PDA

View Full Version : Avatar


Pages : [1] 2

SonOfLe-loLang
12-17-2009, 04:44 PM
Caught a screening this afternoon. Probably the most immersive theater experience I've ever had. I was really surprised. 10 years of work and 500 million definitely all appear on the screen. It has its Cameron-schmaltz, but you go with it.

See it in 3-d if you can.

Los Broncos
12-17-2009, 04:47 PM
Is there a love story in this movie? I want lots of violence!

Archer81
12-17-2009, 04:47 PM
Does Linda Hamilton make an appearance to talk about how men dont create, all they know is destruction and death...


:Broncos:

SonOfLe-loLang
12-17-2009, 04:48 PM
Is there a love story in this movie? I want lots of violence!

Of course there's a love story, its Cameron! There are explosions and ****, but if youre strictly looking for violence, its not the movie for you. And you might have a problem:)

SonOfLe-loLang
12-17-2009, 04:49 PM
Does Linda Hamilton make an appearance to talk about how men dont create, all they know is destruction and death...


:Broncos:

She certainly could have :)

Archer81
12-17-2009, 04:51 PM
She certainly could have :)


That scene in terminator 2 cracks me up. After she attempts to murder this scientist, lectures him on the difference between creating life and creating technology...thanks for that Linda. More Terminator less annoying sinewey hyperbitch.


:Broncos:

Los Broncos
12-17-2009, 04:51 PM
Of course there's a love story, its Cameron! There are explosions and ****, but if youre strictly looking for violence, its not the movie for you. And you might have a problem:)

Ah, I'll watch it, looks like a good movie.

worm
12-17-2009, 05:02 PM
I don't see Avatars

SoDak Bronco
12-17-2009, 05:10 PM
Pretty pumped to go check this movie out. Hope it lives up to the hype. Do the glasses they give you work good for a 3-d film or do you need "better" ones?

Kaylore
12-17-2009, 05:13 PM
Am I the only one who feels like I already know the whole movie plot and haven't seen it?

Is this close?

Lead soldier guy is in awesome fight at beginning of film that ends with him being paralyzed. He loses all hope but then he gets a second chance. He's taken to a research facility on an alien moon/planet/whatever that has some resource humans need. Pesky natives are preventing humans from extracting the valuable resources. A scary general with scars on his head has other ideas (oh noes!), An ahead-of-her-time doctor, with strong moral values is pioneering experimental technology to transplant consciousness into another living being. They clone/create/whatever the natives and want to use the now paralyzed soldier to enter the natives' body to infiltrate the native camp to launch a final assault.

Now formerly paralyzed man and maybe another embark on a re-imagining of brigadoon. They are attacked by something scary on the way there and are saved by a beautiful she-native. Other guy either comes along or dies there. Doesn't really matter. She takes him to learn her ways and culture. Slowly he does his job, and slowly he falls in love with the her and her people! Then when he realizes how wrong he and his humans are it's too late! Either because of other-guy who came along, or some other means like a jealous native, soldier-guy gets "disconnected" through some sort of tragic means just as the attack is coming! But he somehow, though ingenuity and appealing to Sigourney-doctor's morals, finds a way back and helps lead the natives to attack the humans' weaknesses as only he can (huzzah)! An epic battle ensues full of CGI and dramatic music with cliche' shots of guys hanging/falling off high places, and then at the end of the battle someone important dies, including the mean general with scars. It is beautiful and sad. The credits roll. And deep down you kind of knew what was going to happen anyway.

Am I close?

Xenos
12-17-2009, 05:38 PM
Am I the only one who feels like I already know the whole movie plot and haven't seen it?

Is this close?

Lead soldier guy is in awesome fight at beginning of film that ends with him being paralyzed. He loses all hope but then he gets a second chance. He's taken to a research facility on an alien moon/planet/whatever that has some resource humans need. Pesky natives are preventing humans from extracting the valuable resources. A scary general with scars on his head has other ideas (oh noes!), An ahead-of-her-time doctor, with strong moral values is pioneering experimental technology to transplant consciousness into another living being. They clone/create/whatever the natives and want to use the now paralyzed soldier to enter the natives' body to infiltrate the native camp to launch a final assault.

Now formerly paralyzed man and maybe another embark on a re-imagining of brigadoon. They are attacked by something scary on the way there and are saved by a beautiful she-native. Other guy either comes along or dies there. Doesn't really matter. She takes him to learn her ways and culture. Slowly he does his job, and slowly he falls in love with the her and her people! Then when he realizes how wrong he and his humans are it's too late! Either because of other-guy who came along, or some other means like a jealous native, soldier-guy gets "disconnected" through some sort of tragic means just as the attack is coming! But he somehow, though ingenuity and appealing to Sigourney-doctor's morals, finds a way back and helps lead the natives to attack the humans' weaknesses as only he can (huzzah)! An epic battle ensues full of CGI and dramatic music with cliche' shots of guys hanging/falling off high places, and then at the end of the battle someone important dies, including the mean general with scars. It is beautiful and sad. The credits roll. And deep down you kind of knew what was going to happen anyway.

Am I close?
That pretty much sums up the trailers I've seen for it. Cameron's version of Dancing in Wolves it seems. But even if the plot is cliche like it was with The Last Samurai, which essentially followed the exact formula of Wolves as well, if it's well executed then you can usually forget that you knew the plot beforehand. At least that's my take on it. Plus it's pretty and I'm hyped up about the technology used for this film.

Rohirrim
12-17-2009, 05:42 PM
That scene in terminator 2 cracks me up. After she attempts to murder this scientist, lectures him on the difference between creating life and creating technology...thanks for that Linda. More Terminator less annoying sinewey hyperb****.


:Broncos:

You just feel threatened by strong women.

Rohirrim
12-17-2009, 05:43 PM
Am I the only one who feels like I already know the whole movie plot and haven't seen it?

Is this close?

Lead soldier guy is in awesome fight at beginning of film that ends with him being paralyzed. He loses all hope but then he gets a second chance. He's taken to a research facility on an alien moon/planet/whatever that has some resource humans need. Pesky natives are preventing humans from extracting the valuable resources. A scary general with scars on his head has other ideas (oh noes!), An ahead-of-her-time doctor, with strong moral values is pioneering experimental technology to transplant consciousness into another living being. They clone/create/whatever the natives and want to use the now paralyzed soldier to enter the natives' body to infiltrate the native camp to launch a final assault.

Now formerly paralyzed man and maybe another embark on a re-imagining of brigadoon. They are attacked by something scary on the way there and are saved by a beautiful she-native. Other guy either comes along or dies there. Doesn't really matter. She takes him to learn her ways and culture. Slowly he does his job, and slowly he falls in love with the her and her people! Then when he realizes how wrong he and his humans are it's too late! Either because of other-guy who came along, or some other means like a jealous native, soldier-guy gets "disconnected" through some sort of tragic means just as the attack is coming! But he somehow, though ingenuity and appealing to Sigourney-doctor's morals, finds a way back and helps lead the natives to attack the humans' weaknesses as only he can (huzzah)! An epic battle ensues full of CGI and dramatic music with cliche' shots of guys hanging/falling off high places, and then at the end of the battle someone important dies, including the mean general with scars. It is beautiful and sad. The credits roll. And deep down you kind of knew what was going to happen anyway.

Am I close?

Isn't that Dances With Wolves with blue people?

