MUCH better than avatar!
this film cost only a fraction of avatar's budget and yet it was a much more satisfying experience. a true homage to the campy sci-fi movie serials of the 1930s. an underrated masterpiece!
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004) Discussion > MUCH better than avatar!
Agreed Balloon Boy. If I wanted to watch a three hour version of Ferngully, I'd just watch Ferngully on slow speed.
Not that I really think the films are comparable. But I certainly prefer watching Sky Captain, which is one of my favorite films of the last decade, to watching a snooze-fest like Avatar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sgOJTA8ndI
share
Holy Shoit. You're one of those emo-like dolts who experienced heavy stages of depression after seeing Avatar, yes? I think yes. Only you didn't experience depression due to feeling a connection with the Earth, you just felt it due to being an unequivocal idiot. Let me clue you in, you worthless pile of fecal matter: Avatar is NOTHING BUT SPECIAL EFFECTS. Without it, it'd be a piece of horse excrement on par with the latest Boll flick. Pull your already deeply injected head out of Cameron's rectum. Idiot. share
[deleted]
I don't know about theyellowsign, but speaking for myself, I have seen "Avatar". And no, I don't hate it. It is all right, but I still think "Sky Captain" is much better, with a fraction of the budget, better pacing, and none of the preachiness that "Avatar" has.
shareI've seen Avatar as well. I can't say that I hated it. But I found it seriously lacking in substance, but with an overabundance of cliche and FAR too much runtime. The images are well presented, but completely uninspired (seen everything in that movie in other movies/comics). And the story is SO lackluster. I understand that reusing stories can be a valuable tool for a filmmaker. But part of it means doing something interesting with the story, and simply setting it on another planet wasn't enough. Plus, Cameron's dialog is second in awfulness only to George Lucas.
So, no. I didn't hate it. But I sure didn't like it. It didn't go on my list of worst movies of the year. But it's certainly not going anywhere near my list of best. Generally speaking, I can hardly even remember the film. A few scenes stand out. But only a few. It's all surface, with nothing to hold my attention or to make me think of the movie later.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sgOJTA8ndI
[deleted]
I do not hate "Avatar", and theyellowsign has stated that he doesn't either. As for the visuals of "Sky Captain", they are not ugly. It is simply a matter of taste. You like to see blue people and I like to see giant robots. Which one of us has better taste? Neither. I like what I like and you like what you like.
And for those of us who do enjoy "Sky Captain", it provides the same magic for us that "Avatar" creates for you. It brings us back to a gleeful, nostalgic vision of a futuristic 1930s. I don't particulaly hate "Avatar", I just don't really care for it. As for "Titanic, I don't like it, but I have nothing against any bad dialog or cliches in it, the reason I didn't like it was because it was about an actual event, the sinking of the Titanic, but was entirely historically incorrect. I have nothing against a fictional film making history goofs, or even taking artistic licesne, but I didn't like the way it portrayed Lightoller, J. Bruce Ismay, John Jacob Astor, and Benjamin Guggenheim as cowards and stuck-up snobs, whereas in real life, they were brave and heroic, and deserve to be presented as such, not to be slandered decades after they are dead. It also got all the details of the Titanic's sinking wrong. I much prefer the 1958 movie "A Night to Remember", the definitive film about the Titanic.
@ hbenthow
Thank you for your comments on "Titanic". "A Night to Remember" is such a superior movie. (A truly great film and very historically accurate) However even the soapy 1953 "Titanic" with Barbara Stanwyck and Clifton Webb blows away Cameron's crap-fest.
Cameron's movie is just about a teenage crush on a boat (just like "Attack of the Clones" was a teenage crush in space.) The stunning special effects and Horner's beautiful score (and perhaps Kate Winslet's beautiful nakedness) are the only redeeming factors. Although I can see how the sex/nudity would turn off families as well as older viewers (it did my parents. They've never watched it)
I watched it once. I was disgusted how it handled historic characters. I could care less for the two leads and their teenie-bop love story. Only the final hour managed to engage thanks to excellent FX and editing. However I'll never get how it became the highest grossing film EVER. It's depressing with all that death...frozen dead babies etc. yet people (mainly teen girls I'm told) went back to see it again and again? That would be like watching a holocaust movie again and again because the leads where a cute couple. Blegh.
