Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Avatar

Dec 12, 2009#1

Chazwozel

I had my doubts about this movie, but it actually looks promising. The CGI looks amazing.

Dec 12, 2009#2

bhamv3

I'll definitely be watching it!

Apparently this is a labor of love for James Cameron?

Dec 12, 2009#3

Shawn

I'll go see it, but I wonder if it's destined to be one of the most expensive fails in cinema ever.

Dec 12, 2009#4

Hailey Knight

There's been all this negative about it for months, and now the reviews are coming in overwhelmingly positive.

I'm curious, though I still think the trailers look corny. But who knows?

Dec 12, 2009#5

North_Ranger

Giant, practically naked blue furry aliens.

Wow. Watchmen people, Japanese, furries and Internet sideboob hunters in one fell stroke.

Dec 12, 2009#6

ElJuski

Yeah I think this looks pretty, but miserable. Apparently the mineral that the humans are after is called Unobtanium.

Dec 12, 2009#7

CynicismKills

Cameron has wanted to make this movie since 1995. He had to wait for technology to catch up to what he wanted to do. It's the most expensive movie to come from Fox studios ever.

Dec 12, 2009#8

Deschain

I will be dressed in OPERATOR gear going 'Fuck yea humanity'. I will be watching the movie so I can see mankind rape some xenos scum. Fuck, it's not like they need the Unobtainium, they don't have starships. Instead they're going to be dicks about it and HERR DERR HURP DURP CAN'T HAVE IT EVIL HYOOMANS. Shit man, we'd trade you science for it, medicines, technology, civilization. It's like if Jesus came down again and said, "Hey guys, I just need some of those elements you never use. I'll teach you the secret to immortal life in exchange."

Dec 12, 2009#9

ElJuski

Deschain said:
I will be dressed in OPERATOR gear going 'Fuck yea humanity'. I will be watching the movie so I can see mankind rape some xenos scum. Fuck, it's not like they need the Unobtainium, they don't have starships. Instead they're going to be dicks about it and HERR DERR HURP DURP CAN'T HAVE IT EVIL HYOOMANS. Shit man, we'd trade you science for it, medicines, technology, civilization. It's like if Jesus came down again and said, "Hey guys, I just need some of those elements you never use. I'll teach you the secret to immortal life in exchange."

I hope you're being funny, yo, and not scary.

Dec 12, 2009#10

Rob King

It strikes me as an adult/sci-fi Fern Gulley. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Dec 12, 2009#11

Ravenpoe

The artificial hype being generated for this movie has me completly turned off. I was fine when fox started putting avatar commercials during every break. I was even fine with "this episode of bones brought to you by avatar!" But when a major plot point of that show turned into the characters camping outside a theatre to watch AVATAR, that's when I had to call it a day.

Dec 12, 2009#12

Espy

I had my doubts, but the reviews so far are just... jaw to the floor. So... I'm gonna give it the benefit of the doubt even if the story sounds rather cliche' (and my interest in yet another "look how evil humans are who want to destroy everything beautiful so they can drive cars, etc, etc is about... erm... ZERO).
Still, I have my tickets and want to be amazed.

Dec 12, 2009#13

The Lovely Boehner

dances with smurfs

Dec 12, 2009#14

North_Ranger

Giant, naked, dragon-riding furry smurfs.

Dec 12, 2009#15

ElJuski

Charlie Dont Surf said:
dances with smurfs

except the calvary are space marines that James Cameron gave nerds to drive into the ground twenty five years ago.

Dec 12, 2009#16

RealBigNuke

I don't have any problem with the 'humans are evil, killing the poor aliens blar blar' thing, even though it is so horribly beaten into the ground. If you remind people that they're insufferable dicks enough times in a day, they might stop being insufferable dicks. Well, probably not, but still.

Anyhow, I'm going to watch it just because of the MMO/video game themes that seem to be heavily integrated. And because ooh shiny. I doubt it's going to blow anyone's mind, though. I also really like the art direction they've taken with the aliens.

Dec 12, 2009#17

@Li3n

I'm gonna watch it because we just got our first IMAX theatre like a month ago and i went a few days ago to see a 35 min 3D documentary about sea life in it and it was brilliant. Seeing CGI porn in it is a must, and Avatar is coming there on the 18th...

Dec 12, 2009#18

Frankie Williamson

ElJuski said:
Yeah I think this looks pretty, but miserable. Apparently the mineral that the humans are after is called Unobtanium.

Isn't that what they used to build the vehicle in The Core?

Fuck, the name is a joke, why is it being used so often?

Dec 12, 2009#19

SpecialKO

I'll just wait until some friends of mine see it first.

The critics seem to love it, but the trailers really, really make me think I'll hate it, especially the smurfs.

Dec 12, 2009#20

Philosopher B.

ElJuski;314141][quote=Charlie Dont Surf said:
dances with smurfs

except the calvary are space marines that James Cameron gave nerds to drive into the ground twenty five years ago.[/QUOTE]

And, oh boy, this time they're rated PG-13!

Also, every time I see a trailer I start singing this:

Dec 13, 2009#21

Heavan

You know, I've stayed pretty neutral on Avatar so far, which means I'm not one of the 90000 people who hate it with all my being, so I'll probably see it anyway. But just as an outsider, I've never before seen a movie where so many people hate a film without having seen it. And this includes all the Twilight rage.

Dec 13, 2009#22

Deschain

I guess we're being dicks, but we have to be. Earth is dying and we need that substance. And I'll be damned if some blue furry freaks are going to stand between humanity and survival.

Dec 13, 2009#23

ElJuski

Heavan said:
You know, I've stayed pretty neutral on Avatar so far, which means I'm not one of the 90000 people who hate it with all my being, so I'll probably see it anyway. But just as an outsider, I've never before seen a movie where so many people hate a film without having seen it. And this includes all the Twilight rage.

Ehh, I wouldn't say hating with all my being...but I do have my standards for entertainment. This movie may surprise me, but it looks pretty tired. I wouldn't put it past giving it a shot.

The Twilight movies...well, I've heard and seen enough. And that stuff is just insipid. I'll watch the last movie in the series, though!

Dec 13, 2009#24

The Lovely Boehner

Deschain said:
I guess we're being dicks, but we have to be. Earth is dying and we need that substance. And I'll be damned if some blue furry freaks are going to stand between humanity and survival.

I'm of the mind that surviving through genocide and rape destroys your humanity.

Dec 13, 2009#25

ElJuski

Charlie Dont Surf;314665][quote=Deschain said:
I guess we're being dicks, but we have to be. Earth is dying and we need that substance. And I'll be damned if some blue furry freaks are going to stand between humanity and survival.

I'm of the mind that surviving through genocide and rape destroys your humanity.[/QUOTE]

That was the point I was getting at. If there was some sort of mutual symbiotic bond to create between the two races, hey, fantastic.

But I don't know. If the human race was at stake, I'd wonder what I would do or be for. There's only so much tut-tutting I can say when my family's lives aren't at stake.

BUT, I think I'll still stand behind the, "Genocide and Rape is a very awful thing."

Dec 13, 2009#26

Espy

Charlie Dont Surf;314665][quote=Deschain said:
I guess we're being dicks, but we have to be. Earth is dying and we need that substance. And I'll be damned if some blue furry freaks are going to stand between humanity and survival.

I'm of the mind that surviving through genocide and rape destroys your humanity.[/QUOTE]

Avatar has rape in it?

Damn. Cameron just got REAL.

Dec 13, 2009#27

The Lovely Boehner

Espy;314702][quote=Charlie Dont Surf;314665][quote=Deschain said:
I guess we're being dicks, but we have to be. Earth is dying and we need that substance. And I'll be damned if some blue furry freaks are going to stand between humanity and survival.

Dec 13, 2009#28

Espy

Charlie Dont Surf;314708][quote=Espy;314702][quote=Charlie Dont Surf;314665][quote=Deschain said:
I guess we're being dicks, but we have to be. Earth is dying and we need that substance. And I'll be damned if some blue furry freaks are going to stand between humanity and survival.

Dec 13, 2009#29

The Lovely Boehner

Espy;314712][quote=Charlie Dont Surf;314708][quote=Espy;314702][quote=Charlie Dont Surf;314665][quote=Deschain said:
I guess we're being dicks, but we have to be. Earth is dying and we need that substance. And I'll be damned if some blue furry freaks are going to stand between humanity and survival.

Dec 13, 2009#30

Espy

Charlie Dont Surf;314722][quote=Espy;314712][quote=Charlie Dont Surf;314708][quote=Espy;314702][quote=Charlie Dont Surf;314665][quote=Deschain said:
I guess we're being dicks, but we have to be. Earth is dying and we need that substance. And I'll be damned if some blue furry freaks are going to stand between humanity and survival.

I'm of the mind that surviving through genocide and rape destroys your humanity.[/QUOTE]

Avatar has rape in it?

Damn. Cameron just got REAL.[/QUOTE]

That was referring to deschain's terrifying post.[/QUOTE]

So it doesn't have rape in it? I thought it was gonna go all Hounddog on us.[/QUOTE]

Based on the PG-13, I'm gonna go ahead and venture no.[/QUOTE]

So wait, you are saying you can't have rape in a PG-13? Don't have a lot of faith in James Cameron being able to give the public all the PG-13 rape they want do you?

Dec 13, 2009#31

ElJuski

Well, we don't know much about the alien race, whose culture may be based in angry (yet censored for the audience) rape.

Makes sense then, that the alien race's name is the Rapeoleo's.

Dec 13, 2009#32

Espy

ElJuski said:
Well, we don't know much about the alien race, whose culture may be based in angry (yet censored for the audience) rape.

Makes sense then, that the alien race's name is the Rapeoleo's.

See that's the kind of brilliance only James Cameron could come up with.

Dec 13, 2009#33

Deschain

If that's your logic Charlie, we never had any to begin with.

Dec 13, 2009#34

The Lovely Boehner

Deschain said:
If that's your logic Charlie, we never had any to begin with.

well, we haven't collectively enslaved whole continents and races of people for like a hundred years or so, that's a start

Dec 13, 2009#35

Deschain

Jews would like to have a word with you.
Armenians would like to have a word with you.
Cambodia would like to have a word with you.
China would like to have a word with you.
Vietnam would like to have a word with you.
The Soviet Union would like to have a word with you.

Africa would like to have a word with you.
I'm pretty sure what we've done in the 20th century far outstrips anything in our previous history.

Also, we're not fighting the Na'vi because 'HURR DURR BLUE IS EVIL KILL ON SIGHT' it's because 'We need these minerals, they are trying to fight us for it. Therefore we must eliminate them.'

Dec 13, 2009#36

Kitty Sinatra

Deschain said:
Jews would like to have a word with you.
Armenians would like to have a word with you.
Cambodia would like to have a word with you.
China would like to have a word with you.
Vietnam would like to have a word with you.
The Soviet Union would like to have a word with you.

Africa would like to have a word with you.

Africa would really prefer food.

Dec 13, 2009#37

ElJuski

A good portion of my relatives died in Lithuania because the Communists had to have the land and resources in Lithuania.

God bless those commies.

Dec 14, 2009#38

Deschain

I lost 10 million countrymen in Nanjing because the Japanese wanted Asia for Asians. This is a movie. Things are pretty much what they say they are.

Dec 14, 2009#39

Joe Johnson

Isn't the substance just worth a lot of money? Not "vital to humanity's survival"?

Also, I'm really hoping that unobtainium is just a joke word that the marines use for the substance.

Dec 14, 2009#40

@Li3n

Movie's not out yet (at least not here, it's coming on the 18th), so we don't know.

Dec 14, 2009#41

Deschain

The NYT said something about 'element needed for a dying Earth' which I took to assume it powered vital infrastructure or technology.

If it's just worth a lot of money, then the humans are just being dicks I guess. And it really is just a space furry Ferngully.

Dec 14, 2009#42

ElJuski

Deschain said:
I lost 10 million countrymen in Nanjing because the Japanese wanted Asia for Asians. This is a movie. Things are pretty much what they say they are.

Wait, what?

/facepalm

Dec 14, 2009#43

strawman

Joe Johnson said:
we haven't really had any "real world" examples of a country going to war over resources that are necessary for their very survival. Wheras in the movie, if they really ARE fighting for their survival

Depends on your definition of survival. If we suddenly had all imports of oil to the US completely and utterly stopped, it would destroy our economy and standard of living for quite some time, and make us very militarily vulnerable in the long run since our military machine eats oil.

It can still be a "fight for survival" and very much hit the trope, "Humanity is rotten to its core."

Also, I hope one of the ships has the bumper sticker:
--------------------------------------------------
EARTH FIRST
(We'll strip mine the other planets later)
--------------------------------------------------

Dec 14, 2009#44

Twitch

ElJuski;315062][quote=Deschain said:
I lost 10 million countrymen in Nanjing because the Japanese wanted Asia for Asians. This is a movie. Things are pretty much what they say they are.

Wait, what?

/facepalm[/QUOTE]
Dude, he's trolling you. Look at his posts, they're all like this.

Dec 14, 2009#45

ElJuski

sonofabitch

Dec 14, 2009#46

Rob King

I love how Orson Scott Card is the trolling go-to these days. The only time I think I've ever been successfully trolled here, the subject was also Orson Scott Card.

Dec 14, 2009#47

Deschain

Terribly sorry about the trolling, didn't mean to go this far off topic.

I thought the point of unobtainium was that it basically was going to save Earth. If it's not and they just want it because it's worth lots of money, then the humans are just a bunch of dicks. A cool bunch of dicks with cool weaponry and guns, but yea, they probably shouldn't be doing what they're doing.

Dec 17, 2009#48

figmentPez

DRM Flub Prevented 3D Showings of Avatar In Germany

When will Hollywood learn that DRM is a pain that should not be as restrictive as it is.

Dec 17, 2009#49

Jay

I'm IMAXing this shit.

Dec 17, 2009#50

Jake

I haven't been to the theater in over a year, but I've got IMAX tickets to this bitch.

Dec 17, 2009#51

drawn_inward

Cool! The last airbender finally will get the treatment it deserves!! WOO-HOO!!

Dec 17, 2009#52

strawman

drawn_inward said:
Cool! The last airbender finally will get the treatment it deserves!! WOO-HOO!!

LOL

Dec 18, 2009#53

TwoBit

Dec 18, 2009#54

@Li3n

Deschain said:
I thought the point of unobtainium was that it basically was going to save Earth. If it's not and they just want it because it's worth lots of money, then the humans are just a bunch of dicks. A cool bunch of dicks with cool weaponry and guns, but yea, they probably shouldn't be doing what they're doing.

one of the reviews mentions a evil business guy and a clear separation between evil and good individuals, so i guess it's just the money.

Dec 18, 2009#55

Tinwhistler

TwoBit said:

I'm guessing most of the folks here are too young to know what the hell this is from. I was only 8 when it came out.

Dec 18, 2009#56

Chazwozel

I thought the whole movie was supposed to be an giant allegory towards the Europeans conquering the Americas from the indigenous peoples?

Dec 18, 2009#57

Frankie Williamson

Tinwhistler;317463][quote=TwoBit said:

I'm guessing most of the folks here are too young to know what the hell this is from. I was only 8 when it came out.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I never saw it till I was older, but I remember it being on video in the kids section in my hometown's video store and me always wanting to rent it but my dad always giving me the, "That movie is not for kids." speech.

Dec 18, 2009#58

@Li3n

Chazwozel said:
I thought the whole movie was supposed to be an giant allegory towards the Europeans conquering the Americas from the indigenous peoples?

But with furries instead of natives...

Dec 18, 2009#59

strawman

@Li3n;317478][quote=Chazwozel said:
I thought the whole movie was supposed to be an giant allegory towards the Europeans conquering the Americas from the indigenous peoples?

But with furries instead of natives...[/QUOTE]

Wait - are you saying the Native Americans weren't furries?!

Mind=blown.

Dec 18, 2009#60

The Lovely Boehner

I'm no expert, but maybe we should watch the movie before we start nitpicking over what it means

Dec 18, 2009#61

sixpackshaker

Why should you change now?

Dec 18, 2009#62

The Lovely Boehner

I watched Transformers 2 just to nitpick it justifiably

Dec 18, 2009#63

Snuffleupagus

Saw it this morning at 12:01am. Was pretty decent. I'd probably give it a 7/10 but it would probably be higher if the theatre had left the heat on and it hadn't been 40 degrees in there.

I recommend it, worth the 10 bucks.

Dec 18, 2009#64

@Li3n

stienman;317492][quote=@Li3n;317478][quote=Chazwozel said:
I thought the whole movie was supposed to be an giant allegory towards the Europeans conquering the Americas from the indigenous peoples?

But with furries instead of natives...[/quote]

Wait - are you saying the Native Americans weren't furries?!

Mind=blown.[/QUOTE]

Feathers are not fur... duh.

Dec 18, 2009#65

strawman

@Li3n;317576][quote=stienman;317492][quote=@Li3n;317478][quote=Chazwozel said:
I thought the whole movie was supposed to be an giant allegory towards the Europeans conquering the Americas from the indigenous peoples?

But with furries instead of natives...[/quote]

Wait - are you saying the Native Americans weren't furries?!

Mind=blown.[/quote]

Feathers are not fur... duh.[/QUOTE]

lol

Dec 18, 2009#66

TwoBit

I just came back from seeing it. The 3D effects were jaw-droppingly awesome. The script could have used a bit of work, though. There were several plot elements I saw coming from a mile away.

But when all was said and done, it was an OK film. Not a great film, but worth seeing.

I think.

Dec 19, 2009#67

HowDroll

I thought this film was AWESOME. Predictable at times, yeah, but holy shit did it rock my face off.

Dec 19, 2009#68

Denbrought

The movie had great effects, but the plot was starship troopers with furries and a sad ending. Plus, the fuck? Sending the humans back home? We're going to be back in 6 years with NUKES.

Also haeted the anti-Imperium overtones.

So I was bored and I had nothing better do this last hour, so here's a quick 'fic.

Edit: Oh shit, there may be spoilers inside of here. Not sure how a DERIVATIVE work couldn't have them, but there ya go. Gods I hate fanfiction, I was just bored enough to write whatever came to my head ~_~

Extract from: Imperial History XXXII, a guide to the 33rd Millenium
History of the Settlement of 0.45.29845-Pandora
Written by Adeptus Historitor G. Martinusson

================================================
FOR THE GLORY OF THE HALLOWED GOD-EMPEROR OF TERRA
================================================

0.45.29845-Pandora (hereafter referred to as Pandora) is a planet in the Segmentum Solar that was noticed on 095.M32 by the Cameron Imperial Fleet, that was mapping the zone after noticing that the astral records weren't up to date.

The planet was described as seeming habitable and probably resourceful. The atmosphere wasn't breathable without rebreathers, but other than that no obvious hazards were observed.The planet was classified as Feral and included on the 908th Colonial Candidate List.

The 908th list reached exploration stage on 148.M32, and a small Imperial Guard contingent (circa 2000 troops from the Tharnian 101st) was sent to the planet, along with scientists, workers and all the necessities to form a small outpost of around 2500 inhabitants.

Initial resistance was moderate, as expected from an unexplored world. The world's fauna was reported "noisy." The settlement was established without much trouble and mapping and probing of the planet started.

The world's jungle was thick and teeming with various species, mostly hostile. Various edible crops were discovered (amongst them, the fruit tree CZ5312-Praagh, standard crop in many systems nowadays).

A month into the colonization, the scientist team dedicated to geoprobing made the most remarkable discovery: deposits of adamantium and promethium were present in the planet. The promethium was sparse, but there seemed to be large quantities of adamantium ready to mine under the surface.

A request for a small quantity of mining equipment was made a week later, citing a need to evaluate the purity of the materials encountered before making further decisions.

At some point between ordering the mining equipment and receiving it, a xenos race was encountered on the planet. The little data that has survived declassified indicates that they were humanoid, coloured blue, and that they were at a technologically primitive stage (their most advanced weapons seemed to be bows and poisoned arrows). A surviving personal journal written by an Imperial Colonel (unnamed) describes them as "furry inbred spear-chucking Tau scum."

The xenos were aggressive and repeatedly attacked the outpost. The I.G. repealed them every time, surprisingly suffering losses. Records indicate that the xenos were physically superior at close combat and that their arrows could penetrate flak armour and layers of plasteel. It is widely accepted in the Historitor community that the xenos probably used adamantium to manufacture their blades and arrowheads.

One of the exploration leaders, unnamed, decided to put a part of the scientist workforce to investigate the xenos and--if possible, befriend them. Why he wasn't executed for treason and this travesty stopped is unknown to us. Possibly weak leadership, as there were no Commissars on site.

Anyhow. The scientists apparently befriended the xenos and established some kind of relationship with them, the details are unknown.

During the study of the xenos, it was discovered that the nearest settlement of them was directly on top of the biggest deposit in the zone. It was of the greatest importance to drive them out.

On 154.M32, the mining equipment arrived along with some refreshment troops and various workers, bringing the I.G. numbers back to 2000 or so.

3 months later, and seeing that the diplomatic route had been (logically) fruitless, the terraforming and mining tools were sent, along with a contingent of Guard to neutralize any hostiles. The details are hazy, but due to poor planning and some traitor scientists, the operation was a failure.

It was subsequently decided to firebomb the xenos settlement. The operation was a success, and they were driven out deep into the jungle.

However, the xenos seemed to have called out to all the nearest tribes of their kind. Shortly after the operation, a force of a reported size of 2000 xenos was amassed. They were said to be lead by one of the traitor scientists.

The outpost's commander decided to firebomb the xenos' new settlement (reasons are unclear), and sent all his troops in a spearhead attack into unknown territory, with little tactical planning.

Predictably, they walked into an ambush. Though valiant and racially superior, the Guards were killed by the savage xenos. Other races, up to then considered feral, were reported to have allied with them, reason why almost all of the planet's wildlife was later classified as abhorrent.

After decimating the Imperial ranks, the xenos (for reasons unbeknownst to this humble historian) decided to put the surviving Guards and civilians in the outpost's ships and order them out of the planet.

When the ships arrived to allied territory and the Administorum and Imperial Guard leadership were put up to date, a few resolutions were taken.

- All the surviving Guard were given the executed for surrendering alive.
- All the surviving scientists were interrogated; those found to be part of the diplomatic efforts were executed.
- Most of the surviving workers were made into servos to avoid them spreading rumours bad for morale.
- The planet was re-evaluated to Death world but due to its resources targeted for terraformation with extreme prejudice.

In consequence with the last item a small Imperial Fleet with a few hundred thousands of I.G., as well as two chapters of Ultramarines and a few squads of Titans, were sent to the planet.

The surface was divided in sectors and bombed from orbit using low-impact projectiles (to avoid damaging the resources underneath). Afterwards it was just matter of time until the planet was under control.

In 180.M32 the planet was declared free of xenos taint, and most other wildlife. Various additional deposits of adamantium of varying size were detected. The planet's heavy resource extraction period started then.

In 199.M32 the planet was re-classified as a Hive World and various Hives were settled around the globe.

For the next few centuries, the planet provided much needed adamantium for use by the Adeptus Mechanicum to make various ship parts, marine armour and weapons.

It also exported food and water, until the atmosphere became altogether too noxious with gases derived from mining operations.

Early in the 39th Millenium, the planet was declared Ghost World and its population exported to various new Hives around the Imperium.

Details about Pandora's Imperial History (including two hive wars and it's Imperial Guard units and their involvement in various campaigns) please consult the excellent record "Pandora: An ode to glory" by G. Martinusson.

An essay collection on how this happening illustrates the dangers of xenos subversion, and how it influenced the Pandorian Guard's policy on xeno encounter (their murderous zeal renowned amongst the Guard) can be found under the title of "Pandora's Settlement: Xenos and Diplomacy, Oil and Water" by G. Martinusson et al.

================================================
ASTRA IMPERATOR GLORIAM : VICTORIUM AUT MORTIS
================================================

If you just read through that, you're weird.

Dec 19, 2009#69

Hailey Knight

Geek.

Dec 19, 2009#70

Iaculus

escushion said:
Geek.

Good grief, if he's a geek, then what am I?

(indicates signature).

Nice fic, Den.

