one pluck of the harp half-way through Joanna Newsom's Emily.

 

 

Still, considering films which have no saving grace are given 6, it feels a bit flawed to give Avatar the same score (unless you're basing it alone on story - but that's also flawed, because quite a few absolutely shit films are based on good stories).

 

 

Daft, your comments about stuff not being explained holds no ground. At all.

Watch 2001, one of the most celebrated sci-fis of all time, and nothing at all is explained. What the fuck is the LG chocolate slab doing there?

And it's pretty easy to explain the floating mountains - they're made of rock less dense than the atmosphere (which we know isn't the same as Earth's atmosphere). They've already introduced unobtainium (who the fuck made up that name...), so why is it so hard to suspend disbelief and accept a compound less dense than the atmosphere...

 

I can't really comment on 2001 because I read The Sentinel. Either way, the script of Avatar is a load of shit - the obvious point being that it only really explains things that are directly relevant to the plot. Great, flux vortex yadda yadda yaaa - tell me how the fucking rocks float. That's what I want to hear about. Cool, a giant alien bird thing that unites the tribes in a time of great need...I'm sure that isn't going to come up again...

 

What the hell is unobtanium even used for? This is what the whole war is about and we have no real idea why?! GTFO.

 

Anyway, that was a genuine question about how the rocks floated...and how they got there in the first place...How?

 

Also, your comment about 3D being as necessary as colour holds no ground. At all. We see the world in colour, we don't see the would in some faux unilateral 3D. So whereas colour adds something most people sense, this kind of 3D doesn't.

 

Edit: Also, why did the flux vortex thing screw up all the advance human equipment but did in no way whatsoever effect the wireless link with the avatar?

 

If they were just going to blow that tree up at the end why not do it from orbit, or with a vehicle that moved faster than a zimmer frame?

 

How come whatsherface doesn't get court marshalled for not helping to blow up the tree?

 

Anyway, I'm happy you enjoyed it but I'm not going to let it off just for being colourful.

 

Edited January 9, 2010 by jayseven

[James]

haters gonna hate

[SPAMBOT4000]

Daft, as I said before. Some films aren't meant to be picked apart like that. With some films you just sit back, accept the unbelievable and enjoy. Which you're not going to be able to do properly if you're worried about little details. Know what kind of film you've come to see!

 

Also by the time they reach the floating rocks, do you really want 5 minutes of 'oo these rocks, neato. How do they work then?' I think the film made it clear that these were a famous 'landmark' so chances are they all knew 'how they worked' anyway. I'm sure when people first see the pyramids for example that they just stand there awestruck for a while. It'll be only afterward that you stop and wonder 'how the hell?'

 

Oh and unobtainium is just a MacGuffin. Plenty of well respected, classic films use them.

Edited January 9, 2010 by SPAMBOT4000

[Cube]

Unobtainium basically means "rare". So this thing that they're fighting for must be rare, and hasn't been given a proper name yet.

[Ashley]

The fact is that great movies have been created for a very long time without this technology.

 

Yeah but as Chair said, movies existed without sound for 30 years and colour for 50 (ish, depending on when you define the dates of the origin of cinema). Come on, essentially saying "this doesn't exist now, so it doesn't need to exist" is just...lazy :p

 

 

And I'm kinda like Eenuh actually. The bridge of my nose was damaged as a child and I always forget this when I go into see a 3D film so for the first bit its uncomfortable. But as long as its a good film I tend to forget.

[Daft]

Daft, as I said before. Some films aren't meant to be picked apart like that. With some films you just sit back, accept the unbelievable and enjoy. Which you're not going to be able to do properly if you're worried about little details. Know what kind of film you've come to see!

 

Also by the time they reach the floating rocks, do you really want 5 minutes of 'oo these rocks, neato. How do they work then?' I think the film made it clear that these were a famous 'landmark' so chances are they all knew 'how they worked' anyway. I'm sure when people first see the pyramids for example that they just stand there awestruck for a while. It'll be only afterward that you stop and wonder 'how the hell?'

 

Oh and unobtainium is just a MacGuffin. Plenty of well respected, classic films use them.

 

It's hard not to pick it apart when the core plot is just so amazingly weak. I didn't ask these questions while watching the film, it was just so unoriginal that the whole thing begins to fall apart.

 

So we get it, humans are evil "Raaaaarrrr!!". Is that it? We've killed of Earth and now we're going to do the same to this planet? Well if we've destroyed our home world and that still hasn't stopped us what makes anyone think a bunch of tree dwelling fairies is going to stop us?

 

Not to mention their use of explosives to suppress the natives is erroneous. Why not gas them and relocate them? Hell, use them as slaves.

 

Also, was it just luck the biggest unobtanium deposit was under the tree? Apparently so (I thought there was going to be a link here because it was way too convenient). And on the entire planet there aren't other more easily accessible deposits??...

 

Considering JC spent 10 years developing this movie, you'd have thunk it would have not just looked good.

 

Glad you enjoyed it though.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Daft

[Coolness Bears]

The floating rocks weren't the problem. It was everything else.

[Letty]

I saw Daybreakers yesterday. It was sexy.

 

Although the storyline was spoonfed, and the ending was crap (tons of hero shots and explosions, then it just finished with no warning) - I do love vampires. And it was actually quite gory for a 15! I think I've seen some Saw films with less blood. But there was not a single swear word throughout.

[chairdriver]

 

Not to mention their use of explosives to suppress the natives is erroneous. Why not gas them and relocate them? Hell, use them as slaves.