JJG
12-17-2009, 05:51 PM
I don't understand all the fuss around this movie.

what am I missing?

Bronco Yoda
12-17-2009, 05:59 PM
Avatars....where?

My Avatar still isn't showing up?

Its a conspiracy!


I want my Avatar too....

UberBroncoMan
12-17-2009, 06:39 PM
Does Linda Hamilton make an appearance to talk about how men dont create, all they know is destruction and death...


:Broncos:

HAHA... that was literally in my mind.

I'm going to see this movie for the special effects... I also heard there is a kick ass battle at the end.

So while I think James Cameron is a glorified p***Y who has no grasp of the evil in this world that exists outside of the bad bad western culture... and while he lives in another plane of existence where humans exist in harmony with each other and nature and blah blah blah (which isn't ever going to happen)... I LOVE Aliens (LOVE IT) and I though Terminator 2: Judgement Day was a damn good film. I enjoyed The Abyss, and heck even Titanic was alright.

Somehow I think the ending to this film is going to disappoint me though. Either the humans lose, or they win and are portrayed as ruthless war mongering capitalists (money money money). Knowing Cameron though he'll do something funny and rip off that episode in season 1 of StarGate SG-1 where the "natives" actually had superior technology to the humans (and the Goa'uld). We shall see... (and no one spoil the ending in this thread!!!)

Anyhow, I guess I could understand Dances With Wolves. We were pretty ****ing brutal to take their land etc. But that's humanity. It wasn't like the Native Americans didn't fight each other over land and **** either. We just had the bigger stick.

Just look at how brutal the Aztecs were to the surrounding tribes that they conquered.

As such I find it hilarious and laughable when there's a movie that shows the innocent and amazing natives, when in reality... IN REALITY. That's never truly existed, as there have always been other "natives" to kill the "peaceful ones" and expand.

Thus... this film is a fraud without expansive Light Blue Aliens... maybe Red?... who hate the Dark Blue ones.

Isn't that Dances With Wolves with blue people?

SMURFS DAMMIT SMURFS!!!

phisig150
12-17-2009, 06:58 PM
Avatar = Death of cinema.

houghtam
12-17-2009, 07:08 PM
Avatar = Death of cinema.

That's what purists said about every innovation since film colorization. I've even had some clown tell me he missed the clatter of the projector since we switched over to digital.

Problem is, the general public, for whom 99.9% of movies are made, doesn't care about nostalgia, they want the best for as cheap as they can get it. Avatar is going to change the way movies are made, and in the long run, it's going to remind people that downloading a movie on your computer or waiting a year to watch it on your it's-high-def-but-still-not-as-good-as-the-theater-screen television is just not the same as going to a theater and enjoying it how it was meant to be enjoyed.

UberBroncoMan
12-17-2009, 07:25 PM
That's what purists said about every innovation since film colorization. I've even had some clown tell me he missed the clatter of the projector since we switched over to digital.

Problem is, the general public, for whom 99.9% of movies are made, doesn't care about nostalgia, they want the best for as cheap as they can get it. Avatar is going to change the way movies are made, and in the long run, it's going to remind people that downloading a movie on your computer or waiting a year to watch it on your it's-high-def-but-still-not-as-good-as-the-theater-screen television is just not the same as going to a theater and enjoying it how it was meant to be enjoyed.

The same thing was said before DVD's and digital pirating... btw I'm not disagreeing about the entire enjoyment of the theater experience. I for one love going to the theater because of the experience far over watching a film for the first time at home. I do however think you underestimate the technological experience one can still have at home. I think we'll be seeing plenty of 3D etc at home in the future.

Sherlock Holmes is a lock for me when it comes out (unless it completely bombs in the reviews).

As for Avatar... it's merely Final Fantasy the Spirits Within with 3D. (FFSW btw was absolutly groundbreaking technologically with motion captured actors/realistic facial modeling and graphics etc but with a story that related to a Japanese audience over anywhere else and overall poor acting).

Your average film goer will have no ****ing clue what movie I just talked about is, and thus won't be able to connect it to Avatar.

SJ Bronco
12-17-2009, 07:26 PM
Is this based on a book? People seem awful excited.

broncosteven
12-17-2009, 07:30 PM
Am I the only one who feels like I already know the whole movie plot and haven't seen it?

Is this close?

Lead soldier guy is in awesome fight at beginning of film that ends with him being paralyzed. He loses all hope but then he gets a second chance. He's taken to a research facility on an alien moon/planet/whatever that has some resource humans need. Pesky natives are preventing humans from extracting the valuable resources. A scary general with scars on his head has other ideas (oh noes!), An ahead-of-her-time doctor, with strong moral values is pioneering experimental technology to transplant consciousness into another living being. They clone/create/whatever the natives and want to use the now paralyzed soldier to enter the natives' body to infiltrate the native camp to launch a final assault.

Now formerly paralyzed man and maybe another embark on a re-imagining of brigadoon. They are attacked by something scary on the way there and are saved by a beautiful she-native. Other guy either comes along or dies there. Doesn't really matter. She takes him to learn her ways and culture. Slowly he does his job, and slowly he falls in love with the her and her people! Then when he realizes how wrong he and his humans are it's too late! Either because of other-guy who came along, or some other means like a jealous native, soldier-guy gets "disconnected" through some sort of tragic means just as the attack is coming! But he somehow, though ingenuity and appealing to Sigourney-doctor's morals, finds a way back and helps lead the natives to attack the humans' weaknesses as only he can (huzzah)! An epic battle ensues full of CGI and dramatic music with cliche' shots of guys hanging/falling off high places, and then at the end of the battle someone important dies, including the mean general with scars. It is beautiful and sad. The credits roll. And deep down you kind of knew what was going to happen anyway.

Am I close?

You are very perceptive. Yours is the superior.

TonyR
12-17-2009, 07:39 PM
That's what purists said about every innovation since film colorization.

Yep, I remember when The Matrix was going to be the beginning of the end.

broncosteven
12-17-2009, 07:47 PM
Yep, I remember when The Matrix was going to be the beginning of the end.

Your old.

Pony Boy
12-17-2009, 08:06 PM
Do you get to see any blue Ta-Ta's in 3D............

SonOfLe-loLang
12-17-2009, 08:12 PM
Am I the only one who feels like I already know the whole movie plot and haven't seen it?

Is this close?

Lead soldier guy is in awesome fight at beginning of film that ends with him being paralyzed. He loses all hope but then he gets a second chance. He's taken to a research facility on an alien moon/planet/whatever that has some resource humans need. Pesky natives are preventing humans from extracting the valuable resources. A scary general with scars on his head has other ideas (oh noes!), An ahead-of-her-time doctor, with strong moral values is pioneering experimental technology to transplant consciousness into another living being. They clone/create/whatever the natives and want to use the now paralyzed soldier to enter the natives' body to infiltrate the native camp to launch a final assault.

Now formerly paralyzed man and maybe another embark on a re-imagining of brigadoon. They are attacked by something scary on the way there and are saved by a beautiful she-native. Other guy either comes along or dies there. Doesn't really matter. She takes him to learn her ways and culture. Slowly he does his job, and slowly he falls in love with the her and her people! Then when he realizes how wrong he and his humans are it's too late! Either because of other-guy who came along, or some other means like a jealous native, soldier-guy gets "disconnected" through some sort of tragic means just as the attack is coming! But he somehow, though ingenuity and appealing to Sigourney-doctor's morals, finds a way back and helps lead the natives to attack the humans' weaknesses as only he can (huzzah)! An epic battle ensues full of CGI and dramatic music with cliche' shots of guys hanging/falling off high places, and then at the end of the battle someone important dies, including the mean general with scars. It is beautiful and sad. The credits roll. And deep down you kind of knew what was going to happen anyway.