Dec 19, 2009#71

fade

I watched Cameron's interview on Charlie Rose. He was so full of himself, but that's no surprise. Like Lucas, he claimed he had vietnam, not iraq in mind when he wrote this. I'm starting to think that's the go-to excuse when the heat comes on. All in all, I got little out of the interview other than Cameron himself saying that for the second time he accidentally made a chick flick. That, and he seemed to be really concerned with making an established universe a la Tolkein and Lucas.

I have to admit, the first time I saw a trailer, I could've sworn I'd seen this movie before. The plot just seemed same-old, same-old, been there done that. In fact, it reminded me strongly of like 85% of all saturday morning cartoons. Even the ships and such felt rehashed and generic. The Na'vi are generic and alien in the loosest sense. I mean they're essentially blue humans. We're always up against earth-mother worshipping stoics. So tired of it. And then there's the physical disadvantage of humans. Once again, we suck physically. I mean, are there any aliens that are physically "inferior" to us out there?

Dec 19, 2009#72

The Lovely Boehner

yo thanks for the spoilers and shitty fan fiction

Dec 19, 2009#73

Denbrought

fade said:
And then there's the physical disadvantage of humans. Once again, we suck physically. I mean, are there any aliens that are physically "inferior" to us out there?

Humans as they are, or as I see them, are intertwined with their technological level on a very deep sense. I can't see a 21st century american and an 18th century one the same way, even if physically they are, one is superior to the other. Our sheer racial knowledge and power, the technological pool of our community, is what would make us superior to all these 'superhuman' aliens. Just because it isn't carried in our DNA it doesn't mean it's part of us ~_~

Also, it's part of the balancing theme of fiction. Physically inferior aliens (E.T. like things, there's plenty of them in Parallel Universes and assorted fiction) are normally technologically superior (flying saucers and whatnot). The converse is also true. That's because in order for humanity to conflict with them, there need to be strengths and weaknesses on both sides.

However, when we encounter aliens that are both physically superior *and* technologically superior, it's normally one of those fictions that feel overtly false, because Mary Sue. That is also why no race that physically superior to us (or any race, really) should get knowledge from us. Teaching them English and giving them medicines... What were they thinking?

In conclusion: they're using bows, we have gunpowder and extra-planetary travel. I don't care if they win at basketball.

... Man I would have loved hanging out in the public plaza back during the various imperialist eras.

Dec 19, 2009#74

ElJuski

Denbrought said:
Also, it's part of the balancing theme of fiction. Physically inferior aliens (E.T. like things, there's plenty of them in Parallel Universes and assorted fiction) are normally technologically superior (flying saucers and whatnot). The converse is also true. That's because in order for humanity to conflict with them, there need to be strengths and weaknesses on both sides.

However, when we encounter aliens that are both physically superior *and* technologically superior, it's normally one of those fictions that feel overtly false, because Mary Sue.

There are tons of movies, books, etc where what you said is SO not true.

Dec 19, 2009#75

KCWM

yeah, not impressed with the "bit of 'fic". Way to spoiler a movie that hasn't even been out for 48 hours, asshole. I'm normally all for spoilers if a reasonable amount of time has passed, but this isn't reasonable. You're an ass for posting it and whoever wrote it needs to get another fucking hobby, because even as a recap, that sucks the biggest balls. I've read better Twilight "fic" than that.

Dec 19, 2009#76

Denbrought

ElJuski;318217][quote=Denbrought said:
Also, it's part of the balancing theme of fiction. Physically inferior aliens (E.T. like things, there's plenty of them in Parallel Universes and assorted fiction) are normally technologically superior (flying saucers and whatnot). The converse is also true. That's because in order for humanity to conflict with them, there need to be strengths and weaknesses on both sides.

However, when we encounter aliens that are both physically superior *and* technologically superior, it's normally one of those fictions that feel overtly false, because Mary Sue.

There are tons of movies, books, etc where what you said is SO not true.[/QUOTE]

Idk, it's the impression I've gotten from all I've read. I'm trying to think of examples to the contrary but... :<

Ah shit, it just occured to me. Ewoks. But then again SW universe is humorous, where stormtroopers can't kill a bunch of furry abortions.

Regardless: we are humans and they're not. What else?

---------- Post added at 11:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:04 PM ----------

KCWM said:
yeah, not impressed with the "bit of 'fic". Way to spoiler a movie that hasn't even been out for 48 hours, asshole. I'm normally all for spoilers if a reasonable amount of time has passed, but this isn't reasonable. You're an ass for posting it and whoever wrote it needs to get another fucking hobby, because even as a recap, that sucks the biggest balls. I've read better Twilight "fic" than that.

Yeah, writing is not my hobby. Matter of fact, that's the first piece of fiction I've written voluntarily in my life. There's a reason why I don't write

One rule I do recall is that you're supposed to write fic about shit you like, but I hated Avatar argumentally soooooo

Snape kills Dumbledore, too.

Dec 19, 2009#77

strawman

Denbrought said:
Snape kills Dumbledore, too.

No, no, no. NO.

Snape killed Trinity with rosebud.

Dec 20, 2009#78

RocketGirl

I did my review on YouTube:

Dec 20, 2009#79

Deschain

It is a shame those resources prevented an Exterminatus.

There are tons of movies, books, etc where what you said is SO not true.

Yes, but in many of those human 'guts' and 'courage' or 'Mary Sues' seem to make for that. Cue Halo.

Dec 20, 2009#80

Cajungal

Who reads a fanfic of something they haven't seen yet (if they plan to see it, that is)?

Dec 20, 2009#81

North_Ranger

Denbrought said:
... Man I would have loved hanging out in the public plaza back during the various imperialist eras.

Postcolonial studies and literature, man.

Said, Edward: Orientalism
Mannoni, Octave: Prospero & Caliban
Fanon, Frantz: Wretched of the Earth and Black Skin, White Masks
Lamming, George: Pleasures of Exile

Fiction:
Achebe, Chinua. Things Fall Apart
Rhys, Jean. Wide Sargasso Sea
Warner, Marina. Indigo

If you have the time...

Dec 20, 2009#82

The Lovely Boehner

Cajungal said:
Who reads a fanfic of something they haven't seen yet (if they plan to see it, that is)?

The spoiler was in the first line or two of the post. I assumed the fanfic was shitty because all fanfic is shitty

Dec 20, 2009#83

Tinwhistler

You had me at "who reads a fanfic?"

Dec 20, 2009#84

Iaculus

Charlie Dont Surf;318415][quote=Cajungal said:
Who reads a fanfic of something they haven't seen yet (if they plan to see it, that is)?

Dec 20, 2009#85

fade

I guess I don't need to spoiler the following, but:

I saw it yesterday. It was good and entertaining, but as I suspected highly derivative. Cameron more or less rented Fern Gully and replaced a shrinking spell with an avatar. I mean they really hammered the whole "look! Biofeedback is literally real here!" thing into the ground. The characters were all pretty cookie cutter. The female lead and Tsu'Tey were straight from about a billion other films. Not to mention, I felt they missed a ton of good dialogue opportunities. Scientists were off-the-shelf elitist jerks (most I know aren't -- but maybe that's just geologists), and marines were kill-happy unfeeling jerks. Especially the hard-boiled CO. Because of the preformed nature of the characters, I had a difficult time connecting with or liking any of them, with the possible exception of Weaver's character (who looked pretty hot as an avatar). If I had to pick a word to describe Avatar, it would be generic. Not bad, but not spectacular either. Worth the ticket, but probably not worth a re-watch.

Dec 20, 2009#86

RocketGirl

fade said:
...and marines were kill-happy unfeeling jerks. Especially the hard-boiled CO.

I always wonder about this trope, these think-with-your-guns types, the ones who are just itching for any excuse to unleash their hardware.

One of my favorite book series--The Vorkosigan Saga by Lois McMaster Bujold--involves mercenaries for a fair amount of it, and the point is often hammered home just how much these mercs would rather not fight if they can possibly avoid it. The question is often asked--well, okay, shouted--"Do you prefer frontal assaults, soldier?" to which the expected answer is, "No, sir!"
These folks want to fight smart, not hard.

But it's never like that in the movies. In the movies, they're ALWAYS the if-I-can-win-by-blowing-it-up-then-I-will types. Whassup wi' dat?

Dec 20, 2009#87

ElJuski

Iaculus;318434][quote=Charlie Dont Surf;318415][quote=Cajungal said:
Who reads a fanfic of something they haven't seen yet (if they plan to see it, that is)?

The spoiler was in the first line or two of the post. I assumed the fanfic was shitty because all fanfic is shitty[/QUOTE]

I disagree.

90% (or more) of fanfic is absolute crap, for the same reason that 90% (or more) of all web-based fiction (including webcomics) is crap; there is no publishing process to weed out the worst of it before it becomes easily-accessible by the general public. That does not mean, though, that good fanfiction is an utter impossibility, in the same way that good webcomics are not an impossibility.

Whilst I can't speak for the quality of my own work, I wouldn't have started writing it if I didn't believe that.[/QUOTE]

Fanfiction is mainly imitation. People have the bones of something already laid out, and it just requires them to not color outside of the lines. Which people rarely do, since many people don't have the technical skill or creative savvy to do much more than make an uncanny imitation of the piece in general.

What compounds this problem is that there is a large section of fantasy and science fiction which is shitty writing already.

Dec 20, 2009#88

RocketGirl

ElJuski said:
Fanfiction is mainly imitation.

...and wish fulfillment.

From "I wish they would do/encounter X," to "I wish A and B would fuck each other," or possibly, "I wish they hadn't done Y," as well as just plain, "What if Z?", a lot of fan fic is just a big ol' game of Pretend™ someone plays with themselves, then puts it in a form for other net nerds to complain about...

I did my time in the Star Wars fan film scene; I've been there, done that, got the forum ban.

Dec 20, 2009#89

Iaculus

ElJuski;318471][quote=Iaculus;318434][quote=Charlie Dont Surf;318415][quote=Cajungal said:
Who reads a fanfic of something they haven't seen yet (if they plan to see it, that is)?

The spoiler was in the first line or two of the post. I assumed the fanfic was shitty because all fanfic is shitty[/quote]

I disagree.

90% (or more) of fanfic is absolute crap, for the same reason that 90% (or more) of all web-based fiction (including webcomics) is crap; there is no publishing process to weed out the worst of it before it becomes easily-accessible by the general public. That does not mean, though, that good fanfiction is an utter impossibility, in the same way that good webcomics are not an impossibility.

Whilst I can't speak for the quality of my own work, I wouldn't have started writing it if I didn't believe that.[/quote]

Fanfiction is mainly imitation. People have the bones of something already laid out, and it just requires them to not color outside of the lines. Which people rarely do, since many people don't have the technical skill or creative savvy to do much more than make an uncanny imitation of the piece in general.

What compounds this problem is that there is a large section of fantasy and science fiction which is shitty writing already.[/QUOTE]

True... though given the sheer amount of ripping off one encounters in internet fiction (hell-ooo Penny Arcade clone #3487!), the honesty of fanfic is often rather refreshing. When approached in the right way (again, note Sturgeon's Law), it's an interesting self-imposed challenge to write a decent, original story within the constraints of another person's setting, and for the readers, it's a good way to explore possibilities either left unexplored or horribly screwed up by the canon writers. Speaking of shitty writing in canon, there is always the rare but welcome fic that successfully deconstructs or improves upon the dodginess of an existing text... such as this rather disturbing little Twilight fic.

The difference between good fanfic and bad fanfic, to me, is often the same as the difference betwen a good or bad additional episode in a series - it's just that due to the lack of budget/quality control/whatever, it's easier to find bad than good.

Dec 20, 2009#90

ElJuski

And to me, the similarity between all fanfic and "additional" episodes in a series, is that they're all unneccessary.

BUT, I won't piss on your parade if you find doing that stuff fun. I just won't ever read it

Dec 20, 2009#91

Chippy

HowDroll said:
I thought this film was AWESOME. Predictable at times, yeah, but holy shit did it rock my face off.

Just saw it last night. Pretty much this.

Dec 20, 2009#92

Iaculus

ElJuski said:
And to me, the similarity between all fanfic and "additional" episodes in a series, is that they're all unneccessary.

BUT, I won't piss on your parade if you find doing that stuff fun. I just won't ever read it

Depends on the nature of the series. In a story with a tight, defined arc? Hell, yes. In that case, the best option for a ficcer is generally "what if things happened differently?". What if, for instance, the cast of the Star Wars prequels (on both sides) had been blessed with functioning brains? Often, you may come out of a story feeling "This would have been so much better if X had happened". Fanfiction writers take that and run with it.

The pitfalls are obvious - characters getting turned into invincible Mary Sues and all conflict getting leeched from the story is the most common. Nevertheless, if the writer has the imagination for it, they can overcome these issues, especially if they consider all the implications of the change they're making, good as well as bad. Done right, they can send the story spiralling off in new, unexpected, and interesting directions. If they're really lucky, they can even exceed the source material (not that that's always hard with these sorts of things).

For more episodic series, though? It's debatable. If the original doesn't focus much on plot (due to, say, being a slice-of-life show or focusing on a setting rather than a story), then ficcers basically have a sandbox to play around in. That's where stuff like the continuations, the 'extra episodes', and the fleshings-out come in. As always, note Sturgeon's Law.

No piece of fiction is 'necessary' per se - what matters is whether it's a good, interesting read.

Dec 20, 2009#93

ElJuski

No, no piece of fiction is 'necessary', but! Some are more unneccesary than others.

I really would rather spend my time reading other bouts of great fiction rather than middling about a so-so universe like Star Wars.

BUT, again, at this point we're beginning to argue personal preference that goes beyond the aesthetic.

Dec 20, 2009#94

Iaculus

ElJuski said:
No, no piece of fiction is 'necessary', but! Some are more unneccesary than others.

I really would rather spend my time reading other bouts of great fiction rather than middling about a so-so universe like Star Wars.

BUT, again, at this point we're beginning to argue personal preference that goes beyond the aesthetic.

True, but it provides a nice distraction when you're short on budget and a long way from a book store (holds up student card), and from a writer's perspective, seeing all the different possibilities on offer and their varying qualities can teach you a lot about the medium.

Some of it may not be anything you wanted to know in the first place, though...

Dec 20, 2009#95

ElJuski

I'm a student, too, and just as broke. They're called libraries, man. And as for learning about the medium, I can learn about writing from a ton of different authors. There's no real rationale for reading fan fiction besides wanting to.

Dec 20, 2009#96

Cajungal

Tinwhistler said:
You had me at "who reads a fanfic?"

Amen, brother.

Dec 20, 2009#97

Iaculus

ElJuski said:
I'm a student, too, and just as broke. They're called libraries, man. And as for learning about the medium, I can learn about writing from a ton of different authors. There's no real rationale for reading fan fiction besides wanting to.

Medical inability to drive plus ridiculously high taxi fares rather limits my options around here, library-wise. Also, fanfic (at its best, anyway) offers slightly different things from original work - showing how a bad idea can become good, or the smallest details can plausibly alter a story in the largest ways. Half the fun is seeing a batshit insane story concept pulled off well, and whilst I am aware that this also occurs in original work - hello, Slaughterhouse Five - the insanity is usually of a different flavour.

For the record, yes, I do also read original fiction, and plenty of it. It's just that it's hard to get all literary classics, all the time (not every author is a Vonnegut or a Steinbeck), and for the middle-of-the-road, fun-but-nothing-special stuff, some of the best fanfiction actually provides a pretty good substitute. You just have to know where to find it.

Oh, and just a a pedantic point, some fanfiction has made it into the realms of literature - Paradise Lost, for instance. It's just that even I admit finding something like that on fanfiction.net is pretty damned unlikely.

Dec 20, 2009#98

edzepp

I saw it on Sunday. It was a good time, but it wasn't even the least bit original. The performance capture and effects are definitely the best in their class though. My mother (who I went to see it with) apparently couldn't quite tell that the Navi were CGI.

Dec 20, 2009#99

twitchmoss

so, finally saw it. my thoughts? CGI was fantastic, plot was ...not. how is this different from every other review?

i finish it by playing the spoons. with my teeth.

*plays i've got a brand new combine harvester*

Dec 20, 2009#100

TwoBit

twitchmoss said:
CGI was fantastic, plot was ...not.

Seems like 90% of the reviews of Avatar can be boiled down to basically this sentence.

Dec 20, 2009#101

strawman

TwoBit;318644][quote=twitchmoss said:
CGI was fantastic, plot was ...not.

Seems like 90% of the reviews of Avatar can be boiled down to basically this sentence.[/QUOTE]

Which only makes sense. You only do one new/original thing in a test movie that requires such a huge budget - you don't also go out on a limb with the script.

Pick a safe script that will guaranteed get your money back and then some, and since the movie paid for a lot of the capital skills and equipment for the tech stuff, it will be cheaper next time, and you can go out a bit more towards the edge.

Dec 20, 2009#102

SpecialKO

I can go with the plot being unremarkable, but is it watchable?

All the trailers I've seen make the Dances with Smurfs stuff seem really cringe-inducing.

Dec 20, 2009#103

strawman

TeKeo said:
Smurfs stuff seem really cringe-inducing.

THEY'RE NOT SMURFS!!!!

They're blue creatures who live in harmony with the environment... and... try to... uh... foil the plot of the mean human that attacks them.... and... uh...

STUPID SMURFS!

Dec 21, 2009#104

SpecialKO

Hey, if James Cameronreally wanted me to see this movie, the human military unit would have a ridiculous name whose acronym would spell G.A.R.G.A.M.E.L.

Dec 21, 2009#105

Rob King

TeKeo said:
Hey, if James Cameronreally wanted me to see this movie, the human military unit would have a ridiculous name whose acronym would spell G.A.R.G.A.M.E.L.

Grand Army of Rarely Granted Arms, Mainly for Eliminating Lifeforms

Yeah, I'm not very good at backronyming.

Dec 21, 2009#106

Telephius

Seeing it in 3d was pretty nice

One thing I liked about the Avatars was that since they had been merged with human DNA they had five digits per appendage instead of the four the Na'Vi I think they were called had. IIRC.

Dec 21, 2009#107

Soliloquy

Well, I just saw Avatar on Saturday, and I came out a bit... confused.

I'm pretty picky when it comes to movies. I've always fancied myself a "plot guy," who only likes films whose stories are at least somewhat original. And the plot of Avatar was almost literally a copy and paste of your standard Dances With Wolves-style movie.

I also always have thought that I was anti-cgi. I never find myself impressed by the flashy maneuvers and explosions that are generated entirely in a computer. And Avatar is so full of CGI that I wouldn't be surprised to discover that they only used about half an hour of actual movie footage in the film.

And yet... I loved the hell out of Avatar. I found myself enjoying it in a way I hadn't enjoyed a movie since I was a little kid who only vaguely knew that plots had a beginning, middle, and end. The cynical movie snob in me that wanted to complain that I saw every major plot point coming from a mile away was overwhelmingly silenced by how completely mesmerized I was at the world Cameron had created. It reminded me of seeing the beginning of Jurassic Park, or of the first time I saw Fellowship of the Ring.

When I left the theater, I realized that the standard, predictable plot was really nothing but a frame that Cameron used to show off the magnificently original world that he had cooked up in his brain.

And you'd damn well better believe that it's a world worth seeing.

Dec 21, 2009#108

@Li3n

Nothing wrong with GCI porn as long as it doesn't claim to be more.

Dec 21, 2009#109

Soliloquy

@Li3n said:
Nothing wrong with GCI porn as long as it doesn't claim to be more.

Well, it's not just that it was amazing CGI... there were some amazing and creative ideas for what makes up the world of Pandora.

Dec 21, 2009#110

fade

Really? I didn't think so at all. It was trees, dinosaurs, and skinless dogs. Also, if there was enough magnetic flux to support floating mountains, then it would be doing a lot more than messing up instruments.

Dec 21, 2009#111

@Li3n

Soliloquy;318756][quote=@Li3n said:
Nothing wrong with GCI porn as long as it doesn't claim to be more.

Well, it's not just that it was amazing CGI... there were some amazing and creative ideas for what makes up the world of Pandora.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, great ideas for GCI...

Dec 21, 2009#112

RocketGirl

Soliloquy said:
I also always have thought that I was anti-cgi. I never find myself impressed by the flashy maneuvers and explosions that are generated entirely in a computer.

I always twitch when I hear something like this. As someone who DOES CGI, it often amazes me how little other folks actually KNOW about computer animation, and the knee-jerk reaction to it. Not saying that's what your aversion is, but, dammit, you hit a trigger of mine.

I remember a friend of mine was kvetching about that while we were watching Attack of the Clones...she was all, "Ugh, I hate how much CGI they use these days! It looks so fake!"
And I was like, "Really?" and paused it on a scene on Geonosis. I asked her, "Awright, which bits of this scene do you think are CGI?"
She looked it it for a minute, and pointed at a vehicle or two, one of the alien beasts someone was riding, that kind of thing: "Those are probably CGI."
An' I just shook my head, and said, "All. Of. It. There'z not one thing in there that isn't computer generated."

People often can't tell the difference, but fancy that they can, and then they whinge about it without a clue how much they're making chowderheads of themselves.

As someone who KNOWS CGI, comments like this just make me want to rant...you may have noticed.

And Avatar is so full of CGI that I wouldn't be surprised to discover that they only used about half an hour of actual movie footage in the film.

I believe the ratio is about 60-40, CG to live-action.

Dec 21, 2009#113

@Li3n

RocketGirl said:
People often can't tell the difference, but fancy that they can, and then they whinge about it without a clue how much they're making chowderheads of themselves.

As someone who KNOWS CGI, comments like this just make me want to rant...you may have noticed.

You sure it wasn't just your friend?

Dec 21, 2009#114

RocketGirl

@Li3n;318865][quote=RocketGirl said:
People often can't tell the difference, but fancy that they can, and then they whinge about it without a clue how much they're making chowderheads of themselves.

As someone who KNOWS CGI, comments like this just make me want to rant...you may have noticed.

You sure it wasn't just your friend?[/QUOTE]

Positive; I've had multiple people render the same opinion about CGI, but when pressed, were unable to actually correctly identify any but the most blatantly obvious examples.

Dec 21, 2009#115

Covar

I hate when people assume that CGI doesn't require as much effort as traditional SFX or animation means.

Dec 21, 2009#116

strawman

Covar said:
I hate when people assume that CGI doesn't require as much effort as traditional SFX or animation means.

Of course it takes less effort, by definition.

If it took the same amount, or more effort, then film studios would do it the cheaper (ie, less effort) way.

However, it does enable effects that cannot be attained any other way, and the effects can look better/more realistic. In other words, an attempt to create Avatar with traditional SFX or animation with the same level of quality/realism/etc WITHOUT CGI would have been hundreds of times more effort.

So, for the same output/realism/effect the CGI is cheaper (ie, less effort).

That certainly doesn't make it effortless. But in a capitalist economy you can almost always bet that the method they used at the time was the one requiring the least effort with the given output.

Dec 21, 2009#117

HowDroll

Soliloquy said:
Well, I just saw Avatar on Saturday, and I came out a bit... confused.

I'm pretty picky when it comes to movies. I've always fancied myself a "plot guy," who only likes films whose stories are at least somewhat original. And the plot of Avatar was almost literally a copy and paste of your standard Dances With Wolves-style movie.

I also always have thought that I was anti-cgi. I never find myself impressed by the flashy maneuvers and explosions that are generated entirely in a computer. And Avatar is so full of CGI that I wouldn't be surprised to discover that they only used about half an hour of actual movie footage in the film.

And yet... I loved the hell out of Avatar. I found myself enjoying it in a way I hadn't enjoyed a movie since I was a little kid who only vaguely knew that plots had a beginning, middle, and end. The cynical movie snob in me that wanted to complain that I saw every major plot point coming from a mile away was overwhelmingly silenced by how completely mesmerized I was at the world Cameron had created. It reminded me of seeing the beginning of Jurassic Park, or of the first time I saw Fellowship of the Ring.

When I left the theater, I realized that the standard, predictable plot was really nothing but a frame that Cameron used to show off the magnificently original world that he had cooked up in his brain.

And you'd damn well better believe that it's a world worth seeing.

Well said. I agree with this 100%.

Dec 21, 2009#118

Calleja

I agree with Soliloquy's post as well.

Dec 21, 2009#119

RocketGirl

stienman;318893][quote=Covar said:
I hate when people assume that CGI doesn't require as much effort as traditional SFX or animation means.

Dec 21, 2009#120

strawman

RocketGirl;318905][quote=stienman;318893][quote=Covar said:
I hate when people assume that CGI doesn't require as much effort as traditional SFX or animation means.

