heh! Fern Gully was exactly what I thought of when I saw Avatar.
It was very, very pretty (and impressive, too, that the transitions between actors on sets and characters in computer-generated scenery was so seamless - I kinda kept forgetting that the giant mecha soldier suits and glowing rain-forest scenery weren't real). But very, very disappointing - they didn't do anything new or interesting with the characters/plotline, and I had trouble enjoying the movie because I kept wondering exactly how offensive the over-done "noble savage" imagery was. I wasn't even all that impressed with the paralyzed-man-gets-new-lease-on-life-in-alien-body concept, because there are sci-fi novels out there that have done it better.
But everyone I talk to here at home & work thinks it's one of the coolest things ever. Oh well.
impressive, too, that the transitions between actors on sets and characters in computer-generated scenery was so seamless
Did you see it in 3D? Even on the indoor sets, I kept going, "ooooooooh, swivel-y projector screeeeeens!" But yeah, the CGI was AMAZING! Really the best part was the animals - they were done so well, and they seemed to have a pretty coherent biology going on, too. Why couldn't the people in charge of doing the critters have been put in charge of the story instead??
I kinda kept forgetting that the giant mecha soldier suits and glowing rain-forest scenery weren't real)
I know! It's so... immersive. Have you heard of "Pandora depression" that some people have gotten, when they have to leave the theater and go back to real life and it's just not as pretty as the movie?
I had trouble enjoying the movie because I kept wondering exactly how offensive the over-done "noble savage" imagery was
lol, I had trouble enjoying the movie because whenever Jake was onscreen I kept thinking, "What an asshole," and it was hard
( ... )
Have you heard of "Pandora depression" that some people have gotten, when they have to leave the theater and go back to real life and it's just not as pretty as the movie?
Err, sorta. Doesn't really surprise me. Sci-fi and fantasy always seems to inspire obsessive tendencies in people, and I'm willing to bet most sci-fi/fantasy fans have experienced a weird sense of depression at least once when they've finished a book or movie (jeeze, I do all the time). Makes sense that something so pretty and immersive and popular would inspire that in a lot of people.
Did you see it in 3D?I did, but only a regular size screen (not an IMAX screen - those tickets were really bloody expensive!), and I'm not sure I was that impressed. I mean I think it added some subtle depth to a lot of the scenery, but the most obvious 3D bits (stuff floating down in front of the screen or plants/weapons in the foreground) were annoying and distracting to me. And a good chuck at the beginning of the movie seemed. . .slightly out-of-focus, or something. I kinda
( ... )
Makes sense that something so pretty and immersive and popular would inspire that in a lot of people.
I wonder how dvd sales will go with this movie - I bet a lot of the fans won't be satisfied by only owning the 2D, small-screen version... oooh, how soon 'til we get 3D-at-home tvs??
I did, but only a regular size screen (not an IMAX screen - those tickets were really bloody expensive!)
Same here - the IMAX theater had all the good seats sold out a week ahead of time (over a month after the movie came out!), and I didn't see the point of paying IMAX prices just to sit in the front corner and kill my neck...
I mean I think it added some subtle depth to a lot of the scenery, but the most obvious 3D bits (stuff floating down in front of the screen or plants/weapons in the foreground) were annoying and distracting to me.I was surprised by how subtle the effects could be. I've only seen one 3D movie before, and I was expecting a lot more jarring effects (like those occasional floaty bits). The aerial stuff was actually realistically
( ... )
Comments 6
Reply
Reply
It was very, very pretty (and impressive, too, that the transitions between actors on sets and characters in computer-generated scenery was so seamless - I kinda kept forgetting that the giant mecha soldier suits and glowing rain-forest scenery weren't real). But very, very disappointing - they didn't do anything new or interesting with the characters/plotline, and I had trouble enjoying the movie because I kept wondering exactly how offensive the over-done "noble savage" imagery was. I wasn't even all that impressed with the paralyzed-man-gets-new-lease-on-life-in-alien-body concept, because there are sci-fi novels out there that have done it better.
But everyone I talk to here at home & work thinks it's one of the coolest things ever. Oh well.
Reply
Did you see it in 3D? Even on the indoor sets, I kept going, "ooooooooh, swivel-y projector screeeeeens!" But yeah, the CGI was AMAZING! Really the best part was the animals - they were done so well, and they seemed to have a pretty coherent biology going on, too. Why couldn't the people in charge of doing the critters have been put in charge of the story instead??
I kinda kept forgetting that the giant mecha soldier suits and glowing rain-forest scenery weren't real)
I know! It's so... immersive. Have you heard of "Pandora depression" that some people have gotten, when they have to leave the theater and go back to real life and it's just not as pretty as the movie?
I had trouble enjoying the movie because I kept wondering exactly how offensive the over-done "noble savage" imagery was
lol, I had trouble enjoying the movie because whenever Jake was onscreen I kept thinking, "What an asshole," and it was hard ( ... )
Reply
Err, sorta. Doesn't really surprise me. Sci-fi and fantasy always seems to inspire obsessive tendencies in people, and I'm willing to bet most sci-fi/fantasy fans have experienced a weird sense of depression at least once when they've finished a book or movie (jeeze, I do all the time). Makes sense that something so pretty and immersive and popular would inspire that in a lot of people.
Did you see it in 3D?I did, but only a regular size screen (not an IMAX screen - those tickets were really bloody expensive!), and I'm not sure I was that impressed. I mean I think it added some subtle depth to a lot of the scenery, but the most obvious 3D bits (stuff floating down in front of the screen or plants/weapons in the foreground) were annoying and distracting to me. And a good chuck at the beginning of the movie seemed. . .slightly out-of-focus, or something. I kinda ( ... )
Reply
I wonder how dvd sales will go with this movie - I bet a lot of the fans won't be satisfied by only owning the 2D, small-screen version... oooh, how soon 'til we get 3D-at-home tvs??
I did, but only a regular size screen (not an IMAX screen - those tickets were really bloody expensive!)
Same here - the IMAX theater had all the good seats sold out a week ahead of time (over a month after the movie came out!), and I didn't see the point of paying IMAX prices just to sit in the front corner and kill my neck...
I mean I think it added some subtle depth to a lot of the scenery, but the most obvious 3D bits (stuff floating down in front of the screen or plants/weapons in the foreground) were annoying and distracting to me.I was surprised by how subtle the effects could be. I've only seen one 3D movie before, and I was expecting a lot more jarring effects (like those occasional floaty bits). The aerial stuff was actually realistically ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment