# James Cameron's "Avatar"



## Gushousekai195 (Dec 20, 2009)

Ohhhhhh... *sniff* this wonderful, wonderful movie was exceptionally touching.  With its themes of imperialism, war, and harmony with nature, I found it more than what I originally thought it would be.  I laughed and cried (there were tears in my eyes during a violent scene in the movie).  What the humans did to the beautiful Na'vi was inglorious and wrong (in fact, I did call the antagonist in the film an "inglorious basterd!"  ROFL).

Anyone who, perchance, has read "A Whisper of Wings" by Paul Kidd would love this film.  I would recommend it to anyone, too.  :'3

So, who else has seen what my wistful eyes have seen?


----------



## Hir (Dec 20, 2009)

Another FAF member used the term "Environmentalist Eye-Candy" and I'll stand by that. Shallow as hell story with beautiful visuals. It isn't wonderful. It only looks wonderful. It has the depth of the screen it's played on.


----------



## Dass (Dec 20, 2009)

It's good, but not what I would call fantastic.

Then again it's been quite some time since I've seen a movie I would call fantastic.

Said movie was made in the early 80s.


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Dec 20, 2009)

More flash, less substance.


----------



## Charrio (Dec 20, 2009)

Dances with smurfs...


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Dec 20, 2009)

God awful story.  I was half expecting "Can you paint with all the colors of the wind?"  to start playing while they were riding dragons.  

The mechs and shit looked awesome, but James Cameron has made a movie before which pushed technical boundaries and had an awesome story.  It was called Terminator 2.  This is kind of a step back for him.

Essentially this movie boils down to lots of South Park references and random heckling such as "Sam Worthington...ROLL OUT!"  and so on.


----------



## lgnb695 (Dec 20, 2009)

I liked it alot.

SO SHUT UP AND LEAVE ME ALONE ALL YOU MEANY HEADS >:C


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 20, 2009)

I confused it when I said a commercial that was also for: Avatar, the Last Air bender - I saw Ang(?) blowing out candles with his wind power...And then I guess I missed the "Coming Blank 2011!" or something, because then I saw a bunch of giant blue smurfs being chased around by AT-ST's (Star Wars), and I got -really- fucking confused, because IT was also called Avatar.

Then I saw more trailers on TV, and then reviews, and then personal review from friends - And realized it was "James Cameron - Avatar: That has nothing to do with the TV show Avatar", and was in fact, some super-high-tech CGI movie with multiple other movie plots built into it, or some shit. 

...Made me sad.

(And not want to see it, because other than the high tech put into it, it looks boring, and it's just a damn love story - yawn!)


----------



## Gushousekai195 (Dec 20, 2009)

Okay, okay.  I see you're all upset and sarcastic and I'm sorry.  I don't understand why you are but I'm sorry you feel that way.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Dec 20, 2009)

Gushousekai195 said:


> Okay, okay.  I see you're all upset and sarcastic and I'm sorry.  I don't understand why you are but I'm sorry you feel that way.



Mostly due to the fact that this movie has been done before at least five times.  The only difference now is that Fox decided to throw a quarter-billion dollars at Cameron and said "Make it happen."

There's nothing surprising about the movie.  I hate going into movies already knowing how it's going to end without even having it spoiled for me.  The fact that they hyped this movie to "change the way we look at cinema" is perhaps the biggest reason why this is a problem.  

I was never drawn to any of the characters.  Everyone played a precise role such as "the asshole", "the warrior-princess", "the wise chief", etc.  There was never any real motivation for any of the characters, except maybe Sam Worthington because he wanted to walk again.  

It also left open a lot of questions, for me mainly during the third act when I kept asking my friend "Why don't they just napalm the whole damn planet?"  Cameron tried to make humans seem evil enough that they'd do that, and if all they need to do is strip-mine the planet there's really no need to bother with the vegetation.  Hell, there weren't any reporters from Earth so they could have covered the whole thing up.

It was just a very "scripted" movie if you get what I mean.  Nothing seemed natural and all of it was forced like it HAD to happen.


----------



## goose (Dec 20, 2009)

Wait what!? OP WASN'T being sarcastic?


----------



## Stratelier (Dec 20, 2009)

DarkNoctus said:


> It has the depth of the screen it's played on.


...clearly not the 3-D version you saw. 

Haven't seen it, no real plans for it (just too busy), and am in fact surprised our local theater got it for its opening weekend.


----------



## Hir (Dec 20, 2009)

Stratadrake said:


> ...clearly not the 3-D version you saw.


Take the glasses off and look at the depth of the screen. Come back when you're done.


----------



## Hyenaworks (Dec 21, 2009)

I can sum up the 3D IMAX experience of Avatar in one sentence...

It's like driving along a gorgeous coast with lofty ancient cliffsides, colorful clouds, and a sparkling sea while your mother-in-law(or someone else you hate) sits next to you in the car and constantly tells you how much of a loser you are.


----------



## CryoScales (Dec 21, 2009)

I think only Shakespeare could put this properly.

"More matter, less art"

Gertrude - Hamlet ACT 2 scene ii


----------



## Hyenaworks (Dec 21, 2009)

CryoScales said:


> I think only Shakespeare could put this properly.
> 
> "More matter, less art"
> 
> Gertrude - Hamlet ACT 2 scene ii



Or better yet, "brevity is the soul of wit"

Modern movies are about shoving as much crap into each shot as possible.


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Dec 21, 2009)

Then again it's for the graphics whores.


----------



## Hyenaworks (Dec 21, 2009)

WolfoxOkamichan said:


> Then again it's for the graphics whores.



A special effect without a story is a boring thing.


----------



## Stratelier (Dec 21, 2009)

To be fair, the majority of hype around Avatar was nonetheless based on its production values, not its writing....



DarkNoctus said:


> Take the glasses off and look at the depth of the screen. Come back when you're done.


Um, hello?  Smiley was intended for sarcasm (maybe I picked the wrong one) .



Hyenaworks said:


> Or better yet, "brevity is ... wit"


----------



## Dass (Dec 21, 2009)

Stratadrake said:


> Um, hello?  Smiley was intended for sarcasm (maybe I picked the wrong one) .



This one probably would've been better.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 21, 2009)

Needs two critics to properly "justify" the movie.

I want to see it now just to view the supposed hamminess of the General as well as root for humanity every time they do something against the "noble savages".  Any other FAFers care to join me?  It could be MST3000 all over again.  "Don't stick your hair in that tree, you don't know where that tree's been!"


----------



## GrizzlyBearDan (Dec 21, 2009)

I hate this movie.

The Graphics are blah! I've seen better graphics on a SquareSoft  game from the PS2

The story is my god! Fuck You James Cameron! "I've been working on this script for 15 years" yeah! Know what came out 15 years ago? Dances with fucking wolves!

The storylines are EXACTLY the same!!!

 guy breaks his leg
 lives with natives
 learns to love natives
 falls in love with native hottie
 defends natives from whites
 this plot has been used over and over and over


----------



## Renton Whitetail (Dec 21, 2009)

Before I saw the film yesterday, I at first had mixed thoughts about it. I heard talks of its huge budget and promotion costs (both totaling nearly $400 million O_O), and I wasn't sure if it will ever turn over a profit with such a high cost (I even thought of the irony that since James Cameron directed "Titanic" (currently the highest grossing movie of all time) and "Avatar" resulted in a flop, then "Avatar" would be considered the biggest flop in movie history). But my expectations changed after I had read positive reviews from movie critics and by word-of-mouth, so I decided to see what all the hype was about. Boy, was I surprised.

I actually found the film enjoyable from beginning to end. It was an incredible experience, especially when I viewed it in 3D. What really makes this film work is the way the visual effects, the story, the characters and the themes all tied together well. Even though the film is long (at about 160 minutes), I didn't feel as though the story dragged at any certain point. James Cameron really went above and beyond to make all the elements of a film really work (initially, I expected the reviews to only highly praise the visual effects and hardly anything else). It's really worth seeing.


----------



## CryoScales (Dec 21, 2009)

GrizzlyBearDan said:


> The story is my god! Fuck You James Cameron! "I've been working on this script for 15 years" yeah! Know what came out 15 years ago? Dances with fucking wolves!


The guy obviously just worked on the script one weekend and finished it 15 years later after finding it in his desk.


----------



## Delta (Dec 21, 2009)

It was the story of Pocahontas (Disney version) with a VERY beautiful sci-fi twist to the presentation. 

Its a predictable, easy and fun to watch movie and Im glad I saw it.

The 3D did alright in bringing the world out a bit, but personally...I could have watched it in HD and been happier.


----------



## DJ-Fragon (Dec 22, 2009)

The visuals were outstanding! The story, on the other hand, was anything but. What I found strange with the story was that although it felt long, it also felt rushed at times. The story has been used before, as James Cameron has stated was similar to Pocahontas and Dances with Wolves (I found it more similar to Pocahontas). 

I would grade this film a 6/10. If you want to watch it purely based on being entertained, then this is the movie for you. Otherwise, you won't like it.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Dec 22, 2009)

Hyenaworks said:


> I can sum up the 3D IMAX experience of Avatar in one sentence...
> 
> It's like driving along a gorgeous coast with lofty ancient cliffsides, colorful clouds, and a sparkling sea while your mother-in-law(or someone else you hate) sits next to you in the car and constantly tells you how much of a loser you are.



So just don't go to movies with those people?


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Dec 22, 2009)

And well... Pocahontas is a bad movie as far as tribes vs. colonists are concerned.

THIS LAND HAS GOLD!


----------



## Gushousekai195 (Dec 22, 2009)

DJ-Fragon said:


> The visuals were outstanding! The story, on the other hand, was anything but. What I found strange with the story was that although it felt long, it also felt rushed at times. The story has been used before, as James Cameron has stated was similar to Pocahontas and Dances with Wolves (I found it more similar to Pocahontas).
> 
> I would grade this film a 6/10. If you want to watch it purely based on being entertained, then this is the movie for you. Otherwise, you won't like it.



You should consider how people put their own twists on plotlines that have been used before.  In case you don't know, "The Lion King" is based on Shakespeare's Hamlet and still it was a great movie for many.  All the pepole have to do is think of something extraordinary and weave it into the story.  That is what makes all movies one of a kind.

Here's some food for thought I learned in English class:
"The immature poet imitates; the mature poet steals."  This quote can apply to other creators of the arts, as well.


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Dec 22, 2009)

Except Cameron didn't try to change the execution.


----------



## Nzumbe (Dec 22, 2009)

The thing I enjoyed the most was how expressive the CG characters were.  I actually felt bad for them they were so lifelike.  Their personalities, not so much, but their body language and facial expressions were great.

The graphics were good but like someone said before I've seen better CG in an FF game.

Overall, I think it was worth the money.


----------



## Wreth (Dec 22, 2009)

It had epic battle mechs fighting huge alien animals.

Good enough for me.


----------



## DJ-Fragon (Dec 22, 2009)

Gushousekai195 said:


> You should consider how people put their own twists on plotlines that have been used before.  In case you don't know, "The Lion King" is based on Shakespeare's Hamlet and still it was a great movie for many.  All the pepole have to do is think of something extraordinary and weave it into the story.  That is what makes all movies one of a kind.
> 
> Here's some food for thought I learned in English class:
> "The immature poet imitates; the mature poet steals."  This quote can apply to other creators of the arts, as well.



The difference between The Lion King and Avatar is that The Lion King, as someone stated before, executed its messages properly. Avatar... didn't. With The Lion King, it had proper character development, great plotline and, all in all, a great movie. Avatar, on the other hand, had poor character development, a ton of plotholes, and really only relied on its visuals to grab peoples' interest. 

I know a ton of movies that stole ideas from previous stories, such as Indiana Jones, but still turned out to be very good movies. Heck, Shakespeare stole ideas from previous stories to write his own version, and they turned out to be pretty good (eg. Romeo and Juliet). Execution is what matters here, and Avatar just didn't do it properly.


----------



## GrizzlyBearDan (Dec 22, 2009)

Gushousekai195 said:


> You should consider how people put their own twists on plotlines that have been used before.  In case you don't know, "The Lion King" is based on Shakespeare's Hamlet and still it was a great movie for many.  All the pepole have to do is think of something extraordinary and weave it into the story.  That is what makes all movies one of a kind.
> 
> Here's some food for thought I learned in English class:
> "The immature poet imitates; the mature poet steals."  This quote can apply to other creators of the arts, as well.



Yeah well... No twists here.... generic characters, and the plot is the same... it's the same movie we've seen over and over again with bad graphics


----------



## Atlantis_Orca (Dec 22, 2009)

OMG YES!! I saw the movie on the first day Friday in 3D.

Wow..i'm still thinking about this movie. It was truely amazing.Pandora is a beautiful place and i loved it at night it was beautiful. 

I found this movie quiet spiritual and a fun adventure through out.I sometimes felt that i could cry in some parts and i got lost in this film while watching it.The creatures of Pandora are awsome,i espcailly like the Banshee's and i really want one as pet lol.The idea of the movie and the world of Pandora and the people and creatures are beautiful and the movie is stunning not only visonly but just stunning overall.

I'd defently want to see it again and for once a movie i watched and wasn't thinking "is it over yet,i'm bored" lol.


----------



## Stratelier (Dec 22, 2009)

Nzumbe said:


> The graphics were good but like someone said before I've seen better CG in an FF game.


L. O. L.  I realize it's exaggeration, but the mere thought of comparing real-time (60fps) 3D rendering to film-quality raytraced rendering is . . . well, somehow "apples and oranges" feels like an understatement.



Nzumbe said:


> Overall, I think it was worth the money.



Aye, there's the rub.  Ultimately it's a matter of how well you enjoyed watching the movie overall.


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Dec 22, 2009)

Well yeah, if you have no taste/don't watch movies.


----------



## CAThulu (Dec 23, 2009)

DJ-Fragon said:


> The visuals were outstanding! The story, on the other hand, was anything but. What I found strange with the story was that although it felt long, it also felt rushed at times. The story has been used before, as James Cameron has stated was similar to Pocahontas and Dances with Wolves (I found it more similar to Pocahontas).
> 
> I would grade this film a 6/10. If you want to watch it purely based on being entertained, then this is the movie for you. Otherwise, you won't like it.