Of course it takes less effort, by definition.

If it took the same amount, or more effort, then film studios would do it the cheaper (ie, less effort) way.[/quote]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

CGI requires just as much effort, if not more, than traditional FX. The difference is in the results, and in what is possible, what can be accomplished, not in the amount of effort expended. "Cheaper" is not synonymous with "less effort".

Trust me, as someone who has done CGI, the amount of time and effort expended is comparable to traditional FX; you will get just as tired, you will spend just as many hours, to get the same amount of footage. By THAT measure, there is very little difference.
That certain things are possible with CGI which were not with more traditional FX has no bearing on the workload.[/QUOTE]

The point I am making is that given the EXACT SAME OUTPUT (ie, the RESULT is indescernible between the two methods) CGI takes LESS EFFORT than other methods.

Tell me how much MORE effort it would have taken to do the "fighting over a lava pit" scene in episode 3 using any method other than CGI. You can't argue that CGI took more effort, unless you also reduce the output quality of the other method.

I'm not arguing that CGI is effortless - far from it. It takes modelers, animators, lighters, environment modelers, programmers, etc hundreds of millions of collective hours to do their work on one blockbuster movie..

Of course it takes significant effort.

But to get the same output quality using any other method, it becomes plainly obvious that it takes less effort using CGI than it takes to do it without computers.

Yes, as you say, if you're willing to compromise on quality, then other methods will take less effort than CGI.

But for the exact same output, for some scenes, CGI is less effort.

Further, as CGI tools mature, it will become less and less effort to do CGI, and it will be used for increasingly more mundane things. When an actor costs $5,000+ an hour on set, it makes sense to skimp on time to apply makup, and do CGI post-processing to get the makeup effect that would take a good makeup artist 2 hours to achieve and maintain over a day of shooting, and furthermore it can be changed later in case the art direction of the movie is modified, giving the director and everyone else a more compressed timeline to make the movie and post-processing editing ability that can save, in aggregate, hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I'm certainly not arguing that CGI is 'cheap', 'easy', 'free', or 'effortless.'

I'm pointing out that it's less effort than the alternative.

But I'd be happy to entertain counter-examples. Please show me scenes where the same thing could have been done with less effort using another method and would have achieved the same output quality.

Dec 21, 2009#121

RocketGirl

stienman said:
The point I am making is that given the EXACT SAME OUTPUT (ie, the RESULT is indescernible between the two methods) CGI takes LESS EFFORT than other methods.

Maybe the problem is in the word "effort". Perhaps what you're REALLY trying to say is "resources".

Because the amount of man-hours used to produce a certain amount of film using CGI for the FX is very, very high. The amount of money and computing power required is very, very high. The amount of new technology created is very, very high.

The fact that they're doing a different kind of work, not requiring quite so much in the way of pyrotechnics and carpenters, does not mean that the people involved work any less hard. To say it takes "less effort" is, frankly, insulting.

As I say, it's possible that the word-choice of "effort" is simply a poor one, but if I'D worked my ass off on producing a certain amount of FX-laden film and someone described it as "less effort" because I'd used a computer instead of some other kind of Hollywood hardware, I'd probably deck them, frankly.

Dec 21, 2009#122

ElJuski

I think he means that it's more reasonable and less of a hassle to CGI a living volcano for actors to brawl in versus them building a set which is a giant volcano planet.

Dec 21, 2009#123

RocketGirl

ElJuski said:
I think he means that it's more reasonable and less of a hassle to CGI a living volcano for actors to brawl in versus them building a set which is a giant volcano planet.

He probably does...but I still say "less effort" is a VERY poor way to phrase it. "Less logistcal effort," sure...but nobody is working less hard to pull it off.

Dec 21, 2009#124

strawman

RocketGirl said:
As I say, it's possible that the word-choice of "effort" is simply a poor one, but if I'D worked my ass off on producing a certain amount of FX-laden film and someone described it as "less effort" because I'd used a computer instead of some other kind of Hollywood hardware, I'd probably deck them, frankly.

Then it's semantics. You are talking about individual effort. I'm talking about aggregate effort - ie, the number of skilled people times the number of hours for a given effect.

In other words, I'm assuming that all else being equal (ie, each individual works just as hard, is just as skilled in their technique, the output is exactly the same, etc for all competing techniques) then a CGI version of the scene takes either less people or less time than another technique for scenes that are most commonly done in CGI today.

The aggregate effort is less.

Your contribution in either case may be exactly the same in terms of effort, but it might only take 20 people 200 hours with your skills and work ethic to complete a given scene in CGI where it might take 200 people who are just as skilled as you in their own field 200 hours to complete it using another technique. That's 4,000 hours of total effort using CGI, and 40,000 hours of total effort using another technique.

Each person contributing just as much effort individually as every other person.

However, if you still feel like decking me, give me a moment to - what in the world could that be?!?

/me runs away...

Dec 21, 2009#125

RocketGirl

stienman said:
Then it's semantics. You are talking about individual effort. I'm talking about aggregate effort - ie, the number of skilled people times the number of hours for a given effect.

Well, I'd say that's a rather important distinction and worth making explicit note of when talking about this sort of thing...for precisely the reasons we've just illustrated.

Dec 21, 2009#126

strawman

RocketGirl;318937][quote=stienman said:
Then it's semantics. You are talking about individual effort. I'm talking about aggregate effort - ie, the number of skilled people times the number of hours for a given effect.

Well, I'd say that's a rather important distinction and worth making explicit note of when talking about this sort of thing...for precisely the reasons we've just illustrated.[/QUOTE]

I agree.

Dec 21, 2009#127

@Li3n

Yes, letting the computer render something for hours while you do something else is exhausting.

The reason it costs so much is because the skill set isn't something everyone has.

No way that the equipment doesn't get amortized (i have no idea if this is the right word) from one film when the budget is over 200 mil $.

RocketGirl;318878][quote=@Li3n;318865][quote=RocketGirl said:
People often can't tell the difference, but fancy that they can, and then they whinge about it without a clue how much they're making chowderheads of themselves.

As someone who KNOWS CGI, comments like this just make me want to rant...you may have noticed.

You sure it wasn't just your friend?[/quote]

Positive; I've had multiple people render the same opinion about CGI, but when pressed, were unable to actually correctly identify any but the most blatantly obvious examples.[/QUOTE]

Friends then...

Dec 21, 2009#128

Tinwhistler

(Shrug) I knew what he meant.

Dec 21, 2009#129

Kitty Sinatra

Well, all I know is that I still prefer the look and feel of the original trilogy over Jar Jar and Friends.

I really do feel that recent movies look bland or stale. It may be the lighting and film (or lack of film) just as much as the special effects - or maybe I'm just old and by instinct must poo-poo all things new.

Dec 21, 2009#130

strawman

Tinwhistler said:
(Shrug) I knew what he meant.

That shrug was totally a CGI shrug. I can tell from the lighting and having seen quite a few CGI shrugs in my time.

I'm pretty sure it costs less to produce that shrug using CGI than the normal method of commanding your levator scapula, rhomboids, & upper trapezius muscles to elevate the scapula.

(google still knows everything)

Dec 21, 2009#131

Kitty Sinatra

Well, that's because it was an epic Jedi shrug. The kind where his shoulders shrug 10 feet in the air and cling to a metal beam before leaping 30 feet onto a platform floating in lava.

Dec 21, 2009#132

strawman

Gruebeard said:
Well, that's because it was an epic Jedi shrug. The kind where his shoulders shrug 10 feet in the air and cling to a metal beam before leaping 30 feet onto a platform floating in lava.

Spoilers, man, spoilers! Some people haven't seen Tin shrug in person yet!

Next you'll be telling us the tricks [STRIKE]Ed[/STRIKE] Dave can pull off with his flappy hooties.

(You'll always be Ed to me, Turbo)

Dec 21, 2009#133

Kitty Sinatra

stienman said:
Next you'll be telling us the tricks [STRIKE]Ed[/STRIKE] Dave can pull off with his flappy hooties.

Did . . . did you just call Dave a whore?

Dec 21, 2009#134

strawman

Gruebeard;318986][quote=stienman said:
Next you'll be telling us the tricks [STRIKE]Ed[/STRIKE] Dave can pull off with his flappy hooties.

Did . . . did you just call Dave a whore?[/QUOTE]

I have no idea what you're talking about, but if you've played D&D with him you find that he can dual wield two handed weapons.

Dec 21, 2009#135

fade

I know it's your baby, but I'll take almost any "guess which one is CGI" bet. I think your friend probably assumed it was a trick question, like those types of question usually are (as steinman said, by definition). It's not antagonism or mean-spiritedness...it's just most people feel cgi looks like cgi, and they're not doing it to attack CGI artists. Am I going to guess 100%? No, but I can also describe distinctly some of the aspects of cgi that make it look like CGI. The depth of field is weird for example. Film critics have described it as "gauzy", and I think that's perfect. Rather than falling off in a realistic blur curve, background objects kind of have that look, like someone wrapped the camera in gauze. Attack of the clones is an excellent example of that. Motion capture looks like motion capture, partly because the body on screen doesn't match the dimensions or weight of the real person. Things look too plastic and perfect, even when they're dirtied up. Etc., etc. And it's not just CGI. The same problems plagued miniatures and matting.

Dec 21, 2009#136

RocketGirl

Gruebeard said:
Well, all I know is that I still prefer the look and feel of the original trilogy over Jar Jar and Friends.

I could just smack George Lucas for Jar Jar; from watching the fandom's reaction to the Prequel Trilogy, I've definitely gotten the impression that Jar Jar hatred ignited pretty much every last scrap of negative criticism over the PT. Had he not had such a goofy-ass mascot in there, I think people would have been a LOT more charitable toward the films.
Maybe they still wouldn't have dug them quite as much as the OT, but...I think without Jar Jar, people would have been much more okay with all the other things they criticized.

...or maybe I'm just old and by instinct must poo-poo all things new.

Dec 21, 2009#137

Frankie Williamson

RocketGirl;319003][quote=Gruebeard said:
Well, all I know is that I still prefer the look and feel of the original trilogy over Jar Jar and Friends.

...or maybe I'm just old and by instinct must poo-poo all things new.

I'm exactly the opposite: I embrace the new. I was probably born at least 200 years too early, if not more.
A few weeks ago, I placed my first video Skype call, and for DAYS I was floating on air, having FINALLY acquired an honest-to-goodness video phone!

Now I just need my flying car![/QUOTE]

Nah, if Jar-Jar wasn't there all it would have done is make the rest of the glaring awful flaws in the PT that much more apparent. Jar-Jar is the mascot of hate for the prequels, but he's hardly the sole focus.

Dec 21, 2009#138

Alucard

Saw it was an okay movie despite the plot and story development.

Felt like I was re watching a different version of 'Aliens' and by that I mean the universe slightly felt familiar with all the equipment they had.

Didn't like how you could automatically from the onset of the film deduce who the bad guys and good guys were.

Seeing Sigourney Weaver on screen again was nice. She's aged rather well than most actresses.

That was a huge ass ship they came to Pandora though.

I'm going to wonder when they release the blu ray version if they'll include those fancy glasses for the '3D' effect.

Slightly spoilerish I guess: What happened to earth though? I'm curious.

Dec 22, 2009#139

Frankie Williamson

I thought it was a fantastic summer blockbusterish movie. It was the most visually splendiferous movie (and not distractingly terribly so) I've seen in forever. I want to see it again, but I don't really want to without it being an Imax in 3D. The special effects really are a sight to behold.

I don't even care that the whole story was derivative and unoriginal and that everything was very black and white. Everyone did their job fantastically. It clocks in at almost 3 hours but never once was I bored, the pacing was immaculate in my opinion and just goes to show the difference between a James Cameron and a Michael Bay. The acting was exactly what it needed to be.

In fact, the only thing that bothered me (besides the yacking assholes sitting behind me...I swear, it's fucking fate) was that the score to the movie was incredibly generic and boring. The music really was a failing but this is only a minor gripe. I fucking loved Avatar, there I said it.

Here's my little opinion on something else:

Why are people so surprised when Avatar drivers betray them? Being a Na'vi seems like a hundred billion times more fun than being a human. And you get to hair fuck everything!

Dec 22, 2009#140

@Li3n

Frankie said:
I want to see it again, but I don't really want to without it being an Imax in 3D.

After seeing a documentary in IMAX 3D i found that normal 3D just won't do any more.

Of course that means the earliest i can go to Avatar is the 30th, they only had places left at the front for the 29th... man are people flocking to this movie.

Dec 22, 2009#141

R

Raemon777

As someone who DOES work in CGI, I'd just like to note that A) yeah, the majority of movies have a lot of CGI nowadays and most people can't tell, B) I think the original statement of "CGI takes less effort" is perfectly true and don't think it needed any special qualifying statements.

Dec 22, 2009#142

@Li3n

Raemon777 said:
A) yeah, the majority of movies have a lot of CGI nowadays and most people can't tell,

Why bother, you're there to see the film, not guess what is GCI or not.

Raemon777 said:
B) I think the original statement of "CGI takes less effort" is perfectly true and don't think it needed any special qualifying statements.

Ha, knew it...

Dec 22, 2009#143

R

Raemon777

Point is, if you couldn't tell if it was CGI while watching the movie, it doesn't matter much whether you can tell it's CGI when you're pausing frame by frame and analyzing it for CGI content. The point is to trick people so they can enjoy the movie. And aside from that, during my compositing class, they did a lot of showing scenes from movies and pulling them apart so we could see all their component elements, and even knowing that there was a lot of CGI in a given shot, I was still amazed.

Ha, knew it...

Not sure what you mean by that.

Dec 22, 2009#144

RocketGirl

Frankie said:
Nah, if Jar-Jar wasn't there all it would have done is make the rest of the glaring awful flaws in the PT that much more apparent. Jar-Jar is the mascot of hate for the prequels, but he's hardly the sole focus.

Oh, I disagree. I think that people hated JarJar so much that it colored the rest of their perception of the movies. I think they would have been a lot more tolerant if either JarJar hadn't been present or had been less of a goofy-ass cartoon character. But JarJar is introduced almost right away and he comes off like a refugee from Looney Tunes, thus insulting everybody who has been a Star Wars fan since birth and wants to be able to take the Saga seriously.

Without him, people would have to work a lot harder to hate these movies.

BlackCat said:
I'm going to wonder when they release the blu ray version if they'll include those fancy glasses for the '3D' effect.

I kept mine, both from this movie and Battle for Terra.

Dec 22, 2009#145

ElJuski

RocketGirl said:
Without him, people would have to work a lot harder to hate these movies.

Uhh, no way. JarJar was only one of a grand number of points that I found problematic with the Prequel Trilogy; again, pointing to the fact that Lucas is a genius idea man but horrible in his execution as a writer and director. The writing is miserable, the acting is leaden and the direction is bland. You have a mess of "neat" Sci-Fi ideas, some borderline ridiculous, mesh together in a story that has some heavy brushstrokes connecting it to the original trilogy.

Dec 22, 2009#146

strawman

Well, keep in mind that episode one was a children's movie. It was aimed at the 7-12 year olds who wanted to be anakin, and who would, if caught early on, age appropriately to see the next 2 episodes and still want to be anakin.

It was never written to appeal to adults, and it wasn't meant for the star wars die-hards.

If you compare it to regular children's fare, it is good. Surpasses regular children's fare in some ways, not as good in others, but certainly on par with 'good' children's movies.

If you compare it to the best action/science fiction adult fare, it is mediocre at best.

He caught enough flack from the first that he could do some changes for the next two, and they were an improvement, but not much - they were still very obviously squarely aimed at teenagers.

That being said, many movies prove that one can appeal very strongly to a very wide range of ages - take pixar's films, for example, such as the incredibles. It has some character with a problem at every age group, and both children and adults love it.

Lucas did not write the story in a way that appeals to a wide demographic.

But children loved Episode 1. And their parents took them so they could experience the star wars universe, even if it didn't appeal to the parents in its new form.

It was a success, and those who complain about it don't understand that they are not the intended audience.

That being said...

Dec 22, 2009#147

ElJuski

Explain to me how all that trade tariff political bullshit in any way resembled a "children's movie". Calling it a "children's movie" is such an easy way of hiding behind the glaring problems of the script. You can say it's a kid's movie but I won't believe you, nor will I simply say that I "misunderstood" what the film was geared for. That's a bit of a stretch considering all of the components of the film besides a young, plucky narrator and an annoying batch of funny-talking robots and aliens.

Dec 22, 2009#148

Frankie Williamson

stienman said:
Well, keep in mind that episode one was a children's movie. It was aimed at the 7-12 year olds who wanted to be anakin, and who would, if caught early on, age appropriately to see the next 2 episodes and still want to be anakin.

It was never written to appeal to adults, and it wasn't meant for the star wars die-hards.

If you compare it to regular children's fare, it is good. Surpasses regular children's fare in some ways, not as good in others, but certainly on par with 'good' children's movies.

If you compare it to the best action/science fiction adult fare, it is mediocre at best.

He caught enough flack from the first that he could do some changes for the next two, and they were an improvement, but not much - they were still very obviously squarely aimed at teenagers.

That being said, many movies prove that one can appeal very strongly to a very wide range of ages - take pixar's films, for example, such as the incredibles. It has some character with a problem at every age group, and both children and adults love it.

Lucas did not write the story in a way that appeals to a wide demographic.

But children loved Episode 1. And their parents took them so they could experience the star wars universe, even if it didn't appeal to the parents in its new form.

It was a success, and those who complain about it don't understand that they are not the intended audience.

That being said...

Yeah, the 25 or so minutes of Episode One that are solely dedicated to discussing a trade dispute was definitely aimed square at kids (though who it could possibly have been aimed at is beyond me.).

Dec 22, 2009#149

Iaculus

And as for 'children's movie' being an excuse for poor quality...

Pixar, guys. Pixar.

Dec 22, 2009#150

strawman

Hey now, let's not confuse the issue with facts!

Dec 22, 2009#151

@Li3n

RocketGirl said:
Oh, I disagree. I think that people hated JarJar so much that it colored the rest of their perception of the movies. I think they would have been a lot more tolerant if either JarJar hadn't been present or had been less of a goofy-ass cartoon character. But JarJar is introduced almost right away and he comes off like a refugee from Looney Tunes, thus insulting everybody who has been a Star Wars fan since birth and wants to be able to take the Saga seriously.

Frankly i didn't find the next 2 any better (the last one had better special effects), and Jar Jar was mostly absent from them.

Sure, some people focus on him too much, and might not be so against the film if he wasn't there, but the films would still be sub par without him, less vocal fanboys or not.

Are you an angel?! Well are you RocketGirl?

stienman said:
But children loved Episode 1. And their parents took them so they could experience the star wars universe, even if it didn't appeal to the parents in its new form.

It was a success, and those who complain about it don't understand that they are not the intended audience.

Kids would have loved it anyway if he just kept the pretty colours...

Dec 22, 2009#152

Jake

Chippy;318488][quote=HowDroll said:
I thought this film was AWESOME. Predictable at times, yeah, but holy shit did it rock my face off.

Just saw it last night. Pretty much this.[/QUOTE]
Caught the IMAX Sunday night. I'm with 'Droll.

Dec 22, 2009#153

Espy

ElJuski;319428][quote=RocketGirl said:
Without him, people would have to work a lot harder to hate these movies.

Dec 22, 2009#154

Alucard

Please gawd don't talk about Jar Jar. With Lucas having to go back and make the prequals he basically ruined Star Wars for me.

It was like raping all of my fond memories of Star Wars.

Dec 22, 2009#155

R

Raemon777

BlackCat said:
Please gawd don't talk about Jar Jar. With Lucas having to go back and make the prequals he basically ruined Star Wars for me.

It was like raping all of my fond memories of Star Wars.

Um, okay? I mean, yeah, but this is such a blanketly old-news statement I don't know how to respond.

Dec 24, 2009#156

Silver Jelly

(Almost spoilers (very very basic stuff)
I saw it yesterday and, as I suspected, is an adaptation of a short story I had read some years ago, 'Desertion', by Clifford D. Simak, with an added mix of Ferngully in it.
Having read some unmarked spoilers in this forum, I knew about the use of avatars. I only needed to know they were blue (thanks to the posters) to suspect it. It was confirmed when I saw that the main character is handicapped.

Dec 24, 2009#157

@Li3n

Wait, i thought that the cripple guy having a Na'vi Avatar was common knowledge from the get go. I knew long ago and still haven't seem the film.

Dec 24, 2009#158

The Lovely Boehner

Boy howdy, this movie was really stupid.

Dec 24, 2009#159

Dusty668

Oleander!

Dec 24, 2009#160

Jake

Charlie Dont Surf said:
Boy howdy, this movie was really stupid.

This is a solid data point for a theory of mine. Thanks.

Dec 24, 2009#161

The Lovely Boehner

Jake;320692][quote=Charlie Dont Surf said:
Boy howdy, this movie was really stupid.

This is a solid data point for a theory of mine. Thanks.[/QUOTE]

tell me more

Dec 24, 2009#162

Iaculus

Charlie Dont Surf said:
Boy howdy, this movie was really stupid.

Stupid fun, or stupid awful?

Dec 24, 2009#163

Silver Jelly

@Li3n said:
Wait, i thought that the cripple guy having a Na'vi Avatar was common knowledge from the get go. I knew long ago and still haven't seem the film.

I avoid most info about films before going to watch them.

Dec 24, 2009#164

The Lovely Boehner

Iaculus;320711][quote=Charlie Dont Surf said:
Boy howdy, this movie was really stupid.

Stupid fun, or stupid awful?[/QUOTE]

The spectacle was far worth it, but I am never gonna watch or think about this movie again

Dec 24, 2009#165

Cajungal

Very gorgeous movie, the story was fine. Some of the dialogue seemed really silly to me. Visually amazing, though... and I went to the last 5$ matinee left in town, so I feel I got my money's worth.

Dec 24, 2009#166

Krisken

Cajungal said:
Very gorgeous movie, the story was fine. Some of the dialogue seemed really silly to me. Visually amazing, though... and I went to the last 5$ matinee left in town, so I feel I got my money's worth.

Pretty much all of this. I was happy the shaky cam wasn't as obtrusive as it could have been, though being in 3D even regular scenes felt a little rocky. At least they didn't get ridiculous with the 3D effects.

The plot was somewhat mediocre and easy to predict, but I enjoyed it for what it was. I mean, complaining about this story after seeing RotF would be silly.

Dec 25, 2009#167

@Li3n

Silver Jelly;320712][quote=@Li3n said:
Wait, i thought that the cripple guy having a Na'vi Avatar was common knowledge from the get go. I knew long ago and still haven't seem the film.

I avoid most info about films before going to watch them.[/QUOTE]

So you only heard the name and that's it?!

Dec 25, 2009#168

Silver Jelly

@Li3n;320807][quote=Silver Jelly;320712][quote=@Li3n said:
Wait, i thought that the cripple guy having a Na'vi Avatar was common knowledge from the get go. I knew long ago and still haven't seem the film.

I avoid most info about films before going to watch them.[/QUOTE]

So you only heard the name and that's it?![/QUOTE]

I knew it was made with some kind of new revolutionary technology, by Cameron, I had seen the blue dude's face, a ship that looked like one of them helicopters from Halo and... pretty much that was it, until I read in this forum a sentence about "using sinthetic bodies to try an trick some alien natives" out of context. ( http://www.halforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11104&highlight=alien Second post in the thread. )
Then I linked this with the blue dude's to the story I had read a few years ago.

But, with most movies, I like to just know the name, the genre and if it's good or bad. Everything is a spoiler for me.

And if I don't like to have "basic stuff" spoilered, you may understand why I hate "actual" spoilers.

Dec 25, 2009#169

Zarvox

Saw it two days ago. Loved it. As was said, the spectacle was amazing. Sure, the story wasn't original and held few surprises, but it was masterfully well-told. Cameron got Chehkov's Armoury down to a T. EVERYTHING that appeared in the third act appeared in the second, and damn near EVERYTHING that appeared in the first and second acts was used in the third.