-Yoda
Oh and Captain Sky didn't lack in substance? Your post makes me laugh. The only thing CSATWT has to offer are some pretty visuals, when they are in fact, ugly.
I seriously feel sad about those who just can't experience the magic James Cameron creates. Just take a look at Titanic. Some people hates it and calls it a bag of bad dialog and cliches, while alot of other people loves it and not only sees it a movie, but as a experience. Same thing goes for Avatar. It's not only a movie, it's more of a experience.
So, hate Avatar if you like, but it's only you and people like Ballon_Boy's lost.
Holy Shoit. You're one of those emo-like dolts who experienced heavy stages of depression after seeing Avatar, yes? I think yes. Only you didn't experience depression due to feeling a connection with the Earth, you just felt it due to being an unequivocal idiot. Let me clue you in, you worthless pile of fecal matter: Avatar is NOTHING BUT SPECIAL EFFECTS. Without it, it'd be a piece of horse excrement on par with the latest Boll flick. Pull your already deeply injected head out of Cameron's rectum. Idiot. share
Are you guys so short sighted that you think this movie is better then Avatar? really? How bout the fact that this got a 6.3, and Avatar got an 8.7...Not only is it LEAGUES ahead of Sky Captain, it's better acted, better directed, better financed, and inherently a better movie overall. If you bothered to watch any behind the scenes stuff you'd know that while a lot of it is CGI the characters that are the Na'Vi aren't just voice overs, they're in blue-suits with facial recognition cameras. So yes when you watch them you're actually watching the actors reactions, not some computer generated mobojumbo. Educate yourself and then you'll have a valid opinion.
shareAlthough "Avatar" did use motion recgnition, thus using the actual performances of the actors, "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" went one better. The actors were completely real. "Avatar" beats us over the head with the message that us humans are evil, greedy, rainforest destroyers, whereas "Sky Captain" doesn't preach at us.
And your argument about "Avatar" being better financed doesn't count. More money doesn't necessarily make a better movie.
SYWM. Dolt.
shareI am a big fan of “Sky Captain” but it is what it is. It is an enjoyable movie made in a very clever way on a very small budget. “Avatar” is also an enjoyable movie but it cost as much as it takes to run some countries for a year. Could “Sky Captain” have been better with “Avatar’” budget – possibly but it also may have become overblown and bloated.
I’m betting that in 5 years (or less) there are going to be a lot of people denying that they were ever raving fans of “Avatar" just like there are plenty of ex"Titanic" fans denying they ever watched that stinker.
Sky Captain didn't make a lot. But it wasn't a small budget film. It cost something around 70 million. Yes, less than a third of Avatar's shockingly high budget, but hardly small. Even these days I don't think you can call anything that cost more than 50 million 'low budget.'
That said, yes, I think Avatar will be like Titanic, The Phantom Menace, and Independence Day, later disparaged by the same people who sing its praises in the beginning.
I doubt my feelings on it will change, as like Independence Day and Titanic, I think it's a vacuous and boring film with an absolutely awful script. And while I can't say the effects were 'bad' I didn't find them especially good or interesting to look at.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sgOJTA8ndI
To tell the truth, I like "Independence Day", it's nothing special, but it's all right. I don't like "Titanic", though.
shareI like them both. They're both good movies. But if I wanted to watch one right now, it would be Avatar. However, I wish Sky Captain would've made more money, then possibly have a Sky2, but oh well.
shareWell, that's not so hard. Avatar only has good FX going for it, but is otherwise a bland and dull experience. At least this film is really fun.
share[deleted]
It's 5 years later, and I'm still trying to understand what people see in Avatar. Sky Captain, on the other hand, looks better and better with each passing year!
Knowledge is proud that it has learned so much
Wisdom is humble that it knows no more
[deleted]
[deleted]