Thanks for this *G*.   I'm trying to decide between Avatar and The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus and I think I'm going to go with the latter. ^_^


----------



## Jelly (Dec 23, 2009)

I heard Chekov's Gun and noble savage coupled with white liberal guilt is pretty prevalent in the movie, but that its really fun to watch and the effects are fantastic.

Also I heard that there's a mineral called "unobtainium."

t/f?


----------



## Azure (Dec 23, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> I heard Chekov's Gun and noble savage coupled with white liberal guilt is pretty prevalent in the movie, but that its really fun to watch and the effects are fantastic.
> 
> Also I heard that there's a mineral called "unobtainium."
> 
> t/f?


T.


----------



## CryoScales (Dec 23, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> Also I heard that there's a mineral called "unobtainium."
> 
> t/f?


Believe me, thats only the tip of the iceberg for the bullshit meter.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Dec 23, 2009)

furries, one day you too will be able to make retarded sums of money by insulting not only your boss, but your audiences intelligence. why do i know this? because james, james fucking cameron is one of you miserable little shits. he has lead the way, and revealed himself, when many others doubted.

he has projected dreams onto film. dreams that were all cheap imitations of 90's Alternative Rock videos,  but dreams nonetheless. And they just happen to get a little closer to reality as this mental YY2K bug takes hold and time accumulates while we regress to animals.

But what will come from this is either we are to kill each other off entirely or we will take the wrench out of the system and get this machine moving and thinking again. It's no good to be living in this time, but we may stumble around in the funk for an eternity before stepping on the rake that flips up and cockblocks us in the face. And our sun's only got like, 2.5 billion years of helium left or something. better hop to it.


----------



## GrizzlyBearDan (Dec 23, 2009)

Might as well call this unobtaininum "OIL" and the Na'vi "Native Americans"

Also Floating Fucking mountains?How the FUCK does that work? And waterfalls? WHERE DOES THE WATER COME FROM?!!?


----------



## Stratelier (Dec 23, 2009)

GrizzlyBearDan said:


> Also Floating Fucking mountains?How the FUCK does that work? And waterfalls? WHERE DOES THE WATER COME FROM?!!?


Unobtainium.

There's a reason it's the primary element for chemical reactions in wantum physics.


----------



## Hir (Dec 23, 2009)

Stratadrake said:


> Unobtainium.


...That has to be a joke.

They seriously called it unobtainium?!


----------



## SpartaDog (Dec 23, 2009)

...Did anyone actually see it and like it?


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Dec 23, 2009)

so unobtainium = chaos emeralds?


----------



## Attaman (Dec 23, 2009)

Wolf-Bone said:


> so unobtainium = chaos emeralds?


  In importance, yeah.  It doesn't provide shit-tons of energy naturally or allow people to go Super Saiyan, but it does work as a room-temperature super conductor that can allow FTL communication and nigh-FTL travel.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Dec 23, 2009)

Attaman said:


> In importance, yeah.  It doesn't provide shit-tons of energy naturally or allow people to go Super Saiyan, but it does work as a room-temperature super conductor that can allow FTL communication and nigh-FTL travel.



So he's got this applied phenolobotulum in a (basically) furry movie, and it doesn't cause people to grow huge genitalia, make them extremely horny and non-discriminating in who/what they mate with, cause superspeed or strength, or turn people into zombies? All it does is make spaceships and the internet faster? James Cameron clearly doesn't know his audience as well as he thinks he does, like most furries.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 23, 2009)

Wolf-Bone said:


> So he's got this applied phenolobotulum in a (basically) furry movie, and it doesn't cause people to grow huge genitalia, make them extremely horny and non-discriminating in who/what they mate with, cause superspeed or strength, or turn people into zombies?


Silly Wolf-Bone, it's not the Furries that are after it.  It's the big bad awful hyoomans who are after it.  Unobtanium isn't meant to make the Furries better sex devices - it's meant to make the Fursecution real and to the genocidal level.


----------



## Solinuas (Dec 23, 2009)

Ok, this movie was fucking awsome, the plot was a bit patchy and the charecter development a bit off, but what do you expect a perfect movie? 

and unobtanium was the temporary name for one of the artificial elements, and said element has most of the properties displayed in the movie, its just radioactive in reality.

I also like this movies accurate interpretation of human nature, we are a bunch of fucktards by nature, and for all of you claiming this movie was bad, it wasn't it had less problems than most movies.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Dec 23, 2009)

Attaman said:


> Silly Wolf-Bone, it's not the Furries that are after it.  It's the big bad awful hyoomans who are after it.  Unobtanium isn't meant to make the Furries better sex devices - it's meant to make the Fursecution real and to the genocidal level.



well obviously, I get that. whatever the humans lack (huge genitals, wild indiscriminate and illegal sex, super speed and strength and highspeed internet) the furries have in abundance naturally and that's why the humans want to steal it from them. but what they all ought to do is have that procedure the main character has, not just steal some shiny rock/ore/whatever form it takes.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 23, 2009)

Solinuas said:


> and unobtanium was the temporary name for one of the artificial elements,


  It's the name used in-movie.  And in the scriptment.  And in the official encyclopedia.  And in all the previews.  If it's a temporary name, they're going to have a bitch changing it.



> I also like this movies accurate interpretation of human nature,


  Accurate portrayal of the worst bits of human nature with all the good bits conveniently on vacation at the Restaurant at the End of the Universe.  If you consider that an accurate portray of down-to-earth, normal joe schmoe humans... seek help.



> we are a bunch of fucktards by nature,


  If you can have contempt for us being fucktards by our nature, I can have contempt for cats for killing mice just 'cause.  Fair's fair, it's in both our natures.  I can also hate dolphins and meercats and ground squirrels and lions now too for the killing in their nature that advances no-one.  I love how this works out. 



> it wasn't it had less problems than most movies.


True, there was only one problem with the movie:  two-dimensional plot.  I would say one-dimensional characters is a problem, but the general just sounds so damn hilarious that I can't hold it against him.


----------



## GrizzlyBearDan (Dec 23, 2009)

Stratadrake said:


> Unobtainium.
> 
> There's a reason it's the primary element for chemical reactions in wantum physics.



dear god I hope your joking..

Water doesnt flow Upward no amount of Bullshit physics and "magic" can convince me other wise.


----------



## GrizzlyBearDan (Dec 23, 2009)

The Spoony One enjoys "Avatar"


----------



## Attaman (Dec 23, 2009)

GrizzlyBearDan said:


> The Spoony One enjoys "Avatar"



Two days too slow.


----------



## GrizzlyBearDan (Dec 23, 2009)

Attaman said:


> Two days too slow.



i dont care


----------



## Solinuas (Dec 23, 2009)

Attaman, i meant it was actually the temporary name for an element on the periodic table.


----------



## Jelly (Dec 23, 2009)

Solinuas said:


> Attaman, i meant it was actually the temporary name for an element on the periodic table.



are you thinking the UN series?
ie: ununbium ununtrium, etc?


----------



## Stratelier (Dec 24, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> are you thinking the UN series?
> ie: ununbium ununtrium, etc?


...which is really just the element's number in Latin, because they can't think of / agree on anything else to name them after since they exist barely long enough to _identify_, much less determine any practical uses for.



GrizzlyBearDan said:


> dear god I hope your joking....


Never heard of 'wantum physics' before?   Now if only I could remember where I picked up the term....


----------



## Jashwa (Dec 24, 2009)

Stratadrake said:


> Never heard of 'wantum physics' before?   Now if only I could remember where I picked up the term....


I googled it and this thread is the second on the list 

The first was a wikipedia on star trek. Apparently it's a made up derivative of star trek that accomplishes whatever the writer wants it to.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treknobabble

Fitting.  Too bad the joke was lost because it was too obscure.


----------



## Stratelier (Dec 24, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> I googled it and this thread is the second on the list


Srsly?  Holy....


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Dec 26, 2009)

Solinuas said:


> I also like this movies accurate interpretation of human nature, we are a bunch of fucktards by nature



I guess seeking alien pussy so far as to completely abandon your civilization with wanton abandon is an accurate portrayal of humanity.  Though I can't really blame Worthington's character.  I mean the dude was paralyzed from what, the waist down?  Probably hadn't felt anything down there in YEARS.


----------



## GrizzlyBearDan (Dec 26, 2009)

The more I think about this movie, the more I hate it. They couldn't settle for beating us over the head with environmental propaganda, but they even throw in a rant against the War on Terror. They might as well have had the words "all white people are evil" omnipresent of the screen.

By the way, is the actual name of the mineral they're mining for unobtainium? Are you fucking kidding me? I thought at first that they were joking and would mention the real name later, but NO!! As if Pandora wasn't a lousy enough name for the planet itself. And how the fucking hell were the Na'vi communicating in the battlefield? They just squeezed their throats a little, and it worked exactly like a walkie-talkie! Explanations, movie!! We need to know these things!! Honestly, when Sigourney Weaver hit us us with the bullshit about how everything on the planet is connected, the movie's mail order "corporate asshole" took the words right out of my mouth: "What have you people been smoking!?"

And the real tragedy of it is that it truly is massive waste of truly groundbreaking technology. I think is speaks volume that the best actor in the movie is Zoe Saldana, whose character is entirely animated. I've honestly never seen animated characters so realistic and expressive, and it breaks my heart that there were no three dimensional, well developed characters behind said faces.

Also, the longer I think, the more I realize that this technology really isn't that groundbreaking. Sure it was more realistic looking, but not that much. CGI technology has been steadily improving over the years, and this is really nothing more than another small micro-step, not a game-changing leap forward. It's still not seamless, and it still can't fully replace real-life actors, concrete matter, and practical effects. Pixar mastered the art of making animated characters believable & expressive over ten years ago, without the aid of a real actors face as a model. So really, even the special effects don't stand out that much.


----------



## Hyenaworks (Dec 26, 2009)

GrizzlyBearDan said:


> The more I think about this movie, the more I hate it. They couldn't settle for beating us over the head with environmental propaganda, but they even throw in a rant against the War on Terror. They might as well have had the words "all white people are evil" omnipresent of the screen.
> 
> By the way, is the actual name of the mineral they're mining for unobtainium? Are you fucking kidding me? I thought at first that they were joking and would mention the real name later, but NO!! As if Pandora wasn't a lousy enough name for the planet itself. And how the fucking hell were the Na'vi communicating in the battlefield? They just squeezed their throats a little, and it worked exactly like a walkie-talkie! Explanations, movie!! We need to know these things!! Honestly, when Sigourney Weaver hit us us with the bullshit about how everything on the planet is connected, the movie's mail order "corporate asshole" took the words right out of my mouth: "What have you people been smoking!?"
> 
> ...



What's sad is the most interesting character in the half-assed story was gradually buried under typical female expectations.  She was to be the prize for the super-marine.  They could have had a great story if it was just about the princess and her decision not to kill an enemy that in a lot of ways ended up destroying much of her life(even though it was more of a hurr durr thing on his part).


----------



## Carenath (Dec 26, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> Also I heard that there's a mineral called "unobtainium."


Which was the same name for a fictional element in the film Core.



Solinuas said:


> Ok, this movie was fucking awsome, the plot was a bit patchy and the charecter development a bit off, but what do you expect a perfect movie?
> 
> I also like this movies accurate interpretation of human nature, we are a bunch of fucktards by nature, and for all of you claiming this movie was bad, it wasn't it had less problems than most movies.


The movie was visually stunning, and one of the few that I've seen that hasn't been a dissappointment.

My deep cynicism and misanthropy is genuine at least, and not a product of some "hyoomans-are-ebil" furfad either. Dislike != Hatred.. although I have no doubt that most people are self-serving and greedy.



GrizzlyBearDan said:


> The more I think about this movie, the more I hate it. They couldn't settle for beating us over the head with environmental propaganda, but they even throw in a rant against the War on Terror. They might as well have had the words "all white people are evil" omnipresent of the screen.


Because we shouldnt give a shit about the environment, drive gas-guzzlers, bitch at the "high" price of petrol, blindly support a war that serves no purpose except to impose american-style corporate democracy on the middle east so you can get some more oil, while, calling those that disagree with us terrorists. Amirite? 

Avatar pushed a beautifully cynical viewpoint that appealed to me. I think most people in this thread, couldn't recognise a good movie if they were acting in it.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 26, 2009)

Carenath said:


> Because we shouldnt give a shit about the environment,


Because the government doesn't already, and it's not like we don't have _stricter_ environmental laws being passed as time goes in.



> drive gas-guzzlers,


  You may be surprised to hear this, but medium-sized domesticated dogs leave a bigger environmental impact yearly than a 4x4 SUV.  If we're to stop using SUV's, perhaps we should also remove domesticated dogs from the issue?  I'm pretty sure there's a larger number of domesticated medium-size dogs than there are SUV's in use at any given time in the US.



> Avatar pushed a beautifully cynical viewpoint that appealed to me. I think most people in this thread, couldn't recognise a good movie if they were acting in it.


To be fair, I am anti-misanthrope.  I do not like a movie that's been push, from the very start, that Humans are teh Ebil and that we all want to be like the Mary Sue Na'vi that are stronger than humans, faster than humans, more durable than humans, can live in harmony with nature while jacking into everything, have a natural biological internet, and do absolutely nothing with the super valuable physics-breaking material they're sitting on.

Humans being the villains isn't a problem.  It's that Cameron was a smug prick about it and has been smearing in our faces that "HUMANS ARE TEH EBIL!", that "Na'vi are teh good", that "Technology cannot co-exist with nature", etcetera.  There is no moral grey, even though by all rights the human side should have the advantage of major moral grey (Mining Pandora could possibly fix / mitigate the problems on Earth).  No, there's either "If you're a reasonable human being, you support the Na'vi.  If you don't, you're a destructive ebil hyooman".


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Dec 27, 2009)

And the fact that it doubles as a White Guilt as the main character is a human and sided with the tribe.


----------



## TÃ¦farÃ³s (Dec 27, 2009)

GrizzlyBearDan said:


> I hate this movie.
> The Graphics are blah! I've seen better graphics on a SquareSoft  game from the PS2



nuh uh u a liar

In all seriousness, I genuinely enjoyed it, cliche story aside. One of the few movies for "graphics whores" that I'd be willing to see again.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Dec 27, 2009)

TÃ¦farÃ³s said:


> nuh uh u a liar
> 
> In all seriousness, I genuinely enjoyed it, cliche story aside. One of the few movies for "graphics whores" that I'd be willing to see again.



lol @ species: jeff goldblum. also whats your name mean?