What intrigued me the most was the way he snuck in some pretty good hard sci-fi. This isn't a novel, so the man can't go and devote three pages to discovering this critter's ecology, so he had to do it by hints. That said, you can just look at the animals and plants and see that they follow some pretty clear taxonomy. The film does not just throw in some funny monsters and call it a day. If you dig a little deeper and think about what you see on the screen, everything makes sense. In fact, I think there's an underlying fact about Pandora that was barely even hinted at:

It was bioengineered. From the ground up. Ain't it awful convenient that all these different species of trees just happen to be able to talk to each other? And in a way that forms a brain? And ain't it awful convenient that all these different critters, from horses, to pterodactyls to cat-people all have identical sockets they can use to plug into each other? Without feedback, and with one in complete control of the other? And ain't it weird that the na'vi are completely differently evolved than all the other vertebrates we see?

Looks to me a whole lot like someone wanted a massive, global biological supercomputer. All the other animals and plant-analogues exist only to make a functioning ecosystem to support the trees. And the na'vi are the caretakers of the ecology. Someone built a biological supercomputer, set in place a system to support it, and left behind some intelligent creatures to look after it. Indeed, the supercomputer even has control over its own support structure, and can command it at will –*even if such an action would be evolutionary disadvantageous (like charging a squad of marines).

So who built Pandora? And why did they see the need to seed it with a room-temperature superconductor like unobtanium? And what do they want from Pandora? And what happens when they come back and get very cross with humanity?

Dec 25, 2009#170

Iaculus

Zarvox said:
Saw it two days ago. Loved it. As was said, the spectacle was amazing. Sure, the story wasn't original and held few surprises, but it was masterfully well-told. Cameron got Chehkov's Armoury down to a T. EVERYTHING that appeared in the third act appeared in the second, and damn near EVERYTHING that appeared in the first and second acts was used in the third.

What intrigued me the most was the way he snuck in some pretty good hard sci-fi. This isn't a novel, so the man can't go and devote three pages to discovering this critter's ecology, so he had to do it by hints. That said, you can just look at the animals and plants and see that they follow some pretty clear taxonomy. The film does not just throw in some funny monsters and call it a day. If you dig a little deeper and think about what you see on the screen, everything makes sense. In fact, I think there's an underlying fact about Pandora that was barely even hinted at:

It was bioengineered. From the ground up. Ain't it awful convenient that all these different species of trees just happen to be able to talk to each other? And in a way that forms a brain? And ain't it awful convenient that all these different critters, from horses, to pterodactyls to cat-people all have identical sockets they can use to plug into each other? Without feedback, and with one in complete control of the other? And ain't it weird that the na'vi are completely differently evolved than all the other vertebrates we see?

Looks to me a whole lot like someone wanted a massive, global biological supercomputer. All the other animals and plant-analogues exist only to make a functioning ecosystem to support the trees. And the na'vi are the caretakers of the ecology. Someone built a biological supercomputer, set in place a system to support it, and left behind some intelligent creatures to look after it. Indeed, the supercomputer even has control over its own support structure, and can command it at will –*even if such an action would be evolutionary disadvantageous (like charging a squad of marines).

So who built Pandora? And why did they see the need to seed it with a room-temperature superconductor like unobtanium? And what do they want from Pandora? And what happens when they come back and get very cross with humanity?

Also note the morphological similarities of the various beasties. There was a whole-lot of blueish, six-legged, bioluminescent stuff in there - variations of a basic template?

Dec 25, 2009#171

Zarvox

Iaculus;320866][quote=Zarvox said:
Saw it two days ago. Loved it. As was said, the spectacle was amazing. Sure, the story wasn't original and held few surprises, but it was masterfully well-told. Cameron got Chehkov's Armoury down to a T. EVERYTHING that appeared in the third act appeared in the second, and damn near EVERYTHING that appeared in the first and second acts was used in the third.

What intrigued me the most was the way he snuck in some pretty good hard sci-fi. This isn't a novel, so the man can't go and devote three pages to discovering this critter's ecology, so he had to do it by hints. That said, you can just look at the animals and plants and see that they follow some pretty clear taxonomy. The film does not just throw in some funny monsters and call it a day. If you dig a little deeper and think about what you see on the screen, everything makes sense. In fact, I think there's an underlying fact about Pandora that was barely even hinted at:

It was bioengineered. From the ground up. Ain't it awful convenient that all these different species of trees just happen to be able to talk to each other? And in a way that forms a brain? And ain't it awful convenient that all these different critters, from horses, to pterodactyls to cat-people all have identical sockets they can use to plug into each other? Without feedback, and with one in complete control of the other? And ain't it weird that the na'vi are completely differently evolved than all the other vertebrates we see?

Looks to me a whole lot like someone wanted a massive, global biological supercomputer. All the other animals and plant-analogues exist only to make a functioning ecosystem to support the trees. And the na'vi are the caretakers of the ecology. Someone built a biological supercomputer, set in place a system to support it, and left behind some intelligent creatures to look after it. Indeed, the supercomputer even has control over its own support structure, and can command it at will –*even if such an action would be evolutionary disadvantageous (like charging a squad of marines).

So who built Pandora? And why did they see the need to seed it with a room-temperature superconductor like unobtanium? And what do they want from Pandora? And what happens when they come back and get very cross with humanity?

Also note the morphological similarities of the various beasties. There was a whole-lot of blueish, six-legged, bioluminescent stuff in there - variations of a basic template?

[/QUOTE]

Oh, that's what I was talking about with the taxonomy. That's not part of my crazy spoilered theory –*that's just pretty good use of science.

Dec 25, 2009#172

wana10

Zarvox said:
Saw it two days ago. Loved it. As was said, the spectacle was amazing. Sure, the story wasn't original and held few surprises, but it was masterfully well-told. Cameron got Chehkov's Armoury down to a T. EVERYTHING that appeared in the third act appeared in the second, and damn near EVERYTHING that appeared in the first and second acts was used in the third.

What intrigued me the most was the way he snuck in some pretty good hard sci-fi. This isn't a novel, so the man can't go and devote three pages to discovering this critter's ecology, so he had to do it by hints. That said, you can just look at the animals and plants and see that they follow some pretty clear taxonomy. The film does not just throw in some funny monsters and call it a day. If you dig a little deeper and think about what you see on the screen, everything makes sense. In fact, I think there's an underlying fact about Pandora that was barely even hinted at:

It was bioengineered. From the ground up. Ain't it awful convenient that all these different species of trees just happen to be able to talk to each other? And in a way that forms a brain? And ain't it awful convenient that all these different critters, from horses, to pterodactyls to cat-people all have identical sockets they can use to plug into each other? Without feedback, and with one in complete control of the other? And ain't it weird that the na'vi are completely differently evolved than all the other vertebrates we see?

Looks to me a whole lot like someone wanted a massive, global biological supercomputer. All the other animals and plant-analogues exist only to make a functioning ecosystem to support the trees. And the na'vi are the caretakers of the ecology. Someone built a biological supercomputer, set in place a system to support it, and left behind some intelligent creatures to look after it. Indeed, the supercomputer even has control over its own support structure, and can command it at will –*even if such an action would be evolutionary disadvantageous (like charging a squad of marines).

So who built Pandora? And why did they see the need to seed it with a room-temperature superconductor like unobtanium? And what do they want from Pandora? And what happens when they come back and get very cross with humanity?

those goddamn mice

Dec 25, 2009#173

Piotyr

Charlie Dont Surf;320713][quote=Iaculus;320711][quote=Charlie Dont Surf said:
Boy howdy, this movie was really stupid.

Stupid fun, or stupid awful?[/QUOTE]

The spectacle was far worth it, but I am never gonna watch or think about this movie again[/QUOTE]

Hey, I totally think this movie has officially raised the bar for

the stereotype of the bad mother fucker marine colonel. I mean, I was kind of expecting his mech to be sporting a long cock, the way he was enjoying his killing of that big cat...thing.

Dec 25, 2009#174

chakz

Zarvox said:
Saw it two days ago. Loved it. As was said, the spectacle was amazing. Sure, the story wasn't original and held few surprises, but it was masterfully well-told. Cameron got Chehkov's Armoury down to a T. EVERYTHING that appeared in the third act appeared in the second, and damn near EVERYTHING that appeared in the first and second acts was used in the third.

What intrigued me the most was the way he snuck in some pretty good hard sci-fi. This isn't a novel, so the man can't go and devote three pages to discovering this critter's ecology, so he had to do it by hints. That said, you can just look at the animals and plants and see that they follow some pretty clear taxonomy. The film does not just throw in some funny monsters and call it a day. If you dig a little deeper and think about what you see on the screen, everything makes sense. In fact, I think there's an underlying fact about Pandora that was barely even hinted at:

It was bioengineered. From the ground up. Ain't it awful convenient that all these different species of trees just happen to be able to talk to each other? And in a way that forms a brain? And ain't it awful convenient that all these different critters, from horses, to pterodactyls to cat-people all have identical sockets they can use to plug into each other? Without feedback, and with one in complete control of the other? And ain't it weird that the na'vi are completely differently evolved than all the other vertebrates we see?

Looks to me a whole lot like someone wanted a massive, global biological supercomputer. All the other animals and plant-analogues exist only to make a functioning ecosystem to support the trees. And the na'vi are the caretakers of the ecology. Someone built a biological supercomputer, set in place a system to support it, and left behind some intelligent creatures to look after it. Indeed, the supercomputer even has control over its own support structure, and can command it at will –*even if such an action would be evolutionary disadvantageous (like charging a squad of marines).

So who built Pandora? And why did they see the need to seed it with a room-temperature superconductor like unobtanium? And what do they want from Pandora? And what happens when they come back and get very cross with humanity?

Man. That sounds pretty awesome. If the movie focuses on this instead just being a pure "The poor Indians" flick then I'm interested in it.

Dec 26, 2009#175

fade

He shouldn't go into three pages on it in a book, either. That's half the problem with modern scifi and fantasy writing: the dreaded infodump.

Dec 26, 2009#176

Tinwhistler

fade said:
He shouldn't go into three pages on it in a book, either. That's half the problem with modern scifi and fantasy writing: the dreaded infodump.

Part of that is the fault of the publishers. At one time, 50-60K words was considered a novel. Now many publishers won't even consider a story under 100K words. Gotta fill the chapters somehow.

Dec 26, 2009#177

Hailey Knight

Tinwhistler;321044][quote=fade said:
He shouldn't go into three pages on it in a book, either. That's half the problem with modern scifi and fantasy writing: the dreaded infodump.

Dec 26, 2009#178

Zarvox

chakz;320980][quote=Zarvox said:
Saw it two days ago. Loved it. As was said, the spectacle was amazing. Sure, the story wasn't original and held few surprises, but it was masterfully well-told. Cameron got Chehkov's Armoury down to a T. EVERYTHING that appeared in the third act appeared in the second, and damn near EVERYTHING that appeared in the first and second acts was used in the third.

What intrigued me the most was the way he snuck in some pretty good hard sci-fi. This isn't a novel, so the man can't go and devote three pages to discovering this critter's ecology, so he had to do it by hints. That said, you can just look at the animals and plants and see that they follow some pretty clear taxonomy. The film does not just throw in some funny monsters and call it a day. If you dig a little deeper and think about what you see on the screen, everything makes sense. In fact, I think there's an underlying fact about Pandora that was barely even hinted at:

It was bioengineered. From the ground up. Ain't it awful convenient that all these different species of trees just happen to be able to talk to each other? And in a way that forms a brain? And ain't it awful convenient that all these different critters, from horses, to pterodactyls to cat-people all have identical sockets they can use to plug into each other? Without feedback, and with one in complete control of the other? And ain't it weird that the na'vi are completely differently evolved than all the other vertebrates we see?

Looks to me a whole lot like someone wanted a massive, global biological supercomputer. All the other animals and plant-analogues exist only to make a functioning ecosystem to support the trees. And the na'vi are the caretakers of the ecology. Someone built a biological supercomputer, set in place a system to support it, and left behind some intelligent creatures to look after it. Indeed, the supercomputer even has control over its own support structure, and can command it at will –*even if such an action would be evolutionary disadvantageous (like charging a squad of marines).

So who built Pandora? And why did they see the need to seed it with a room-temperature superconductor like unobtanium? And what do they want from Pandora? And what happens when they come back and get very cross with humanity?

Man. That sounds pretty awesome. If the movie focuses on this instead just being a pure "The poor Indians" flick then I'm interested in it.[/QUOTE]

Eh, some people get worked up over that. I really didn't – there's only like twenty minutes of 'those poor Indians.' Most of the first two thirds of the movie is A) playing around with characters that, while not the deepest I've ever seen, are still really fun and B) A really cool tour of an imaginative fantasy/sci-fi world. And the final third is crazy bad-ass. That said, all the hard sci-fi elements of the film are quite hidden and only slightly hinted at. That said, if you're paying attention, there's plenty to pick up on. I'm going back (this time in 3D) to see what else I can tease out of those hints.

Dec 26, 2009#179

fade

escushion;321051][quote=Tinwhistler;321044][quote=fade said:
He shouldn't go into three pages on it in a book, either. That's half the problem with modern scifi and fantasy writing: the dreaded infodump.

Part of that is the fault of the publishers. At one time, 50-60K words was considered a novel. Now many publishers won't even consider a story under 100K words. Gotta fill the chapters somehow.[/QUOTE]

How about with story? It takes more pages to tell that info through story, and is more interesting to do so, than to have it be info-dumped on the reader through narrative or an exposition mouthpiece character.[/QUOTE]

I admit I don't know enough about publishing to say one way or the other.

I had an example in mind when I wrote this. I've been reading my son The Hobbit the past few months. If Tolkien was writing nowadays, he might have Bilbo sneak up on the trolls' fire and then break the action to describe the ecology of trolls, including their origin from the earth and their return to it when struck by sunlight. Instead, we learned most of the same about trolls through the action.

Dec 26, 2009#180

Hailey Knight

fade;321134][quote=escushion;321051][quote=Tinwhistler;321044][quote=fade said:
He shouldn't go into three pages on it in a book, either. That's half the problem with modern scifi and fantasy writing: the dreaded infodump.

Dec 27, 2009#181

bhamv3

Just got back from it. Agree with most people here, spectacular visuals, slightly less spectacular story. I could predict almost everything that could happen, but I didn't mind because it was so much fun watching it all unfold.

I liked it a lot, and I'd definitely recommend it.

Also, I think Neytiri is hot, which is odd because I usually don't go for women taller than me.

Dec 27, 2009#182

R

Raemon777

Dunno what I think about the bioengineered idea. On one hand, it certainly makes a lot more sense than the current plot. On the other hand, it essentially undermines the current plot, since rather than being "in touch with nature" the Na'vi become in touch with a giant supercomputer. I doubt that's what Cameron had in mind, based on how blatant the symbology is in this movie.

Dec 27, 2009#183

CynicismKills

This movie is gorgeous in 3D. Story was kinda lame, I suppose, however the idea of

the Na'vi and Pandora acting as some kind of giant information dump/transfer thing was cool.

The luminescent plants and other visuals really sold me, though.

Dec 27, 2009#184

Reboneer

Silver Jelly said:
until I read in this forum a sentence about \"using sinthetic bodies to try an trick some alien natives\" out of context. ( http://www.halforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11104&highlight=alien Second post in the thread. )

Hey, that's the same spoiler I accidentally read as well. Before then, all I knew was 3D science fiction film by James Cameron, which was enough to convince me.

Dec 27, 2009#185

KarateKidMcFly

I really enjoyed the movie, though I recognize the story is derivative.

I found this article, though, which I found really interesting: http://chud.com/articles/articles/21969/1/PROJECT-880-THE-AVATAR-THAT-ALMOST-WAS/Page1.html
It compares the movie to an early scripment from right after Titanic came out. Really cool to see how some of the things changed. I think the movie is probably better without some of the things that were in the scripment; the movie was long enough as is, and I was getting antsy towards the end. But I think some of the stuff would be great in supplemental materials, maybe a World of Pandora documentary on the eventual DVD/Bluray release.

Dec 27, 2009#186

Espy

Just got back from it at the IMAX in 3D.

WOW.

WowWowWowWowWowWowWowWowWowWowWowWowWowWowWowWowWowWowWow.

Yes, the story was every cliche and all it needed was songs to make it a Disney musical, but who cares? It was every cliche cooked to perfection and it was an orgasmic sensory overload of visuals. My wife and I were literally stunned by the immersion into the world on the screen, I honestly can't remember the last movie I saw where I felt so immersed into the world and the lives onscreen.

So no, it doesn't get an A+ for original storytelling but it does for taking what has become an old hat for me and making me care about it again.

Dec 28, 2009#187

chakz

Zarvox;321115][quote=chakz;320980][quote=Zarvox said:
Saw it two days ago. Loved it. As was said, the spectacle was amazing. Sure, the story wasn't original and held few surprises, but it was masterfully well-told. Cameron got Chehkov's Armoury down to a T. EVERYTHING that appeared in the third act appeared in the second, and damn near EVERYTHING that appeared in the first and second acts was used in the third.

What intrigued me the most was the way he snuck in some pretty good hard sci-fi. This isn't a novel, so the man can't go and devote three pages to discovering this critter's ecology, so he had to do it by hints. That said, you can just look at the animals and plants and see that they follow some pretty clear taxonomy. The film does not just throw in some funny monsters and call it a day. If you dig a little deeper and think about what you see on the screen, everything makes sense. In fact, I think there's an underlying fact about Pandora that was barely even hinted at:

It was bioengineered. From the ground up. Ain't it awful convenient that all these different species of trees just happen to be able to talk to each other? And in a way that forms a brain? And ain't it awful convenient that all these different critters, from horses, to pterodactyls to cat-people all have identical sockets they can use to plug into each other? Without feedback, and with one in complete control of the other? And ain't it weird that the na'vi are completely differently evolved than all the other vertebrates we see?

Looks to me a whole lot like someone wanted a massive, global biological supercomputer. All the other animals and plant-analogues exist only to make a functioning ecosystem to support the trees. And the na'vi are the caretakers of the ecology. Someone built a biological supercomputer, set in place a system to support it, and left behind some intelligent creatures to look after it. Indeed, the supercomputer even has control over its own support structure, and can command it at will –*even if such an action would be evolutionary disadvantageous (like charging a squad of marines).

So who built Pandora? And why did they see the need to seed it with a room-temperature superconductor like unobtanium? And what do they want from Pandora? And what happens when they come back and get very cross with humanity?

Dec 28, 2009#188

CynicismKills

If you have the chance chakz check it out in 3D. I can't stress enough just how amazing this movie looks and how well it uses the format.

Dec 28, 2009#189

The Lovely Boehner

I hate saying things like this, but the movie really is nearly worthless without 3D.

Dec 28, 2009#190

sixpackshaker

The movie was quite good. The 3D rocked. I hope the tech gets tweaked a little bit more. my eyes freaking hurt by the end of the film.

Cameron did a great job in Foreshadowing/Revealing the plot points.

Dec 28, 2009#191

Frankie Williamson

Here's where I do agree with you Charlie. I don't really ever want to watch it again without it being 4 stories tall and in 3D.

Dec 28, 2009#192

@Li3n

Once i saw a film in IMAX frankly i for one can't even go back to regular 3D... see it in IMAX, i will be in 2 days...

Dec 28, 2009#193

Tinwhistler

Silver Jelly;320712][quote=@Li3n said:
Wait, i thought that the cripple guy having a Na'vi Avatar was common knowledge from the get go. I knew long ago and still haven't seem the film.

I avoid most info about films before going to watch them.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but that info is in the trailer. It's the premise of the movie.

Dec 28, 2009#194

The Lovely Boehner

I'm starting to get worried this is actually gonna win Best Picture as the Oscars' desperate attempt to get high ratings and prove the major awards aren't just for stuffy "art-house" movies no one sees. It's a real shame that they aren't gonna make this stand with a movie that is actually good.

Dec 28, 2009#195

sixpackshaker

Charlie Dont Surf said:
I'm starting to get worried this is actually gonna win Best Picture as the Oscars' desperate attempt to get high ratings and prove the major awards aren't just for stuffy "art-house" movies no one sees. It's a real shame that they aren't gonna make this stand with a movie that is actually good.

Right, they should take this stand and give Transformers Revenge of the Fallen the Oscar Nod.

Dec 28, 2009#196

Silver Jelly

Tinwhistler;321440][QUOTE=Silver Jelly;320712][quote=@Li3n said:
Wait, i thought that the cripple guy having a Na'vi Avatar was common knowledge from the get go. I knew long ago and still haven't seem the film.

Dec 28, 2009#197

The Lovely Boehner

I love seeing movies without knowing much about the cast or anything what I'm in for. Moon was a great example of this this year, that I really loved, and loved not knowing the twist that was in the trailers. HOWEVER, this is one of the most-hyped movies of all time, so it's a little bit of a different case.

Dec 28, 2009#198

fade

I actually disagree about the world immersion wow-factor. The FX and the world felt trite and done, too. They were well done, but nothing I felt I hadn't seen before. Even the heli-ship design and mechs were straight out of 50 other things. The Na'vi designs were boring and human. The landscapes were very Earth-like. The best FX were the 3-D computer interfaces, but even those are old news. I mean, sure, they were well-executed, but a well executed copy of a Rembrandt still looks like a Rembrandt.

Dec 28, 2009#199

ElJuski

My friends paid for my ticket, and I got my money's worth, though I was far more impressed with it than I expected to be. Since my expectations were at a zero, I suppose that is a victory for Avatar.

The movie is cheesy as fuck, and doesn't get it. It wraps itself up in Importance and Gravitas, it purports itself to be a "love story" and it, like so many movies before it, exemplify the Noble Savage. The Na'vi were head slappingly horrible indian sterotypes, and didn't get to be interesting until way late into the film, when James Cameron decided to finally stop jerking off to how expensive the whole fucking thing was and got to making interesting visuals. I don't give a fuck that it cost how many millions of dollars, and I don't want to doddle for an hour and a half with impressive little CGI tech flourishes. The creatures all looked shiny and dumb; the lemurs were stupid, the Resident Evil dogs were stupid, the birds were stupid, and most of the plants were stupid. Cameron and crew just tried way too hard, which was ultimately distracting. I didn't feel immersed into an alien world at all; instead, I sat there going "Wowies look at all the money they poured into this shit."

What did the movie have going for it? A meager handful of actors that did seemingly understood the shlock they were in, and acted accordingly (or perhaps to the best of their ability, but same difference in the end). The film got somewhat interesting plot-wise towards the end, after the paint-by-numbers in the first hour and a half. The last battle was impressive visually, and actually lent towards some sort of forward motion story-wise instead of just jerking off the budget a little bit more.

So, yeah, it's not a complete waste as I thought it would be, and my cold heart was warmed over just enough. But it's still a dumb, dumb movie that, besides its budget, will be a forgotten relic of cinema.

Dec 28, 2009#200

ElJuski

Charlie Dont Surf said:
I hate saying things like this, but the movie really is nearly worthless without 3D.

ahh crap maybe that was my problem.

Dec 28, 2009#201

Espy

Yeah, I will be honest, I doubt I would have liked it even half as much without the 3D.

It felt like the biggest roller coaster thrill ride I have ever been on.

Dec 28, 2009#202

fade

That's exactly what I said to my wife when we left the theater---no one will remember this movie in 5 years.

Dec 28, 2009#203

The Lovely Boehner

fade said:
That's exactly what I said to my wife when we left the theater---no one will remember this movie in 5 years.

Dec 28, 2009#204

Espy

Exactly what I was going to write Charlie.

While it may not have had the most original story (it's not, it's basically a straight up adult version of the basic Disney story) it's masterfully done and it's going to change the way we watch movies at the theater in the next few years.

Dec 28, 2009#205

Silver Jelly

Also, I liked the "space marines" vs "tribesmen on horseback" bit a lot... It was like an excerpt from "Warhammer 40K, the movie".

Dec 28, 2009#206

CynicismKills

Charlie Dont Surf;321517][QUOTE=fade said:
That's exactly what I said to my wife when we left the theater---no one will remember this movie in 5 years.

I don't think THAT's true at all. It's gonna be in the top 5 all time grossers, easy, and it's going to be remembered as the first big 3D movie, and I'm sure future 3D movies will look back and thank this one for kicking the door open.[/QUOTE]

Not to mention that with the kind of cash this movie is likely to make we're going to see a sequel or two.

Dec 28, 2009#207

tegid

I hope not! And I don't think so either.

Dec 28, 2009#208

Hailey Knight

Silver Jelly;321463][QUOTE=Tinwhistler;321440][QUOTE=Silver Jelly;320712][quote=@Li3n said:
Wait, i thought that the cripple guy having a Na'vi Avatar was common knowledge from the get go. I knew long ago and still haven't seem the film.