Am I close?


Yeah, More or less. But I dont think the movie ever fancied itself a mystery. Trust me, I've worked in this industry for 10 years and have become a very tough sell. This movie is simply impressive. The story is Cameron-esque, but you go with it and it looks stunning. The entire world is immersive.

Its gonna get a ton of backlash im sure, humans love to hate, but Cameron will be laughing all the way to the bank.

Archer81
12-17-2009, 08:39 PM
The same thing was said before DVD's and digital pirating... btw I'm not disagreeing about the entire enjoyment of the theater experience. I for one love going to the theater because of the experience far over watching a film for the first time at home. I do however think you underestimate the technological experience one can still have at home. I think we'll be seeing plenty of 3D etc at home in the future.

Sherlock Holmes is a lock for me when it comes out (unless it completely bombs in the reviews).

As for Avatar... it's merely Final Fantasy the Spirits Within with 3D. (FFSW btw was absolutly groundbreaking technologically with motion captured actors/realistic facial modeling and graphics etc but with a story that related to a Japanese audience over anywhere else and overall poor acting).

Your average film goer will have no ****ing clue what movie I just talked about is, and thus won't be able to connect it to Avatar.


FFSW wasnt a horrible flick, but made little sense. Japanese are just wierd people. Living on an island has ****ed with their heads. Same for the Brits. Boot...its trunk brother. Its trunk.

:Broncos:

ZONA
12-17-2009, 09:30 PM
Any movie I ever started to watch using the 3D glasses only disappointed me. The glasses came off and I enjoyed the rest of it. Look, movies are 2D and there is no way they even come close to portraying what true 3D is about and I doubt any "screen" will ever do that. Just watch it in normal 2D, you will like it better.

houghtam
12-17-2009, 09:31 PM
Any movie I ever started to watch using the 3D glasses only disappointed me. The glasses came off and I enjoyed the rest of it. Look, movies are 2D and there is no way they even come close to portraying what true 3D is about and I doubt any "screen" will ever do that. Just watch it in normal 2D, you will like it better.

I disagree. Avatar is not a movie you want to watch without the 3D glasses on.

Chris
12-17-2009, 09:42 PM
I'm going on Sunday night. Here is the bit I posted in OT after I went to the 15 min preview in August.

Sorry for the delay. I've been really busy with work (though I still find time to bang my head reading lex's posts).

We were given IMAX 3D glasses at the door. Mind you, the theatre wasn't proper IMAX... "fake" imax is more like it (traditional screen with all the available space used instead of curtains covering up the sides). The presentation (I say presentation, the Loews folks read from a script and then pressed play) started with Jim Cameron introducing "select scenes" from the movie.

SPOILER ALERT (SCENE DETAILS - No major story giveaways but if you just want visual impressions then I'll get to that at the bottom)



The first scene introduces the main character (the australian actor who played Marcus in Terminator Salvation) as a paraplegic marine on board some alien planet. He rolls up to a briefing given by an older officer with a scar over his eye. He looks mean and he dishes out their "mission" on this planet.

The first thing I noticed was the quality of the 3D. I've seen a bunch of 3D flicks, most recently "Up", and I've always been unimpressed. The 3D has always hurt my eyes and I feel like it's cheap "3D-ification" of a 2D movie meaning its only a series of levels as though I'm looking into some diaorama. This felt like it was designed for 3D from the outset and it showed. Tables were jutting out individually, glass screens, etc. and later giant monsters, flora and fauna... it all looked believable, my eyes didn't hurt and I hardly blinked.

The next scene was of the main guy going into a lab where Sigourney Weaver lies him down on what looked like a tanning bed with some head rigging. Again, excellent 3D but I was underwhelmed by the set design as it came off as being an extremely generic "futuristic lab" setting. Also, Sigourney has aged which I wasn't pleased about

Next he gets plugged in and we cut to a wormhole. He's know inhabiting his "Avatar" in a lab one room over... a 10 ft tall blue humanoid "Navi" - the natives on the planet. He gets so excited he can walk that they try to sedate him and he runs right out of the lab.

Next we cut to what looks like a tropical forest at night. The main guy is in his avatar holding a spear taunting a giant "hammerhead" - a dinosaur that has a hammer head...rendered beautifully in pink and purple colours. The thing then chases him through the jungle... a gorgeous chase... very jurassic park like. I must say the jungle is just gorgeous to look at and with the 3D you feel like you're in it. The chase camera is looking straight at him so you feel like you're flying through the jungle with him with this giant dinosaur behind you.

Next we cut to some scantily clad blue Navi girl who shoots some arrows and kills the hammerhead and some other dog-like creatures that come attack.

Let me take a moment to say that the quality of the CG... the skin on the Navi and the way they emote (this is some new tech to capture the actor's performance - you really feel like you're looking at someone's face). We got to see Sigourney Weaver as one of these things and it looked like Sigourney Weaver only in Alien form.

Next we cut to a gorgeous scene with all these luminous plants lighting up the jungle floor.The hot blue girl speaks in broken English and breaks out a terrible line "You have strong heart, but you are immature like child!" The main guy follows her in the hope he gets some alien tail (they have tails).

Next the main guy's crouching around a steep cliff face with a group of Navi. One of the Navi guys in particular looks so human it's crazy. They're dressed like Mayan characters from Apocalypto. He is undergoing some sort of initiation where he must enter a "lizard's den" to capture a dragon-like lizard thing (they look like teradactyls). He moves around the cliff face and we arrive on a huge group of beautiful teradactyls in blues, purples, greens... very lush computer colours. The transparency on their skin is incredible. To their right is the cliff face and it's so gorgeous it has to be fake (the drop goes on forever... into the clouds). The main guy has to make his way through to one of them and cause him to submit. He puts something into its ear to make it stop attacking then rides it off the cliff face to "bond" with it.... next up comes several awesome shots of him hanging on for dear life as he goes off this massive cliff face into the canyon below.

That was it. The whole fifteen minutes.


END SPOILER ALERT


Now for the important part - The movie is clearly going to be a huge deal. It's budget is already in excess of $230 million. The CG is unparalleled in its ability to portray lifelike characters, create heretofore unseen lush environments and... what it's all for... to make us all forget that and involve us in the story. That said, the dialogue was borderline Lucas-like in its cringeworthiness at times but at the end of the day it doesn't really matter. Seeing this in IMAX 3D won't just be a movie... it will be an experience. I'm excited to go back to that world.

I'm running out of time so here's what I wrote for my coworkers:

The Good: I’m trying to think about what impressed me most. I think it was the 3D. It was the first 3D movie since I went to Disneyworld where. I felt like I was in it. It was borderline ride-like and I’m really looking forward to the experience in December. The CG looked gorgeous but it didn’t fool me completely. That said, whatever performance capture tech they’re using it’s doing a good job of carrying the actor’s performance over to the CG character.

