well, I liked it…
Robot knife fights, explosions, giant bird like things, hot aliens… what more do you really want… sorry if it wasnt an art house film but those dont really justify 3D now do they…
The world was well done, the storyline worked well enough, and lets be honest, your NOT going to come up with something all that original anymore so I dont see the problem.
I bought it on Blue ray and think its still a great movie with beautiful effects…
[quote]AddictedtoIron wrote:
Just your typical predicatble movie, good guys win over “bad guys”. [/quote]
I’m not trying to call you out specifically, but I never really got this criticism. “Good guys beat bad guys” has essentially been the plot of most stories dating all the way back to the Bible. There’s just not that many different ways to tell a story.
People have been telling this sort of story for a long time and for good reason: because it’s a good story. This was simply a modern update and one done with some truly new and innovative ways to present it visually. It also present some topics: religion vs paganism, manifest destiny, following orders vs following what you believe, etc., that have been relevant to the American experience since we landed on Plymouth Rock. I think it also presents some new issues such as the whole “might an alien species have souls” deal along with the “what’s really real” factor of somebody spending a lot of time in virtual reality settings- which will become a big deal at some point in the next 50 years.
Are the “characters not developed” (always a fun vague phrase for people to drop when the want to feel superior to “the masses”) as they are in other movies? I suppose so, but at times they need to not be, in order to address all of the other issues and keep the movie under 5 hours long. Jake and the alien chick are the only ones who are really developed, but they are the only ones who really need to be.
Personally, I put this right up there with Terminator, it presents some classic story themes with topics that are relevant to modern times and it does so in a way that, visually, has never been done before.
Definitely should be seen in 3-d, but it’s not too shabby on your home TV either.
I didnt care for it period. The movie was fucking Pocahontes.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Thread title is clever. I have no idea why they’re releasing this for home viewing. They should just re-release it on IMAX 3-D every 3 or so years. That way the viewer gets more out of it and the studio makes more dough. Watching Avatar at home is like putting white walls on a garbage truck. It doesn’t make sense.[/quote]
Says a lot about the movie if watching it on anything less than inside a goddamn IMAX makes it lose it’s appeal, huh 
[/quote]
For real…and I hope he is wrong because I never saw this at the movies but did buy the blue ray.
It’s just a movie. If it isn’t worth watching twice then it isn’t that damn good is it?
Any movie I really like has likely been seen up[wards of 5 times.
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
[quote]AddictedtoIron wrote:
Just your typical predicatble movie, good guys win over “bad guys”. [/quote]
I’m not trying to call you out specifically, but I never really got this criticism. “Good guys beat bad guys” has essentially been the plot of most stories dating all the way back to the Bible. There’s just not that many different ways to tell a story.
People have been telling this sort of story for a long time and for good reason: because it’s a good story. This was simply a modern update and one done with some truly new and innovative ways to present it visually. It also present some topics: religion vs paganism, manifest destiny, following orders vs following what you believe, etc., that have been relevant to the American experience since we landed on Plymouth Rock. I think it also presents some new issues such as the whole “might an alien species have souls” deal along with the “what’s really real” factor of somebody spending a lot of time in virtual reality settings- which will become a big deal at some point in the next 50 years.
Are the “characters not developed” (always a fun vague phrase for people to drop when the want to feel superior to “the masses”) as they are in other movies? I suppose so, but at times they need to not be, in order to address all of the other issues and keep the movie under 5 hours long. Jake and the alien chick are the only ones who are really developed, but they are the only ones who really need to be.
Personally, I put this right up there with Terminator, it presents some classic story themes with topics that are relevant to modern times and it does so in a way that, visually, has never been done before.
Definitely should be seen in 3-d, but it’s not too shabby on your home TV either.[/quote]
People in general have become VERY fickle when it comes to movies.
Movies that we celebrated as “cult classics” from 15 years ago would all be called “garbage” today.
The first terminator was great…UNLESS IT WAS SEEN FOR THE FIRST TIME TODAY…then everyone would say it sucked.
I am personally not that damned critical of movies. I hype the ones that are really good, but I don’t expect every single movie out to be some super blockbuster that everyone likes because most of the people watching movies today have the attention span of a drunk gnat on PCP and shrooms.
I wear, some people hate damn near every movie that ever comes out…so why do they even go to the theater?
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
[quote]AddictedtoIron wrote:
Just your typical predicatble movie, good guys win over “bad guys”. [/quote]
I’m not trying to call you out specifically, but I never really got this criticism. “Good guys beat bad guys” has essentially been the plot of most stories dating all the way back to the Bible. There’s just not that many different ways to tell a story.
People have been telling this sort of story for a long time and for good reason: because it’s a good story. This was simply a modern update and one done with some truly new and innovative ways to present it visually. It also present some topics: religion vs paganism, manifest destiny, following orders vs following what you believe, etc., that have been relevant to the American experience since we landed on Plymouth Rock. I think it also presents some new issues such as the whole “might an alien species have souls” deal along with the “what’s really real” factor of somebody spending a lot of time in virtual reality settings- which will become a big deal at some point in the next 50 years.