I avoid most info about films before going to watch them.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but that info is in the trailer. It's the premise of the movie.[/QUOTE]

I didn't watch the trailer. I actually avoid trailers if I'm not abismally bored and there's nothing else to do that watch a few trailers. I like to go to movies without knowing what their premise is.

But I was not complaining or anything, @li3n was just surprised that I didn't know about the wheelchair thing![/QUOTE]

I hear ya, Silver Jelly. Even hearing the TITLE of a movie is too much for me. When I go to the movies, I just say "One please" and when they ask what I wanna see, I tell them to grab me a ticket at random. Sometimes I don't even go into the movie they tell me, because the title is usually up by the theater number. I just run through the theater naked, rush into one of the auditoriums, and sit down with my popcorn.

I then put on my sensory-deprivation helmet for the trailers, until I believe the movie has started. Sometimes I miss a couple opening credits, but at least I haven't seen a single frame of a movie before actually seeing it. I am THAT hardcore.

Dec 28, 2009#209

Silver Jelly

Yeah, that's nice.

Dec 28, 2009#210

ElJuski

Okay, for the record, this cliche story predates Disney and Fern Gully. Just saying.

Dec 28, 2009#211

Espy

ElJuski said:
Okay, for the record, this cliche story predates Disney and Fern Gully. Just saying.

Of course it does but one mentions the most relevant to the individual/era.
If every time someone talked about story cliches I interrupted and said, "Hrmph! Actually... if you knew your story and archetype history you would refer to the Epic of Gilgamesh but I can see you are not an educated individual" then sipped my brandy and adjusted my monocle others might think I was a total tool.

They would be wrong of course, I would actually be very, very cool. :smug:

Dec 28, 2009#212

Kitty Sinatra

a monocle wearing, brandy-drinking, cigarette smoking baby, eh? This is what happens when parents don't spank.

Dec 29, 2009#213

Jake

tegid said:
I hope not! And I don't think so either.

http://io9.com/5431490/what-comes-after-avatar-more-avatar

Dec 29, 2009#214

North_Ranger

Watched it yesterday. 3-D doesn't really work so well when at the same time you have to try and read subtitles - or maybe I'm just unused to the whole concept - because I came out with a bad case of headache. But yes, the visuals were breathtaking, even though after a point you didn't really 'see' the whole awesomeness anymore because of the heavy dollops of scenery porn already thrown at your eyes. The story... not so spectacular, but better than I expected. Not so Mighty Whitey as I had feared, even though the whole Na'vi-human interaction seemed like they had taken commercial and missionary activity in Africa and replaced the black people with giant smurfs.

To be honest, before I went to see this film I thought the animals were just weird-looking for weirdness' sake. You know, six legs, four wings, organic USB ports... but as the movie went on, I began to see how the whole world seemed to fit together in a biological fashion. You could really see them fitting together in their habitat. Although I'm still not really convinced how on earth you could get a place like the Hallelujah Mountains to form?

Dec 29, 2009#215

fade

Yeah, yeah, it's an old story. I brought up Fern Gully specifically because it was even closer to the plot of that movie than the general story.

Dec 29, 2009#216

Silver Jelly

North_Ranger said:
seemed like they had taken commercial and missionary activity in Africa and replaced the black people with giant smurfs.

Yes, everybody here says "indians", but I see them as blatant racist black stereotypes... but I didn't want to say anything becuase then I might me the one accused of racism! ( I've always had the suspicion, though, that the stereotypes regarding black people are different in Europe and in the US.)

Dec 29, 2009#217

Espy

Silver Jelly said:
I see them as blatant racist black stereotypes...

Dec 29, 2009#218

Silver Jelly

Espy;321893][QUOTE=Silver Jelly said:
I see them as blatant racist black stereotypes...

Dec 29, 2009#219

Espy

Silver Jelly;321894][QUOTE=Espy;321893][QUOTE=Silver Jelly said:
I see them as blatant racist black stereotypes...

How exactly? They are tribal which isn't unique to "black" culture nor is it racist, they have an "mother earth" sort of spirtuality that isn't unique to "black" culture nor is it racist, their faces had features similar to many races including animals like cats so that would be hard to pin as "racist" or "black sterotypes". Did I miss the watermelon eating and rap concert scene?[/QUOTE]

They look like blue cat-like Watusi... The clothes, the hair, the taller-stylized frame, I don't know... They made me think of the "stereotypical" african tribesman turned blue.

Of course, the stereorype of black people I'm familiar with doesn't include Watermelon. And Rap just in a very marginal way.[/QUOTE]

Even if they had strong similarities to African tribesman how would that be racist? Racism is a hatred or intolerance of another race or other races, and using a REAL type of people to base a fictional type that you spend the movie glorifying hardly sounds like racism at all and again, it can't be stereotyping because as far as I can tell there are many, MANY other sort of tribe people similar to the Navi' than merely african ones.

Dec 29, 2009#220

Silver Jelly

Well, I find the "good savage" kind of character to be a racist stereotype... Not the "real" traits of existing cultures used to imagine a fictional one, but the simplification and amalgamation of a kind of people to be a part of a stereotype. As it's based on race, I called it "racist". Maybe I should have said "Racial"?

Dec 29, 2009#221

Espy

I understand your point but I personally feel like it takes some real stretching to get there. I just don't see it in this movie.

Dec 29, 2009#222

Kitty Sinatra

Dammit I missed the moment where you hit 2112 posts, espy.

Dec 29, 2009#223

Espy

Huh? Oh! We have post counts back! Huh.

Whats so important about 2112?

Dec 29, 2009#224

North_Ranger

Well, the hologram pictures of Dr Augustine's school for Na'vi children just made me remember back to my elementary school days when we would have missionaries back from Africa giving presentations and showing pictures of the schools they had set up there. The only difference between those pictures and the ones in Avatar was the blue skin and the number of tails... But that's just me. *shrugs* Otherwise I don't think there's any one "native" group onto which you could slap some blue paint and growth hormones and say "Lookie, we's got Na'vi!".

BTW, was I the only one who visibly flinched when Colonel Quaritch grabbed Sully's bond-braid/head-cable/tentacle-widget with his mecha hand and yanked? Judging by what was seen earlier, I thought that must have felt like somebody had grabbed your johnson with a pair of pliers and pulled. Augustine had warned Sully "not to play with it or [he]'ll go blind", if you know what I mean. And whenever Jake and Dr Augustine are held captive, the Na'vi are holding them by the braids.

Dec 29, 2009#225

Kitty Sinatra

Espy said:
Huh? Oh! We have post counts back! Huh.

Whats so important about 2112?

It's just my favorite Rush song, is all. Well, one of them anyway.

Dec 29, 2009#226

Espy

Oh! DUH! Rush! Of course! I knew that...

Dec 29, 2009#227

Silver Jelly

Espy said:
I understand your point but I personally feel like it takes some real stretching to get there. I just don't see it in this movie.

No prob. I didn't feel offended in any way watching it, but I was sure I would come in here to find everybody bitching about this and I was surprised it didn't happen.

Dec 29, 2009#228

North_Ranger

It was interesting, though... I mean, I never considered eating chicken or watermelon as particularly "black" activities. For most people of my generation and in here the stereotypical black person is a Somali refugee, not a rapper, a gangbanger or a chicken-dish connoisseur.

Dec 29, 2009#229

Silver Jelly

North_Ranger said:
It was interesting, though... I mean, I never considered eating chicken or watermelon as particularly "black" activities. For most people of my generation and in here the stereotypical black person is a Somali refugee, not a rapper, a gangbanger or a chicken-dish connoisseur.

In my context, it's more or less the "savage" stereotipe from the XIX century or the reaction to this stereotype (the "good savage"). Fried Chicken, Watermelon, Cotton or being lazy are not traditionally associated with black people around here, as far as I know. Were all these racist features maybe originated in the US?

Dec 29, 2009#230

The Lovely Boehner

I didn't see much overt racism in the movie at all. There were some broad strokes with the whole idea of the white guy uniting and saving all the dirty savage heathens, but as I said, the strokes were really broad. I was more offended by the lazy storyline and shitty script tbh

Dec 29, 2009#231

Hansagan

Am I the only person who got a real 'World of Warcraft' vibe from the movie? He had a Night Elf character that started off completely useless, gradually gained powers and abilities, got his mount, then his flying mount, then his epic flying mount.

Also, he became addicted, lost the ability to distinguish between reality and fantasy, forgot to shower and eat, and (kinda) had cybersex.

Dec 29, 2009#232

The Lovely Boehner

The scarred marine is his dad

Dec 29, 2009#233

Espy

Charlie Dont Surf said:
The scarred marine is his dad

I... don't think so.

Dec 29, 2009#234

ElJuski

I mean, we could get pissy about what I said and consider that "elitist" somehow. Just saying, people should consider how old (and tired) the cliches in the film are.

Dec 29, 2009#235

The Lovely Boehner

Espy;321971][QUOTE=Charlie Dont Surf said:
The scarred marine is his dad

I... don't think so.[/QUOTE]

No, in the WOW analogy. He's all like STOP PLAYING THAT GAT DAMN VIDJA GAME AND COME HUNTING WITH ME

Dec 29, 2009#236

Espy

Charlie Dont Surf;321982][QUOTE=Espy;321971][QUOTE=Charlie Dont Surf said:
The scarred marine is his dad

I... don't think so.[/QUOTE]

No, in the WOW analogy. He's all like STOP PLAYING THAT GAT DAMN VIDJA GAME AND COME HUNTING WITH ME[/QUOTE]

AH. Gotcha.

Dec 30, 2009#237

Silver Jelly

Hansagan said:
Am I the only person who got a real 'World of Warcraft' vibe from the movie? He had a Night Elf character that started off completely useless, gradually gained powers and abilities, got his mount, then his flying mount, then his epic flying mount.

Also, he became addicted, lost the ability to distinguish between reality and fantasy, forgot to shower and eat, and (kinda) had cybersex.

That's got to be the best interpretation of the film EVER.

Dec 30, 2009#238

Iaculus

Funnily enough, it was one I shared. As I put in my Facebook update immediately after seeing the film a week ago, 'Sweet mother of Odin, James Cameron has been playing waaay too much World of Warcraft'.

Dec 30, 2009#239

Jake

ElJuski said:
I mean, we could get pissy about what I said and consider that "elitist" somehow. Just saying, people should consider how old (and tired) the cliches in the film are.

I saw it more in the vein of modern mythology. Myths aren't supposed to have clever plot twists and whatnot. They're built almost entirely out of cliches and simple, larger than life characters.

Dec 31, 2009#240

@Li3n

Jake;322126][QUOTE=ElJuski said:
I mean, we could get pissy about what I said and consider that "elitist" somehow. Just saying, people should consider how old (and tired) the cliches in the film are.

I saw it more in the vein of modern mythology. Myths aren't supposed to have clever plot twists and whatnot. They're built almost entirely out of cliches and simple, larger than life characters.[/QUOTE]

Sorrry dude, but it was like they chose the story from a hat, it was so by the numbers.

And myths aren't build out of clichés, they make them...

Dec 31, 2009#241

North_Ranger

Technically, you are both correct. First myths being oral, a rather simple, formulaic plot would be easier to remember than a convoluted one with many twists and turns.

And yes, myths are pretty much the oldest collections of clichés.

Dec 31, 2009#242

@Li3n

Gilgamesh would like to have a word with you...

Dec 31, 2009#243

ElJuski

Jake;322126][QUOTE=ElJuski said:
I mean, we could get pissy about what I said and consider that "elitist" somehow. Just saying, people should consider how old (and tired) the cliches in the film are.

I saw it more in the vein of modern mythology. Myths aren't supposed to have clever plot twists and whatnot. They're built almost entirely out of cliches and simple, larger than life characters.[/QUOTE]

Okay, I can see where you're coming from. But that still has to be done *right*, and I don't think they were going for "myth" or cliched tropes--the outstanding general aside. It was just a boring movie that tried too hard to hit on "contemporary" politics while "blowing us away" with great tech.

There are great examples of where the boring cliches and stories can be done well. Every once in a while a good horror film takes those contrivances and turns it into something delectable.

Dec 31, 2009#244

Kovac

Hollywood blockbuster Avatar repeats \"negative stereotypes\" about indigenous people, a Maori academic says. ...

Taonui said the \"rhythmic body swaying\" of the indigenous people during a ceremony only appeared in \"B-grade movies\" and \"just doesn't happen in any indigenous population\".

He said the male members of the blue-skinned Na'avi population were stereotypical depictions of indigenous people.

\"The indigenous men were not very good when it came to sorting out the problems. They just grunted. That contradicts history,\" he said.

I have seen the complaint that the film overuses the cliche of the noble savage but this is the first I have picked up on complaints of negative stereotypes. Of course just about any complaints over lack of realism in regard to how indigenous people have behaved in the past can be dismissed with, 'it's a fictional story set on another planet with aliens'

SOURCE

Jan 2, 2010#245

Hailey Knight

We saw it. The general consensus is pretty accurate, and whether the story works for you is going to differ from person-to-person. While it's not a very deep story or a surprising one, it IS a solid story that works.

In that regard, loved it.

Jan 2, 2010#246

Espy

escushion said:
We saw it. The general consensus is pretty accurate, and whether the story works for you is going to differ from person-to-person. While it's not a very deep story or a surprising one, it IS a solid story that works.

In that regard, loved it.

My feelings as well. I think it's similar to how a reviewer spoke about Uncharted 2: "It's every cliche from every Indiana Jones/Action-Adventure movie cooked to perfection."

Jan 2, 2010#247

Calleja

I just thought I should mention I, surprising even myself, enjoyed the movie quite a bit.

Yes, the plot is nothing new... but it makes sense. The studio would not have risked giving Cameron 300million for a untested plot in an untested technology. So they went with the safer route of tested plot in untested technology. That was the breakthrough... this movie is going to change how filmmaking is done, and that's what I found impressive. Now that they know the technology works, we're going to see more risks being taken.

Yes, I'm with you in aaall the grievances you might have with the plot, I agree with all of them. But that doesn't detract from the fact that Avatar made me feel like a kid going to the theatre for the first time. And that's a fucking good feeling to have, and I thank Cameron for it.

And I look forward to the ripples his film is going to cause.

Jan 2, 2010#248

R

Raemon777

The thing is, Cameron has REALLY been touting the story, as opposed to the tech. Well, he tout's both, but in many interviews he made it clear that the story was very important to him and the story drove the tech and the story is what he hopes people will care about. Which he has been rather eye-gougingly, tear-inducingly wrong about.

Jan 2, 2010#249

ElJuski

I should also mention that I have no real ANGER or anything over this dumb movie. It was just dumb, is all, and looked like it cost howmany million. Of course the story isn't going to be risky, trying, or anything other than an action movie. It's just a shame, though, that even dumb action movies can have a good plot while still being true to what they are.

Jan 2, 2010#250

@Li3n

Frankly i just don't see what's so revolutionary about it either... in this day and age that's the kinda of CGI one would expect with that budget.

And whoever said there where well done cliches, i think you're wrong, they're not awful, but rather competent at best...

Jan 2, 2010#251

tegid

It's not the CGI, it's the 3D.

Jan 2, 2010#252

Bowielee

tegid said:
It's not the CGI, it's the 3D.

BINGO, with this and Alice in Wonderland, I think it's really going to bring about the long thought dead 3D revolution in movie making.

Yes, I know that this is FAR from the first movie to use the RealD 3D technology, but it garnered the most attention for it, and will really be pivotal in forwarding that technology.

Jan 3, 2010#253

@Li3n

Frankly i was more impressed with this 1994 documentary: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110150/

Of course for some reason Avatar didn't use the whole IMAX screen, so it didn't seem like it reached to the seat in frnt of you, and the documentary wasn't CGI, so those factors might have something to do with it too.

And 3D is fine for movies you go see for the effects/pretty pictures, but frankly those glasses are too annoying otherwise.

Jan 3, 2010#254

North_Ranger

@Li3n said:
And 3D is fine for movies you go see for the effects/pretty pictures, but frankly those glasses are too annoying otherwise.

Amen to that, brain-tripod.

I got a bad headache from wearing those... and it didn't help that at times there were glitches in the film when the colours shifted into that twin red-and-green even with glasses before reverting to normal. I guess that was reels being changed...

Jan 3, 2010#255

Hailey Knight

They should be giving clear 3d glasses. Those red and greens were not meant for human eyes.

Jan 3, 2010#256

Bowielee

North_Ranger;323500][QUOTE=@Li3n said:
And 3D is fine for movies you go see for the effects/pretty pictures, but frankly those glasses are too annoying otherwise.

Jan 3, 2010#257

tegid

What?? Do they still use the red/green ones somewhere?

Jan 3, 2010#258

North_Ranger

Well, it was pretty dark in the theater, so I didn't really get a good look at the colour of the lenses. But if you look at a 3-D movie without them, it looks like two 'ghost images', one red, one green, all hazy and misty. That 'blinked' in some shots when I was watching Avatar.

Jan 3, 2010#259

Bowielee

North_Ranger said:
Well, it was pretty dark in the theater, so I didn't really get a good look at the colour of the lenses. But if you look at a 3-D movie without them, it looks like two 'ghost images', one red, one green, all hazy and misty. That 'blinked' in some shots when I was watching Avatar.

That is a terrible version of 3D, you need to see it in the RealD 3d. It does require a special screen and cameras, so I don't know how that works out in your area, but the difference between the old red/green 3D and the RealD 3D is night and day.

Jan 3, 2010#260

ElJuski

So to fully GET this movie, I have to find some super specific high-tech cinema? That's good to know :|

Jan 3, 2010#261

Bowielee

ElJuski said:
So to fully GET this movie, I have to find some super specific high-tech cinema? That's good to know :|

The point I'm making is that this movie will encourage more theaters to be compatable with the technology.

No one is saying that the movie is important because of the CGI, Story, or actor's portrayals, the impact of the movie is that it's ushering in a new type of movie watching experience.

Jan 3, 2010#262

Calleja

Super high tech cinema?

Dudes, I live in a third world country and even *I* get access to the Real3D transparent 3D glasses awesomeness... 15 minutes from my house. For a bit less than 7 USD a ticket, which is expensive as FUCK for a movie ticket down here. Top notch theater, too.

I haven't seen bi-colored 3D glasses since like the late 90s.

Jan 3, 2010#263

@Li3n

No coloured glasses here anywhere... still didn't see what's so new... and still totally pissed that the image wasn't on all the screen. Anyone else who saw it at an IMAX, was that how the film was there too or was it just the people here screwing up?

Jan 3, 2010#264

ElJuski

Calleja said:
Super high tech cinema?

Dudes, I live in a third world country and even *I* get access to the Real3D transparent 3D glasses awesomeness... 15 minutes from my house. For a bit less than 7 USD a ticket, which is expensive as FUCK for a movie ticket down here. Top notch theater, too.

I haven't seen bi-colored 3D glasses since like the late 90s.

Well you lucky duck.

Also, yeah, I can see that. Getting that tech out there is a good thing.

Jan 3, 2010#265

Frankie Williamson

@Li3n said:
No coloured glasses here anywhere... still didn't see what's so new... and still totally pissed that the image wasn't on all the screen. Anyone else who saw it at an IMAX, was that how the film was there too or was it just the people here screwing up?

Imax is a different aspect ratio than normal movies. Unless something is specifically filmed for Imax it isn't going to use the entire screen. I fucking hate to use this as an example, but Transformers 2 had had specific Imax shots filmed for it. Of course Michael Bay edited them in at random so the screen would just enlarge for maybe a second at a time before popping back to regular movie aspect ratio.

Jan 3, 2010#266

The Lovely Boehner

The Dark Knight also had a few IMAX sequences in there. Not as random and haphazard and shitty as Transformers 2, though.

Jan 3, 2010#267

Espy

I never go see movies a second time but I'm sorely tempted to the more we talk about it. It looked so great on the Imax screen here. Plus they sell beer. That makes it even more fun.

Jan 3, 2010#268

ElJuski

I'd get drunk and watch Avatar again.

Jan 3, 2010#269

bhamv3

I first used the mono-colored 3d glasses around 20 years ago, so I'm amazed there are places that still use red-green glasses.

And in other news, Avatar has become the fastest movie to achieve $1billion in global ticket sales.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8438824.stm

Wouldn't it be hilarious if it kept going and overtook Titanic to become the number 1 box office hit.

Jan 3, 2010#270

The Lovely Boehner

I am fairly certain I will never see Avatar again. I would have to give it a lot of thought even if someone paid for my IMAX ticket.

Jan 4, 2010#271

@Li3n

Frankie said:
Imax is a different aspect ratio than normal movies. Unless something is specifically filmed for Imax it isn't going to use the entire screen.

So you're saying it wasn't filmed for it, or what?!

Jan 4, 2010#272

JCM

Calleja said:
Super high tech cinema?

Dudes, I live in a third world country and even *I* get access to the Real3D transparent 3D glasses awesomeness... 15 minutes from my house. For a bit less than 7 USD a ticket, which is expensive as FUCK for a movie ticket down here. Top notch theater, too.

I haven't seen bi-colored 3D glasses since like the late 90s.

Jan 4, 2010#273

@Li3n

JCM said:
(and I have no idea how one could put subs in a 3D movie)

If you watch the subtitles it makes your head hurt coz they're 2D....

Jan 4, 2010#274

Frankie Williamson

@Li3n;323775][QUOTE=Frankie said:
Imax is a different aspect ratio than normal movies. Unless something is specifically filmed for Imax it isn't going to use the entire screen.

So you're saying it wasn't filmed for it, or what?![/QUOTE]

Yes exactly that. Mainly because filming in Imax is obscenely expensive compared to traditional 70 mm film.

Jan 4, 2010#275

RealBigNuke

@Li3n;323983][QUOTE=JCM said:
(and I have no idea how one could put subs in a 3D movie)

If you watch the subtitles it makes your head hurt coz they're 2D....[/QUOTE]

And papyrus :Leyla:

Jan 4, 2010#276

@Li3n

Frankie;324021][QUOTE=@Li3n;323775][QUOTE=Frankie said:
Imax is a different aspect ratio than normal movies. Unless something is specifically filmed for Imax it isn't going to use the entire screen.

Jan 4, 2010#277

Frankie Williamson

@Li3n;324063][QUOTE=Frankie;324021][QUOTE=@Li3n;323775][QUOTE=Frankie said:
Imax is a different aspect ratio than normal movies. Unless something is specifically filmed for Imax it isn't going to use the entire screen.

So you're saying it wasn't filmed for it, or what?![/QUOTE]

Yes exactly that. Mainly because filming in Imax is obscenely expensive compared to traditional 70 mm film.[/QUOTE]

And they only had like a 200 million budget...[/QUOTE]

Imax can pump up production costs by 3 to 5 times. That's significant for any movie's budget.

Jan 5, 2010#278

@Li3n

Well it's not like they filmed a whole lot... 90% of the movie is nothing but CGI on all the screen.

Jan 5, 2010#279

Alex B.

IMAX also uses an entirely different camera and film stock, etc. It's a big deal to film that way. Be thankful, though, that they didn't just stretch the image to fit the IMAX screen. That would have sucked.

At any rate, if you didn't see the movie in digital 3D you really missed out. This was the first I'd watched anything in 3D since that Micheal Jackson movie when I was like 8. The glasses were a little annoying at first, but I managed to focus on the movie and put them out of my mind, and I totally forgot I was wearing them after that.

Jan 5, 2010#280

fade

I know I'm going against the geek grain here, but I really didn't think 3-D added much to the movie. I usually feel that way about 3-D, though. It's like "Oh wow, that's ...kind of cool I guess...can I take off these glasses now?"

Jan 5, 2010#281

Alex B.

I liked that the 3D was subtle. None of that gimmicky crap with people pointing at the camera and what not.

Jan 5, 2010#282

Rob King

When the XBox 360 came out, my good friend bought only the most beautiful games available for the system, regardless of if they sucked or not. He'd show it off to anyone who came into his house. Eventually, he realized that pretty != good, and dropped them in favor of more fun games.

The 3D movie thing is sort of like that. There was a time when every 3D movie needed 3D gimmicks because "HEY, LOOK WHAT WE CAN DO!" I think we're past that now, though, and the 3D is just there to enhance the experience rather than to be the poor setup to a lame joke. I was proud of UP! when they didn't resort to gimmickry.