The Bad: The little dialogue we saw was cheesy – “I see you have strong heart… but you are weak like child. RAWR!” The filmed human and the cg navi world didn’t really blend all that well because one of the colour contrast (navi world was very lush whereas the human world was made up of more muted "real world" colours). The visuals, while gorgeous, aren't all that original and can be traced back to something, particularly in the human base area...so don't expect this to be the next Star Wars. The story also seems extremely predictable. Do I really care? No, not really. The real marvel here is how convincing the world is.

I wrote that like I was in 8th grade but that's how gorgeous hollywood blockbuster make you feel. This one will likely succeed at that. See it, take your kids.

ZONA
12-17-2009, 09:56 PM
I disagree. Avatar is not a movie you want to watch without the 3D glasses on.

Well, you may enjoy it but I am in agreement with the article I posted below. Our eyes are not meant to behave the way the technology in 3D movies is made, and eye fatigue sets in and you not only get sore eyes, headaches and more, but the affects of 3D lose their pop as your eyes become strained during the movie. Read more below, it goes into more detail on why the 3D in movies is nothing more then a slightly refined version of the same failed 3D technology used in the past.



One week into its theatrical run, Monsters vs. Aliens has already become a certified, three-dimensional mega-blockbuster. In its opening weekend, the film crushed previous records by pulling in $33 million in revenue from RealD and IMAX screens and $59 million total; with little competition at the box office, there's every reason to think it will become the highest-grossing 3-D movie of all time. The timing couldn't be better for the evangelizing studio executives who plan to release 40 more films in the format over the next few years. At an industry trade show this week in Las Vegas, Fox studio Co-Chairman Jim Gianopulos called 3-D "the most exciting new exhibition technology since they put sprocket holes in celluloid." Jeffrey Katzenberg, whose DreamWorks Animation studio produced Monsters vs. Aliens, predicts that soon enough all movies will be made in 3-D and audience-members will bring their own pairs of polarized spectacles to the theater.
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss in the FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAILGet Slate RSS FeedsRSSShare This ArticleRECOMMEND...Single PageSINGLE PAGE
Yahoo! BuzzFacebook FacebookPost to MySpace!MySpaceMixx MixxDigg DiggReddit RedditDel.icio.us del.icio.usFurl FurlMa.gnolia.com Ma.gnoliaSphere SphereStumble UponStumbleUponCLOSE

What about the failed 3-D experiments of the 1950s and 1980s? Those movies, say Katzenberg and the others, were beset by technical problems that gave viewers eyestrain, headaches, and nausea. (A Katzenbergian mantra: "Making your customers sick is not a recipe for success.") The problem has been solved, they claim: The latest batch of stereo flicks relies on a crisp and clean digital technology that's easier to watch and enjoy. "Comparing the 3-D of the past to this is like comparing a Razor scooter to a Ferrari," Katzenberg tells reporters. So far, reporters have seen no reason to doubt him—over the past few years, countless trend pieces have parroted the industry line on how "3-D's most egregious side effects" have been eliminated. The credulous messaging has become even more intense in recent weeks: Take Josh Quittner, whose March feature in Time toed the party line in the clearest terms imaginable: "As just about everyone knows," he dutifully explained, "old-school 3-D was less than awesome. Colors looked washed out. Some viewers got headaches. A few vomited." Now, with digital 3-D, Hollywood has found "a technology that's finally bringing a true third dimension to movies. Without giving you a headache."

Let me go on record with this now, while the 3-D bubble is still inflating: Katzenberg, Quittner, and all the rest of them are wrong about three-dimensional film—wrong, wrong, wrong. I've seen just about every narrative movie in the current 3-D crop, and every single one has caused me some degree of discomfort—ranging from minor eye soreness (Coraline) to intense nausea (My Bloody Valentine). The egregious side effects of stereo viewing may well have been diminished over the past few decades (wait, does anyone really remember how bad they were in 1983?) but they have not been eliminated. As much as it pains me to say this—I love 3-D, I really do—these films are unpleasant to watch.

That's because the much-touted digital technology is not fundamentally different from anything that's been used in the past. Today's films, like those of yore, are made by recording and projecting a separate pair of image-tracks for each eye. These are slightly offset from each other, giving what's called a binocular disparity cue, which in turn produces an illusion of depth. (It's the same idea as an old View-Master, or an even older stereoscope.) For at least the past 50 years, and across several theatrical revivals, 3-D filmmakers have used the same technique for separating the two tracks: They project the footage for each eye through lenses of different polarizations for an audience wearing polarized glasses with matching filters. (Despite frequent claims to the contrary, the 3-D films of yesteryear were rarely shown in anaglyph with those schlocky red-cyan glasses.) Whatever breakthroughs we've seen in 3-D technology have been relative refinements of the same technology. The essential mechanics of the medium—and its essential side effects—haven't changed at all.

Vision researchers have spent many years studying the discomfort associated with watching stereoscopic movies. Similar problems plague flight simulators, head-mounted virtual-reality displays, and many other applications of 3-D technology. There's even a standard means of assessing 3-D fatigue in the lab: The "simulator sickness questionnaire" rates subjects on their experience of 16 common symptoms—including fatigue, headache, eyestrain, nausea, blurred vision, sweating, and increased salivation. (Japanese scientists use a native term, shoboshobo, to describe the "bleary eyes" that sometimes afflict 3-D viewers.) Despite all this work, no one yet knows exactly what causes this visual fatigue, or "asthenopia"; in any case, there's little reason to think it can ever be overcome.

One potential explanation for the discomfort lies with the unnatural eye movements stereoscopy elicits from viewers. Outside of the 3-D movie theater, our eyes move in two distinct ways when we see something move toward us: First, our eyeballs rotate inward towards the nose (the closer the target comes, the more cross-eyed we get); second, we squeeze the lenses in our eyes to change their shape and keep the target in focus (as you would with a camera). Those two eye movements—called "vergence" and "accommodation"—are automatic in everyday life, and they go hand-in-hand.

Something different happens when you're viewing three-dimensional motion projected onto a flat surface. When a helicopter flies off the screen in Monsters vs. Aliens, our eyeballs rotate inward to follow it, as they would in the real world. Reflexively, our eyes want to make a corresponding change in shape, to shift their plane of focus. If that happened, though, we'd be focusing our eyes somewhere in front of the screen, and the movie itself (which is, after all, projected on the screen) would go a little blurry. So we end up making one eye movement but not the other; the illusion forces our eyes to converge without accommodating. (In fact, our eye movements seem to oscillate between their natural inclination and the artificial state demanded by the film.) This inevitable decoupling, spread over 90 minutes in the theater, may well be the cause of 3-D eyestrain. There's nothing new about the idea—an article published in the Atlantic in 1953 refers to the breakdown of the accommodation-convergence ratio as a "difficulty [that] is inherent to the medium." And there's no reason to expect that newfangled RealD technology will solve this basic problem of biomechanics.

(There's also little reason to believe new technology will overcome another fundamental problem with the 3-D business model: Five percent to 8 percent of the population is stereoblind and can't convert binocular disparity into depth information. That means they can't appreciate any of the 3-D effects in a RealD or Imax movie. An additional 20 to 30 percent of the population suffers from a lesser form of the deficit, which could diminish the experience of 3-D effects or make them especially uncomfortable to watch.)