Are the “characters not developed” (always a fun vague phrase for people to drop when the want to feel superior to “the masses”) as they are in other movies? I suppose so, but at times they need to not be, in order to address all of the other issues and keep the movie under 5 hours long. Jake and the alien chick are the only ones who are really developed, but they are the only ones who really need to be.
Personally, I put this right up there with Terminator, it presents some classic story themes with topics that are relevant to modern times and it does so in a way that, visually, has never been done before.
Definitely should be seen in 3-d, but it’s not too shabby on your home TV either.[/quote]
I also saw some elements of the whole US/Iraq war for oil in conjunction with you topics.
[quote]Ratchet wrote:
well, I liked it…
Robot knife fights, explosions, giant bird like things, hot aliens… what more do you really want… sorry if it wasnt an art house film but those dont really justify 3D now do they…
The world was well done, the storyline worked well enough, and lets be honest, your NOT going to come up with something all that original anymore so I dont see the problem.
I bought it on Blue ray and think its still a great movie with beautiful effects…[/quote]
Exactly.
I bought it and enjoyed the hell out of it.
I’ll watch it again real soon, too.
[quote]tw0scoops2 wrote:
I kinda saw elements of the whole US/Iraq war for oil with so much of their reason for being there was an energy source.[/quote]
Even if it did, is this a negative?
I have never understood the complaining about it being a movie about “Native American Indians vs Europeans”. Gee, no shit. ALL STORIES are either man vs man, man vs nature, man vs machine. That is pretty much it. If you are looking for something truly original that has never been tried before in any form known to man, you might as well give up. This is 2010. There is NOTHING new under the sun.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Thread title is clever. I have no idea why they’re releasing this for home viewing. They should just re-release it on IMAX 3-D every 3 or so years. That way the viewer gets more out of it and the studio makes more dough. Watching Avatar at home is like putting white walls on a garbage truck. It doesn’t make sense.[/quote]
Says a lot about the movie if watching it on anything less than inside a goddamn IMAX makes it lose it’s appeal, huh
[/quote]
For real…and I hope he is wrong because I never saw this at the movies but did buy the blue ray.
It’s just a movie. If it isn’t worth watching twice then it isn’t that damn good is it?
Any movie I really like has likely been seen up[wards of 5 times.
[/quote]
Yeah this one isnt worth watching more then once. But I think it will be ok on blu ray for a first time viewing but really should have seen it in the theater to take in the visuals because that’s the only reason to watch it
[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
3. Cameron and the studio marketing people used the environmental, tree hugging, go-green movement for all it was worth. This not only created positive buzz among more liberal people, but enormous backlash from more conservative people for the supposed demonizing of the american military. Bad publicity is still publicity and many people saw this film multiple times just to piss off people who hated it. And Cameron reaped the rewards. Pure genius. [/quote]
Brazil is building a huge dam in the Amazon and it is going to displace a very large amount of Native Indians living in the jungle. James Cameron was down there protesting, so maybe it wasn’t just a marketing gimic.
[quote]theuofh wrote:
[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
3. Cameron and the studio marketing people used the environmental, tree hugging, go-green movement for all it was worth. This not only created positive buzz among more liberal people, but enormous backlash from more conservative people for the supposed demonizing of the american military. Bad publicity is still publicity and many people saw this film multiple times just to piss off people who hated it. And Cameron reaped the rewards. Pure genius. [/quote]
Brazil is building a huge dam in the Amazon and it is going to displace a very large amount of Native Indians living in the jungle. James Cameron was down there protesting, so maybe it wasn’t just a marketing gimic. [/quote]
Why is saving the resources of this planet seen as a negative lately?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]tw0scoops2 wrote:
I kinda saw elements of the whole US/Iraq war for oil with so much of their reason for being there was an energy source.[/quote]
Even if it did, is this a negative?
[/quote]
No, just sayin’ it seemed like the plot had elements of it.
[quote]tylerlehmann wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Thread title is clever. I have no idea why they’re releasing this for home viewing. They should just re-release it on IMAX 3-D every 3 or so years. That way the viewer gets more out of it and the studio makes more dough. Watching Avatar at home is like putting white walls on a garbage truck. It doesn’t make sense.[/quote]
Says a lot about the movie if watching it on anything less than inside a goddamn IMAX makes it lose it’s appeal, huh
[/quote]
For real…and I hope he is wrong because I never saw this at the movies but did buy the blue ray.
It’s just a movie. If it isn’t worth watching twice then it isn’t that damn good is it?
Any movie I really like has likely been seen up[wards of 5 times.
[/quote]
Yeah this one isnt worth watching more then once. But I think it will be ok on blu ray for a first time viewing but really should have seen it in the theater to take in the visuals because that’s the only reason to watch it[/quote]
Bingo. Like Tyler said the blu ray should help, so should having a giant HD tv, but it won’t be the same. I don’t have a point of reference 'cause I only saw it once in IMAX 3-D, but I can’t imagine seeing it anyvother way. The visuals were truly breath taking, and it was what made the whole movie. It honestly could’ve been shot without sound and I don’t know if I’d have noticed. With that I’m sure it’ll set dvd records as well.