I feel like we've grown.

Jan 5, 2010#283

Espy

Honestly Rob, I always felt that 3D was a gimmick until this movie. Totally changed my mind about what it can do. It's been a long time since I felt so immersed in the world of the film.

Jan 5, 2010#284

R

Raemon777

I know I'm alone here, but I for one LIKE gimmicky 3D, and felt like the extra immersion I got from the movie was not worth the headache and $3 if I wasn't gonna have huge awesome stuff thrown at my face.

Jan 5, 2010#285

Tinwhistler

funny pocohontas/avatar comparison.

Jan 5, 2010#286

Calleja

JCM;323942][QUOTE=Calleja said:
Super high tech cinema?

Dudes, I live in a third world country and even *I* get access to the Real3D transparent 3D glasses awesomeness... 15 minutes from my house. For a bit less than 7 USD a ticket, which is expensive as FUCK for a movie ticket down here. Top notch theater, too.

I haven't seen bi-colored 3D glasses since like the late 90s.

At leat you dont see Avatar, in its Real 3D glory, with shitty portuguese dubbing.

In Brazil, its Portuguese dubbed, or subbed, except the subbed version isnt in 3D (and I have no idea how one could put subs in a 3D movie)[/QUOTE]

That sucks. Here we had all 4 options.. dubbed and subbed in 3D and dubbed and subbed in 2D.

The subtitles in the 3D version are actually pretty well done, they are in an actual "layer" of the 3D and they even show behind some stuff that's "popping out" (mainly screens from the bunker and other translucent stuff that doesn't really block them).

Jan 5, 2010#287

ElJuski

Tinwhistler said:
funny pocohontas/avatar comparison.

Ha, that's pretty great. Though this one line bugs the fuck out of me:

"how to hunt, grow crops, and of her culture".

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Jan 5, 2010#288

Calleja

What, it never says she taught him grammar.

Jan 5, 2010#289

ElJuski

well. Harumph!

Jan 6, 2010#290

Zumbo Prime

In another forum, a lot of people seem to be offended and disgusted by the shallow depth and the weak story of the movie. I'm probably going to watch it again.

Jan 6, 2010#291

Terrik

On a Chinese forum, a bunch of Chinese were disgusted that the guy betrayed the human race. *That* is what they had a problem with.

Jan 6, 2010#292

bhamv3

Terrik said:
On a Chinese forum, a bunch of Chinese were disgusted that the guy betrayed the human race. *That* is what they had a problem with.

I find myself completely unsurprised about this...

Jan 6, 2010#293

Calleja

Go Team Earth!

Jan 6, 2010#294

ElJuski

Zumbo Prime said:
In another forum, a lot of people seem to be offended and disgusted by the shallow depth and the weak story of the movie. I'm probably going to watch it again.

The important thing is if you personally know how fucking moronic the movie is. if you are entertained, and understand it's inspid, well, huzzah.

Jan 6, 2010#295

@Li3n

I don't get why anyone was expecting more from such an obviously effects based film... frankly i was surprised the story didn't suck more.

Terrik said:
On a Chinese forum, a bunch of Chinese were disgusted that the guy betrayed the human race. *That* is what they had a problem with.

Why, i mean people do it all the time for simple profit (should i get you some lead for your toys sir?).

Jan 6, 2010#296

The Lovely Boehner

Zumbo Prime said:
In another forum, a lot of people seem to be offended and disgusted by the shallow depth and the weak story of the movie. I'm probably going to watch it again.

while I'm not offended or disgusted, on this forum, people are disappointed by the shallow and weak story, too.

Jan 6, 2010#297

Calleja

disappointed != offended

Jan 6, 2010#298

fade

ElJuski;324968][QUOTE=Zumbo Prime said:
In another forum, a lot of people seem to be offended and disgusted by the shallow depth and the weak story of the movie. I'm probably going to watch it again.

The important thing is if you personally know how fucking moronic the movie is. if you are entertained, and understand it's inspid, well, huzzah.[/QUOTE]

Which is pretty much the only way you can find any Disneyesque movie entertaining. Though I don't think I'd call it insipid so much as trite. I've eaten burgers a bunch of times, but I still don't find them insipid.

Jan 6, 2010#299

Alex B.

How is it different from something like Star Wars, which was equally full of cliche and relied heavily on effects?

Jan 6, 2010#300

sixpackshaker

Alex B. said:
How is it different from something like Star Wars, which was equally full of cliche and relied heavily on effects?

Because we all grew up with Star Wars.

Jan 6, 2010#301

fade

Seriously? Star Wars was full of cliche story bits, but with fresh characters, interesting personalities, and effects that we hadn't seen a billion times before. It deviated strongly from the norm in so many ways, whereas Avatar just feels so off-the-shelf in every way.

Jan 6, 2010#302

Alex B.

I'll grant that Star Wars had much more memorable characters and is infinitely more quotable, but otherwise it's basically just a remake of The Hidden Fortress with more whining and space battles ripped from old World War II movies/stock footage.

Don't get me wrong, I love Star Wars, but nostalgia clouds our view of it.

Jan 6, 2010#303

drawn_inward

Alex B. said:
I'll grant that Star Wars had much more memorable characters and is infinitely more quotable, but otherwise it's basically just a remake of The Hidden Fortress with more whining and space battles ripped from old World War II movies/stock footage.

Don't get me wrong, I love Star Wars, but nostalgia clouds our view of it.

Do you know anyone in the US that has seen Hidden Fortress? I didn't even know SW took ideas from Hidden Fortress until I saw the Criterion Collection. I know 2 people that have seen Hidden Fortress and I have a bunch of movie-nerd friends. They have all seen Seven Samurai, Yojimbo, and Rashomon.

Besides, think of when SW came out. Compare it to the movies of it's time, and especially sci-fi movies. There was nothing like it. It was revolutionary. Avatar was all style, but no substance.

Jan 6, 2010#304

Espy

I totally agree with Roger Ebert:

Watching "Avatar," I felt sort of the same as when I saw "Star Wars" in 1977. That was another movie I walked into with uncertain expectations. James Cameron's film has been the subject of relentlessly dubious advance buzz, just as his "Titanic" was. Once again, he has silenced the doubters by simply delivering an extraordinary film. There is still at least one man in Hollywood who knows how to spend $250 million, or was it $300 million, wisely.

I find it hilarious that people are making the pretentious assertion that one must view this movie as moronic. Go watch Transformers 2 then Avatar and let me know what's moronic. The story isn't brilliant nor original but far from moronic, in my opinion of course. If someone else's is negative of it great but lets avoid the "Ur dumb if you don't think this thing is dumber!" malarky.

Unless it's Transformer 2.

Jan 6, 2010#305

ElJuski

Espy said:
I totally agree with Roger Ebert:

Watching "Avatar," I felt sort of the same as when I saw "Star Wars" in 1977. That was another movie I walked into with uncertain expectations. James Cameron's film has been the subject of relentlessly dubious advance buzz, just as his "Titanic" was. Once again, he has silenced the doubters by simply delivering an extraordinary film. There is still at least one man in Hollywood who knows how to spend $250 million, or was it $300 million, wisely.

Click to expand...

I find it hilarious that people are making the pretentious assertion that one must view this movie as moronic. Go watch Transformers 2 then Avatar and let me know what's moronic. The story isn't brilliant nor original but far from moronic, in my opinion of course. If someone else's is negative of it great but lets avoid the "Ur dumb if you don't think this thing is dumber!" bullshit.

Unless it's Transformer 2.

Dude, it doesn't mean it's not entertaining. But that story is dumb and cheeseball as hell. Yes, Transformers 2 is much worse, but relatively, dumb is a deep well. And yeah, sorry you're being so offended throughout this thread...but really, come on. There's so much better storytelling offered in the universe at large. You know, it can be a fun, entertaining movie and still be stupid! There's not much offered in this movie in the way of anything more than broad paint strokes and pilfering from really old story types. If it still entertains you, hey, great. But I think people should realize that fact--and because of that or despite that--come to their conclusions.

I don't think it's bullshit at all. And I think that, even by jokingly adding Transformers 2 as "it's okay", you're only setting up a standard for yourself, which you're angry about because you actually like this movie. But can you really say that there's any merit beyond dumb romance and jockey action going on here? The only substance in this movie is the pretty moving things on the screen.

Jan 6, 2010#306

Espy

:aaahhh: If you think I'm offended or angry then I think you have seriously misread my posts (heck I even edited out my naughty word as you were writing your reply because I thought it sounded pissy and thats not what I meant at all, malarky much better suits my views). I"m enjoying the discussion on it and agree with much of the good and bad of the movie.

It sounds like the movie offended some here and you are annoyed that anyone dares disagree with your personal opinion of it.
I could care less if anyone likes the movie or if it just makes them want to have a Wes Anderson marathon to wipe the memory from your mind (which is how I got rid of my memories of Transformers 2, so I can promise you it does work) or if you thought it was awesome, just that to say we all must, MUST understand that it's moronic with kind of a vague "or else you are an idiot" tone is silly. I've said over and over that it's nothing special or new in the story department, I don't even disagree with the assertion that someone could watch it and think it's moronic, but that blanket pretentiousness is, as I already said, better reserved for truly horrible stuff.

Of course it's just my opinion. It was fun and cliche'd but done well. I wish that didn't bother you but I really can't do anything about it. Will it make you feel better if I say I agree the story, in it's basic form WAS dumb (or maybe actually "simple" is a better term)? We can just disagree on how the dumb story was executed.

Jan 6, 2010#307

Krisken

I liked it despite being Fern Gully in space. I is dum.

Jan 6, 2010#308

ElJuski

None of this bothers me in any way. You can all have your opinions. I just think that people purporting that the story has any depth in it are wrong

Obviously calling them morons is a bit harsh, so yes, sorry for calling those hypothetical people morons.

Jan 6, 2010#309

Espy

ElJuski said:
None of this bothers me in any way. You can all have your opinions. I just think that people purporting that the story has any depth in it are wrong Obviously calling them morons is a bit harsh, so yes, sorry for calling those hypothetical people morons.

See when you start calling people names because they disagree with you thats usually when I assume someone is offended. Thats why I haven't called you a boogersnotface. To hide my offense. You boogersnotface. :tongue:

Jan 6, 2010#310

ElJuski

And, Krisken, I think it's fine to say that you enjoyed the movie. My god, I love True Lies, another shlocky James Cameron flick. But it is completely insipid in its story. Doesn't make me stupid; I like it for what it is. I'm just saying let's just call a dumb movie a dumb movie.

Jan 6, 2010#311

ElJuski

Espy;325149][QUOTE=ElJuski said:
None of this bothers me in any way. You can all have your opinions. I just think that people purporting that the story has any depth in it are wrong Obviously calling them morons is a bit harsh, so yes, sorry for calling those hypothetical people morons.

Jan 6, 2010#312

fade

See, everyone keeps saying "story story story", but what got me more than the story was that, well, everything else felt so done, too. I could swear I've seen all those ships before, and exoskeletons that looked just like that, and the unimaginative Na'vi...

Jan 6, 2010#313

ElJuski

Personally, I hated the animal designs. The whole thing felt like it was trying to copy the new digitally added crap in the re-done Star Wars. I did like the mechs, though! Those I can honestly say I found entertaining. And the Colonel. I still love him to bits.

Jan 6, 2010#314

@Li3n

fade said:
See, everyone keeps saying "story story story", but what got me more than the story was that, well, everything else felt so done, too. I could swear I've seen all those ships before, and exoskeletons that looked just like that, and the unimaginative Na'vi...

Meh, videogames have everything = simpsons did it...

Jan 6, 2010#315

Krisken

ElJuski said:
And, Krisken, I think it's fine to say that you enjoyed the movie. My god, I love True Lies, another shlocky James Cameron flick. But it is completely insipid in its story. Doesn't make me stupid; I like it for what it is. I'm just saying let's just call a dumb movie a dumb movie.

I know, I'm just messing around. I'm just surprised the movie got so many comments. It's pretty. The story is predictable and unsurprising and foreshadows so heavily it feels like you're being hit in the head with the script.

Yup, dumb movie is dumb. Still surprisingly fun to watch.

Jan 6, 2010#316

Frankie Williamson

fade said:
See, everyone keeps saying "story story story", but what got me more than the story was that, well, everything else felt so done, too. I could swear I've seen all those ships before, and exoskeletons that looked just like that, and the unimaginative Na'vi...

The spaceship designs seem like something we'd actually make off in the future, the shuttles and the actual transport itself. James Cameron was just ripping himself off with the powerloader...I mean, suit-troopers and those helicopter things look like any number of futurecopters from any number of near future sci-fi video games or comics or whatever.

In my opinion anyway.

Jan 6, 2010#317

SeraRelm

World of Warcraft the movie? Yeah, we saw it.

The Nightelves get attacked by the Gnomes who are trying to destroy Teldrassil. A Hunter shows up, gets his first riding mount, trades it in for a flying mount when they go to Nagrand, then eventually gets an epic mount all in his quest to save everyone.

Add a dash of Fern Gully and there you go.

Jan 6, 2010#318

Frankie Williamson

Worldwide: $1,098,736,685

Holy fucking shit. I don't think anyone saw that coming based on the predominantly negative buzz from everyone I knew based on the trailers.

Jan 6, 2010#319

@Li3n

1st Cameron full length film after Titanic.... i think everyone should have seen that coming.

Jan 6, 2010#320

drawn_inward

Espy said:
Of course it's just my opinion. It was fun and cliche'd but done well.

I wasn't offended by this movie. I don't think I've ever been offended by any form of entertainment. I just think the only thing that should be lauded is the effects. Everything else was mediocre to me.

Jan 6, 2010#321

JCM

Espy said:
I totally agree with Roger Ebert:

Watching "Avatar," I felt sort of the same as when I saw "Star Wars" in 1977. That was another movie I walked into with uncertain expectations. James Cameron's film has been the subject of relentlessly dubious advance buzz, just as his "Titanic" was. Once again, he has silenced the doubters by simply delivering an extraordinary film. There is still at least one man in Hollywood who knows how to spend $250 million, or was it $300 million, wisely.

Click to expand...

I find it hilarious that people are making the pretentious assertion that one must view this movie as moronic. Go watch Transformers 2 then Avatar and let me know what's moronic. The story isn't brilliant nor original but far from moronic, in my opinion of course. If someone else's is negative of it great but lets avoid the "Ur dumb if you don't think this thing is dumber!" malarky.

Unless it's Transformer 2.

You had to bring that up, didnt you?

Jan 6, 2010#322

Chibibar

a friend of mine send me this (I didn't read previous pages sorry if it is a repost)
http://web.me.com/pascalboogaert/Site/foto3.html

edit: possible plot spoiler for those who haven't watch it yet (kinda).

Jan 6, 2010#323

sixpackshaker

It was spoilered here earlier. It is a funny take on the plot.

Jan 6, 2010#324

Chibibar

sixpackshaker said:
It was spoilered here earlier. It is a funny take on the plot.

heh.. there

I tag it as possible spoiler

Jan 6, 2010#325

Rob King

Considering there was 'talk' of two sequels should the movie do well, I'd say it's a sure thing now. I look forward to what the sequels will bring: I hope it will take advantage of those high science fiction concepts that were slipped in there.

Jan 6, 2010#326

Bowielee

drawn_inward said:
I wasn't offended by this movie. I don't think I've ever been offended by any form of entertainment.

You obviously have never watched pre-popularity John Waters.

Jan 6, 2010#327

Iaculus

Unimportant grammar-pedant note - if you're not bothered about something, it's "I couldn't care less". Saying "I could care less" just means that you care about it to a certain extent.

Thank you, and good night.

Jan 7, 2010#328

Calleja

That always kinda bothers me too.

But I'm easily bothered by stuff like that.

aranoid:

Jan 7, 2010#329

Silver Jelly

Calleja said:
That always kinda bothers me too.

But I'm easily bothered by stuff like that. aranoid:

Well, I could care less about what bothers you!

Jan 7, 2010#330

tegid

WTF is with that avatar??

I'm not gonna sleep well tonight...

Jan 7, 2010#331

Silver Jelly

i'm so sexy it hurts.

Jan 7, 2010#332

ElJuski

Hey Pojo, this movie just got better for you:

http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/06/avatar-sex-scene-on-dvd/

wakkwakkwakka

Jan 7, 2010#333

CynicismKills

ElJuski said:
Hey Pojo, this movie just got better for you:

http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/06/avatar-sex-scene-on-dvd/

wakkwakkwakka

HOT PONYTAILTACLE ACTION

Jan 7, 2010#334

LordRavage

I stayed away from this thread until I saw the movie. Saw it last night and it was everything I thought it would be. Visually stunning but a tired, over used plot. The 3D kicked ass.

All I have left to say was the Colonel was the best character in the movie. Hands down.

Jan 7, 2010#335

ElJuski

My favorite part of the movie still is by far when he pulls out a fucking knife on his mech, and started knife fighting with a hillariously oversized knife.

Jan 7, 2010#336

Silver Jelly

The Colonel is awesome.

Jan 7, 2010#337

strawman

tegid said:
What?? Do they still use the red/green ones somewhere?

Imax uses glasses that combine both color lenses and polarized lenses. And they aren't perfect, so you get a lot of bleed over (especially noticable during credits), and if you tilt your head you get a lot more bleed over.

RealD uses polarized only lenses, but instead of linear polarization they use circular polarization, which isn't affected when you tilt your head.

RealD is superior for this, but of course it's patented, and IMAX is already invested in their version. I took the disposable reald glasses and put them in clip on sunglasses so I don't have to wear the headache inducing frames they provide (one size fits no one!).

We saw it in imax tonight (it was awesome!) and I want to see it in reald later to see if there's really as big a difference as I think there is.

Either way, this movie is a major win. I really enjoyed it. It was a simple story, and one might be understandably upset that it's a relatively overdone/trite/etc plot, but I thought it was assembled well, told a "real" story (in the sense that verbal tales, such as brothers grimm, are "human" tales easy to remember because they strike a chord in us) and was presented in a rather spectacular way.

Definitely one to be seen again.

I'm more excited about the announcement of 3D blu-ray, and existing 3D TVs, etc - I suspect Avatar will be one of the 'showcase' films for that consumer push this fall (still expensive, and early adopters only, but they'll be out and available).

But yeah, definitely going to see it again.

Jan 7, 2010#338

drawn_inward

Bowielee;325282][QUOTE=drawn_inward said:
I wasn't offended by this movie. I don't think I've ever been offended by any form of entertainment.

You obviously have never watched pre-popularity John Waters.[/QUOTE]

When the intent is to offend, it actually has the opposite effect on me. I think the internet broke my offense button.

Jan 8, 2010#339

@Li3n

stienman said:
It was a simple story, and one might be understandably upset that it's a relatively overdone/trite/etc plot, but I thought it was assembled well, told a "real" story (in the sense that verbal tales, such as brothers grimm, are "human" tales easy to remember because they strike a chord in us) and was presented in a rather spectacular way.

There are only like 10 stories that can be told overall anyway, the problem was that it was told in a rather trite way... no one complained about any of those operas that where just copied from some myth cycle, or Shakespeare doing the old star-crossed lovers etc.

Cliches are only cliches when no one does anything new/interesting with them.

Jan 8, 2010#340

ElJuski

Yeahhhh the story is really plain and bad, honestly. Which is why there's so much hate for it--beyond people going against the grain of expectations, which is, I admit, a camp I am strongly in. But really, no, the story sucks. And to anyone that disagrees I can compile a list of movies / books / etc. which deals with essentially the same thing, but in a more novel, interesting, intellectually expanding manner.

Jan 8, 2010#341

@Li3n

I wouldn't say bad because i've seen some way more horrible stuff... it just feels like they where simply going through a checklist instead of actually trying to tell a story.

Jan 8, 2010#342

Iaculus

ElJuski said:
My favorite part of the movie still is by far when he pulls out a fucking knife on his mech, and started knife fighting with a hillariously oversized knife.

You mean apart from the impromptu combat-drop from an exploding gunship?

Jan 8, 2010#343

LordRavage

Iaculus;326134][QUOTE=ElJuski said:
My favorite part of the movie still is by far when he pulls out a fucking knife on his mech, and started knife fighting with a hillariously oversized knife.

Jan 8, 2010#344

@Li3n

Or countless other mecha shows...

Jan 8, 2010#345

Alex B.

LordRavage;326257][QUOTE=Iaculus;326134][QUOTE=ElJuski said:
My favorite part of the movie still is by far when he pulls out a fucking knife on his mech, and started knife fighting with a hillariously oversized knife.

You mean apart from the impromptu combat-drop from an exploding gunship?[/QUOTE]

The Colonel was on freaking fire! I laughed at how awesome that was. Plus the fact the mech had a dagger was awesome. Reminded me of Full Metal Panic.[/QUOTE]

heh, I loved that. My nephew kept saying, "That's so lucky! That guy's lucky!" and I had to reply, "No, that's not luck, he's just a total badass!"

Jan 8, 2010#346

ElJuski

mecha...this is new to me. There is a thing...about people...in mech...s?

Jan 8, 2010#347

evilmike

stienman said:
RealD uses polarized only lenses, but instead of linear polarization they use circular polarization, which isn't affected when you tilt your head.

Interesting. I guess they use the opposite rotations to separate right-left information? Do the glasses convert the polarization to linear and then cross-filter it, or is there a more direct kind of filtration?

Jan 8, 2010#348

Frankie Williamson

ElJuski said:
mecha...this is new to me. There is a thing...about people...in mech...s?

It's the weeaboo way to say mechs.

Jan 8, 2010#349

fade

So it's like spelling it "magick"?

Jan 8, 2010#350

Iaculus

I think 'mecha' came first, actually. Robotech (that frankensteined Macross show), which introduced the word 'mecha' to Western audiences, came out slightly before Battletech (the unrelated tabletop wargame), which introduced the word 'mech', IIRC.

Good rule of thumb is that 'mecha' refers to a particular sort of show featuring humongous war robots (mostly because those sorts of shows tend to come from Japan, so it only seems fair to use their version), whilst 'mechs' refers to the humongous war robots themselves. Really, though, the two are interchangeable as plurals for 'mech'.

Jan 8, 2010#351

Espy

Yeah I could be wrong but I think Mecha was first as well. Mecha was Robotech and all those things then Battletech just called them BattleMechs (probably to avoid legal issues).

Jan 8, 2010#352

Tinwhistler

back on topic: Callistarya and I are going to see this tonight.

I really haven't worried about spoilers and have read the thread pretty freely since I assumed (based on the trailers I've seen) that the plot was pretty derivative. Still, i expect to enjoy the show tonight.

Jan 8, 2010#353

Frankie Williamson

Iaculus said:
I think 'mecha' came first, actually. Robotech (that frankensteined Macross show), which introduced the word 'mecha' to Western audiences, came out slightly before Battletech (the unrelated tabletop wargame), which introduced the word 'mech', IIRC.

Good rule of thumb is that 'mecha' refers to a particular sort of show featuring humongous war robots (mostly because those sorts of shows tend to come from Japan, so it only seems fair to use their version), whilst 'mechs' refers to the humongous war robots themselves. Really, though, the two are interchangeable as plurals for 'mech'.

Exactly, one is western, one is Japanese.

It's like calling a Spider-Man comic manga.

Jan 8, 2010#354

@Li3n

Espy said:
Yeah I could be wrong but I think Mecha was first as well. Mecha was Robotech and all those things then Battletech just called them BattleMechs (probably to avoid legal issues).

They where called BattleDroids at first... until Darth Lucas heard about it...

As for mecha, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecha#Word_origin_and_usage

Jan 9, 2010#355

JCM

James Camorn is offcially the King of the box office grosses, with Titanic and Avatr being the biggest-grossing films ever. And there's still chance that Avatar can surpass Titanic.
http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/

(Not to forget that before Titanic, Aliens and Terminator 2 were the highest-grossing movies of their respective franchises)

Jan 9, 2010#356

MindDetective

I wish people reported ticket sales instead of box office receipts.

Jan 9, 2010#357

JCM

If you have a math nerd friend, ask him to calculate the average ticket price, then divide the gross by it.

Jan 9, 2010#358

The Lovely Boehner

JCM said:
If you have a math nerd friend, ask him to calculate the average ticket price, then divide the gross by it.