The eye-movement issue may even carry other, more serious risks. A long session of 3-D viewing tends to cause an adaptive response in the oculomotor system, temporarily changing the relationship between accommodation and convergence. That is to say, audience-members may experience very mild, short-term vision impairment after a movie ends. I won't pretend there's any hard evidence that these transient effects could develop into permanent problems. But if 3-D becomes as widespread as some in the industry claim—every movie in three dimensions, for example, and television programs, too—we'll no doubt have plenty of data: Small children, their vision systems still in development, could one day be digesting five or six hours of stereo entertainment per day. There's already been one published case study, from the late-1980s, of a 5-year-old child in Japan who became permanently cross-eyed after viewing an anaglyph 3-D movie at a theater.

There are plenty of other problems with 3-D movies that might contribute to the sore eyes, headaches, and nausea. As a general rule, the greater the disparity between the two image tracks—that is to say, the farther apart the two cameras are placed during shooting—the greater the illusion of depth in the finished product. That's a plus for the filmmakers, who tend to favor extreme special effects, pickaxes flying off the screen and all that. On the other hand, the more pronounced the disparity, the more difficult it is for the viewer to fuse the two perspectives into a coherent scene. That could lead to double-vision, uncomfortable flickering, and—yes—eyestrain.

So if the new 3-D movies are still giving us headaches, why has no one bothered to mention them? It may be that the visual fatigue, however pervasive, is small enough to hide in the novelty of the experience—we're so jazzed up that we barely notice our eyes hurt. If we did become aware of some discomfort, we might not recognize where it came from: Were my eyes tired from watching Monsters vs. Aliens last night or from having sat in front of my computer all through that morning and afternoon? Did the RealD projection give me a headache or was it the movie's lamebrained script? Indeed, several of the critics who reviewed the film seem to be suffering from a form of source amnesia: A.O. Scott calls Monsters vs. Aliens "strenuous, noisy, 3-D fun;" Anthony Lane describes growing "fuzzy with exhaustion;" even Time's Josh Quittner must confess, "After watching all that 3-D, I was a bit wiped out."

So here's one theory for why 3-D movies have failed to catch on in the past. It's not because the glasses were "cheesy" or because the projection systems were crude. It's not because the movies were poorly made. (Some truly amazing stereo films have been produced, like Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder.) No, the bubbles always pop because 3-D movies hurt our eyes. We may not notice the discomfort at first, when the gimmicks are still fresh and distracting. But eventually, inevitably, perhaps unconsciously, they creep off the screen and into our minds. It's happened before and it will happen again: At some point soon, 3-D cinema will regain its well-earned status as a sublime and ridiculous headache.

GoHAM
12-17-2009, 10:02 PM
Tell me I'm not the only one here who thought Cameron was doing a live action version of Avatar: The Last Airbender?

Everytime I heard someone talk about the Avatar movie, I'd think "Well that could be cool to see as live action, but WTF, why is everyone so excited about it?". Imagine my surprise when I finally saw the trailer a couple of weeks ago with all these aboriginal blue humanoids shooting arrows at real/Avatarised soldiers.

Yep I felt slightly stupid.

SonOfLe-loLang
12-17-2009, 10:23 PM
Well, you may enjoy it but I am in agreement with the article I posted below. Our eyes are not meant to behave the way the technology in 3D movies is made, and eye fatigue sets in and you not only get sore eyes, headaches and more, but the affects of 3D lose their pop as your eyes become strained during the movie. Read more below, it goes into more detail on why the 3D in movies is nothing more then a slightly refined version of the same failed 3D technology used in the past.



One week into its theatrical run, Monsters vs. Aliens has already become a certified, three-dimensional mega-blockbuster. In its opening weekend, the film crushed previous records by pulling in $33 million in revenue from RealD and IMAX screens and $59 million total; with little competition at the box office, there's every reason to think it will become the highest-grossing 3-D movie of all time. The timing couldn't be better for the evangelizing studio executives who plan to release 40 more films in the format over the next few years. At an industry trade show this week in Las Vegas, Fox studio Co-Chairman Jim Gianopulos called 3-D "the most exciting new exhibition technology since they put sprocket holes in celluloid." Jeffrey Katzenberg, whose DreamWorks Animation studio produced Monsters vs. Aliens, predicts that soon enough all movies will be made in 3-D and audience-members will bring their own pairs of polarized spectacles to the theater.
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss in the FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAILGet Slate RSS FeedsRSSShare This ArticleRECOMMEND...Single PageSINGLE PAGE
Yahoo! BuzzFacebook FacebookPost to MySpace!MySpaceMixx MixxDigg DiggReddit RedditDel.icio.us del.icio.usFurl FurlMa.gnolia.com Ma.gnoliaSphere SphereStumble UponStumbleUponCLOSE

What about the failed 3-D experiments of the 1950s and 1980s? Those movies, say Katzenberg and the others, were beset by technical problems that gave viewers eyestrain, headaches, and nausea. (A Katzenbergian mantra: "Making your customers sick is not a recipe for success.") The problem has been solved, they claim: The latest batch of stereo flicks relies on a crisp and clean digital technology that's easier to watch and enjoy. "Comparing the 3-D of the past to this is like comparing a Razor scooter to a Ferrari," Katzenberg tells reporters. So far, reporters have seen no reason to doubt him—over the past few years, countless trend pieces have parroted the industry line on how "3-D's most egregious side effects" have been eliminated. The credulous messaging has become even more intense in recent weeks: Take Josh Quittner, whose March feature in Time toed the party line in the clearest terms imaginable: "As just about everyone knows," he dutifully explained, "old-school 3-D was less than awesome. Colors looked washed out. Some viewers got headaches. A few vomited." Now, with digital 3-D, Hollywood has found "a technology that's finally bringing a true third dimension to movies. Without giving you a headache."

Let me go on record with this now, while the 3-D bubble is still inflating: Katzenberg, Quittner, and all the rest of them are wrong about three-dimensional film—wrong, wrong, wrong. I've seen just about every narrative movie in the current 3-D crop, and every single one has caused me some degree of discomfort—ranging from minor eye soreness (Coraline) to intense nausea (My Bloody Valentine). The egregious side effects of stereo viewing may well have been diminished over the past few decades (wait, does anyone really remember how bad they were in 1983?) but they have not been eliminated. As much as it pains me to say this—I love 3-D, I really do—these films are unpleasant to watch.

That's because the much-touted digital technology is not fundamentally different from anything that's been used in the past. Today's films, like those of yore, are made by recording and projecting a separate pair of image-tracks for each eye. These are slightly offset from each other, giving what's called a binocular disparity cue, which in turn produces an illusion of depth. (It's the same idea as an old View-Master, or an even older stereoscope.) For at least the past 50 years, and across several theatrical revivals, 3-D filmmakers have used the same technique for separating the two tracks: They project the footage for each eye through lenses of different polarizations for an audience wearing polarized glasses with matching filters. (Despite frequent claims to the contrary, the 3-D films of yesteryear were rarely shown in anaglyph with those schlocky red-cyan glasses.) Whatever breakthroughs we've seen in 3-D technology have been relative refinements of the same technology. The essential mechanics of the medium—and its essential side effects—haven't changed at all.