----------



## TÃ¦farÃ³s (Dec 27, 2009)

^ Fff, I miss your dreadlocked-wolf avie. JEFF GOLDBLUM IS A G.

It means "bitch rose" in Icelandic. Why? Just because. There's some _deep_ and _thought-provoking_ psychological shit behind that, but naw, we just want our effects and our 'splosions.


----------



## Isen (Dec 27, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> I heard Chekov's Gun


This gets pretty ridiculous.  Throughout the movie it's "Oh hey here's a long, detailed explanation about this piece of machinery/forest creature/etc. UM NOT THAT IT'S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT LATER OR ANYTHING HEH."


----------



## Carenath (Dec 27, 2009)

Attaman said:


> Because the government doesn't already, and it's not like we don't have _stricter_ environmental laws being passed as time goes in.
> 
> You may be surprised to hear this, but medium-sized domesticated dogs leave a bigger environmental impact yearly than a 4x4 SUV.  If we're to stop using SUV's, perhaps we should also remove domesticated dogs from the issue?  I'm pretty sure there's a larger number of domesticated medium-size dogs than there are SUV's in use at any given time in the US.


Eh, I was being sarcastic, hence the: 



Attaman said:


> To be fair, I am anti-misanthrope.  I do not like a movie that's been push, from the very start, that Humans are teh Ebil and that we all want to be like the Mary Sue Na'vi that are stronger than humans, faster than humans, more durable than humans, can live in harmony with nature while jacking into everything, have a natural biological internet, and do absolutely nothing with the super valuable physics-breaking material they're sitting on.
> 
> Humans being the villains isn't a problem.  It's that Cameron was a smug prick about it and has been smearing in our faces that "HUMANS ARE TEH EBIL!", that "Na'vi are teh good", that "Technology cannot co-exist with nature", etcetera.  There is no moral grey, even though by all rights the human side should have the advantage of major moral grey (Mining Pandora could possibly fix / mitigate the problems on Earth).  No, there's either "If you're a reasonable human being, you support the Na'vi.  If you don't, you're a destructive ebil hyooman".


You've long since established yourself as an anti-misanthrope, and I'll remain in disagreement as I have no faith in humanity.

To be fair, I didn't see the film in the same light you did, I just enjoyed the cynical "typical humans" attitude, the same reason I enjoyed ST Insurrection. It added some realism and seemed more reflective of the actions of societies great nations on the world stage.

I didn't see it that way either.. that somehow "all humans are evil". I saw it more as a macrocosm for human society as a whole. I don't have any faith in humanity, but, I dont think everyone are 'evil'.


----------



## Hyenaworks (Dec 27, 2009)

Carenath said:


> Eh, I was being sarcastic, hence the:
> 
> 
> You've long since established yourself as an anti-misanthrope, and I'll remain in disagreement as I have no faith in humanity.
> ...



Even though Star Trek Insurrection made no sense from a character standpoint?


----------



## MayDay (Dec 27, 2009)

Avatar; in short, was a roller-coaster ride. It's all special effects and big explosions, but lacking in story and substance. 

The visuals were stunning. And er...to a certain someone who earlier stated that he had seen better graphics in a computer game. 
Bullshit. Unless of course, you possess some super-computer, I highly doubt anything can match what Avatar just delivered in terms of special effects. The environment was stunningly beautiful and captivating. The Na'vi characters looked extremely realistic, despite this being done on motion-capture technology. 

I half-wished at some scenes that the camera would just stop and let me linger a little while longer to examine Pandora. 

But that's where the praises end. I mean...Jesus...the characters were such a 2 dimensional bunch...

That general seemed as if he had been plucked out from some cheesy, Hollywood world war 2 flick and dumped into Avatar. Complete with a Southern accent.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Dec 27, 2009)

TÃ¦farÃ³s said:


> ^ Fff, I miss your dreadlocked-wolf avie. JEFF GOLDBLUM IS A G.



I'm currently working off the wrist-rust for the sake of revamping my whole online presence and that'll mean getting rid of the stupid fucking logo/banner and having something resembling my fursona for an avatar. 



			
				TÃ¦farÃ³s said:
			
		

> It means "bitch rose" in Icelandic. Why? Just because. There's some _deep_ and _thought-provoking_ psychological shit behind that, but naw, we just want our effects and our 'splosions.



Cool, mind if I use it for a character in my story? Just cuz it's hard as hell to come up with names.


----------



## Beta_7x (Dec 28, 2009)

The 3D version is so much more intense and touching then the standard version. The movie itself is just GAH! Amazing!


----------



## GrizzlyBearDan (Dec 28, 2009)

this thread fails


----------



## DArtJunkie (Dec 29, 2009)

Meh. I really loved the movie. I went in with the expectations of a visually beautiful movie with neat critters, and was not disapointed. Eye candy, yes plzkthnksbye. 

As for the characters and story being unoriginal or 2 dimensional? Name me one movie that Hollywood has shat out in the past decade that wasn't, to one degree or another. We as a society have become so damn nit-picky and bitchy, we can't go watch a film just to watch it and be entertained for a few hours. 

I escaped for almost 3 hours, saw some absolutely gorgeous digital art and creature design, and felt a bit wistful and sad when Jake made the comment about "There's no green left, and we've killed our Mother." I think anyone with working brain cells can look around at the planet and agree that it isn't as vibrant and alive as it was before human beings exploded in population and became industrialized. Lot of humans + lots of cars/pollutants/etc. being dumped into the environment/ natural resources being taxed to their limit = a planet that looks a bit like a used up whore. Sure, you can slather makeup on her and strap her into a tight dress, but the end result is gonna be kinda ugly, and not as smoking as she might have been decades ago. Same principle. 

Not saying the movie was a film masterpiece. Not saying that it didn't get a bit preachy in places from an environmental standpoint. But shit, maybe the man is a greenie and loves his planet. Anyone ever think that this might have been a "Fuck you all, this planet is going to shit and I blame all the crappiest aspects of humanity" cry? 

*shrug* People have opinions. They're entitled to em. I liked the movie, a lot. My suggestion to those who hated it/thought it was crap/critiqued everything from the graphics to the character development to the storyline? 

You. Go. Do. It. Better.

No one who has not created, taken a chance on a project, or put their money where there mouth is, IMO, has the right to bitch about what someone _else _*did. *

*climbs off the soap box and goes back to working on art*
Nite all! ;3


----------



## Attaman (Dec 29, 2009)

DArtJunkie said:


> Name me one movie that Hollywood has shat out in the past decade that wasn't, to one degree or another.


Hollywood Original or Hollywood-made?  Furthermore, considering the "Shat out" bit, I'm guessing you're about as biased towards the movie as many of us are against it.



> and felt a bit wistful and sad when Jake made the comment about "There's no green left, and we've killed our Mother."


Oh hell, here we go...



> I think anyone with working brain cells can look around at the planet and agree that it isn't as vibrant and alive as it was before human beings exploded in population and became industrialized.


Yes, because it was so vibrant during the last major ice-age.  And during the repeated mass-extinctions.  Writing off humanity as doing nothing is folly, but believing it to be making a difference in the long-term to this planet is vanity.



> Lot of humans + lots of cars/pollutants/etc.


Oh hey, medium sized dogs have larger carbon footprints than land cruisers.  I suppose you're going to say we should "go back to basics" and also remove all the domesticated dogs we have?  Hell, let's gather up some huntin' parties and go lookin' for strays!



> But shit, maybe the man is a greenie and loves his planet. Anyone ever think that this might have been a "Fuck you all, this planet is going to shit and I blame all the crappiest aspects of humanity" cry?


  It is.  Cameron specifically stated that to be his entire purpose behind the Na'vi and Human conflict, with him designing it to be pro-Na'vi.



> You. Go. Do. It. Better.


  When one is a part of a 30,000+ member Sci-Fi forum where people in fact _have_ proposed better plots for the movie, as well as sequels for the movie that don't in any way conflict with the source, this isn't quite the best thing to say. :mrgreen:



> No one who has not created, taken a chance on a project, or put their money where there mouth is, IMO, has the right to bitch about what someone _else _*did. *


  So, many professional critics shouldn't be working any more?  Or are we only supposed to give ass-pats to people unless we're better at something than them?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Dec 29, 2009)

DArtJunkie said:


> No one who has not created, taken a chance on a project, or put their money where there mouth is, IMO, has the right to bitch about what someone _else _*did. *



Except for the fact that people PAID to see it and were unimpressed by it, which gives them every right to complain about it.


----------



## GrizzlyBearDan (Dec 30, 2009)

THIS MOVIE HAS A VERY BLAND STORYLINE, THE STORY IS VERY UN REMARKABLE.  IF YOU SAW THIS MOVIE YEARS AGO WITH THAT YEAR'S EFFECTS, YOU WOULDNT BE HAPPY. THE ONLY FUCKING REASON ANYONE LIKES THIS MOVIE IS BECAUSE OF THE EFFECTS.  DONT GIVE ME YOUR BULLSHIT THAT THE SCRIPT WAS "AMAZING" IT IS SUBPAR, YOU'VE SEEN THIS MOVIE OVER AND OVER THE YEARS!!! 

FUCK YOU FANS AND CONGRATS TO THE PEOPLE AND FURS WHO SEE THROUGH THE BULLSHIT


----------



## MayDay (Dec 30, 2009)

I sense hate XD



Attaman said:


> Writing off humanity as doing nothing is folly, but believing it to be making a difference in the long-term to this planet is vanity.
> 
> Oh hey, medium sized dogs have larger carbon footprints than land cruisers.  I suppose you're going to say we should "go back to basics" and also remove all the domesticated dogs we have?  Hell, let's gather up some huntin' parties and go lookin' for strays!



Attaman...you wouldn't happen to be in...denial...would you?

You're right, medium sized dogs do have a larger carbon footprint. But face it, "carbon footprint" is a mis-leading word. All dogs consume is food and water. But WHAT do SUVs consume? Oil, that's what.
And oil is a lot less renewable and a HELL lot more pollutive than food and water. 

Think about the pollutants (like carbon-dioxide and nitrogen oxides) that SUVs produce. Now, think about the pollutants that dogs produce. 

You may call the message that Avatar is giving "simple" and "naive"...but it's the simple truth. Humans have wrecked the environment like no other species have before. In 300 years, we have brought about such a drastic climate change thanks to our activities. 

And incidentally, I think gathering "huntin' parties" and hunting down the average American would be a lot more productive.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 30, 2009)

MayDay said:


> You're right, medium sized dogs do have a larger carbon footprint. But face it, "carbon footprint" is a mis-leading word. All dogs consume is food and water. But WHAT do SUVs consume? Oil, that's what.
> And oil is a lot less renewable and a HELL lot more pollutive than food and water.





			
				One of the Original Articles said:
			
		

> And pets' environmental impact is not limited to their carbon footprint, as cats and dogs devastate wildlife, spread disease and pollute waterways, the Vales say.
> 
> With a total 7.7 million cats in Britain, more than 188 million wild animals are hunted, killed and eaten by feline predators per year, or an average 25 birds, mammals and frogs per cat, according to figures in the New Scientist.
> 
> ...


Yep, they're only food and water consumers. :mrgreen:



> Humans have wrecked the environment like no other species have before.


And if we disappeared / cleaned up our act?  The environment would still have its shit fucked up.  Migrating animals would continue to devastate foreign ecosystems, a "lucky" year of mating could leave an over-abundance (or, if predators, scarcity) of prey for years on end, and so on.



> And incidentally, I think gathering "huntin' parties" and hunting down the average American would be a lot more productive.


 Oh look, genocide of 150+ million individuals while leaving all their pets and everything else not-human intact.  I'm sure that'd be _extremely_ helpful for the environment.  Especially considering the tightening ecological policies many first world nations are beginning to enforce.


----------



## MayDay (Dec 30, 2009)

Attaman said:


> Yep, they're only food and water consumers.[/URL] :mrgreen:
> 
> And if we disappeared / cleaned up our act?  The environment would still have its shit fucked up.  Migrating animals would continue to devastate foreign ecosystems, a "lucky" year of mating could leave an over-abundance (or, if predators, scarcity) of prey for years on end, and so on.
> 
> Oh look, genocide of 150+ million individuals while leaving all their pets and everything else not-human intact.  I'm sure that'd be _extremely_ helpful for the environment.  Especially considering the tightening ecological policies many first world nations are beginning to enforce.



*cough* And may I ask who was it who bought these pets and fed them oh, so extravagantly in the first place? Who was it who bought 3 dogs and a kitten and expanded the pet population? I'm sure your pet dog didn't get itself that 164 kilo of meat and 95kilo of cereal a year. 


You're right. Even if we cleaned up our act, the effects of climate change would still be here and certainly wouldn't just "vanish". But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything. 

Think about your grandchildren, or your grandchildren's children. Think in terms of hundreds of years. If we clean up our act now, at the very least, we can pass on a mentality of "going green" and "taking only what you need". And eventually, in a hopefully not so distant future, we can repair the damage we have caused. It'll take a long while...but we'll get there. And when we get there, it was BECAUSE we acted now. 

And that "hunting down the average American" remark was just a joke incidentally.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 30, 2009)

MayDay said:


> *cough* And may I ask who was it who bought these pets and fed them oh, so extravagantly in the first place? I'm sure your pet dog didn't get itself that 164 kilo of meat and 95kilo of cereal a year.


  Considering the average 1st World citizen eats around 400kg / 800lbs of food a year, with the USDA website supposedly stating somewhere on it that the average United States citizen eats around 1,800lbs of food a year.  Even looking at the smaller number, 260kg for a medium-sized dog with their high metabolism isn't that far of a stretch.  And I can believe the numbers quite readily.  I like, however, that you don't doubt any of the non-animal related facts for a second nor do you doubt the impact we'd have on the environment if removed.  



> You're right. Even if we cleaned up our act, the effects of climate change would still be here and certainly wouldn't just "vanish". But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything.


  We _aren't_ doing nothing.  We're doing something, or at least putting some things in the works.



> And that "hunting down the average American" remark was just a joke incidentally.


My apologies, I have seen too many people make that suggestion earnestly in these type of threads.