This is kind of problematic since it's hard to get something remotely close to an average ticket price between matinee shows, night shows, RealD, and IMAX showings. And no clue how many went to each type of show.

Jan 10, 2010#359

Frankie Williamson

Any which way and how. It's a fucking monster of a money maker.

Jan 10, 2010#360

Hailey Knight

And think: DVD sales tend to make triple what movie sales do.

Jan 10, 2010#361

Bowielee

Thing is, one of the biggest deals about this movie is the use of the new 3D technology. That being said, how many people are actually going to buy the dvd when they can't get the same effect in their home yet?

Or, maybe the movie will bust that industry cherry too.

Jan 10, 2010#362

Espy

Bowielee said:
Thing is, one of the biggest deals about this movie is the use of the new 3D technology. That being said, how many people are actually going to buy the dvd when they can't get the same effect in their home yet?

Or, maybe the movie will bust that industry cherry too.

They just announced that the PS3 will get 3D functionality in a firmware update soon. Seems like it's coming to our homes sooner than later...

Jan 10, 2010#363

Hailey Knight

For Blu-Ray, at least.

I'm still in the "fuck hi-def, got plenty of DVDs" camp myself. I'm certainly not going to replace my movie collection for that stuff, and my TV size means I can't tell the difference. But I'm happy that they keep rolling out the Blu-Ray; means regular DVDs are getting cheaper.

As someone who enjoyed it for the movie, and felt the 3D itself was worthless and added nothing, it's on our to-get list when it comes out on DVD.

I think I'm just not a 3D guy. It doesn't give me headaches, but my favorite movie last year was Coraline, which I saw in 3D at the theater, and I just didn't see the point.

Jan 10, 2010#364

Tinwhistler

We enjoyed the movie. The story was derivative and predictable, for sure, but had some unique elements as well.

The only really jarring moment for me was when the general pulled a big ass knife from the mech, since it really was totally nonsensical why the mech would have a big ass knife.

we saw it in 2d..i have no sterovision at all, and so all 3d movies look like ass to me.

Jan 10, 2010#365

The Lovely Boehner

There is no sequence of events that will lead to me owning Avatar on DVD/Bluray/magic 3D disk.

Jan 10, 2010#366

The Lovely Boehner

Tinwhistler said:
We enjoyed the movie. The story was derivative and predictable, for sure, but had some unique elements as well.

The only really jarring moment for me was when the general pulled a big ass knife from the mech, since it really was totally nonsensical why the mech would have a big ass knife.

.

Yeah there is no need for a knife when you're traipsing through a huge and dense forested planet

Jan 10, 2010#367

Hailey Knight

Charlie Dont Surf;326956][QUOTE=Tinwhistler said:
We enjoyed the movie. The story was derivative and predictable, for sure, but had some unique elements as well.

The only really jarring moment for me was when the general pulled a big ass knife from the mech, since it really was totally nonsensical why the mech would have a big ass knife.

.

Yeah there is no need for a knife when you're traipsing through a huge and dense forested planet[/QUOTE]

But I think his was the only mech that had one.

Jan 10, 2010#368

JCM

escushion said:
For Blu-Ray, at least.

I'm still in the "fuck hi-def, got plenty of DVDs" camp myself. I'm certainly not going to replace my movie collection for that stuff, and my TV size means I can't tell the difference. But I'm happy that they keep rolling out the Blu-Ray; means regular DVDs are getting cheaper.

As someone who enjoyed it for the movie, and felt the 3D itself was worthless and added nothing, it's on our to-get list when it comes out on DVD.

I think I'm just not a 3D guy. It doesn't give me headaches, but my favorite movie last year was Coraline, which I saw in 3D at the theater, and I just didn't see the point.

In most cases, for older movies, blu-ray is not worth it, if you leave a normal tv for dvd watching (LCD makes dvds look shite)

The bourne trilogy, for example, the first two dont look any better than a dvd on a normal TV. The last, is amazingly detailed, because it was made for HD screens.

My advice? Get it for stuff like Wall-E, Up or new sci-fi/action flicks. Keep using dvd for comedies and older movies. If you have a PS3, it means you get 3D movies with an update, but then you dont like 3D.

Jan 10, 2010#369

Silver Jelly

escushion;326958][QUOTE=Charlie Dont Surf;326956][QUOTE=Tinwhistler said:
We enjoyed the movie. The story was derivative and predictable, for sure, but had some unique elements as well.

The only really jarring moment for me was when the general pulled a big ass knife from the mech, since it really was totally nonsensical why the mech would have a big ass knife.

.

Yeah there is no need for a knife when you're traipsing through a huge and dense forested planet[/QUOTE]

But I think his was the only mech that had one.[/QUOTE]

I think there was one knifing the natives on horseback in one of the battle scenes.

Jan 10, 2010#370

Chibibar

I finally saw this movie. It is pretty good. Yea it is a "re-hash" from older movies, but I like it. It has action, decent story, and effects

(we saw it in 3D)

Jan 10, 2010#371

The Lovely Boehner

JCM said:
In most cases, for older movies, blu-ray is not worth it, if you leave a normal tv for dvd watching (LCD makes dvds look shite)

The bourne trilogy, for example, the first two dont look any better than a dvd on a normal TV. The last, is amazingly detailed, because it was made for HD screens.

My advice? Get it for stuff like Wall-E, Up or new sci-fi/action flicks. Keep using dvd for comedies and older movies. If you have a PS3, it means you get 3D movies with an update, but then you dont like 3D.

Jan 10, 2010#372

Tinwhistler

Charlie Dont Surf;326956][QUOTE=Tinwhistler said:
We enjoyed the movie. The story was derivative and predictable, for sure, but had some unique elements as well.

The only really jarring moment for me was when the general pulled a big ass knife from the mech, since it really was totally nonsensical why the mech would have a big ass knife.

.

Yeah there is no need for a knife when you're traipsing through a huge and dense forested planet[/QUOTE]

A mech is not a person. It doesn't need a machete to easily get rid of vines and thick brush. It can just power through them. A tree wouldn't succumb to a knife anyway. Not to mention, it wasn't a machete...it was a combat knife, and not once, did we see during the entire duration of the movie, a mech using a knife against underbrush.

:rolleyes:

Jan 10, 2010#373

Espy

Charlie Dont Surf;326966][QUOTE=JCM said:
In most cases, for older movies, blu-ray is not worth it, if you leave a normal tv for dvd watching (LCD makes dvds look shite)

The bourne trilogy, for example, the first two dont look any better than a dvd on a normal TV. The last, is amazingly detailed, because it was made for HD screens.

My advice? Get it for stuff like Wall-E, Up or new sci-fi/action flicks. Keep using dvd for comedies and older movies. If you have a PS3, it means you get 3D movies with an update, but then you dont like 3D.

Jan 10, 2010#374

JCM

Charlie Dont Surf;326966][QUOTE=JCM said:
In most cases, for older movies, blu-ray is not worth it, if you leave a normal tv for dvd watching (LCD makes dvds look shite)

The bourne trilogy, for example, the first two dont look any better than a dvd on a normal TV. The last, is amazingly detailed, because it was made for HD screens.

My advice? Get it for stuff like Wall-E, Up or new sci-fi/action flicks. Keep using dvd for comedies and older movies. If you have a PS3, it means you get 3D movies with an update, but then you dont like 3D.

You don't know what you're talking about. Every movie ever made was shot for "High definition" because Film has a higher definition than blu-rays. Blu-ray looks better than DVD for every movie ever shot on film (this is 99% of them). The only exceptions might be old TV shows shot in fullscreen/not on film.[/QUOTE]The old "it can be better than Blu-Ray" argument, yes, its true film (same goes for photographic film) has a resolution thats bigger, hich I wish were true all the time, because my criterion collection giftbox doesnt have ANY noticeable difference from their counterparts in DVD.

Every old movie I have on both, dont show any noticeable difference besides they dont look like mud on a LCD screen like a dvd does. Watch ANY old movie transfer. Now watch a high-def movie, like lets say, Dark Knight or Wall-E. And it'll look less detailed and less sharp.

Today's lesson is higher film resolution is not always = sharp crisp high def.
Same applies for normal cameras vs high definition cameras.

If you do have any good crisp Blu-ray transfers that I may rent and test out, I'll be glad to rent them and check them out, because until now I've only gotten dissapointed.

Jan 10, 2010#375

Frankie Williamson

Dark City on bluray was pretty exquisite.

Jan 10, 2010#376

fade

When VHS died, I didn't even really buy into DVDs. I've got a few, but services like Netflix and Redbox had become so entrenched, even at the beginning, that it seemed pointless to buy anything. Not to mention, when movies went digital, I suspected that the next format would be virtual. I still do, and I think Bluray is intermediary at best. There are already better high-def compression algorithms out there. They just need support and standardization.

Jan 10, 2010#377

The Lovely Boehner

The Godfather on Blu-Ray is amazing, and noticeably different than the DVD versions. I have both.

Jan 10, 2010#378

Iaculus

Tinwhistler;326968][QUOTE=Charlie Dont Surf;326956][QUOTE=Tinwhistler said:
We enjoyed the movie. The story was derivative and predictable, for sure, but had some unique elements as well.

The only really jarring moment for me was when the general pulled a big ass knife from the mech, since it really was totally nonsensical why the mech would have a big ass knife.

.

[/QUOTE]

Really? That was some thick vegetation - enough to stop a tank, I'd say, and the mechs employed were significantly more fragile in design than that. It also makes sense that on a densely-forested planet with limited line-of-sight where everything's trying to kill you as a matter of course (including some very nasty oversized ambush predators, like that big hairless lion-dog beastie it got into a brawl with at the end), you would want to keep a little something around for close encounters. Note that even the standard-model mechs had some very nasty-looking bayonets on their guns.

Also, Quaritch was a bloodthirsty crazy with enough clout on the base to get himself a neat little custom mech with no questions asked. See also: the Joker's little speech on knives from the Dark Knight.

Jan 10, 2010#379

Tinwhistler

Iaculus said:
Really? That was some thick vegetation - enough to stop a tank, I'd say, and the mechs employed were significantly more fragile in design than that.

Jan 10, 2010#380

Hailey Knight

I think the character who requested to have a big knife on his mech was over the top.

Jan 10, 2010#381

strawman

I think it's was hilariously over the top and represented pretty much everything I love about the guy.

"Huh, this ship is a goner. Lemme just jump into my mech so I can leap out from the exploding ship and - oh, I'm on fire, that's annoying - ok, so now jump out, land on my feet, watch the ship explode, and then clamp down on the cigar and I'm goin' huntin'!"

Jan 10, 2010#382

Hailey Knight

He was something else. I loved Spoony and his brother's interpretations of the guy, even if I disagreed with Spoony's take on the movie (which, unlike the criticisms here, seemed to go into "making it up to hate it" land, which is odd for Spoony).

Jan 10, 2010#383

Chazwozel

JCM;326959][QUOTE=escushion said:
For Blu-Ray, at least.

I'm still in the "fuck hi-def, got plenty of DVDs" camp myself. I'm certainly not going to replace my movie collection for that stuff, and my TV size means I can't tell the difference. But I'm happy that they keep rolling out the Blu-Ray; means regular DVDs are getting cheaper.

As someone who enjoyed it for the movie, and felt the 3D itself was worthless and added nothing, it's on our to-get list when it comes out on DVD.

I think I'm just not a 3D guy. It doesn't give me headaches, but my favorite movie last year was Coraline, which I saw in 3D at the theater, and I just didn't see the point.

In most cases, for older movies, blu-ray is not worth it, if you leave a normal tv for dvd watching (LCD makes dvds look shite)

The bourne trilogy, for example, the first two dont look any better than a dvd on a normal TV. The last, is amazingly detailed, because it was made for HD screens.

My advice? Get it for stuff like Wall-E, Up or new sci-fi/action flicks. Keep using dvd for comedies and older movies. If you have a PS3, it means you get 3D movies with an update, but then you dont like 3D.[/QUOTE]

Dvds look just fine on an LCD with an upconverting DvD player with HDMI components.

Jan 10, 2010#384

Chazwozel

JCM;326978][QUOTE=Charlie Dont Surf;326966][QUOTE=JCM said:
In most cases, for older movies, blu-ray is not worth it, if you leave a normal tv for dvd watching (LCD makes dvds look shite)

The bourne trilogy, for example, the first two dont look any better than a dvd on a normal TV. The last, is amazingly detailed, because it was made for HD screens.

My advice? Get it for stuff like Wall-E, Up or new sci-fi/action flicks. Keep using dvd for comedies and older movies. If you have a PS3, it means you get 3D movies with an update, but then you dont like 3D.

Jan 11, 2010#385

Silver Jelly

stienman said:
I think it's was hilariously over the top and represented pretty much everything I love about the guy.

"Huh, this ship is a goner. Lemme just jump into my mech so I can leap out from the exploding ship and - oh, I'm on fire, that's annoying - ok, so now jump out, land on my feet, watch the ship explode, and then clamp down on the cigar and I'm goin' huntin'!"

The part that defined the character for me was when he decides breathing masks are for pussies, holds his breath and starts shooting the good guys when they are escaping.

Jan 11, 2010#386

sixpackshaker

The transfer of film to Blu-Ray can be ruined if the original film stock was not preserved. So if Ghostbusters faded over the years, and they did not do a major restoration, the Blu-Ray will look terrible.

Jan 11, 2010#387

Chibibar

Tinwhistler;327044][QUOTE=Iaculus said:
Really? That was some thick vegetation - enough to stop a tank, I'd say, and the mechs employed were significantly more fragile in design than that.

Really? It's funny how none of that was actually in the movie I saw. You know, vegetation stopping tanks, mechs being fragile, etc. In the movie I saw, I saw the machinery (mechs and tanks) pretty much tearing up the plant life and all but the largest animal life. Even without the knife, the general's mech was able to man-handle the big puma-thing that probably weighed in at probably close to half a ton (based on size and mass--male african lions are nearly a quarter ton on average and this thing was much larger than one of those.). So, yeah, I don't think a mech is going to have much trouble just tearing down most vegetation with it's arms.

You can argue why the guy had a knife all day. It was a cartoon, essentially, so yeah if the guy wanted to have a big knife on his mech, fine. It was just a little jarringly over the top for me.[/QUOTE]

I don't know why is it "over the top" to have a knife, even on mech level. I don't think these are ordinary knives. I think like Japanese mecha where they have "laser swords" or "knives" (but of course no "known" nano blades or anything in the movie) while it is awesome to see a machine able to tear up anything in its path, you will still need a good sharp object when everything else fail (i.e out of bullets?)

Remember that these being have super hard bones. I think they said it suppose to be titanium or something, and hard to kill.

Jan 11, 2010#388

sixpackshaker

This is the best movie ever, or it will be in a few weeks when it passes Titanic.

Jan 11, 2010#389

Chibibar

In terms of Blu-Ray, isn't original film (35mm??) are usually shot in HD anyways right? even the old stuff. It is just transfer to digital media to make it look good right?

Jan 11, 2010#390

The Lovely Boehner

Chibibar said:
In terms of Blu-Ray, isn't original film (35mm??) are usually shot in HD anyways right? even the old stuff. It is just transfer to digital media to make it look good right?

Original film is higher definition than anything you can buy in the home right now, yes. DVDs and even Blu-Rays are compressed from what you see in the theater.

Jan 11, 2010#391

sixpackshaker

Most "films" are shot digitally now especially if it is an effects movie or if it has the budget to cover the costs. The sensors have nearly caught up to the resolution of film stock.

Jan 11, 2010#392

Chibibar

Charlie Dont Surf;327279][QUOTE=Chibibar said:
In terms of Blu-Ray, isn't original film (35mm??) are usually shot in HD anyways right? even the old stuff. It is just transfer to digital media to make it look good right?

Jan 11, 2010#393

JCM

Saw it.

While the first half screamed POCAHONTAS and it was obvious how it would end-

for example, that he would use the tree to become one of the permanently, and his taming the Taruk to become the legendary warrior

It was an enjoyable flick, loved the whole feel of the world and the level of detail, and also that the Navi are so much bigger than humans. I'd put it at the level of Titanic, not the best story ever, but enjoyable enough for watching it a few times, with great effects.

Jan 12, 2010#394

strawman

Chibibar;327327][QUOTE=Charlie Dont Surf;327279][QUOTE=Chibibar said:
In terms of Blu-Ray, isn't original film (35mm??) are usually shot in HD anyways right? even the old stuff. It is just transfer to digital media to make it look good right?

Original film is higher definition than anything you can buy in the home right now, yes. DVDs and even Blu-Rays are compressed from what you see in the theater.[/QUOTE]

That is how I understand it. So all "they" have to do is get the original footage and just transfer to Blu-Ray. Of course "quality" can suck if not done correctly (as some example of bad Blu-Ray)[/QUOTE]

Blu Ray HD right now is 1080p maximum, which is 1920x1080 resolution.

Digital theaters are close enough to film quality for most movie goers, and often use 2K resolution, which is about the same as the HD at 2048x1152.

High end 4k projectors are available (for the same cost as a small home) that project at 4096x2160, and while still falling a little short of film at its best, when it comes down to it only really great theaters project film well enough to make a difference.

But when a film is shot digitally, it's most frequently shot at 1080p. There are a few recent films shot digitally at 4k (with the very nice, expensive "Red One" camera") - notably Knowing and District 9 were shot on the Red One.

So with many films blu-ray HD is the best you're going to get because the film may have mostly been shot at 1080p.

You probably don't want to get me started on the difference between regular HDTVs and 120Hz and 240Hz HDTVs... (hint: get the 120 or 240)...

Jan 12, 2010#395

The Lovely Boehner

The Alamo Drafthouses near me have 4K projectors :smug:

Jan 12, 2010#396

Frankie Williamson

stienman;327662][QUOTE=Chibibar;327327][QUOTE=Charlie Dont Surf;327279][QUOTE=Chibibar said:
In terms of Blu-Ray, isn't original film (35mm??) are usually shot in HD anyways right? even the old stuff. It is just transfer to digital media to make it look good right?

Jan 12, 2010#397

Chibibar

Frankie;327681][QUOTE=stienman;327662][QUOTE=Chibibar;327327][QUOTE=Charlie Dont Surf;327279][QUOTE=Chibibar said:
In terms of Blu-Ray, isn't original film (35mm??) are usually shot in HD anyways right? even the old stuff. It is just transfer to digital media to make it look good right?

Jan 12, 2010#398

Espy

Charlie Dont Surf said:
The Alamo Drafthouses near me have 4K projectors :smug:

Yes but don't you have to watch out for Harry Knowles trying to eat you there?

Jan 12, 2010#399

The Lovely Boehner

Espy;327698][QUOTE=Charlie Dont Surf said:
The Alamo Drafthouses near me have 4K projectors :smug:

Yes but don't you have to watch out for Harry Knowles trying to eat you there?[/QUOTE]

You take the good with the bad

Jan 12, 2010#400

Chibibar

http://ca.movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.ap.org/some-see-racist-theme-alien-adventure-avatar-ap

oh seriously? Maybe the main character should have been a Chinese guy instead

I can see where some of the "idea" might have come to be "racist" but the movie was about corporate greed vs nature. Now the people didn't have the knowledge of technology like the corporation. I find it funny that one of the people in the article said "it would be nice to save ourselves" well in the Avatar context, that would have been hard. The people would have stayed with the tree and died (they would if Jack didn't tell them to run)

Jan 12, 2010#401

@Li3n

I find it funny that one of the people in the article said "it would be nice to save ourselves" well in the Avatar context, that would have been hard. The people would have stayed with the tree and died (they would if Jack didn't tell them to run)

That's kinda the point... feels like white man's burden, with the poor simple natives letting themselves get slaughtered without a white guy showing them the way.

Jan 12, 2010#402

Chibibar

@Li3n said:
I find it funny that one of the people in the article said "it would be nice to save ourselves" well in the Avatar context, that would have been hard. The people would have stayed with the tree and died (they would if Jack didn't tell them to run)

Click to expand...

That's kinda the point... feels like white man's burden, with the poor simple natives letting themselves get slaughtered without a white guy showing them the way.

well... ok given in any context. Would it have been any better if a black man? asian? hispanic would work? (probably someone else would have said racist of some level)

of course, I see as the "white man" are so greedy that they are willing to secretly kill anything to make a profit

Jan 12, 2010#403

Bowielee

ANYTHING is racist/sexist/homophobic if you look at it long enough, hard enough, and with a biased perception.

Jan 12, 2010#404

Chibibar

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100112/ap_en_mo/eu_vatican_avatar;_ylt=AoCypWeGF.V2iWWG2TYtGax0fNdF

Wow..... Avatar trying to promote the "NEW divinity" per Vatican (well at least that is the simplified version) worship nature is bad?

Jan 13, 2010#405

@Li3n

Chibibar;327800][QUOTE=@Li3n said:
I find it funny that one of the people in the article said "it would be nice to save ourselves" well in the Avatar context, that would have been hard. The people would have stayed with the tree and died (they would if Jack didn't tell them to run)

Click to expand...

That's kinda the point... feels like white man's burden, with the poor simple natives letting themselves get slaughtered without a white guy showing them the way.

well... ok given in any context. Would it have been any better if a black man? asian? hispanic would work? (probably someone else would have said racist of some level)[/QUOTE]

Well then it would probably count as a subversion or something.

Wow..... Avatar trying to promote the "NEW divinity" per Vatican (well at least that is the simplified version) worship nature is bad?

Well in Christianity worship is reserved for God alone.

Jan 13, 2010#406

strawman

Chibibar said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100112/ap_en_mo/eu_vatican_avatar;_ylt=AoCypWeGF.V2iWWG2TYtGax0fNdF

Wow..... Avatar trying to promote the \"NEW divinity\" per Vatican (well at least that is the simplified version) worship nature is bad?

Cleanliness is next to Godliness, and nature is so dirty! Have you looked out there recently? It gives me the jibblies just to think of all that dirt!

Dirt on top of dirt! Mounds, even mountains of nothing but dirt!

Jan 19, 2010#407

Hailey Knight

Apparently Avatar is now banned in China for being "too popular", with the censors fearing it may incite unrest against the military.

...As a government, if you're seeing yourselves in the villains of such a morally black-and-white movie, there is a PROBLEM.

Jan 19, 2010#408

ElJuski

HA. Wow, yeah. That's ridiculous.

Jan 19, 2010#409

Espy

escushion said:
...As a government, if you're seeing yourselves in the villains of such a morally black-and-white movie, there is a PROBLEM.

HA!

Jan 19, 2010#410

JCM

Avatar to games "git off my lawn"... although its scary how fast games have become more profitable than some huge movies.

Jan 19, 2010#411

Rob King

FINALLY saw this movie tonight.

Unbelievable. As everyone and their dog has already said, the story was wholly predictable, but the execution was goddamn flawless. When you go into a film knowing beforehand that it's one giant cliche, and it still manages to hold you the whole way through ... that's just incredible.

The thing I most appreciated was how well-realized Pandora was. I did not have to work hard on suspension of disbelief. Right from the arrival at Pandora I was drawn in. I realize it was like a minute of film time, but when a show or movie portrays weightlessness on it's ships, it wins major points. Not to say that magical gravity generators lose you points, because I realize how impossible it would have been to shoot say ... Star Trek as a zero-gravity setting. But when I see people floating through their spaceships, I get giddy.

The life on Pandora also blew me away. Only one or two scenes made me look twice at the creature models. Those little black lizzard-jackals turned me off a bit. The texture of their skin made them look digital, but I feel like they got the texture right ... confusing to explain. It was digital, but done so well that it looked digital in a good way. The rubbery scales I think is what did it. Anyhow ...

Yes. The story was pretty decent too, considering that it was (again: previously mentioned) an alien Pocahontas. Not sure how I feel about the 'noble savage' archetype, but that's a problem I have with the archetype, not so much with the movie.

I can't even get my thoughts straight. I have been convinced that Pandora is a real place, and I can't wait to see what happens next with this franchise (because you know it's coming). I'm afraid that a sequel couldn't possibly live up to this movie, but I'll be waiting with bated breath, hoping that they can pull it off.

Jan 19, 2010#412

Hailey Knight

I'm looking forward to a sequel as well. I just hope it avoids being the kind of overblown mess a la the third films in the X-Men, Spider-man, Pirates of the Caribbean franchises.