Vision researchers have spent many years studying the discomfort associated with watching stereoscopic movies. Similar problems plague flight simulators, head-mounted virtual-reality displays, and many other applications of 3-D technology. There's even a standard means of assessing 3-D fatigue in the lab: The "simulator sickness questionnaire" rates subjects on their experience of 16 common symptoms—including fatigue, headache, eyestrain, nausea, blurred vision, sweating, and increased salivation. (Japanese scientists use a native term, shoboshobo, to describe the "bleary eyes" that sometimes afflict 3-D viewers.) Despite all this work, no one yet knows exactly what causes this visual fatigue, or "asthenopia"; in any case, there's little reason to think it can ever be overcome.

One potential explanation for the discomfort lies with the unnatural eye movements stereoscopy elicits from viewers. Outside of the 3-D movie theater, our eyes move in two distinct ways when we see something move toward us: First, our eyeballs rotate inward towards the nose (the closer the target comes, the more cross-eyed we get); second, we squeeze the lenses in our eyes to change their shape and keep the target in focus (as you would with a camera). Those two eye movements—called "vergence" and "accommodation"—are automatic in everyday life, and they go hand-in-hand.

Something different happens when you're viewing three-dimensional motion projected onto a flat surface. When a helicopter flies off the screen in Monsters vs. Aliens, our eyeballs rotate inward to follow it, as they would in the real world. Reflexively, our eyes want to make a corresponding change in shape, to shift their plane of focus. If that happened, though, we'd be focusing our eyes somewhere in front of the screen, and the movie itself (which is, after all, projected on the screen) would go a little blurry. So we end up making one eye movement but not the other; the illusion forces our eyes to converge without accommodating. (In fact, our eye movements seem to oscillate between their natural inclination and the artificial state demanded by the film.) This inevitable decoupling, spread over 90 minutes in the theater, may well be the cause of 3-D eyestrain. There's nothing new about the idea—an article published in the Atlantic in 1953 refers to the breakdown of the accommodation-convergence ratio as a "difficulty [that] is inherent to the medium." And there's no reason to expect that newfangled RealD technology will solve this basic problem of biomechanics.

(There's also little reason to believe new technology will overcome another fundamental problem with the 3-D business model: Five percent to 8 percent of the population is stereoblind and can't convert binocular disparity into depth information. That means they can't appreciate any of the 3-D effects in a RealD or Imax movie. An additional 20 to 30 percent of the population suffers from a lesser form of the deficit, which could diminish the experience of 3-D effects or make them especially uncomfortable to watch.)

The eye-movement issue may even carry other, more serious risks. A long session of 3-D viewing tends to cause an adaptive response in the oculomotor system, temporarily changing the relationship between accommodation and convergence. That is to say, audience-members may experience very mild, short-term vision impairment after a movie ends. I won't pretend there's any hard evidence that these transient effects could develop into permanent problems. But if 3-D becomes as widespread as some in the industry claim—every movie in three dimensions, for example, and television programs, too—we'll no doubt have plenty of data: Small children, their vision systems still in development, could one day be digesting five or six hours of stereo entertainment per day. There's already been one published case study, from the late-1980s, of a 5-year-old child in Japan who became permanently cross-eyed after viewing an anaglyph 3-D movie at a theater.

There are plenty of other problems with 3-D movies that might contribute to the sore eyes, headaches, and nausea. As a general rule, the greater the disparity between the two image tracks—that is to say, the farther apart the two cameras are placed during shooting—the greater the illusion of depth in the finished product. That's a plus for the filmmakers, who tend to favor extreme special effects, pickaxes flying off the screen and all that. On the other hand, the more pronounced the disparity, the more difficult it is for the viewer to fuse the two perspectives into a coherent scene. That could lead to double-vision, uncomfortable flickering, and—yes—eyestrain.

So if the new 3-D movies are still giving us headaches, why has no one bothered to mention them? It may be that the visual fatigue, however pervasive, is small enough to hide in the novelty of the experience—we're so jazzed up that we barely notice our eyes hurt. If we did become aware of some discomfort, we might not recognize where it came from: Were my eyes tired from watching Monsters vs. Aliens last night or from having sat in front of my computer all through that morning and afternoon? Did the RealD projection give me a headache or was it the movie's lamebrained script? Indeed, several of the critics who reviewed the film seem to be suffering from a form of source amnesia: A.O. Scott calls Monsters vs. Aliens "strenuous, noisy, 3-D fun;" Anthony Lane describes growing "fuzzy with exhaustion;" even Time's Josh Quittner must confess, "After watching all that 3-D, I was a bit wiped out."

So here's one theory for why 3-D movies have failed to catch on in the past. It's not because the glasses were "cheesy" or because the projection systems were crude. It's not because the movies were poorly made. (Some truly amazing stereo films have been produced, like Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder.) No, the bubbles always pop because 3-D movies hurt our eyes. We may not notice the discomfort at first, when the gimmicks are still fresh and distracting. But eventually, inevitably, perhaps unconsciously, they creep off the screen and into our minds. It's happened before and it will happen again: At some point soon, 3-D cinema will regain its well-earned status as a sublime and ridiculous headache.


I dunno, they dont hurt my eyes at all. In fact, I kind of forget they are in 3-D about halfway through the movie. I just get used to it.

doof
12-17-2009, 10:30 PM
Tell me I'm not the only one here who thought Cameron was doing a live action version of Avatar: The Last Airbender?

Everytime I heard someone talk about the Avatar movie, I'd think "Well that could be cool to see as live action, but WTF, why is everyone so excited about it?". Imagine my surprise when I finally saw the trailer a couple of weeks ago with all these aboriginal blue humanoids shooting arrows at real/Avatarised soldiers.

Yep I felt slightly stupid.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/e0ZjjMBXMpk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/e0ZjjMBXMpk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

GoHAM
12-18-2009, 08:33 AM
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/e0ZjjMBXMpk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/e0ZjjMBXMpk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Okay, that could have something to do with my confusion. :clown:

Tombstone RJ
12-18-2009, 08:48 AM
I haven't seen the movie but from the trailers, I don't think I like the basic story line. I really don't like it when the story basically says that humans have advanced in technology, but not in morals or ethics.

It's an old story of exploitation where big bad humans (mainly whitey) rapes and pilages in order to mine gold or other valuable resources.

Blah. Sorry James, try another old boring story line.

If humans ever advance to a level where we have the capacity to go to other planets then I seriously doubt we would ignore human history and force our will upon an alien and indiginous society.

Wrong.

If anything, we would be ultra careful to protect those aliens culture, rights and planet.

Nice try James, but the basic story line sucks.

misturanderson
12-18-2009, 09:02 AM
I dunno, they dont hurt my eyes at all. In fact, I kind of forget they are in 3-D about halfway through the movie. I just get used to it.

The fact is that Cameron invented a new 3D filming technology for this movie. To just disregard that would be foolish if you are at all interested in seeing this movie specifically for the special effects. It's not like this is the type of 3D that uses red and blue glasses that ruin the whole movie by discoloring it.

Chris
12-18-2009, 09:05 AM
The 3D is very different and for the first time ever didn't hurt my eyes. I couldn't stand the 3D in past movies like UP and Beowufl.

SonOfLe-loLang
12-18-2009, 09:17 AM
I haven't seen the movie but from the trailers, I don't think I like the basic story line. I really don't like it when the story basically says that humans have advanced in technology, but not in morals or ethics.

It's an old story of exploitation where big bad humans (mainly whitey) rapes and pilages in order to mine gold or other valuable resources.

Blah. Sorry James, try another old boring story line.

If humans ever advance to a level where we have the capacity to go to other planets then I seriously doubt we would ignore human history and force our will upon an alien and indiginous society.

