Lindelof? Fucksake. Is there a single thing he touches that doesn't turn iffy? (Full disclosure: I actually liked Star Trek: Into Darkness.)
Movie Reviews 2.0
- Thread starter Dresden
- Start date
I think prometheus script, before Lindelof modifications, is somewhere on the interweb. And while I didn't read it and can't really judge, people said it wasn't much better than the version we got eventually.
I still hate Lindelof storytelling though. <insert long rant on how bad a writer he is>
I still hate Lindelof storytelling though. <insert long rant on how bad a writer he is>
Bought Avatar the other day. Watched it in 2D now, wow it is still an amazing and beautiful movie. If the military bits had been slightly better or absent it would probably be one of my favorite movies of all time. But it's still very high up.
Visually it is very good, but the writing is a total deal-breaker for me. It's as if they had a book called "101 terrible ideas to put in a cliché-ridden movie" and used ALL the ideas.
I was fine with most of the writing too actually. Of course there were cliches and yes the general idea here has been used several times, but if you've seen and or read too much, that's a problem everywhere, and I really liked several of the twists here. It was the right vehicle for this, and it wouldn't have been easy to do that much better I think.
Sigfried1977
Legend
^Agreed. You also gotta hand it to Cameron. When it comes staging large scale action set pieces that are actually exciting, he's really in a league of his own.
@Bludd The impression I had of Avatar around when it came out in cinemas was it was a cliché'd giant blue hippie treehuggery movie, and I didn't bother with it at all until the extended cut was released on blu-ray. I thought it fucking rocked. Dunno what about its writing specifically irritates you; it's like that of any action movie's by and large, but tighter, more solid. Cameron >>> Lindelof, pretty much. 
You can't go to any movie today and don't stumble over a bunch of tropes and clichés, least of all genre movies like action movies (or horror movies either for that matter.) You go see The Master Builder by Ibsen for the first time on a stage theater; you're going to leave with the impression it too was clichéd, because you've seen the plot and its devices so many other times since it was first published over 120 years ago.
It's unavoidable. You enjoy movies more if you just take the work for what it is, heh.
You can't go to any movie today and don't stumble over a bunch of tropes and clichés, least of all genre movies like action movies (or horror movies either for that matter.) You go see The Master Builder by Ibsen for the first time on a stage theater; you're going to leave with the impression it too was clichéd, because you've seen the plot and its devices so many other times since it was first published over 120 years ago.
It's unavoidable. You enjoy movies more if you just take the work for what it is, heh.
Sigfried1977
Legend
Just about anyone >>> Lindelof. The fact that he's credited in every second large scale movie production is completely baffling.
Sure, he's partially responsible for creating Lost. But then creating a compelling mystery is a lot easier than to unravel it in a satisfying manner. And that part he pretty much fucked up.
Sure, he's partially responsible for creating Lost. But then creating a compelling mystery is a lot easier than to unravel it in a satisfying manner. And that part he pretty much fucked up.
Last edited:
Couldn#t agree more. Well said, old bean. Bravo !
Well, maybe I can't articulate it but I just detest Avatar. It's pretty but ultimately soulless and boring. The Mcguffin-ium they have to get, the silly love story, the overly sentimental vibe of the whole thing (depressed wheelchair guy fixes his life in a literal out-of-body-experience) and the soldiers sitting inside the weapons throwing punches to make them work. It was really stupid when Babylon 5 did it and it was really stupid in Avatar. And this is coming from someone who loves Babylon 5 (I think B5 did it in the Crusade movie and show, because wire stunts were all the rage or something).
Mad Max Fury Road did the action sci-fi dealie much better, because everything wasn't just CGI spooge. There were real life effects and vehicles and it felt more real and visceral and non-boring.
Mad Max Fury Road did the action sci-fi dealie much better, because everything wasn't just CGI spooge. There were real life effects and vehicles and it felt more real and visceral and non-boring.
I saw Ant Man at the weekend. It was okay but quite a let down after GotG, Cap2 and Avengers 2. I was expecting something more along the lines of GotG in terms of action/humour split but it didn't really cut it. I'd probably give it a 6/10.
You didn't have to laugh at the 'unobtainium'? I thought that was brilliant. There are so many nice winks. Also, those tools make perfect sense to me - there's no better way to translate your body's knowledge of movement I'd say - but considering the Avatar technology, you would think they could do one better and just wire-up the brain (but we all know how long older technology can stick around without sufficient funds).
The wheelchair guy didn't seem depressed at all, but his pure joy of being able to walk again using that Avatar I thought was cool. And he did go in relatively blank and behaved a lot like a child, I appreciated that, it was refreshing. I also loved the idea that for once, a deity type of affair and 'going to heaven' ended up being an almost scientifically plausible, which I liked a lot. Sure a lot animals were very derivative of our own, but at least they looked cool (jrpg inspired, almost). The forest wasn't a huge stretch away from ours, but it was fantastic too and the floating mountains, just overall lots of awesome stuff.
Movie could have ended right before the big battle though, as far as I am concerned.