[quote]tw0scoops2 wrote:
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
[quote]AddictedtoIron wrote:
Just your typical predicatble movie, good guys win over “bad guys”. [/quote]
I’m not trying to call you out specifically, but I never really got this criticism. “Good guys beat bad guys” has essentially been the plot of most stories dating all the way back to the Bible. There’s just not that many different ways to tell a story.
People have been telling this sort of story for a long time and for good reason: because it’s a good story. This was simply a modern update and one done with some truly new and innovative ways to present it visually. It also present some topics: religion vs paganism, manifest destiny, following orders vs following what you believe, etc., that have been relevant to the American experience since we landed on Plymouth Rock. I think it also presents some new issues such as the whole “might an alien species have souls” deal along with the “what’s really real” factor of somebody spending a lot of time in virtual reality settings- which will become a big deal at some point in the next 50 years.
Are the “characters not developed” (always a fun vague phrase for people to drop when the want to feel superior to “the masses”) as they are in other movies? I suppose so, but at times they need to not be, in order to address all of the other issues and keep the movie under 5 hours long. Jake and the alien chick are the only ones who are really developed, but they are the only ones who really need to be.
Personally, I put this right up there with Terminator, it presents some classic story themes with topics that are relevant to modern times and it does so in a way that, visually, has never been done before.
Definitely should be seen in 3-d, but it’s not too shabby on your home TV either.[/quote]
I also saw some elements of the whole US/Iraq war for oil in conjunction with you topics.[/quote]
Hmmmmmmm… I saw elements of the Spanish conquest of the Mayan civilization.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I wear, some people hate damn near every movie that ever comes out…so why do they even go to the theater?[/quote]
True. This is also why I try not to read any reviews or anything about movies before I go see them, just watch the trailers. I think half the people who don’t like Avatar don’t like it (consciously or subconsciously) because of all the backlash and the desire to “not be like the stupid masses.”
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]theuofh wrote:
[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
3. Cameron and the studio marketing people used the environmental, tree hugging, go-green movement for all it was worth. This not only created positive buzz among more liberal people, but enormous backlash from more conservative people for the supposed demonizing of the american military. Bad publicity is still publicity and many people saw this film multiple times just to piss off people who hated it. And Cameron reaped the rewards. Pure genius. [/quote]
Brazil is building a huge dam in the Amazon and it is going to displace a very large amount of Native Indians living in the jungle. James Cameron was down there protesting, so maybe it wasn’t just a marketing gimic. [/quote]
Why is saving the resources of this planet seen as a negative lately?[/quote]
Preserving resources isn’t a bad thing at all, just the way many people are wanting the government to go about it.
As for Cameron, I guess it doesn’t matter what kind of carbon footprint he lays down as long as it’s for a good cause. That jet he flew down on to Brazil, and to promote the movie around the world, along with the render farm at WETA used to create the world of Avatar aren’t exactly energy efficient.
I have no desire to see this movie ever. I have a feeling I will see it b/c I’ll be living with the tiger and he’ll tie me up and force me to watch it as punishment or something.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]theuofh wrote:
[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
3. Cameron and the studio marketing people used the environmental, tree hugging, go-green movement for all it was worth. This not only created positive buzz among more liberal people, but enormous backlash from more conservative people for the supposed demonizing of the american military. Bad publicity is still publicity and many people saw this film multiple times just to piss off people who hated it. And Cameron reaped the rewards. Pure genius. [/quote]
Brazil is building a huge dam in the Amazon and it is going to displace a very large amount of Native Indians living in the jungle. James Cameron was down there protesting, so maybe it wasn’t just a marketing gimic. [/quote]
Why is saving the resources of this planet seen as a negative lately?[/quote]
Never said it was.
If I were one of the Indians though, I’d be pretty pissed if somebody tried to kick me off my land for electricity I don’t need in the first place. Especially, when the energy to be produced has already been purchased by factories and such that will just end up encroaching further into my lands.
The Indians have threatened to start killing workers with spears and arrows and maybe some shotguns, which means the Brazilian army will come in and wipe them out with machine guns and bombs.
Apologies for hijacking the thread.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
I have no desire to see this movie ever. I have a feeling I will see it b/c I’ll be living with the tiger and he’ll tie me up and force me to watch it as punishment or something.[/quote]
It’s worth one viewing to see what the hype is about. There’s some pretty cool scenes and it can always be fun to root for Colonel Quarrich and his security force. Maybe tell him to fast forward to the final battle.
I quite enjoyed it but I went in with expectations that it will just be eye candy. And it was. The story was just a means to show off the tech and I was okay with that. I think people take it too seriously. It’s just a fancy cartoon in the end but one that was above average to look at.
I would watch it again but only on the big screen and in 3d, because that’s what made it worth watching. I have a couple of friends who are refusing to watch it because they refuse to get pulled in to the hype but I think they’re missing out, not because it was a such a fantastic story but because it was enjoyable to watch. Also, it seems to me it was a kids movie.