Wrong.

If anything, we would be ultra careful to protect those aliens culture, rights and planet.

Nice try James, but the basic story line sucks.


Wow, you have much more hope than humanity than I do. Humans constantly repeat the same exact mistakes. When it comes to greed, we forget our past very quickly.

Tombstone RJ
12-18-2009, 09:30 AM
Wow, you have much more hope than humanity than I do. Humans constantly repeat the same exact mistakes. When it comes to greed, we forget our past very quickly.

Perhaps, but my premis remains the same: Humans advance to incorporate mind blowing technology yet ignore basic and fundamental truths which are ingrained in Free Societys (we are talking about Marines, yes?): the right to self govern, protection of freedoms, freeing the oppressed NOT being the oppressor.

Its just crap that Camaron is spilling out in order to create a vision.

In the end, Camaron is falling into Shakespeare's frustrated MaBeth: "it is a tale/Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,/Signifying nothing."

Rohirrim
12-18-2009, 09:32 AM
Cartoons on meth.

Peoples Champ
12-18-2009, 10:17 AM
ya i really want to see it.

bowtown
12-18-2009, 10:40 AM
Well, you may enjoy it but I am in agreement with the article I posted below. Our eyes are not meant to behave the way the technology in 3D movies is made, and eye fatigue sets in and you not only get sore eyes, headaches and more, but the affects of 3D lose their pop as your eyes become strained during the movie. Read more below, it goes into more detail on why the 3D in movies is nothing more then a slightly refined version of the same failed 3D technology used in the past.


How's that whole prematurly-old-fun-hating-guy thing working out for you?

Chris
12-18-2009, 10:48 AM
3D is ungodly and you should cleanse yourself after seeing this movie and all its blue alien love.

Gort
12-18-2009, 10:52 AM
yes, it's Dances with Smurfs.


Am I the only one who feels like I already know the whole movie plot and haven't seen it?

Is this close?

Lead soldier guy is in awesome fight at beginning of film that ends with him being paralyzed. He loses all hope but then he gets a second chance. He's taken to a research facility on an alien moon/planet/whatever that has some resource humans need. Pesky natives are preventing humans from extracting the valuable resources. A scary general with scars on his head has other ideas (oh noes!), An ahead-of-her-time doctor, with strong moral values is pioneering experimental technology to transplant consciousness into another living being. They clone/create/whatever the natives and want to use the now paralyzed soldier to enter the natives' body to infiltrate the native camp to launch a final assault.

Now formerly paralyzed man and maybe another embark on a re-imagining of brigadoon. They are attacked by something scary on the way there and are saved by a beautiful she-native. Other guy either comes along or dies there. Doesn't really matter. She takes him to learn her ways and culture. Slowly he does his job, and slowly he falls in love with the her and her people! Then when he realizes how wrong he and his humans are it's too late! Either because of other-guy who came along, or some other means like a jealous native, soldier-guy gets "disconnected" through some sort of tragic means just as the attack is coming! But he somehow, though ingenuity and appealing to Sigourney-doctor's morals, finds a way back and helps lead the natives to attack the humans' weaknesses as only he can (huzzah)! An epic battle ensues full of CGI and dramatic music with cliche' shots of guys hanging/falling off high places, and then at the end of the battle someone important dies, including the mean general with scars. It is beautiful and sad. The credits roll. And deep down you kind of knew what was going to happen anyway.

Am I close?

bowtown
12-18-2009, 10:52 AM
Perhaps, but my premis remains the same: Humans advance to incorporate mind blowing technology yet ignore basic and fundamental truths which are ingrained in Free Societys (we are talking about Marines, yes?): the right to self govern, protection of freedoms, freeing the oppressed NOT being the oppressor.

Its just crap that Camaron is spilling out in order to create a vision.

In the end, Camaron is falling into Shakespeare's frustrated MaBeth: "it is a tale/Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,/Signifying nothing."

Psssst... it's a movie.

Beantown Bronco
12-18-2009, 11:20 AM
it's going to remind people that downloading a movie on your computer or waiting a year to watch it on your it's-high-def-but-still-not-as-good-as-the-theater-screen television is just not the same as going to a theater and enjoying it how it was meant to be enjoyed.

Go find someone with a newer 1080p front projector, 120+ inch screen and DolbyTrueHD audio system in their basement and you may rethink this.

Chris
12-18-2009, 11:29 AM
Go find someone with a newer 1080p front projector, 120+ inch screen and DolbyTrueHD audio system in their basement and you may rethink this.

This is a very small percentage of people. Either you're really rich or you love movies and games more than anything.

Dukes
12-18-2009, 11:31 AM
In the end, Camaron is falling into Shakespeare's frustrated MaBeth: "it is a tale/Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,/Signifying nothing."

Thats Michael Bay in a nutshell

bowtown
12-18-2009, 11:33 AM
Thats Michael Bay in a nutshell

Which is exactly why his movies are awesome.

Beantown Bronco
12-18-2009, 11:34 AM
This is a very small percentage of people. Either you're really rich or you love movies and games more than anything.

I priced it out and could outfit my downstairs basement with all of the above for less than $2,500. Less than the price most people pay for a large LCD or plasma.

And that's avoiding the entry level electronics. It can easily be done for under $2,000. Got to www.avsforum.com and check out some of the guy's setups there. It's more do-able and more common than people think.

Chris
12-18-2009, 12:49 PM
Good work. I am a fan of AVS and read up with them when I bought my XBR3. Unfortunately for me I live in NYC so space is harder to come by.

ChampBailey24
12-18-2009, 03:11 PM
BEST MOVIE IVE SEEN IN A LONG TIME. it really makes you think about the genocide of the Indians and the nature aspect that they had, and that i wish we had, also shows how messed up military can become, much like our own

Rulon Velvet Jones
12-18-2009, 03:29 PM
Saw it this morning. Not bad at all. So much eye candy and you have to see it in 3D and/or IMAX. 2D stock screens won't do it justice.

Bronco Bob
12-18-2009, 06:50 PM
Your old.

TonyR's old what?

bronco militia
12-18-2009, 07:19 PM
BEST MOVIE IVE SEEN IN A LONG TIME. it really makes you think about the genocide of the Indians and the nature aspect that they had, and that i wish we had, also shows how messed up military can become, much like our own

sounds like dances with wolves II and a psa for the democratic party

Archer81
12-18-2009, 08:31 PM
sounds like dances with wolves II and a psa for the democratic party


Yup. Its a Cameron flick. They tend to be preachy.



:Broncos:

houghtam
12-18-2009, 10:18 PM
sounds like dances with wolves II and a psa for the democratic party

Well, what's the right wing version of the movie going to be?

Humans go to new world.

Humans find raw material worth a lot of money.

Humans displace and mass-murder indigenous population to get said raw material.

Humans get rich.

The end.



Truth is a hard sell in movies.

houghtam
12-18-2009, 10:25 PM
Go find someone with a newer 1080p front projector, 120+ inch screen and DolbyTrueHD audio system in their basement and you may rethink this.

Nah, I used to work for Best Buy...got a job running a movie theater and finally realized that it's not the same.

Some people will disagree, but no one will ever convince me that a 1k 120" screen with 5.0 3000 watt sound system is as good as a 2k 25' screen with a 7.0 12000 watt sound system.