----------



## MayDay (Dec 30, 2009)

Attaman said:


> Considering the average 1st World citizen eats around 400kg / 800lbs of food a year, with the USDA website supposedly stating somewhere on it that the average United States citizen eats around 1,800lbs of food a year.  Even looking at the smaller number, 260kg for a medium-sized dog with their high metabolism isn't that far of a stretch.  And I can believe the numbers quite readily.  I like, however, that you don't doubt any of the non-animal related facts for a second nor do you doubt the impact we'd have on the environment if removed.
> 
> We _aren't_ doing nothing.  We're doing something, or at least putting some things in the works.
> 
> My apologies, I have seen too many people make that suggestion earnestly in these type of threads.



I must admit, it's impressive how you got these very relevant stats so fast off the net. But the question I'd like to know is...is there such a great necessity as to keep so many pets? Or rather, keep so many large pets? It may be just 260kg for a medium sized dog but many households usually keep 2 dogs (it says 1.7 but what the heck, let's just round it up a bit). That's not even counting cats. 
http://www.avma.org/reference/marketstats/ownership.asp


And as for China's and Japan's commitments...well, I'll believe it when I see it. Treaties can be broken. But there's reason to be optimistic I guess.

And no offence. The internet has the best (but mostly worst) of human behavior on display.

(*Nice debate by the way. But alas, I got to go. I fucking hate the time zone I'm in right now >< It's 3am)


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Dec 31, 2009)

Eh, generally most "eco-friendly" activities barely help and are just to ease guilt.


----------



## Takun (Dec 31, 2009)

I was going to see this but got drunk and played House of the Dead 2 and 3 instead.  I do not regret my choice.


----------



## GrizzlyBearDan (Dec 31, 2009)

Takumi_L said:


> I was going to see this but got drunk and played House of the Dead 2 and 3 instead.  I do not regret my choice.



win


----------



## Hyenaworks (Dec 31, 2009)

DArtJunkie said:


> Meh. I really loved the movie. I went in with the expectations of a visually beautiful movie with neat critters, and was not disapointed. Eye candy, yes plzkthnksbye.
> 
> As for the characters and story being unoriginal or 2 dimensional? Name me one movie that Hollywood has shat out in the past decade that wasn't, to one degree or another. We as a society have become so damn nit-picky and bitchy, we can't go watch a film just to watch it and be entertained for a few hours.



No Country for Old Men.



DArtJunkie said:


> I escaped for almost 3 hours, saw some absolutely gorgeous digital art and creature design, and felt a bit wistful and sad when Jake made the comment about "There's no green left, and we've killed our Mother." I think anyone with working brain cells can look around at the planet and agree that it isn't as vibrant and alive as it was before human beings exploded in population and became industrialized. Lot of humans + lots of cars/pollutants/etc. being dumped into the environment/ natural resources being taxed to their limit = a planet that looks a bit like a used up whore. Sure, you can slather makeup on her and strap her into a tight dress, but the end result is gonna be kinda ugly, and not as smoking as she might have been decades ago. Same principle.



Really?  Human beings occupy Such a small percentage of the planet, it's truly mind boggling.  MAYBE 3% is touched by humans and it's mostly in coastal areas in temperate climates.  There are vast regions on Earth untouched by humans you can go to if you really want.

You have a warped perspective of your world because you live in an incredibly small corner of the Earth.  In your life time, you won't experience anything worth measuring as far as the planet is concerned.  You have no idea how truly vast it is.  You've only been fooled into thinking it's so small, compact, and threatened because your world is probably only 30 square miles and resides mostly on the Internet.



DArtJunkie said:


> Not saying the movie was a film masterpiece. Not saying that it didn't get a bit preachy in places from an environmental standpoint. But shit, maybe the man is a greenie and loves his planet. Anyone ever think that this might have been a "Fuck you all, this planet is going to shit and I blame all the crappiest aspects of humanity" cry?



It's confirmed by him.  It's also a political criticism of US policies for the last 10 years.  He said so in an interview on PBS.  It's no surprise.  That man's generation has been riding the guilt train for years now and frankly, I'm tired of it. 



DArtJunkie said:


> *shrug* People have opinions. They're entitled to em. I liked the movie, a lot. My suggestion to those who hated it/thought it was crap/critiqued everything from the graphics to the character development to the storyline?
> 
> You. Go. Do. It. Better.



I love this logical fallacy.  It's the last resort of someone who can't defend their argument.  I could make this movie better from a story perspective, but could I convince a studio to give me $300,000,000 to do it?  No.  

James Cameron has a half a dozen blockbusters under his belt before Avatar.  It's actually part of what is so frustrating about this film.

Terminator, Terminator 2, and Aliens arguably have memorable characters, stories, and were well done as well as big box office successes.  All three films had their own criticisms of humanity buried within them but they don't flog you with messages.  They entertain you while they try to enlighten you.

Now I'm not even going to add Titanic to that list, but it did make a shit ton of money.  So if you're a studio, you give James Cameron the money because you know he'll give it back.  It doesn't mean he put out a quality product from an artistic standpoint.



DArtJunkie said:


> No one who has not created, taken a chance on a project, or put their money where there mouth is, IMO, has the right to bitch about what someone _else _*did. *
> 
> *climbs off the soap box and goes back to working on art*
> Nite all! ;3



Actually, everyone has the right to bitch about it regardless of their background.  Once more, you propose a logical fallacy because you have no argument.


----------



## Stratelier (Dec 31, 2009)

Hyenaworks said:


> It doesn't mean he put out a quality product from an artistic standpoint.


From a writing and critical perspective, of course, to avoid confusion with the just plain awesome visual artistry of the modelling team.


----------



## MayDay (Jan 1, 2010)

Hyenaworks said:


> Really?  Human beings occupy Such a small percentage of the planet, it's truly mind boggling.  MAYBE 3% is touched by humans and it's mostly in coastal areas in temperate climates.  There are vast regions on Earth untouched by humans you can go to if you really want.
> 
> You have a warped perspective of your world because you live in an incredibly small corner of the Earth.  In your life time, you won't experience anything worth measuring as far as the planet is concerned.  You have no idea how truly vast it is.  You've only been fooled into thinking it's so small, compact, and threatened because your world is probably only 30 square miles and resides mostly on the Internet.



But those vast regions "untouched by humans" probably won't stay untouched for long. From the Amazon rainforest to the Congo basin to South-east Asia, we are losing our forests at an incredible rate. And the consequences of deforestation aren't pretty.

Warped perspective? But what makes you any better? The world is vast, but don't fool yourself that this means our impact on the planet is negligible. 

I have been on field trips to the rain forests of Kalimantan (Located in Indonesia) and I have seen, first-hand, just how bad the situation is. Entire plots of land, all barren and eroded...and all devoid of trees. And the process is ongoing, with no signs of stopping or even slowing down. 
http://www.mongabay.com/images/rainforests/borneo/borneo_kalimantan_province.jpg
http://photos.mongabay.com/09/1204borneo.jpg

But I'll agree with you that the message of the film could have been a lot more subtle.


----------



## Goldstar78i (Jan 1, 2010)

Did not like Avatar.  The special effects didn't cover up enough of the movie to make me happy.  District 9 was a lot better.


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Jan 1, 2010)

I really wouldn't mind it if people said the visuals were good - it's when they think that the visuals suddenly makes the movie better.


----------



## MayDay (Jan 1, 2010)

Goldstar78i said:


> Did not like Avatar.  The special effects didn't cover up enough of the movie to make me happy.  District 9 was a lot better.



^Agreed

District 9 still makes a better sci-fi movie at the end of the day. Now that was _real_ character development that movie displayed.


----------



## GrizzlyBearDan (Jan 1, 2010)

WolfoxOkamichan said:


> I really wouldn't mind it if people said the visuals were good - it's when they think that the visuals suddenly makes the movie better.



I agree with Dekamaster


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Jan 2, 2010)

Dekamaster doesn't go around nude :X


----------



## Azure (Jan 2, 2010)

MayDay said:


> ^Agreed
> 
> District 9 still makes a better sci-fi movie at the end of the day. Now that was _real_ character development that movie displayed.


District 9 was horrible.  The special effects were average. And it was borderline racist, and brimming with WHITE GUILT. All in all a horrible movie.  But hey, at least it was different AMIRITE?


----------



## moonchylde (Jan 2, 2010)

Saw it tonight. Loved it. Will go see it again. Just not in 3D- glasses gave me a migraine.

The end.


----------



## Hyenaworks (Jan 2, 2010)

Stratadrake said:


> From a writing and critical perspective, of course, to avoid confusion with the just plain awesome visual artistry of the modelling team.



I will truly be impressed with the 3D modelers when they stop being lazy and make the appropriate changes to the models to give them that believability that they are capable of having.

What I mean by this is stop just mirroring the models and stitching.  There is no such thing as a symmetrical creature.  They just don't exist.  Everything has flaws, especially when you work with humanoids.

I think when they start doing that, they effects will be subtle, but mind blowing all the same.



MayDay said:


> But those vast regions "untouched by humans" probably won't stay untouched for long. From the Amazon rainforest to the Congo basin to South-east Asia, we are losing our forests at an incredible rate. And the consequences of deforestation aren't pretty.
> 
> Warped perspective? But what makes you any better? The world is vast, but don't fool yourself that this means our impact on the planet is negligible.
> 
> ...



Yet by estimations over the years, the rainforests should already be mostly gone and they aren't.  Not even close.  They've even discovered that many areas in South America are becoming overgrown once more after the cattle moved on.

Sure, farming techniques need to be updated.  I'm not against that, but your doomsday scenario that I've been hearing since I was 5 hasn't happened.  It's always another 10 years off.  Another 20 years off.  And yet they can't explain why the forest recovers as rapidly as it does in South America.  It baffles them.

But so many things baffle them.  Ever do a study on the food chain Antarctica and how it supports an ecosystem too large?  Literally, the amount of predators to prey ratio doesn't make sense down there and yet it works.  They don't know why.

I'll have to go with George Carlin on this...The planet is fine.  It's been through a lot worse than us.


----------



## Keyox (Jan 2, 2010)

It wasn't that good, I don't know why everybody is so hyped up over it. Amazing graphics can't save a horrible story.


----------



## Trevfox (Jan 2, 2010)

I thought the movie was Fucking amazing I was baked as hell when I saw it though so that could contribute to some of how awesome it was


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 2, 2010)

Trevfox said:


> I thought the movie was Fucking amazing I was baked as hell when I saw it though so that could contribute to some of how awesome it was



I'm almost afraid to go to the IMAX high. I think my brain might melt.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Jan 2, 2010)

Gushousekai195 said:


> Ohhhhhh... *sniff* this wonderful, wonderful movie was exceptionally touching.  With its themes of imperialism, war, and harmony with nature, I found it more than what I originally thought it would be.  I laughed and cried (there were tears in my eyes during a violent scene in the movie).  What the humans did to the beautiful Na'vi was inglorious and wrong (in fact, I did call the antagonist in the film an "inglorious basterd!"  ROFL).
> 
> Anyone who, perchance, has read "A Whisper of Wings" by Paul Kidd would love this film.  I would recommend it to anyone, too.  :'3
> 
> So, who else has seen what my wistful eyes have seen?



Yep.  Saw it Wednesday.  Great movie.  The vehicles were cool.


----------



## DragonFoxDemon (Jan 2, 2010)

I kind of took it like the last Rambo (if anyone saw that). Lots of violence that makes you warm and tingly inside, but I don't remember the story (on either movie). I've seen Rambo many times, I'd probably do the same with Avatar.

I won't rank this with Beowulf, which for me is what a lot of these comments remind me of. It was beautiful, but torturous to watch. The story was screwed up, the script...
The beauty of the graphics could not mask the horror it was. I'd been looking forward to that movie, now I won't touch it with a ten foot pole. :/

I was a skeptic at first I admit. It was pretty, but there wasn't anything pulling me to it. Finally saw a preview with Sigourney Weaver in it and it didn't matter. I love her, probably one of the few actors/actresses I'd really like to meet.
So if you couldn't guess Grace was the only character I really liked. There seemed to be more depth to her then anyone else. She had been working with the Na'vi for however long, been kicked out of the tribe and stuck from studying afar. I almost feel she could have been more of an anthropologist if she hadn't of been wrapped up in the bio. However, not much was explained or worked with either way.

That said can't say much on the story for reasons stated above.
Was very impressed by Cameron going with hexapod animals. Fan of many limbed creatures.

I'm also fascinated with motion capture. Kind of is the 'new' retroscoping to me. I personally think things are more in proportion and smooth.
Someone mentioned about Pixar knowing how to manipulate facial expressions with out it. Well, technically even 2D cartoon can do that, but both have that cartoon aspect to it. I don't know any cartoons off the top of my head that have 'real life' type proportions to them. (if anyone does please link me)
Large eyes, big heads, smaller bodies/larger bodies, etc.

*shrug*


----------



## GrizzlyBearDan (Jan 2, 2010)

most people in this thread fails


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 2, 2010)

GrizzlyBearDan said:


> most people in this thread fails


Cool grammar, bro.


----------



## That_Vladimir_Guy (Jan 3, 2010)

DarkNoctus said:


> Another FAF member used the term "Environmentalist Eye-Candy" and I'll stand by that. Shallow as hell story with beautiful visuals. It isn't wonderful. It only looks wonderful. It has the depth of the screen it's played on.



Use a tube TV and it's suddenly WAY deeper XD.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Jan 3, 2010)

> Re re-use of the Titanic theme song. Seriously.


Hahahahahahahhaaaaa


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Jan 3, 2010)

FRIENDER... CUT!


----------



## Hyenaworks (Jan 4, 2010)

Well, it's cracked a billion world wide, so incoming sequels.


----------



## NorfolkFox (Jan 4, 2010)

Hyenaworks said:


> Well, it's cracked a billion world wide, so incoming sequels.


 
From what I can see, with the attention to detail and language and all, Cameron is trying to create an entirely new Fandom from scratch...expect to see convention halls full of people in blue body paint, scantily clad with tails very soon...


----------



## Stratelier (Jan 4, 2010)

I wonder when/if the jokes about Avatar's "dancing with Smurfs" will get old.



NorfolkFox said:


> ...expect to see convention halls full of people in blue body paint, scantily clad with tails very soon...



You mean Ã  la this?
http://www.youtube.com/user/AlexKovas

Thanks for the mental images.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 4, 2010)

Stratadrake said:


> You mean Ã  la this?
> http://www.youtube.com/user/AlexKovas
> 
> Thanks for the mental images.