Jan 19, 2010#413

fade

I'm weirded out, because exactly what people here and in the general public seem to like, I disliked the most. I thought Pandora felt fake and diorama-like. Everything was staged. But really, I think the thing that bugged me the most was that I could've sworn the designers had Fern Gully running the whole time they were creating. Not just the story, but the world, too. Right down to the "glows when you step on it" ground.

Jan 19, 2010#414

Hailey Knight

And you liked the parts people hated, right?

Like the jackal skin texture and the race subtext.

Jan 20, 2010#415

@Li3n

JCM said:
Avatar to games \"git off my lawn\"... although its scary how fast games have become more profitable than some huge movies.

http://www.bme.eu.com/media/media-news/infographics/avatarvsmodernwarfare.jpg

What i find scarier is that MW2 had a bigger advertising budget...

fade said:
I thought Pandora felt fake and diorama-like.

Well it was still CGI, so it never looked real, it's just that they put way more thought into it then usual...

Jan 20, 2010#416

tegid

escushion said:
Apparently Avatar is now banned in China for being "too popular", with the censors fearing it may incite unrest against the military.

...As a government, if you're seeing yourselves in the villains of such a morally black-and-white movie, there is a PROBLEM.

It's a different culture...

Terrik said:
On a Chinese forum, a bunch of Chinese were disgusted that the guy betrayed the human race. *That* is what they had a problem with.

Jan 20, 2010#417

JCM

tegid;331139][QUOTE=escushion said:
Apparently Avatar is now banned in China for being "too popular", with the censors fearing it may incite unrest against the military.

...As a government, if you're seeing yourselves in the villains of such a morally black-and-white movie, there is a PROBLEM.

It's a different culture...

Terrik said:
On a Chinese forum, a bunch of Chinese were disgusted that the guy betrayed the human race. *That* is what they had a problem with.

[/QUOTE]At least the Vatican didnt ban it....

The Vatican newspaper and radio station have called the film “Avatar” simplistic, and criticized it for flirting with modern doctrines that promote the worship of nature as a substitute for religion. L’Osservatore Romano and Vatican Radio dedicated ample coverage to James Cameron’s big-grossing, 3-D spectacle. But the reviews were lukewarm, calling the movie superficial in its eco-message, despite groundbreaking visual effects.
L’Osservatore said the film “gets bogged down by a spiritualism linked to the worship of nature.” Similarly, Vatican Radio said it “cleverly winks at all those pseudo-doctrines that turn ecology into the religion of the millennium.”
“Nature is no longer a creation to defend, but a divinity to worship,” the radio said.
Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi said that while the movie reviews are just criticism, with no theological weight — they do reflect Pope Benedict XVI’s views on the dangers of turning nature into a “new divinity.”
Benedict has often spoken about the need to protect the environment, earning the nickname of “green pope.” But he has sometimes balanced that call with a warning against neo-paganism.
In a recent World Day of Peace message, the pontiff warned against any notions that equate human person and other living things. He said such notions “open the way to a new pantheism tinged with neo-paganism, which would see the source of man’s salvation in nature alone.”
The Vatican newspaper occasionally likes to comment in its cultural pages on movies or pop culture icons, as it did recently about “The Simpsons” or U2. In one famous instance, several Vatican officials spoke out against “The Da Vinci Code.”

Jan 20, 2010#418

@Li3n

The Vatican thing was already posted...

Jan 20, 2010#419

Hailey Knight

And it's too late to stop neo-pagans from existing. Weeeeeee!!!!

I can see why he'd get defensive though. You can't get anymore pagan in Christianity than Catholicism.

Jan 24, 2010#420

Jay

Saw this movie tonight in 3D... needless to say.... I LOVED it.

Jan 25, 2010#421

Jay

7 million from all-time..... this movie rocks

Jan 25, 2010#422

The Lovely Boehner

And it's ~$50m from most grossed in the USA. I don't know the breakdown of IMAX vs 3D vs 2D showings, but I would bet it has no chance at cracking the top ten in total # tickets sold.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

That chart doesn't even take into account the inflated prices with 3D and IMAX showings, but it's roughly "Most tickets sold all time".

Jan 25, 2010#423

Shakey

It also doesn't take into account the fact that pre-vcr the only way to watch a movie was at the theater, maybe we should include rentals and purchases of the movie too. Even once the VCR became mainstream the wait time for it to be released was huge, I think it was about a year. There will never be a good measurement of sales.

Jan 25, 2010#424

sixpackshaker

He should have 2 movies in the top 25 by time Avatar leaves the theaters, makes him one of the best directors of all time, next to Spielberg and Lucas.

Jan 25, 2010#425

The Lovely Boehner

sixpackshaker said:
He should have 2 movies in the top 25 by time Avatar leaves the theaters, makes him one of the best directors of all time, next to Spielberg and Lucas.

It makes him one of the most-successful of all-time, sure. Can't argue that.

Jan 25, 2010#426

ElJuski

yes point on the successful, not BEST

Jan 25, 2010#427

Hailey Knight

Shakey said:
It also doesn't take into account the fact that pre-vcr the only way to watch a movie was at the theater, maybe we should include rentals and purchases of the movie too. Even once the VCR became mainstream the wait time for it to be released was huge, I think it was about a year. There will never be a good measurement of sales.

This. Consider how much DVD sales take in. It's insane, often much more than the theatrical run (might not be the case for Avatar though).

Jan 26, 2010#428

sixpackshaker

ElJuski said:
yes point on the successful, not BEST

I know, but every time I doubt a musician's talent, some one drops in with record sales numbers. So I am just returning the favor now.

Jan 26, 2010#429

Frankie Williamson

sixpackshaker;333731][QUOTE=ElJuski said:
yes point on the successful, not BEST

I know, but every time I doubt a musician's talent, some one drops in with record sales numbers. So I am just returning the favor now.[/QUOTE]

You've been throwing that best thing around for a while now.

Jan 26, 2010#430

Chibibar

escushion;333554][QUOTE=Shakey said:
It also doesn't take into account the fact that pre-vcr the only way to watch a movie was at the theater, maybe we should include rentals and purchases of the movie too. Even once the VCR became mainstream the wait time for it to be released was huge, I think it was about a year. There will never be a good measurement of sales.

This. Consider how much DVD sales take in. It's insane, often much more than the theatrical run (might not be the case for Avatar though).[/QUOTE]

I have to agree. Back in the days, the only way to SEE a movie is in a theater. VCR is relatively new stuff in the 80s (give or take when it finally became mainstream) now it is DVD or VoD (Video on Demand from cable channels) that should count too.

Jan 26, 2010#431

The Lovely Boehner

Two wrongs do make a right, apparently.

Jan 26, 2010#432

Chibibar

heh. I only think it should count cause in present days, I may not go see a movie that "just came out" unless it is really really really good. I might even wait until it comes on cable or DVD 6mo-9mo later (depending on how well it does)

Jan 26, 2010#433

@Li3n

Well now it's officially movie of the century: China renames 'Avatar' mountain in honour of film

Jan 26, 2010#434

Chibibar

@Li3n said:
Well now it's officially movie of the century: China renames 'Avatar' mountain in honour of film

that is pretty interesting. I thought China was going to ban it since it could "incite illicit political behavior"

Jan 26, 2010#435

@Li3n

Well they apparently banned the 2D version:

But earlier this month, China pulled 2D versions of the film from cinemas, saying they were not doing well commercially.
Critics said the move was to make way for domestic films - especially the state-backed biopic of the philosopher Confucius - and because the plot too closely mirrored forced land evictions in the country.

Jan 26, 2010#436

Iaculus

Chibibar;333879][QUOTE=@Li3n said:
Well now it's officially movie of the century: China renames 'Avatar' mountain in honour of film

that is pretty interesting. I thought China was going to ban it since it could "incite illicit political behavior"[/QUOTE]

Who says it was a nice mountain?

Jan 26, 2010#437

Chibibar

heh. It is funny that the Chinese government is still trying its best to censor information and prevent people from thinking themselves.

Jan 27, 2010#438

The Lovely Boehner

http://www.thrfeed.com/2010/01/avatar-ticket-sales-.html

Avatar is actually only the 26th most popular movie

Jan 27, 2010#439

Jake

@Li3n said:
Well they apparently banned the 2D version:

But earlier this month, China pulled 2D versions of the film from cinemas, saying they were not doing well commercially.
Critics said the move was to make way for domestic films - especially the state-backed biopic of the philosopher Confucius - and because the plot too closely mirrored forced land evictions in the country.

Click to expand...

How is taking it out of some theaters remotely the same as banning?

Jan 27, 2010#440

@Li3n

Banning a version... one that didn't need any special theatre either...

Jan 27, 2010#441

Jake

@Li3n said:
Banning a version... one that didn't need any special theatre either...

Still not seeing anything remotely fitting the definition of "banned".

Jan 27, 2010#442

@Li3n

Well you'd fit right in the CC of China i guess.

Jan 27, 2010#443

Jake

@Li3n said:
Well you'd fit right in the CC of China i guess.

Yes, knowing the definition of words is akin to communism. Well played. :pud:

Jan 28, 2010#444

Bowielee

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/forbes-avatar-box-office-king.html

I liked this article. Especially because it acknowledges that with inflation adjustment, Gone with the Wind is still the highest grossing movie of all time.

Jan 28, 2010#445

The Lovely Boehner

The Lovely Boner said:
http://www.thrfeed.com/2010/01/avatar-ticket-sales-.html

Avatar is actually only the 26th most popular movie

Bowielee said:
http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/forbes-avatar-box-office-king.html

I liked this article. Especially because it acknowledges that with inflation adjustment, Gone with the Wind is still the highest grossing movie of all time.

Yeah, it's the same lines as the one I posted about # Tickets Sold. I'm glad at least some places are debunking the whole "Avatar is the most-popular movie ever" claim.

Jan 28, 2010#446

sixpackshaker

Still hard to figure that 202,044,600 tickets were sold to roughly 132,000,000 people.

Jan 28, 2010#447

Iaculus

sixpackshaker said:
Still hard to figure that 202,044,600 tickets were sold to roughly 132,000,000 people.

Lots of 'em watched it twice?

Jan 28, 2010#448

Shakey

It wasn't ticket sales from one release.

"Gone With the Wind" was re-released in 1947, 1954 and 1961. In 1967 it was shown in 70 mm.

Jan 28, 2010#449

Chazwozel

Really who gives a shit eitherway? Nothing is going to stop the media from pumping Avatar through your veins like it's a glucose IV.

Jan 28, 2010#450

@Li3n

Jake;334532][QUOTE=@Li3n said:
Well you'd fit right in the CC of China i guess.

Yes, knowing the definition of words is akin to communism. Well played. :pud:

[/QUOTE]

Being anal about it is... yes, i can say, for example, that "they banned the uncensored version in Australia" without using the word wrong... so there, you pinko commie bastard.

Jan 28, 2010#451

ElJuski

You know, I have one more reason to hate Avatar: everything is going to be in fucking 3-D now. Harry Potter, Clash of the Titans, fucking CALIGULA: http://www.avclub.com/articles/caligula-director-to-bring-audiences-38ddd-in-3d,37651/.

I really don't want a ton of cheap fucking thrills coming at me with every fucking movie. Just like I didn't want every goddamn Wii game to have some bullshit waggle.

Jan 28, 2010#452

Shakey

Then don't watch it in 3-D. They won't put a gun to your head and make you watch a movie in 3-D. I didn't watch Avatar in 3-D, and you couldn't even tell it was supposed to be seen in 3-D.

Jan 28, 2010#453

Rob King

ElJuski said:
You know, I have one more reason to hate Avatar: everything is going to be in fucking 3-D now. Harry Potter, Clash of the Titans, fucking CALIGULA: http://www.avclub.com/articles/caligula-director-to-bring-audiences-38ddd-in-3d,37651/.

I really don't want a ton of cheap fucking thrills coming at me with every fucking movie. Just like I didn't want every goddamn Wii game to have some bullshit waggle.

Where were the cheap thrills? In the last year I've seen half a dozen 3d movies, and except for Monsters Vs. Aliens, I can't think of any of them that turned it into a gimmick. I think it's a fantastic way to show movies, and a natural evolution of the format. Most of us can see in stereo, and appreciate the spacial awareness that comes along with that. Following from that, if we can do 3d, why wouldn't we do 3d? Previously the limiting factors were technology or cost, but now that those are both being surmounted ... again, I ask why not?

---------- Post added at 11:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:51 PM ----------

Also:

Critics said the move was to make way for domestic films - especially the state-backed biopic of the philosopher Confucius - and because the plot too closely mirrored forced land evictions in the country.

I have to say that I want to see this film. Especially considering that very little of what Confucius would have to say to the current government of China would be kind ...

Jan 28, 2010#454

Steven Soderburgin

HEY so I'm sure you were all eagerly awaiting my triumphant return to tell you all what to think about Avatar.

Well here it is:

Looked good, didn't make up for the lazy, stupid story.

This has been another edition of KISSINGER KOMMENTS

Jan 28, 2010#455

strawman

ElJuski said:
You know, I have one more reason to hate Avatar: everything is going to be in fucking 3-D now. Harry Potter, Clash of the Titans, fucking CALIGULA: http://www.avclub.com/articles/caligula-director-to-bring-audiences-38ddd-in-3d,37651/.

I really don't want a ton of cheap fucking thrills coming at me with every fucking movie. Just like I didn't want every goddamn Wii game to have some bullshit waggle.

I'm guessing you would have been one of the holdouts for stereo. Lots of 70's music with stereo gimmicks, but are you willing to go back to mono radio?

The gimmicks will go away, and the 3D effect will simply allow directors to add depth to the film.

Jan 29, 2010#456

@Li3n

Caligula in 3D?! Heh, maybe after we'll get porn back in theatres...

Jan 29, 2010#457

Jay

ElJuski said:
You know, I have one more reason to hate Avatar: everything is going to be in fucking 3-D now. Harry Potter, Clash of the Titans, fucking CALIGULA: http://www.avclub.com/articles/caligula-director-to-bring-audiences-38ddd-in-3d,37651/.

I really don't want a ton of cheap fucking thrills coming at me with every fucking movie. Just like I didn't want every goddamn Wii game to have some bullshit waggle.

LESS WHINING PLZ

Jan 29, 2010#458

sixpackshaker

@Li3n said:
Caligula in 3D?! Heh, maybe after we'll get porn back in theatres...

I don't know... Porn is hard enough to watch on a 50 inch screen, I'd hate to see a 2 story wang coming at me... in 3D.

Jan 29, 2010#459

The Lovely Boehner

I hate calling eljuski a dumb idiot (wait no I LOVE that), but if anything, Avatar paved the way for subtle 3D in movies. Everyone's going to copy Avatar, and it had NO gotcha, Nav'i tongue flying at the screen, stupid jokes that would stand out like a sore thumb in 2D.

NOW It's a legitimate complaint that a bunch of 3D movies will DOUBLE the ticket price for a movie-goer to see the true vision of a flick.

Jan 29, 2010#460

Frankie Williamson

ElJuski said:
You know, I have one more reason to hate Avatar: everything is going to be in fucking 3-D now. Harry Potter, Clash of the Titans, fucking CALIGULA: http://www.avclub.com/articles/caligula-director-to-bring-audiences-38ddd-in-3d,37651/.

I really don't want a ton of cheap fucking thrills coming at me with every fucking movie. Just like I didn't want every goddamn Wii game to have some bullshit waggle.

Not every movie made afterwards was about boats last time James Cameron made a trillion dollars at the box office.

Jan 29, 2010#461

The Lovely Boehner

Frankie;335253][QUOTE=ElJuski said:
You know, I have one more reason to hate Avatar: everything is going to be in fucking 3-D now. Harry Potter, Clash of the Titans, fucking CALIGULA: http://www.avclub.com/articles/caligula-director-to-bring-audiences-38ddd-in-3d,37651/.

I really don't want a ton of cheap fucking thrills coming at me with every fucking movie. Just like I didn't want every goddamn Wii game to have some bullshit waggle.

Jan 29, 2010#462

ElJuski

But how many of those 3D movies are going to be well executed...and how many of them are going to be budget-cheap cash-ins to WOW the general American populace?

Jan 29, 2010#463

Espy

ElJuski said:
But how many of those 3D movies are going to be well executed...and how many of them are going to be budget-cheap cash-ins to WOW the general American populace?

Thats just called the MOVIE BUSINESS. Crappy movies will always be coming out regardless of 3D. Plus, the way I hear it, most of these flicks will be at your local theater in 3D and plain old normal vision so I wouldn't over stress about it.

Jan 29, 2010#464

sixpackshaker

The Lovely Boner;335271][QUOTE=Frankie;335253][QUOTE=ElJuski said:
You know, I have one more reason to hate Avatar: everything is going to be in fucking 3-D now. Harry Potter, Clash of the Titans, fucking CALIGULA: http://www.avclub.com/articles/caligula-director-to-bring-audiences-38ddd-in-3d,37651/.

I really don't want a ton of cheap fucking thrills coming at me with every fucking movie. Just like I didn't want every goddamn Wii game to have some bullshit waggle.

Not every movie made afterwards was about boats last time James Cameron made a trillion dollars at the box office.[/QUOTE]

Titanic didn't feature and make most of its money from being a revolutionary new style or type of movie though.[/QUOTE]

Actually it kind of did. Check into how much money they spent on computer effects at that time. The cost and technology behind the film was trumpeted in the press quite a bit.

Jan 29, 2010#465

Steven Soderburgin

The technology is basically the only reason the movie exists and it's making boatloads of money and is getting tremendous critical praise. The use of 3D is not entirely revolutionary (see: almost every animated movie that came out last year) but the motion capture, live action, and 3D combined created a pretty formidable spectacle. At the very least, there will be plenty of theaters installing 3D digital projectors because of this. Is it a reinvention of cinema and what cinema is? I don't know, that remains to be seen, but theaters are going to be scrambling to upgrade to be able to feature this technology, and 3D live action films are definitely going to become more common, at least for a while.

Jan 29, 2010#466

ElJuski

Espy;335285][QUOTE=ElJuski said:
But how many of those 3D movies are going to be well executed...and how many of them are going to be budget-cheap cash-ins to WOW the general American populace?

Jan 29, 2010#467

Jake

ElJuski's grandpappy said:
But how many of those in-color movies are going to be well executed...and how many of them are going to be budget-cheap cash-ins to WOW the general American populace?

Just sayin.

Jan 29, 2010#468

ElJuski

lol the metaphors keep gettin better n better

Jan 29, 2010#469

Hailey Knight

Jake said:
ElJuski's grandpappy said:

But how many of those in-color movies are going to be well executed...and how many of them are going to be budget-cheap cash-ins to WOW the general American populace?

Click to expand...

Just sayin.

Nice one.

Jan 29, 2010#470

Soliloquy

You know what really sold me on the subtle 3D effect? It wasn't Avatar, actually... it was a preview of the (real-life) Hubble Space Telescope repair in 3D that was shown before the movie. The subtle, zero-G movements of two harness hooks that were, by happenstance, in the front of the frame started making me think about what actual artistic, symbolic, or narrative effects 3D could potentially have in movies.

EDIT: Also, I loved the strangely-angled shots of Sam Worthington's eye whenever he woke up. And I thought every shot of a crowd of people was made infinitely more engrossing by the use of 3D -- it made the size of the crowd seem that much more real. Of course, this is more the case during the actual live film shots than the CG scenes... for some reason the 3D wasn't nearly as engrossing in the CG scenes.

EDIT 2: I also really want to see a trombone shot (AKA a vertigo shot) done in 3D.

Jan 29, 2010#471

Kitty Sinatra

*eagerly anticipates the 3d remake of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow*

Jan 29, 2010#472

Hailey Knight

Gruebeard said:
*eagerly anticipates the 3d remake of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow*

Would they remake the second two-thirds of the movie to be interesting or aerial to make it worth seeing?

Jan 29, 2010#473

Kitty Sinatra

I don't know. I just wanna see Angelina Jolie's lips in 3D

Jan 29, 2010#474

The Lovely Boehner

Gruebeard said:
*eagerly anticipates the 3d remake of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow*

They might do that if that movie made like one dollar

Jan 29, 2010#475

Soliloquy

The Lovely Boner;335548][QUOTE=Gruebeard said:
*eagerly anticipates the 3d remake of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow*

They might do that if that movie made like one dollar[/QUOTE]

We talking Net or Gross here?

Jan 29, 2010#476

Kitty Sinatra

Bah! It's only because it was only 2d that it did so poorly. Put that masterpiece in 3d and everyone will watch.

Jan 29, 2010#477

drawn_inward

Gruebeard said:
*eagerly anticipates the 3d remake of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow*

Will the 3D make Gwyneth Paltrow's acting better?

Jan 29, 2010#478

Kitty Sinatra

It can't make it worse, can it? Dear god . . .

*dreads the 3d remake of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow*

Jan 29, 2010#479

Espy

drawn_inward;335580][QUOTE=Gruebeard said:
*eagerly anticipates the 3d remake of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow*

Will the 3D make Gwyneth Paltrow's acting better?[/QUOTE]

She was the robot woman right? The one who appeared to be fully human but we all new was actually animatronic?

Jan 30, 2010#480

Calleja

I loved Sky Captain. The bad acting was to me on purpose as a homage to all the old serials of the 40s and 50s. Lots of recurring motifs and themes in that movie. Quite liked it.

Jan 30, 2010#481

Bowielee

That may have been true for every other actor than Gweneth. That chick just plain can't act at all.

Jan 30, 2010#482

The Lovely Boehner

Bowielee said:
That may have been true for every other actor than Gweneth. That chick just plain can't act at all.

She was fine in se7en, Shakespeare in Love, and Iron Man.

Jan 30, 2010#483

fade

The Lovely Boner;335271][QUOTE=Frankie;335253][QUOTE=ElJuski said:
You know, I have one more reason to hate Avatar: everything is going to be in fucking 3-D now. Harry Potter, Clash of the Titans, fucking CALIGULA: http://www.avclub.com/articles/caligula-director-to-bring-audiences-38ddd-in-3d,37651/.

I really don't want a ton of cheap fucking thrills coming at me with every fucking movie. Just like I didn't want every goddamn Wii game to have some bullshit waggle.

Not every movie made afterwards was about boats last time James Cameron made a trillion dollars at the box office.[/QUOTE]

Titanic didn't feature and make most of its money from being a revolutionary new style or type of movie though.[/QUOTE]

Neither did Avatar. Last I checked "originality" wasn't on the + side of the register for this movie. As far as 3-D goes, why do people keep saying that? This isn't the first 3-D movie.

Jan 30, 2010#484

Espy

Calleja said:
I loved Sky Captain. The bad acting was to me on purpose as a homage to all the old serials of the 40s and 50s. Lots of recurring motifs and themes in that movie. Quite liked it.

I LOVE Sky Captain. It's a favorite of mine for sure but she was painful in that movie. I don't usually care for her, she was tolerable in Iron Man but I wouldn't be upset if she gets accidently sucked into a jet engine and her twin sister "Sexxxier Peppier Pots" has to step in to help Tony Stark out.

Jan 30, 2010#485

Bowielee

fade;335781][QUOTE=The Lovely Boner;335271][QUOTE=Frankie;335253][QUOTE=ElJuski said:
You know, I have one more reason to hate Avatar: everything is going to be in fucking 3-D now. Harry Potter, Clash of the Titans, fucking CALIGULA: http://www.avclub.com/articles/caligula-director-to-bring-audiences-38ddd-in-3d,37651/.

I really don't want a ton of cheap fucking thrills coming at me with every fucking movie. Just like I didn't want every goddamn Wii game to have some bullshit waggle.

Not every movie made afterwards was about boats last time James Cameron made a trillion dollars at the box office.[/QUOTE]

Titanic didn't feature and make most of its money from being a revolutionary new style or type of movie though.[/QUOTE]

Neither did Avatar. Last I checked "originality" wasn't on the + side of the register for this movie. As far as 3-D goes, why do people keep saying that? This isn't the first 3-D movie.[/QUOTE]

And CGI existed before Toy Story, but that doesn't change the fact that it broke ground for CGI being an accepted part of mainstream cinema.

Jan 31, 2010#486

fade

I still don't see that for Avatar. 3-D seemed to be doing pretty well here at the local theater well before avatar. CGI was more fringe when Toy Story came about.

Jan 31, 2010#487

evilmike

"Mr. Plinkett" has a review up for Avatar. It's not as good as the Phantom Menace review, but he's got a few interesting points.

Forums