Mad Max Fury Road I haven't seen yet.
The wheelchair guy didn't seem depressed at all, but his pure joy of being able to walk again using that Avatar I thought was cool. And he did go in relatively blank and behaved a lot like a child, I appreciated that, it was refreshing. I also loved the idea that for once, a deity type of affair and 'going to heaven' ended up being an almost scientifically plausible, which I liked a lot. Sure a lot animals were very derivative of our own, but at least they looked cool (jrpg inspired, almost). The forest wasn't a huge stretch away from ours, but it was fantastic too and the floating mountains, just overall lots of awesome stuff.
Movie could have ended right before the big battle though, as far as I am concerned.
Mad Max Fury Road I haven't seen yet.
Last edited:
LOL, good luck creating all the creatures and action in Avatar without CGI. Let's just grow those things and film real helicopter chases with them and all.
I'm sorry I can't take this seriously. Despite the fact that I absolutely love Fury Road.
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
I don't believe he's saying they should have recreated Avatar with less CGI, more that the mix of CGI and realism in Fury Road worked better. I happen to agree and also feel that there was a little too much CGI in FR too.
I saw Avatar at the cinema and have never felt the slightest urge to watch it again. Very disappointing and clichéd throughout so I just didn't care how pretty it looked.
The mind boggles as to how they will come up with some sort of compelling storyline for the sequel. Most likely they just won't bother!
The mind boggles as to how they will come up with some sort of compelling storyline for the sequel. Most likely they just won't bother!
Sigfried1977
Legend
How would you even go about creating a movie like Avatar without going a route that's damn near 100% CGI? For the majority of its running time, nothing in that movie is real. It's an animated movie essentially.
Also, here's an unpopular opinion: I cannot think of a single movie where top-of-the-line cgi didn't exceed the quality of top-of-the-line animatronics, to be honest. "but CGI always looks slighty fake!" - well, so do even the best rubber suits and mechanical monsters. It's just a different kind of fake. It's a different story when the CGI is poor. Shitty looking puppets can look rather charming at least.
Also, here's an unpopular opinion: I cannot think of a single movie where top-of-the-line cgi didn't exceed the quality of top-of-the-line animatronics, to be honest. "but CGI always looks slighty fake!" - well, so do even the best rubber suits and mechanical monsters. It's just a different kind of fake. It's a different story when the CGI is poor. Shitty looking puppets can look rather charming at least.
Yes, what IS the action/humor split of Ant Man? I watched the trailer and thought, since it's called friggin ANT MAN, and is about a guy who shrinks to the size of an ant and runs about with a bunch of friggin ants as his pals...how serious could it possibly get?
It felt like this one, as well as Guardians, is Marvel's more kiddie-friendly, less serious, less end-of-the-world-ish, more fart humor-embracing movies. But maybe I'm wrong here?
Often, shit that plain just works is better than wiring peoples' brains up, especially on a battlefield where mud and grit and all kinds of other stuff could muck up the gears of your complicated brain-wiring-machine. A device which translates peoples' body movements into big-honkin-robot movement makes perfect sense. Writers behind Pacific Rim thought so too, by the way.
I loved the scene where he first hooks up with his blue kitty and takes off running, I thought that was totally awesome. I giggled like a ten-year-old watching it.
Most of Avatar is derivative, sure, but it's well executed, the action is tight and tense, and the bullshit science bits is at least done well, unlike say Prometheus, where they re-animate a severed head that's been severed millennia ago and been sitting there dessiccating and oxidizing ever since by putting "50 amps" through it and utter nonsense like that.True. Avatar worked perfectly fine as a stand-alone movie. No idea where they'll go for a sequel, and much less TWO which is what I've been hearing, that won't be a total re-telling of the first movie, IE, "the sky people" comes down, fucks serious shit up, then gets unexpectedly beaten by a deus ex machina plot device...
If the humans of Avatar II were smart, they'd take a play out of Ripley's book and just nuke it all from orbit. Only way to be sure! Try treehugging your way out of that, Jakesully!
Blah. You can't do running creatures with animatronics. Shit, even walking creatures.
There's some military prototype robots that can run, but they look exactly like what they are; military prototypes running. Not living creatures running.
Animatronics may have their place in a movie even today, but it can't replace CGI.
I think a next Avatar movie would be completely free to go explore an almost entirely different movie, go to a new planet, with a new species, etc. The main characters don't even have to be the same ...
The entirely aweful thing to do would be to give her a human avatar and bring her to Earth or something like that, Crocodile Dundee style, haha.
The entirely aweful thing to do would be to give her a human avatar and bring her to Earth or something like that, Crocodile Dundee style, haha.
IIRC, the two main actors, whatsisface and Zoe Saldana, have been re-hired for the sequels as well. Possibly others from the same cast as well. Not Ripley and Vasquez naturally since they both died, heh... In any case, sequels that don't involve the same(ish) cast aren't very common and I can't remember many offhand - or even any - that were all that great or successful either.
Similar threads