 

That was the whole point of the movie, lol. The guy in charge of the army was a massive bastard. They could have done it peacefully, but instead went in with gunships.

 

The most unrealistic thing about the film is that spineless, shite, stupid guy would be in charge of the whole thing.

 

Also, was it just luck the biggest unobtanium deposit was under the tree? Apparently so (I thought there was going to be a link here because it was way too convenient). And on the entire planet there aren't other more easily accessible deposits??...

 

Obviously the unobtainium is in some way linked with the whole network/Ewya thing. It wasn't explicitly commented on, but I think it was heavily implied that the tree was the thing making the unobtainium appear (or the other way round, the unobtainium was making the tree grow).

 

And there were other deposits, but us being greedy, why go for them when there's a massive one nearby?

 

In my opinion, the little unexplained things made the film better. It's like how Blade Runner was ruined when they released it in cinema with a voice-over explaining everything.

 

 

The dialogue was awful. I fucking hate one liners. The concepts behind the story and visuals are the only strong things about the film.

 

Edited January 9, 2010 by jayseven

[Paj!]

Hmm. I actually think I would have preferred Avatar without the narration. The narration where it doubles as his videoblog thing is fine, but just the pointless bits like "I was standing where no man should be" or whatever horrible line it was could go.

[chairdriver]

Hmm. I actually think I would have preferred Avatar without the narration. The narration where it doubles as his videoblog thing is fine, but just the pointless bits like "I was standing where no man should be" or whatever horrible line it was could go.

 

Yeah, I hate when directors assume the audience is stupid, and include pointless narration.

 

And I hate Sam W's voice / general way he holds himself too.

[martinist]

How can we do that?

Mmm, steaks.

gaggle64: Stake a stake on some steaks?

Edited January 9, 2010 by martinist

[Daft]

That... film.

 

Stop comparing Avatar with genuinely excellent films.

 

The whole unobtanium thing was about as succinct as the argument for the search for WMDs - it's just an unconvincing excuse/device to blow shit up.

 

Anyway, all I was saying was that in a few years time there will be better visuals and all you'll have is a concept that wasn't executed well. Yeah, there's the argument that I should appreciate it now but it really doesn't look that much better than other films coming out - not enough to cream myself and ignore the fact that this was a film Smallville quality; pretty colours, dumb acting, predictable script, sorrowful story (and I don't mean that last one as how the second coming JC intended).

[killer kirby]

The concepts behind the story and visuals are the only strong things about the film.

 

Hmm, I don't know what to make of the bolded text Yes, visually it was outstanding. But story wise...me and me mates were having bets during the film guessing what was going to happen within the next 10 minutes...throughout most of the film we were right. That to me shows that the story was not strong, but weak, it makes me laugh at the people who take the story seriously though now.

[Eenuh]

The story was one of the weakest things ever, honestly. Even a child could predict what was going to happen. And you really have to turn off your brain to enjoy this film, cause otherwise like Daft, you'll start thinking and wondering about all these things that appeared but don't make sense. For a film that was being worked on for so long, you'd expect a bit more story-wise.

 

I didn't hate the film, it looked nice, but I didn't walk out thinking: "Wow, this film completely changed the way films will be made from now on." or "Film of the year!". It was okay, nothing more.

[chairdriver]

Hmm, I don't know what to make of the bolded text Yes, visually it was outstanding. But story wise...me and me mates were having bets during the film guessing what was going to happen within the next 10 minutes...throughout most of the film we were right. That to me shows that the story was not strong, but weak, it makes me laugh at the people who take the story seriously though now.

 

Oh sorry, I meant concepts like the USB hair, the tree of souls and Ewya etc. Not story concepts.

[EEVILMURRAY]

Still, considering films which have no saving grace are given 6, it feels a bit flawed to give Avatar the same score (unless you're basing it alone on story - but that's also flawed, because quite a few absolutely shit films are based on good stories).

I'm not sure I'm reading this right, but are you saying that if a film is based on a good story it should be a good film?

[Daft]

The story was one of the weakest things ever, honestly. Even a child could predict what was going to happen. And you really have to turn off your brain to enjoy this film, cause otherwise like Daft, you'll start thinking and wondering about all these things that appeared but don't make sense. For a film that was being worked on for so long, you'd expect a bit more story-wise.

 

I didn't hate the film, it looked nice, but I didn't walk out thinking: "Wow, this film completely changed the way films will be made from now on." or "Film of the year!". It was okay, nothing more.

 

Exactly what I was failing to make into a coherent point!

[killer kirby]

Exactly what I was failing to make into a coherent point!

 

Same for me xD

 

I don't hate the movie, but I don't think I would want to watch the movie again TBH (A lot of my friends have seen it like 4 times which I just laugh at them for wasting money)

[Eenuh]

Exactly what I was failing to make into a coherent point!

 

Same for me xD

 

I don't hate the movie, but I don't think I would want to watch the movie again TBH (A lot of my friends have seen it like 4 times which I just laugh at them for wasting money)

 

You're welcome. =P

 

 

To go back to rating films, I forgot to give my opinion on Where the Wild Things Are.

 

I thought it was a charming film, with some beautifully shot scenes. It had a certain feel, atmosphere and texture to it that I really loved. The Wild Things looked great too and they often made me laugh.

The bad thing about the film is that the story just seems to be made up by a series of scenes that feel very inconsistent. Half of the time you didn't know what was going on and why. Hard to explain, but you could see that they had to flesh out the story from the picturebook, but it doesn't flow very well.

 

I still enjoyed it though, as it looked lovely and had a great soundtrack. Plus the child actor did a great job. =)