Have fun with the DVD.


----------



## Hir (Jan 4, 2010)

NorfolkFox said:


> From what I can see, with the attention to detail and language and all, Cameron is trying to create an entirely new Fandom from scratch...expect to see convention halls full of people in blue body paint, scantily clad with tails very soon...


Your reply was just as stupid as your avatar.


----------



## Hyenaworks (Jan 5, 2010)

NorfolkFox said:


> From what I can see, with the attention to detail and language and all, Cameron is trying to create an entirely new Fandom from scratch...expect to see convention halls full of people in blue body paint, scantily clad with tails very soon...



No, he hasn't.


----------



## Stratelier (Jan 5, 2010)

Hyenaworks said:


> I will truly be impressed with the 3D modelers when they stop being lazy and make the appropriate changes to the models to give them that believability that they are capable of having.
> 
> What I mean by this is stop just mirroring the models and stitching.  There is no such thing as a symmetrical creature.  They just don't exist.  Everything has flaws, especially when you work with humanoids.



That's generally an acceptable break from realism.  Outward asymmetry is usually subtle and you wouldn't just casually notice it without training, and then there's the law of conservation of detail....



DragonFoxDemon said:


> Someone mentioned about Pixar knowing how to manipulate facial expressions with out it. Well, technically even 2D cartoon can do that, but both have that cartoon aspect to it. I don't know any cartoons off the top of my head that have 'real life' type proportions to them. (if anyone does please link me)


. . . You're probably defining "cartoon" too narrowly.  There are many animated productions that depict human proportions realistically.  Disney's Gargoyles for one.  Loads and loads of non-kiddie-fare anime.  It's out there, and not terribly difficult to stumble across randomly.


----------



## Hyenaworks (Jan 5, 2010)

Stratadrake said:


> That's generally an acceptable break from realism.  Outward asymmetry is usually subtle and you wouldn't just casually notice it without training, and then there's the law of conservation of detail....



Why have a law of conservation of detail in a movie with a $300,000,000 budget?  You know that's not being spent on the screenplay.


----------



## NorfolkFox (Jan 5, 2010)

Hyenaworks said:


> No, he hasn't.


 
Yet...



> Your reply was just as stupid as your avatar.


 
Are you talking to me or Attaman? I never said it was a good thing...



> Thanks for the mental images.


 
Well, I say it's best to mentally prepare yourself for the inevetable... 

EDIT: Btw, I don't think anyones avatar looks stupid.


----------



## Korex (Jan 6, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> I confused it when I said a commercial that was also for: Avatar, the Last Air bender - I saw Ang(?) blowing out candles with his wind power...And then I guess I missed the "Coming Blank 2011!" or something, because then I saw a bunch of giant blue smurfs being chased around by AT-ST's (Star Wars), and I got -really- fucking confused, because IT was also called Avatar.
> 
> Then I saw more trailers on TV, and then reviews, and then personal review from friends - And realized it was "James Cameron - Avatar: That has nothing to do with the TV show Avatar", and was in fact, some super-high-tech CGI movie with multiple other movie plots built into it, or some shit.
> 
> ...



Same as me too...i thought it was like Aang with Zuko and etc. I was a bit sad...that it wasn't it..


----------



## Kyoujin (Jan 6, 2010)

Eh, I really enjoyed it, not my favorite movie ever but I thought it was pretty good. I just really loved the visuals.. and it was extra fun cause I got to see it at an IMAX in 3D (though it gave me a headache at first, lol). I definitely would recommend seeing the movie at least once, but I don't think it's a movie I'd buy.


----------



## Stratelier (Jan 6, 2010)

Hyenaworks said:


> Why have a law of conservation of detail in a movie with a $300,000,000 budget?


Conservation of detail is a universal constant, and as such perhaps I shouldn't have brought it up.

Oh yeah, on a completely unrelated note, for some reason I had Na'vi characters in a dream the other night.  They were . . . enslaved?  And put to use for such mundane jobs as ... *shudder* ... _call centers_.


----------



## 8-bit (Jan 6, 2010)

It was a glorious movie and I loved it. No one can deny it was amazing.




Korex said:


> Same as me too...i thought it was like Aang with Zuko and etc. I was a bit sad...that it wasn't it..




No, the Last Airbender movie is gonna fail like the Hindenburg.


----------



## Ibuuyk (Jan 6, 2010)

Saw it yesterday, it's my new fave.. that movie's just purrfect from the graphics to the storyline <3


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 6, 2010)

The movie was decent, better than seeing Twatlight with my Co-workers.

I am afraid that my eyes will be bleached due to fat people trying to cosplay as the natives. X.x


----------



## Attaman (Jan 6, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> The movie was decent, better than seeing Twatlight with my Co-workers.


  That's not exactly saying much.  Kinda like saying "I enjoyed his character more than Jar-Jar."



			
				Zeke Shadowfyre said:
			
		

> I am afraid that my eyes will be bleached due to fat people trying to cosplay as the natives. X.x


Wait until the sex tapes come out.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 6, 2010)

Attaman said:


> That's not exactly saying much.  Kinda like saying "I enjoyed his character more than Jar-Jar."
> 
> Wait until the sex tapes come out.



This is just my two cents....I don't see why people make a huge fuss out of the movie. It's not the best ever but it was certainly worth the line Zeke and I waited in. But to play a bit of the devil's advocate since a lot of people here are bashing the movie...

The plot? Was predictable but then again when is the last time a current movie came out where the plot _wasn't_ predictable? But at least here there was actual use of foreshadowing and it wasn't forced, it was quite subtle. 

A common complaint is that the plot was shallow and so where the characters but you know there is a reason why most of your big hit movies are that way. If you spend a fuck-ton of money making a movie it's a risk using actual depth. Maybe some people have not realized this by now but there are reasons why Twilight the book series and movie, Eragon the book series, Transformers the Movie (the first one) all did very well even though they were pretty much full of shallow characters and little to no plot or shallow plot. It's because it's so damn easy to follow. Cameron is not stupid. With all that money that is being invested he can't afford to fuck up. This gets into a common problem with Americans in general with how you can't get big offering real quality in books and movie making, because your common audience is collectively brain dead.

But onto the characters...they did have personality to some degree. They showed up as they are but in a way to me at least that made it more genuine. People were as they are, or so it felt.

As for the visuals themselves I'll give Cameron some credit where credit is due. His treatment of the world itself was pretty damn nice. I liked what was done with the Na'vi and the creatures living in their world. They all felt vaguely familure...because they were based off of things that live on our planet. I think that helps the audience identify with Na'vi and their home world so it did not feel so foreign. Somewhere along the line in the movie you realize that what the "Sky people" call savages are no different than us. There is a lesson there somewhere for the people watching it. The real savages were the Sky People, cliche I know. But did you pick up on how they offered things that they don't need. See the elitism there? It was kind of delicious because that kind of shit goes on today where people insist on "helping others" by "making them like us". Americans can stand to see that point brought up that sometimes the way people are, is what is best. Just because people live or are different than us does not mean they need help.

I particularly liked the part where the "warrior princess" archetype saved the man, but said rather forcibly to "not thank me" because what happened was a sad thing. I only wish the common audience had the brain cells to comprehend the depth of that simple message. The movie was littered with tidbits like that had hidden depth but you had to stop being distracted by the pretty visuals to get it.

I'll say something else the score fit the movie and the content to a tee. The rich score was littered with unusual instruments that you are not commonly going to here and the vocals were quite tribal. As someone who appreciates world music, I was surprised that he went with allowing the composer to give it such a score.

There were good points the movie but I think the visuals were too stunning and it gets in the way of paying attention to what is going on. It's very easy to get lost in looking at the world itself, and so by the end of the movie you can find yourself recalling very little because you were distracted.


----------



## DragonFoxDemon (Jan 6, 2010)

Stratadrake said:


> . . . You're probably defining "cartoon" too narrowly.  There are many animated productions that depict human proportions realistically.  Disney's Gargoyles for one.  Loads and loads of non-kiddie-fare anime.  It's out there, and not terribly difficult to stumble across randomly.



Ah Gargoyles. As I said I could not name one off the top of my head. Stuff with a Marvel or DC influence would probably fall there also.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 6, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> This is just my two cents....I don't see why people make a huge fuss out of the movie.


That one was less a snipe at _Avatar_ and more a snipe at _Twilight_.  You have to admit, calling something good in comparison to _Twilight_ IS kinda vague about just how good you found the movie.  If someone walks out of a theatre and says a film was better than _House of the Dead_, does that tell you much other than it either being at least tolerable or so bad it's good?



Trpdwarf said:


> The plot? Was predictable but then again when is the last time a current movie came out where the plot _wasn't_ predictable?


  To what degree?  Calling out what's about to happen next with reasonable accuracy (_Quarantine_, for example), or being able to roughly summarize how the film's going to end (_Shoot 'em Up_, _Die Hard 4_, etcetera)?  _Pineapple Express_ would count, IMO.



Trpdwarf said:


> Cameron is not stupid.


  Terminator 2 and Aliens already show that.



Trpdwarf said:


> This gets into a common problem with Americans in general with how you can't get big offering real quality in books and movie making, because your common audience is collectively brain dead.


  Show of hands, who's ready to see the simplification that's going to happen to Dan Simmon's _Hyperion Cantos_ as it's adapted into a movie(s)?



Trpdwarf said:


> As for the visuals themselves I'll give Cameron some credit where credit is due.


  I think pretty much everyone here's given him credit there.  The only complaint I've seen with his visuals is that his fire effects seem off.  Not crappy, but off when put next to the rest of the effects.


----------



## 8-bit (Jan 6, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> This is just my two cents....I don't see why people make a huge fuss out of the movie. It's not the best ever but it was certainly worth the line Zeke and I waited in. But to play a bit of the devil's advocate since a lot of people here are bashing the movie...
> 
> The plot? Was predictable but then again when is the last time a current movie came out where the plot _wasn't_ predictable? But at least here there was actual use of foreshadowing and it wasn't forced, it was quite subtle.
> 
> ...




I disagree. I payed attention to the plot, which was quite refreshing considering all the "chick flicks" and vampire movies that came out prior to  the Avatar release. There were a few points where my expectations were blown out of the water. I enjoyed it.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 6, 2010)

8-bit said:


> I disagree. I payed attention to the plot, which was quite refreshing considering all the "chick flicks" and vampire movies that came out prior to  the Avatar release. There were a few points where my expectations were blown out of the water. I enjoyed it.



When I said they were too stunning, I was implying that for the majority audience, they are not going to be able to pay attention. Not that people can't overlook it...only that it's to a point that many will be hard put to.

When you overawe your audience with visuals it's like rhymed poetry. You have to detach yourself a bit but what is distracting you so you can pay attention to what really is there.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 6, 2010)

Attaman said:


> That one was less a snipe at _Avatar_ and more a snipe at _Twilight_.  You have to admit, calling something good in comparison to _Twilight_ IS kinda vague about just how good you found the movie.  If someone walks out of a theatre and says a film was better than _House of the Dead_, does that tell you much other than it either being at least tolerable or so bad it's good?
> 
> To what degree?  Calling out what's about to happen next with reasonable accuracy (_Quarantine_, for example), or being able to roughly summarize how the film's going to end (_Shoot 'em Up_, _Die Hard 4_, etcetera)?  _Pineapple Express_ would count, IMO.
> 
> ...



It is true that comparing it to other movies does not exactly tell you much. For what it is worth I tried to watch through the twilight movie just to see how bad it was and couldn't due to a complete lack of plot, depth, character.....or anything to make it remotely interesting. Most movies can easily achieve being better than Twilight.

As to what degree...I am not understanding where you are going with that question. It can be both, or just one with your average movie.

I know people have given the credit for the visuals but you know he did well in other places too. 

Anyway...something I didn't bring up is...something I found interesting. With some of these characters they did not...expand to much on them which was actually refreshing. Such as the lady who manned the ship, and when they were blowing apart home-tree she said "I didn't sign up for this".

It was simple as that. Her one liners were enough because her actions spoke louder than any words can. There were points where very little was said and I liked that...because the body language or the actions were loud enough. Some writers don't understand this too well but actions and behavior is part of characterization, and character development. You can show depth without using character verbal speech.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 6, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> As to what degree...I am not understanding where you are going with that question. It can be both, or just one with your average movie.



I think he's trying to point the difference of going into a movie already pretty much assuming that A, B, and C will happen because it's the formula of a movie and having assumptions about a movie but being thrown off by something unexpected happening.

To reference the former, you should have pretty much knew going into Avatar "Humans are evil, natives are good, main human will fall in love with native, win over tribe, defeat other humans, live with natives" or something along those lines.  Nothing plot-wise was surprising or should have kept anyone at the edge of their seat really wanting to see where the movie was going because they could pretty much call out what the next scene was going to be.

The latter, and someone already mentioned this, look at No Country for Old Men.  I can't even describe that movie to you in reference to anything else because it's such a unique film.  The only thing I might be able to say is that it's a chase film, but you never really know if the protagonist is going to get away, get caught, live, die or anything else.  The movie has actual SUSPENSE because of all the different confrontations in that movie, both the ones that happen and ones that never happen exactly how you think.

Of course No Country for Old Men is an extreme case and a movie like that will only come out once every few years.  But take a more noticeable film like Die Hard.  Sure you have a pretty good idea that badass American guy is going to kick foreign guy's ass, save the day, and get the girl.  But there are points in the movie where you actually have suspense, such as "Oh Shit!  John McClain doesn't know he's making friends with Hans Gruber!"  Who in their right mind could have predicted that scene?

At least that's the way I'm seeing what he said.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 6, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I think he's trying to point the difference of going into a movie already pretty much assuming that A, B, and C will happen because it's the formula of a movie and having assumptions about a movie but being thrown off by something unexpected happening.
> 
> To reference the former, you should have pretty much knew going into Avatar "Humans are evil, natives are good, main human will fall in love with native, win over tribe, defeat other humans, live with natives" or something along those lines.  Nothing plot-wise was surprising or should have kept anyone at the edge of their seat really wanting to see where the movie was going because they could pretty much call out what the next scene was going to be.
> 
> ...



I know what he means by what degree but with the context I was not sure how to formulate a response. I don't know, the wording threw me off.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 6, 2010)

Attaman said:


> That's not exactly saying much.  Kinda like saying "I enjoyed his character more than Jar-Jar."



And?

I could type a Tl;Dr essaay on why I liked the movie but I won't. Considering the movies I've seen in the late 2009-2010 bracket, it was one of the better films I've seen.


----------



## Stratelier (Jan 6, 2010)

DragonFoxDemon said:


> Ah Gargoyles. As I said I could not name one off the top of my head....


Ditto here, Gargoyles came to mind first but after that . . . long blank pause.



Attaman said:


> Have fun with the DVD.



Didn't really care to hear that.  But is it a surprise?  Not at all.


----------



## GrizzlyBearDan (Jan 16, 2010)




----------



## Jelly (Jan 16, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> The movie was decent, better than seeing Twatlight with my Co-workers.



great context ++++

still havent seen it
still not compelled
not even with all the "it kills gays, *******, and my ugly son"

Dollar theater when I'm stoned or something.

I hate noble savage.


----------



## Stratelier (Jan 16, 2010)

According to the bottom of the news barrel, there is a minority of people who are suffering depression after seeing Avatar.  Why?  Because the movie's visuals were so DAMN GORGEOUS that they're basically suffering withdrawal going back to real life.

As for the concept of noble savages, anyone know of a movie where the noble savages are ultimately still the antagonists?


----------



## Corto (Jan 16, 2010)

*HOLY TITFUCKING ASS, THE 3D BLEW MY FUCKING MIND.*

I'm writing checks to James Cameron *AS WE SPEAK* and I dont *GIVE A FUCK*. I want fucking *Terminator 5* directed by* James FUCKING Cameron* in *3D *and *explosions *and *mechas with fucking combat knives* and the *first kind of catgirls I actually want to fuck. *

Best movie of the decade. I give it my highest rating of 11 stars.

***********

Also if anyone says otherwise they're probably in denial and stupid.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 16, 2010)

Corto said:


> I want fucking *Terminator 5*


  Wouldn't there need to be a 4th Terminator movie to have that?  Hell, wouldn't there need to be a third?  I mean, it would seem a bit silly to jump from 2 to 5 with nothing in-between.  Also, I'm sorta glad there weren't any later movies / TV shows to ruin the significance of the T2 ending.  



			
				Corto said:
			
		

> *3D *


  Pixar.



			
				Corto said:
			
		

> and *explosions *and *mechas with fucking combat knives*


  Michael Bay.



			
				Corto said:
			
		

> and the *first kind of catgirls I actually want to fuck. *


  Throw a Japanese Art Designer into the mix?


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Jan 17, 2010)

Anything is better than Twilight so obviously a crap wrapped in shiny foil would look better than crap.


----------



## Hyenaworks (Jan 19, 2010)

Corto said:


> *
> Best movie of the decade. I give it my highest rating of 11 stars.
> *


*

Not sure if serious, but just in case... you're retarded or you don't watch many movies.*


----------



## Armaetus (Jan 19, 2010)

Not going to bother watching it because of certain fanatical people taking it too far (na'vikin and shit like that)


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Jan 19, 2010)

Yeah, something's wrong when flat characters and a flat world get too much "dedicated" fanboys.


----------



## Altamont (Jan 19, 2010)

Hyenaworks said:


> Not sure if serious, but just in case... you're retarded or you don't watch many movies.


 
I'm a huge film buff and am actually planning on attending film school come this fall, so hopefully my opinion is a little more respected.

There has been a lot of...er...disagreement on this forum about Jame's Cameron's Avatar. There are pople who love it (I love it too!) and people who hate it (That's cool, opinions are opinions.) however, a lot of people who dislike Avatar are spewing quite the number of insults, similar to the above, towards those of us who love avatar, so i thought I'd put in my two cents about that.

One second; I'm bracing for all of the flames.

Avatar is NOT the best movie of the decade; that honor probably belongs to films like synecdoche, New York or there Will Be Blood, and so on and so on.

HOWEVER:

Avatar is almost certainly my _favorite_ film of the decade. Yes the plot was cliche, yes the logic of the film is occasionally, well, not there. But it did something that most movies fail to do for me these days: It made me feel like a kid again. 

Back when a stick and a rock could really be my only weapons while I fight off a gruesome horde of monsters on some distant world, or where a pile of legos can be the ship upon which I set sail on the seven seas, battling pirates and serpents. 

This movie embraces what caused me to love films in the first place, which is pure unadulterated imagination; it took me to another world that lived and breathed and truly felt alive, at least to me.

And the story? As a kid, I never wanted gloomy, character driven melodrama or perspective-changing meditations on the nature of mankinds very existence. I love those things very dearly, but Avatar was something different. It was fantasy fulfilled. It was every adventure I'd ever had in my backyard, every princess I'd ever dreamt of saving, every epic battle between my Bionicles and my action figures.

So is Avatar the best film ever? No. HELL no.

But I love it so much in spite of that, perhaps even because of it. It's flaws are the flaws of every child's dreams. It takes that world where fantasy is real, where the bad guys are scum and the good guys are white knights and it makes it all real, dammit. The child I used to be saw everything that I'd forgotten to love in my pursuit of Cinematic Nirvana. 

I wanted to become a director not because of No Country for Old Men or Requiem for a Dream but for The Mask and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and even The Mighty Morphing Power Rangers. Those are the movies that lit up my childhood. Are they good? No. Not really. Avatar is leaps and bounds better than that nostalgic schlock (say what you will about his storytelling ability, but that man knows how to make a movie).

So for all of the people who lay waste to Avatar because of its story, it's characterization, etc: Cool. I totally see where you're coming from. Almost every rational criticism about that film is aboslutely valid. I recognize those flaws wholeheartedly.

But does your distaste for the film give you right to insult and slander those who love it? I don't think so. Many seem to be under the impression that Avatar fans are rather unintelligent, devoted fanboys with no graps on the qualities of REAL filmaking. I'm sure some of them are; I certainly think calling Avatar the BEST film of the decade is preposterous. It is not.

But here I am, laying out my love for the film in a (hopefully) intelligent and well reasoned manner, so that maybe people will see the other side to the argument too.

Otherwise you'll be acting as ignorant and biased as all of those cartoonish, one-dimensional ex-marines. and then where would we be?


----------



## virus (Jan 20, 2010)

Generic imaginary idea with flashy 3D that won everyone over.

Its so self absorbed. Humans loathe and love themselves too damn much.


----------



## Altamont (Jan 20, 2010)

virus said:


> Generic imaginary idea with flashy 3D that won everyone over.
> 
> Its so self absorbed. Humans loathe and love themselves too damn much.


 
I just have to wonder when misanthropy and nihilism became so many people's MO?


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jan 21, 2010)

Altamont said:


> I just have to wonder when misanthropy and nihilism became so many people's MO?


 
Ever since the beginning of the self-esteem movement. Because you can get pretty damn sad if you are raised being told that you can do anything in life if you believe in yourself, and then realize that your ideals were completely unrealistic, and far out of reach.


----------



## CAThulu (Jan 21, 2010)

JesusFish said:


> Ever since the beginning of the self-esteem movement. Because you can get pretty damn sad if you are raised being told that you can do anything in life if you believe in yourself, and then realize that your ideals were completely unrealistic, and far out of reach.



Then you'll enjoy reading this:





http://www.cracked.com/article/195_7-things-good-parents-do-that-screw-kids-up-life/7 things good parents do that screw up a kid's life


----------



## Stratelier (Jan 29, 2010)

I had a dream just last night with a distinct "Avatar" theme for no apparent reason.  It had an epic action-RPG feel to it, and the Thanator creature was a boss of colossal proportions.  There was also something strange going on with Na'vi genetics that was very difficult to explain (though it made complete sense at the time). Like one of the RDA avatars had a gene that made him immune to poisoning (because he essentially "already was"), which also should've killed him outright.

It was . . . weird.


----------



## Ibuuyk (Apr 22, 2010)

*Avatar the DVD*

Deceiving or not?  I mean, it's shorter than the cinema version, the graphics aren't nearly as good, and it's not in 3D.  Are they at least planning to release the REAL DVD eventually?  Or is the goodness only on Blu-ray?

EDIT:  Also, the rumors are false, there's no Na'vi porn scene.  Sorry to deceive you, pervs.


----------



## Fuzzy Alien (Apr 22, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*



Ibuuyk said:


> it's shorter than the cinema version



The hell? Why would they want to fuck up the film like that for the initial DVD release?


----------



## Ibuuyk (Apr 22, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*



Fuzzy Alien said:


> The hell? Why would they want to fuck up the film like that for the initial DVD release?



I dunno.  I remember the cinema version lasted more than three hours, but this one only reaches about 160 minutes.  That's barely two hour & half.


----------



## Fuzzy Alien (Apr 22, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*

Nah, the theatrical was something like 170 minutes, I believe. I did hear they cut some stuff out for this release though, and I don't approve of that. 

Oh yeah, inb4 Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves, or Fern Gully.


----------



## Ibuuyk (Apr 22, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*



Fuzzy Alien said:


> Nah, the theatrical was something like 170 minutes, I believe. I did hear they cut some stuff out for this release though, and I don't approve of that.



The cinema version was AT LEAST 180 minutes long, but that's still 20 minutes missing.  I swear the part where Jake learns to walk silently disappeared and skipped right to the banshee training.  Like, Jake enters the village & talks -> trains with the horses -> trains with the banshees -> "marry" Ney'tiri -> fight -> profit.  Hello holes.


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Apr 22, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*

That, and they added a Na'vi sex scene. Which I know all the pervs in FAF are going to follow, even though Na'vi are close to cat people, but they aren't. (And being the real thing, I should know.)


----------



## Ibuuyk (Apr 22, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*



RayO_ElGatubelo said:


> That, and they added a Na'vi sex scene. Which I know all the pervs in FAF are going to follow, even though Na'vi are close to cat people, but they aren't. (And being the real thing, I should know.)



Read the first post again, there's NO sex scene after all.


----------



## Beastcub (Apr 22, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*

i saw it at the cheepo theatre yesterday (they play up until the day of DVD release, some times a bit past it) and the playing time was listed as 160 minutes at the theatre....

either way if the movie is still there next week i plan to see it again, for $3 its worth it, and the theatre is in the mall and i love the food court X3
i don't plan to buy the DVD though... just from the commercials it is disapointing to see it on such a small screen and i will wait and record it when it comes on TV (however long from now....)


----------



## Attaman (Apr 22, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*

They probably changed the DVD since they're re-releasing Avatar in theatres this Autumn.  Also, you expect the movie thats main selling point was "Shiny shiny" to be an amazing DVD?


----------



## KirbyCowFox (Apr 22, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*



Ibuuyk said:


> the graphics aren't nearly as good



Let me guess, you saw it in Imax, right?



Attaman said:


> they're re-releasing Avatar in theatres this Autumn.



Are you serious?  What's the point of that?  Is this going to be the new Rocky Horror Picture Show only for sci-fi furry fans?


----------



## Karimah (Apr 22, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*



Attaman said:


> They probably changed the DVD since they're re-releasing Avatar in theatres this Autumn.  Also, you expect the movie thats main selling point was "Shiny shiny" to be an amazing DVD?



I did not know that, what's the point in re-releasing it? <sarcasm>I liek shiny shiny 8D Who needs an original plot when you can oggle purdy cat pplz?</sarcasm>


They're waiting till all of the new tech crazed idiots regurgitate their  cash into 3D television, then they'll release the full version so that  those families that wear garish 3D glasses just to watch TV can feel superior to their  HDTV neighbors.


----------



## Attaman (Apr 22, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*



KirbyCowFox said:


> Are you serious?


 Yes, and Titanic in 2012.



KirbyCowFox said:


> What's the point of that?


  Cameron got pissed that someone knocked Avatar off its #1 Pedestal a few weeks / months earlier than he desired?



Karimah said:


> I did not know that, what's the point in re-releasing it?


  Imagine a cow.  Imagine her name to be "Avatar", and she makes money instead of milk.  Now imagine Cameron owns this cow.  He could make due with what he's got from "Avatar" already, already quite a full pail of money.  However, suppose he changes the pail around slightly and makes it marginally bigger.  He can take that pail now, and practically double his income from Avatar.

Avatar is Cameron's cash-cow.  He's going to milk it for every last drop.  If there's _three_ versions of the film, and he _knows_ there are tens of thousands of die-hard fans who _must_ observe all three (all four would actually be more accurate:  You can expect a re-release special edition DVD too no doubt), then he's going to exploit that population and get paid four (or more) times for the same product with marginal changes.


----------



## Browder (Apr 22, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*

You forgot the special director's cut Blu-Ray addition, Attaman.


----------



## Taralack (Apr 22, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*

wtf??


----------



## Karimah (Apr 23, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*



Attaman said:


> Imagine a cow.  Imagine her name to be "Avatar", and she makes money instead of milk.  Now imagine Cameron owns this cow.  He could make due with what he's got from "Avatar" already, already quite a full pail of money.  However, suppose he changes the pail around slightly and makes it marginally bigger.  He can take that pail now, and practically double his income from Avatar.
> 
> Avatar is Cameron's cash-cow.  He's going to milk it for every last drop.  If there's _three_ versions of the film, and he _knows_ there are tens of thousands of die-hard fans who _must_ observe all three (all four would actually be more accurate:  You can expect a re-release special edition DVD too no doubt), then he's going to exploit that population and get paid four (or more) times for the same product with marginal changes.



How might one go about obtaining one of these cows? I could certainly use one in my life.

Not to mention the apparel, the toys, the posters, the "Limited edition figurine set" with 6" replicas that get pawned off for a hundred bucks or so on Ebay. It just strikes me not necessarily as odd but as unusual because most producers just re-release the DVDs in four or five different formats and then just leave it be. Theatrical re-releases are an overwhelmingly obvious money siphoning plan when you think about it (or rather, when Attaman's wisdom puts it in perspective).


----------



## Beastcub (Apr 23, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*



KirbyCowFox said:


> Are you serious?  What's the point of that?  Is this going to be the new Rocky Horror Picture Show only for sci-fi furry fans?



i missed my chance at seeing it in 3d...

so i don't care if it comes back in theatres, namely Imax .__.


----------



## Ibuuyk (Apr 23, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*



Beastcub said:


> i saw it at the cheepo theatre yesterday (they play up until the day of DVD release, some times a bit past it) and the playing time was listed as 160 minutes at the theatre....
> 
> either way if the movie is still there next week i plan to see it again, for $3 its worth it, and the theatre is in the mall and i love the food court X3
> i don't plan to buy the DVD though... just from the commercials it is disapointing to see it on such a small screen and i will wait and record it when it comes on TV (however long from now....)



The heck, 3$ for a movie?  Gimme that cinema.



KirbyCowFox said:


> Let me guess, you saw it in Imax, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious?  What's the point of that?  Is this going to be the new Rocky Horror Picture Show only for sci-fi furry fans?



Nope, plain cinema.


----------



## TashkentFox (Apr 23, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*

I've had a pirated version for ages.


----------



## Stratelier (Apr 23, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*



TashkentFox said:


> I've had a pirated version for ages.


Walk the pank, ye scurvy dog!


----------



## TashkentFox (Apr 23, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*



Stratadrake said:


> Walk the pank, ye scurvy dog!



Argh Jim Lad! Yo ho ho and a bottle of vodka, a video pirate's life for me!


----------



## Katty McSnowcat (Apr 23, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*

The most amusing thing is, how much of mainstreet America is going to be pissed when they realize it's not in 3D? 

I'm interested in seeing it again, just to see how much of my enjoyment came from the gogglevision. I mean, it was a solid movie, but not a desert island, watch it over and over type of film favorite for me.


----------



## MaxCoyote (Apr 24, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*

Ya, i'm a lil disapointed with the Avatar Blu-ray release.  NO Digital Copy, and NO special features.  Like, AT ALL.  DOesn't even have a place to select special features.  It's just "Play", "Scene Select" and "Set up".   Not even a commentary.  The movie is ALL that's on there. 

Maybe for some low budget flick, ya, but for one of the biggest Hollywood movies of 2009?  Uh... you'd think they'd put more into it.


----------



## Attaman (Apr 24, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*



MaxCoyote said:


> Ya, i'm a lil disapointed with the Avatar Blu-ray release.  NO Digital Copy, and NO special features.  Like, AT ALL.  DOesn't even have a place to select special features.  It's just "Play", "Scene Select" and "Set up".   Not even a commentary.  The movie is ALL that's on there.
> 
> Maybe for some low budget flick, ya, but for one of the biggest Hollywood movies of 2009?  Uh... you'd think they'd put more into it.



If they're only releasing it to give addicts their fix / more desperate to view the re-release, however?


----------



## MaxCoyote (Apr 24, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*



Attaman said:


> If they're only releasing it to give addicts their fix / more desperate to view the re-release, however?



I don't think so. I mean, how long does it take to put a featurette or something on there?  They have no excuse to not put the Digital Copy on there either.


----------



## mystery_penguin (Apr 24, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*

You lost me at Avatar.


----------



## Attaman (Apr 24, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*



MaxCoyote said:


> I don't think so. I mean, how long does it take to put a featurette or something on there?  They have no excuse to not put the Digital Copy on there either.



Because they know people will buy the DVD anyways, and this allows them to release after the re-release a "brand new" DVD packed full of "new" features and "never before seen" deleted scenes?


----------



## Bianca (Apr 26, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*

Bitches don't know 'bout DVD size limitations.


----------



## Doctor Timewolf (Apr 26, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*



MaxCoyote said:


> Ya, i'm a lil disapointed with the Avatar Blu-ray release.  NO Digital Copy, and NO special features.  Like, AT ALL.  DOesn't even have a place to select special features.  It's just "Play", "Scene Select" and "Set up".   Not even a commentary.  The movie is ALL that's on there.
> 
> Maybe for some low budget flick, ya, but for one of the biggest Hollywood movies of 2009?  Uh... you'd think they'd put more into it.



They did allegedly to preserve quality, because apparently it's too hard to put out a two-disc version, one with the film and the other with bonus stuff.


----------



## Tibba (Apr 27, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*

Yeah, I heard the "preserve quality" excuse as well.  I had never heard anything about a re-release (I'm glad, though, because I didn't get to see it in theatres ;~, but I did hear that they were going to release another DVD/Blu-Ray set in Fall with deleted and additional scenes and all that extra stuff.  I have no source, though, so I could be wrong.  Kind'a hope I'm wrong, 'cause I think I'd rather it be in theatres again


----------



## CAThulu (Apr 27, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*



Ibuuyk said:


> I dunno.  I remember the cinema version lasted more than three hours, but this one only reaches about 160 minutes.  That's barely two hour & half.



It was two and a half hours.  it just seemed longer :V


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Apr 27, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*

I got the DVD/Blu-Ray combo.  I am good to go.


----------



## Vaelarsa (Apr 27, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*

My friend's husband bought the blu-ray.

It wasn't that bad watching the movie without the 3-D,
though admittedly I did skip most of the beginning and went straight to the actual "Jake starts being a Navi" shit.


----------



## Beastcub (Apr 27, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*



Vaelarsa said:


> though admittedly I did skip most of the beginning and went straight to the actual "Jake starts being a Navi" shit.



...i plan to see it at the cheapo theatre again this week (its still there! wohoo!) and....i wish i could do the same. there is what, 30 minutes BEFORE he first is a navi, to me its rather boring up till that part :/
ha maybe i should show up late on purpose X3


----------



## Vaelarsa (Apr 27, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*



Beastcub said:


> ...i plan to see it at the cheapo theatre again this week (its still there! wohoo!) and....i wish i could do the same. there is what, 30 minutes BEFORE he first is a navi, to me its rather boring up till that part :/
> ha maybe i should show up late on purpose X3


I seriously had enough time to take a shower, shave my legs, dry my hair, AND put makeup on,
all before the first time he uses the avatar body.


----------



## Takun (Apr 27, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*

I eventually saw it in 3d, then in non 3d for a dollar, and then again on bluray.  Honestly am I the only one who wasn't blown away with the 3d and just didn't care?


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Apr 27, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*



Takun said:


> I eventually saw it in 3d, then in non 3d for a dollar, and then again on bluray.  Honestly am I the only one who wasn't blown away with the 3d and just didn't care?



Saw the "normal" version in theaters.  It was amazing like that and cheaper too.

Edit: 14 dollars a person was just silly to see a "prettier" version of it.


----------



## auzbuzzard (Apr 27, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*

Go blu. Coz I've bought it. 

Definitely the DTS HD BLAST is more entertaining. Also, avatar is BLU~~ so yah.


----------



## Hateful Bitch (Apr 27, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*

I haven't seen Avatar. I'll watch it when I get round to watching Twilight, New Moon and all the other shit that has been branded a must see by the media.


----------



## Andrasta (Apr 27, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*

So, give it a year and you will find Avatar the DVD "uncut"


----------



## Taralack (Apr 27, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*

So what's the word on this, is it actually shorter than the theatrical release?


----------



## Andrasta (Apr 27, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*

well, i have the DVD one next to me saids run time 155 Minutes, i looked on a site that sells the film and blu-ray is *Run Time:* 162 minutes So, this means 7 mins is missing from the DVD verison of the film...and heres the oddest thing! i looked up the cinema verison and 166 mins is that run time...so somehow, the blu-ray verison is missing 5 mins too


----------



## TashkentFox (Apr 27, 2010)

*Re: Avatar the DVD*



Andrasta said:


> well, i have the DVD one next to me saids run time 155 Minutes, i looked on a site that sells the film and blu-ray is *Run Time:* 162 minutes So, this means 7 mins is missing from the DVD verison of the film...and heres the oddest thing! i looked up the cinema verison and 166 mins is that run time...so somehow, the blu-ray verison is missing 5 mins too



Does anyone apart from a few Avatards actually care?


----------



## Wolfmoon09 (Aug 18, 2010)

*Avatar back in theaters*

Wow, because that movie didn't make enough money already. 

10 mins of new film, so its back in theaters.

Probably not going to go see it. 

Correct me if there are other reasons, maybe filming of something that was supposed to come out got canceled or something?


----------



## Taralack (Aug 18, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*

Screw you James Cameron.


----------



## Slyck (Aug 18, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*

They are milking this think till it dies. Aaaaaaagh.


----------



## Stargazer Bleu (Aug 18, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*

They will do anything to make a extra buck.
Then giving it 10 extra min so people will feel more inclined to go see it.
I will just wait for dvd or bd.


----------



## Nyloc (Aug 18, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*

You're a clever man Mr Cameron, almost as clever as Mr Lucas.


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 18, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*

Do you blame them for wanting to make more money off of it? 

I'm surprised MORE movies don't get double releases. It seems like a good plan. Build off the hype that the original showing got and rerelease it for people to take family/friends that haven't seen it yet to it instead of buying a DVD or something.


----------



## Smelge (Aug 18, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*

If I remember rightly, Cameron got pissed off that some other film got released and started catching up at the Box Office, so he's re-releasing now to try and get a straight run on box office takings.


----------



## Willow (Aug 18, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*

Wasn't Avatar re-released in theaters one other time before? Or am I thinking of a different movie?


----------



## Stargazer Bleu (Aug 18, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*



Jashwa said:


> Do you blame them for wanting to make more money off of it?
> 
> I'm surprised MORE movies don't get double releases. It seems like a good plan. Build off the hype that the original showing got and rerelease it for people to take family/friends that haven't seen it yet to it instead of buying a DVD or something.



On the double release for theater they should always add bonus footage, give it that extra. More so if the movie did really well.


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 18, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*



Smelge said:


> If I remember rightly, Cameron got pissed off that some other film got released and started catching up at the Box Office, so he's re-releasing now to try and get a straight run on box office takings.


 Nothing is even close to what Avatar pulled in at the box office. James Cameron still has the top two films for Box Office earnings


Willow said:


> Wasn't Avatar re-released in theaters one other time before? Or am I thinking of a different movie?


 No, I don't think so. I could be wrong, though.


----------



## Lammergeier (Aug 18, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*

Im surprised I haven't seen more Na'vi fursonas


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Aug 18, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*



Lammergeier said:


> Im surprised I haven't seen more Na'vi fursonas


 
That's because they made their own fandom. The furry fandom is just too sullied for them. (pun not intended).

I might see it again in theatres though, simply because Mom still hasn't seen it.


----------



## Taralack (Aug 19, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*



Lammergeier said:


> Im surprised I haven't seen more Na'vi fursonas


 
Sick of them, tbh.


----------



## A10pex (Aug 19, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*

Ew! I hated that movie, WAY too much hype over something that has been done before. (other then the like green screen thing)


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 19, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*

Just wait until after the Breaking Dawn hype starts to die down.  Then, BAM, the Twilight Saga gets re-released in the theaters, all four of them.


----------



## Fenrari (Aug 19, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*

Meh I wouldn't watch it... EVER.  10 more minutes of crap won't incline me towards wanting to see this...


----------



## greg-the-fox (Aug 19, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*

PONYTAIL SEX SCENE


----------



## Primma (Aug 19, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*

Isn't this Avatar movie supposed to be a trilogy or something, seems odd to re-release the first for ten minutes... I mean I can see Star Wars 4.5. and 6 since it's been years since it seen theaters and was close to releasing 1...but Avatar... nope can't see it.


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 19, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*



Primma said:


> Isn't this Avatar movie supposed to be a trilogy or something, seems odd to re-release the first for ten minutes... I mean I can see Star Wars 4.5. and 6 since it's been years since it seen theaters and was close to releasing 1...but Avatar... nope can't see it.


 You're thinking of the Avatar: The Last Airbender movies. James Cameron's Avatar isn't supposed to be a trilogy, as far as I know. There will probably be a sequel, though.


----------



## 8-bit (Aug 19, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*

Oh, hey Mr.Cameron! thanks for T-2, now shut up >:/

And I hope they don't make morre airbender movies.


----------



## Nyloc (Aug 19, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*



8-bit said:


> Oh, hey Mr.Cameron! thanks for T-2, now shut up >:/
> 
> And I hope they don't make morre airbender movies.


 
Haha, bender...


----------



## Xenke (Aug 19, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*

I hope to god that people are as retarded with the re-release as they were with the initial one.


----------



## Ben (Aug 19, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*



Jashwa said:


> You're thinking of the Avatar: The Last Airbender movies. James Cameron's Avatar isn't supposed to be a trilogy, as far as I know.


 
No, it is. He has two sequels planned (and shit if he's going to have a problem getting them greenlit).


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Aug 19, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*



Ben said:


> No, it is. He has two sequels planned (and shit if he's going to have a problem getting them greenlit).


 
I'd be more worried if M. Night Shyamalan had _his_ Avatar sequels greenlit!

I think Whitney Cummings was right when she said that M. Night Shyamalan movies were like Pamela Anderson's vagina. 10 years ago everybody wanted to see them. Now everybody is all, "Is it dead?" "Is it an alien?" and "What the hell was Mark Wahlberg doing in there?"


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 19, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*



Ben said:


> No, it is. He has two sequels planned (and shit if he's going to have a problem getting them greenlit).


 Oh jeez. I thought there was only one. 

Hopefully it takes him forever to film the next two like it did with the first one.


----------



## Ben (Aug 19, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*



Jashwa said:


> Oh jeez. I thought there was only one.
> 
> Hopefully it takes him forever to film the next two like it did with the first one.


 
It didn't take him a long time to film it so much as, he was waiting for the technology to make the movie to be created. Now that it exists, the wait should only be about 3-4 years.


----------



## Ozriel (Aug 19, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*



Willow said:


> Wasn't Avatar re-released in theaters one other time before? Or am I thinking of a different movie?


 
Titanic was.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Aug 19, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*

I wonder if any of those extra 10 minutes of footage explains how the hell an Avatar can be grown in a test-tube with its hair already braided. 

Also thanks for reminding me of M. Night Shyamalan - I forgot to read that article on Slate that talks about how he's supposedly finally realized what a joke he is/or Hollywood's given up on him or something like that. I still gotta dig that up.


----------



## Ozriel (Aug 19, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*



Wolf-Bone said:


> I wonder if any of those extra 10 minutes of footage explains how the hell an Avatar can be grown in a test-tube with its hair already braided.


 
Or hairsex.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Aug 19, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*



Wolf-Bone said:


> Also thanks for reminding me of M. Night Shyamalan - I forgot to read that article on Slate that talks about how he's supposedly finally realized what a joke he is/or Hollywood's given up on him or something like that. I still gotta dig that up.


 
Related. Same reaction at our theater too when I saw Inception and the Devil Trailer popped up http://techland.com/2010/07/19/audience-reacts-to-m-night-shyamalan’s-name-during-devil-trailer/


----------



## 8-bit (Aug 19, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*

This is what's going to be in the extra ten minutes :V


----------



## CrazyLee (Aug 19, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*

I saw "Avatar", thought Last Airbender, and was about to kill myself. :/


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 19, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*



Wolf-Bone said:


> I wonder if any of those extra 10 minutes of footage explains how the hell an Avatar can be grown in a test-tube with its hair already braided.


 oshi-

I never even thought about that. 

Maybe it's not actually braided, but just looks like it is? :V


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Aug 19, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*



Arshes Nei said:


> Related. Same reaction at our theater too when I saw Inception and the Devil Trailer popped up http://techland.com/2010/07/19/audience-reacts-to-m-night-shyamalan’s-name-during-devil-trailer/



Yeah, before Airbender, people's reactions to his films were mixed, you could say the concepts were stupid and could never have worked, you could find redeeming qualities even in the movies you didn't like etc but that's sacred ground to be fucking up right there. I don't know who in the world thought he'd be the right guy to do a movie like that though since he has pretty much no experience with live action adaptations of anything that's not pretty much an original concept, but at least people who were sorta on the fence can now say he fucked up an idea that had *all* the right ingredients to be something good.



8-bit said:


> This is what's going to be in the extra ten minutes :V



I shall henceforth refer to my penis as my soup-drinker any excuse I get.



Jashwa said:


> oshi-
> 
> I never even thought about that.
> 
> Maybe it's not actually braided, but just looks like it is? :V


 
It was like the first thing I even wondered going into the film. Hair is hard as fuck to do, even with 3D (or maybe especially?) so I wasn't going to be at all surprised if they opted not to have all that super long hair just floating around in the tank. Though if there _is_ a half-decent explanation for how hair can grow in a braided formation, I'd love to know it since I have a test-tube baby with braids character and would really love an excuse to not have to draw him getting his hair braided (it's in a semi-post-apocalyptic setting so where the fuck would he find the time/service?)


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 19, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*

Fucking magic, Wolf Bone. Obvioiusly.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Aug 19, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*



Jashwa said:


> Fucking magic, Wolf Bone. Obvioiusly.


 
How do that work?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Aug 20, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*



Wolf-Bone said:


> Yeah, before Airbender, people's reactions to his films were mixed, you could say the concepts were stupid and could never have worked, you could find redeeming qualities even in the movies you didn't like etc but that's sacred ground to be fucking up right there. I don't know who in the world thought he'd be the right guy to do a movie like that though since he has pretty much no experience with live action adaptations of anything that's not pretty much an original concept, but at least people who were sorta on the fence can now say he fucked up an idea that had *all* the right ingredients to be something good.


 
His first 3 movies I liked. But to be honest with you only 1 out of 3 of those movies had an actual plot twist. "I see dead people"...the second was just more of a underplayed comic book hero movie, and the other was just ironic thinking for a bunch of aliens that decided to invade a planet that's mostly water 

It appears that they really don't want you to see people's reaction to Shyamalan as most of the videos are being taken down or blocked.

I do think however, http://www.urlesque.com/2010/07/23/audiences-groan-laugh-m-night-shyamalan/ this may still work.


----------



## CyberFox (Aug 20, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*

my opinion on this matter in a nutshell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWTrsI6UGFM


----------



## Moonfall The Fox (Aug 20, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*

There's som sort of fibers in the middle of the braid, so it would have to grow like that to protect them. xD


----------



## Joeyyy (Aug 20, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*

theyre gonna add a couple sing-alongs and Grand Mother Willow.  Maybe a Raccoon and Hummingbird friend.
"Just around the riverbendddddd"


----------



## Werecatdawn (Aug 20, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*

Lawl... i saw the smurfs topic beneath this... i seriously thought they were the same topic till i clicked it...


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Aug 20, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*



CyberFox said:


> my opinion on this matter in a nutshell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWTrsI6UGFM


 
That is extremely pathetic.


----------



## lucaaat (Aug 22, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*

I'm actually didn't dislike avatar. It wasn't that bad. Well, I agree that this is just stupid moneymaking, but hey, that's what rich people want: getting richer.
About Airbender: I really loved the series when I was a child. I did not go to see the movie yet, in fear of destroying my memories of childhood :S So you guys say it's not worth watching?


----------



## Jw (Aug 22, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*

Maybe that extra 10 minutes will revolutionize the whole feel of the movie and add truly unique story to the movie. 

Then again, it could be more pretty stuff.

Then again again, maybe Cameron needs a down-payment on a mega-yacht powered by genetically engineered unicorns. 

I'm going with the third option.


----------



## Runa (Aug 23, 2010)

*Re: Avatar back in theaters*

Oh good god, why do you people have to go out of your way to hate something just becuase it was popular?  the ONLY 'problem' with the movie was that the story wasn't original...but when you factor in that almost NO story is original, you kinda learn to look past that and see a film for it's presentation, character development, and various other features.  

The Lion king was just Hamlet with lions(I think, I know it was some shakespearean play)
The Departed was Infernal Affairs in america
Avatar was Dances with Wolves in space

Some of the best reviewed and most successful movies of all time were just WELL DONE adaptations on previously existing stories...you all know the only reason Avatar is considered a prime target is becuase it was successful.  If this movie flopped nobody would care and it'd just be another movie, but since it is a megahit and loved by audiences around the world, that opens it to all kinds of extra scrutiny.  

I'm so sick of people being so negative, acting superior becuase you can point out the same inane observation everyone else in the world pointed out.  It's not clever, it's not original, and you're not funny.  In fact, doing so only makes you look like a fool becuase it means you're selective in what you 'notice'


----------



## Scotty1700 (Nov 6, 2010)

*Lol I just watched....*

Just got done watching Avatar for the first time and.....I don't know how to explain myself, it was awesome :3


----------



## SirRob (Nov 6, 2010)

*Re: Lol I just watched....*

Took you this long?


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Nov 6, 2010)

*Re: Lol I just watched....*

Why would Scotty be interested in a movie full of *blue naked women*?

No, I agree, Avatar was a good movie.



SirRob said:


> Took you this long?


 
Mom still hasn't seen it. Everyone in my family but her had already seen it in theatres.


----------



## Scotty1700 (Nov 6, 2010)

*Re: Lol I just watched....*

I don't normally watch TV and it's not like I'm going to go through all the trouble downloading it, just saw it on and decided to watch it.


----------



## SirRob (Nov 6, 2010)

*Re: Lol I just watched....*



RayO_ElGatubelo said:


> Mom still hasn't seen it. Everyone in my family but her had already seen it in theatres.


Why am I the only person who doesn't think it's weird to go to the movies alone?





Scotty1700 said:


> I don't normally watch TV and it's not like I'm going to go through all the trouble downloading it, just saw it on and decided to watch it.


Ah. Uh... Well what was your favorite part?


----------



## Scotty1700 (Nov 6, 2010)

*Re: Lol I just watched....*



SirRob said:


> Why am I the only person who doesn't think it's weird to go to the movies alone?
> 
> 
> Ah. Uh... Well what was your favorite part?


 

I have no source of income so I cannot haz movie tickets :c Also, I'm unsure of what part's the best. I'm a chump for fight scenes but....we all know that's not the sole reason that half of the movie was best


----------



## Jude (Nov 6, 2010)

*Re: Lol I just watched....*



SirRob said:


> Why am I the only person who doesn't think it's weird to go to the movies alone?


 
It's not really weird, but it's not nearly as fun. I did once, and I actually legitimately felt lonely.


----------



## Cyanide_tiger (Nov 6, 2010)

*Re: Lol I just watched....*

Avatar was over-rated. The story was predictable and done over a thousand times before. The only cool thing was the way they integrated live-action with CGI in that movie.


----------



## Isen (Nov 6, 2010)

*Re: Lol I just watched....*

"The corniest movie ever made about the white man's need to lose his identity and assuage racial, political, sexual and historical guilt." -Armond White

This is someone agreeing with Armond White.


----------



## Pine (Nov 6, 2010)

*Re: Lol I just watched....*

Avatar was a cool movie but was very overrated. It's Pocahontas 3000.


----------



## Jude (Nov 6, 2010)

*Re: Lol I just watched....*

Anyone?


----------



## Lyxen (Nov 6, 2010)

*Re: Lol I just watched....*

I only saw pieces. Thought it was bad. Like It was just a movie trying to explain the internet in a hypothetical way.


----------



## SirRob (Nov 6, 2010)

*Re: Lol I just watched....*

Because plots have never been reused in movies ever.

Seriously, why do you all think originality is so important? Presentation is much more important, in my opinion.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Nov 7, 2010)

*Re: Lol I just watched....*



SirRob said:


> Because plots have never been reused in movies ever.
> 
> Seriously, why do you all think originality is so important? Presentation is much more important, in my opinion.


 
It's because the reusing of this plot was so obvious and blatant, it really detracted from the movie.
It's not a bad movie, but it's not good, either.

http://static.funnyjunk.com/pictures/another_avatar_comparison.jpg <-- Most of those replacements are just names, too.
What happened to linking the actual picture in your post?


----------



## SirRob (Nov 7, 2010)

*Re: Lol I just watched....*



Commiecomrade said:


> It's because the reusing of this plot was so obvious and blatant, it really detracted from the movie.
> It's not a bad movie, but it's not good, either.
> 
> http://static.funnyjunk.com/pictures/another_avatar_comparison.jpg <-- Most of those replacements are just names, too.
> What happened to linking the actual picture in your post?


Zelda reuses the same plot in its games. It's not a bad series, but it's not good, either.

Actual pictures can only be posted on certain forums, such as Forum Games or Three Frags Left.


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Nov 7, 2010)

*Re: Lol I just watched....*



Isen said:


> "The corniest movie ever made about the white man's need to lose his identity and assuage racial, political, sexual and historical guilt." -Armond White
> 
> This is someone agreeing with Armond White.



He goes on to call it "the easiest, dumbest escapism imaginable." Wasn't this the guy who gave the _Transformers_ sequel the thumbs up? Isn't that easy, dumb escapism, peppered by dog humping jokes and minstrel-show robots?

I wouldn't call _Avatar_ overrated, though. Sure the story was okay (not particularly bad, just done before), but nobody can deny that it's a technological triumph.

It's not like we're talking about the _Transformers_ sequel for crying out loud!


----------



## Cam (Nov 7, 2010)

*Re: Lol I just watched....*

I thought it was just an average movie, there really wasnt anything special about it.

But the fucking movie companoes are milking the SHIT out of this movie <_<


----------



## Heliophobic (Nov 7, 2010)

*Re: Lol I just watched....*

I fear that you weren't talking about the Avatar that I was thinking.


----------



## OfficerBadger (Nov 7, 2010)

*Re: Lol I just watched....*

No. Don't get me starting. You do not want me to get started about this damn movie.


----------



## Adelin (Nov 7, 2010)

*Re: Lol I just watched....*



Grycho said:


> I fear that you weren't talking about the Avatar that I was thinking.


 
You taught it was about the guy with the blue arrow on his head?

The movie was nice if you ask me and the graphics were just beautiful.

I kinda had a headache after watching it but whatever.


----------



## Yrr (Nov 7, 2010)

*Re: Lol I just watched....*

I saw avatar

and then it came out in 3d

so I watched it again

and then it came out in director's cut mode

so I was like fuck that and played video games


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 7, 2010)

*Re: Lol I just watched....*

BRB, selling out humanity for hawt blue alien poon.


----------



## Daisy La Liebre (Nov 7, 2010)

*Re: Lol I just watched....*

I watched it in cinemas, and it was good the first time around. I watched it again, and everything about it seemed to piss me off. The ultra-macho, corny HURR DURR dialogue makes me cringe.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Nov 7, 2010)

*Re: Lol I just watched....*

It was really great visually. That's the only way I enjoyed it, really.

It's overrated, but It was worth seeing.


----------



## Daisy La Liebre (Nov 7, 2010)

*Re: Lol I just watched....*



Gibby said:


> It was really great visually. That's the only way I enjoyed it, really.
> 
> It's overrated, but It was worth seeing.


 
I saw it on release day in 3D. It was okay. Just seemed to seperate the background from the characters.


----------



## Gavrill (Nov 7, 2010)

*Re: Lol I just watched....*

Hey OP, why'd you have to go make a thread about it?


----------



## NA3LKER (Nov 7, 2010)

*Re: Lol I just watched....*

watch it again a week later, and you will realise apart from the sweet visuals, there is nothing good about it.


----------



## Daisy La Liebre (Nov 7, 2010)

*Re: Lol I just watched....*



NA3LKER said:


> watch it again a week later, and you will realise apart from the sweet visuals, there is nothing good about it.


 
THIS so very hard.

The corny writing ruins it for me.


----------



## Aeturnus (Nov 7, 2010)

I never watched it, and I don't plan on it. The video clips I did see didn't really capture my interest.


----------



## Taralack (Nov 7, 2010)

Wow I really don't think this needed to be bumped. :|


----------



## GingerM (Nov 7, 2010)

Meh. It was a 'watch once' for me. Technically stunning, but an average storyline. Though I did get a huge laugh out of "Everything on this planet wants to eat your eyes for jujubes!"


----------



## Willow (Nov 7, 2010)

Toraneko said:


> Wow I really don't think this needed to be bumped. :|


 Eh, it would have been better off being its own thread in the Tube instead of being merged with this one.


----------



## Coyotez (Nov 9, 2010)

The cool CGI made up for the fact they ripped off Pocahontas.


----------



## Atona (Nov 10, 2010)

The part that irritated me the most about it wasn't that it was pocahontas with blue people, it was that it didn't ADD anything to pocahontas, which was also a very beautiful, but shallow experience. This time it was cool CGI rather than "Colors of the Wind."

The characters are the same, intensely-uninteresting characters from before. One is the "holy shit beautiful beyond words and feminine strong oh wow" and the other is "derp derp i am male i need a female to teach me how to not kill shit and keep it in my pants"
Bad guys are oh so evil for no reason other than GREED.

I don't mind that it was a reused plot, I just wish that they fixed what was initially wrong with Pocahontas. It wasn't a bad movie, but it wasn't anything new in regards to story.


----------



## wernier (Mar 30, 2011)

The movie is has the nice graphics and animation. Outstanding movie


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 30, 2011)

Necro lock


----------