A theater is a night out. It's an experience. You'll never achieve that with your home system. If you could, there would be no reason for theaters to buy from suppliers, they'd just go to Best Buy and equip their stuff.

Broncos4tw
12-19-2009, 12:03 AM
Lmao.. people get too righteous and upright about an effing popcorn flick. It's a damn movie. Don't go see it, if you only enjoy "deep" movies about the meaning of life.

3D done right is excellent. My wife and I loved U2 in 3D, it was damn cool.

Chris
12-19-2009, 12:19 AM
Lmao.. people get too righteous and upright about an effing popcorn flick. It's a damn movie. Don't go see it, if you only enjoy "deep" movies about the meaning of life.

3D done right is excellent. My wife and I loved U2 in 3D, it was damn cool.


Except U2........ really?

gunns
12-19-2009, 12:30 AM
Problem is, the general public, for whom 99.9% of movies are made, doesn't care about nostalgia, they want the best for as cheap as they can get it.

Have to disagree somewhat there. The majority of the population, the baby boomers, love nostalgia. Yes we want cheap though. And I love the "this movie will change the way movies are made" thing that's been going around for 40 years and movies are made essentially the same except for the technology in some.

watermock
12-19-2009, 12:40 AM
42" 1080 is ok by me.

Bronco Yoda
12-19-2009, 01:11 AM
Well, what's the right wing version of the movie going to be?

Humans go to new world.

Humans find raw material worth a lot of money.

Humans displace and mass-murder indigenous population to get said raw material.

Human leaders feed the human soldiers and workers to the indegenous wild animanls.

A select few Humans get rich.

The end.



Truth is a hard sell in movies.


I added a little bit...:~ohyah!:

bronco_diesel
12-19-2009, 01:54 AM
just saw this movie.

if you think you have the plot down or not - you must see this in 3D. James Cameron has completely redefined the way a movie will be watched. This is the movie experience you have been waiting for - it is stunning, amazing and beautiful. I am in awe...can't wait to see again.

Taco John
12-19-2009, 03:00 AM
The last time I was blown away at a movie was the Matrix. The special effects told the story as much as it carried it. I think that's true here too. It's a 3D that retains full depth and color, and Cameron took full advantage of it.

James Cameron may very well have just saved Hollywood.

bronco_diesel
12-19-2009, 07:49 AM
The last time I was blown away at a movie was the Matrix. The special effects told the story as much as it carried it. I think that's true here too. It's a 3D that retains full depth and color, and Cameron took full advantage of it.

James Cameron may very well have just saved Hollywood.

Taco,

The Matrix was also the last one that blew me away. For me there have been very few movies that really have "it." Star Wars (the original) was the standard. The Matrix rebooted that childish awe filled with excitement. Avatar, to me, is on a whole new level.

This is not a movie that you watch, this is one you are in. Yes, the story is not all that original, but it truly doesn't matter in this case. For this movie, it's the event - you're part of it. I rarely will see a movie at a theater anymore, let alone twice. I am very much looking forward to seeing again, just for the experience.

Cameron gives a reason to go to the movies vs. wait for the dvd.

Chris
12-19-2009, 09:50 AM
The real reason this is such a big deal is studios know if it catches on they'll force people to leave their living rooms and head to the theatre. Plus they can charge more for IMAX and 3d tickets.

UberBroncoMan
12-19-2009, 09:52 AM
Perhaps, but my premis remains the same: Humans advance to incorporate mind blowing technology yet ignore basic and fundamental truths which are ingrained in Free Societys (we are talking about Marines, yes?): the right to self govern, protection of freedoms, freeing the oppressed NOT being the oppressor.

Its just crap that Camaron is spilling out in order to create a vision.

In the end, Camaron is falling into Shakespeare's frustrated MaBeth: "it is a tale/Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,/Signifying nothing."

Very well said.

UberBroncoMan
12-19-2009, 09:57 AM
BEST MOVIE IVE SEEN IN A LONG TIME. it really makes you think about the genocide of the Indians and the nature aspect that they had, and that i wish we had, also shows how messed up military can become, much like our own

ROFL. You're clueless bro. I'm a military brat myself. Lived in bases all over the world my entire life. I know what the military is and what it truly signifies. I almost vomited in my mouth at your words.

Hey little info btw. You know Indians right? Psst. Did you know that in their "native" habitat they ****ing killed the **** our of each other as well? Wait no way right? I mean we're the barbarians, and Indians were all peaceful happy fluffy love balls.

The Aztec's sure were nice to the other tribes around them right? I mean it's not like they sacrificed them to their gods and stuff.

The North American natives all loved one another too right? They never went to war with each other, or butchered families and women... oh no, no. They were nature loving lovey wuvvies.

What planet do you live on? SERIOUSLY... what world do you live on. You have absolutly no concept of reality.

UberBroncoMan
12-19-2009, 10:02 AM
Well, what's the right wing version of the movie going to be?

Humans go to new world.

Humans find raw material worth a lot of money.

Humans displace and mass-murder indigenous population to get said raw material.

Humans get rich.

The end.



Truth is a hard sell in movies.


Sounds like your describing a genocidal dictator with a nation full of war hungry beasts rather than the truth. Wait is this Lord of the Rings?

... I mean that or you're describing Europe taking over the America's. But that was a ling time ago.

****... I guess the ENTIRE old world was a bunch of right wingers... who woulda thunk!

I will agree though, that you're not going to see a movie with that type of ending. All movies basically have to have the "correct morals" going on in them.

bowtown
12-19-2009, 10:05 AM
ROFL. You're clueless bro. I'm a military brat myself. Lived in bases all over the world my entire life. I know what the military is and what it truly signifies. I almost vomited in my mouth at your words.

Hey little info btw. You know Indians right? Psst. Did you know that in their "native" habitat they ****ing killed the **** our of each other as well? Wait no way right? I mean we're the barbarians, and Indians were all peaceful happy fluffy love balls.

The Aztec's sure were nice to the other tribes around them right? I mean it's not like they sacrificed them to their gods and stuff.

The North American natives all loved one another too right? They never went to war with each other, or butchered families and women... oh no, no. They were nature loving lovey wuvvies.

What planet do you live on? SERIOUSLY... what world do you live on. You have absolutly no concept of reality.

Yeah, thank God we came in and tamed those savage beasts, let them all live in the desert, and made it all but impossible for them to succeed in our culture. Pats on the back.

UberBroncoMan
12-19-2009, 10:10 AM
Yeah, thank God we came in and tamed those savage beasts, let them all live in the desert, and made it all but impossible for them to succeed in our culture. Pats on the back.

We didn't do do much of the ****. That was the Europeans... you know the British, French, Dutch, SPANIARDS (they were the worst of all of them).

As for our expansion into the west that was still largely British (Americans). As a nation the amount of people who are blood related to that era is now quite small due to the massive amounts of immigration.

All but succeed my a-hole btw. They have every opportunity to get off their reservations, go to college and make something of themselves. It just so happens that most stay to preserve what little of their culture remains... oh and to run casinos (which they make a lot of money that more often than not isn't used to benefit their own impoverished brethren).

It's part of this planet, we can't change the past. Sucks to be them, move on. I don't see the now dead ancient Babylonian culture or the Romans, or the Egyptians, crying a b**** fit.

bowtown
12-19-2009, 10:13 AM
We didn't do do much of the ****. That was the Europeans... you know the British, French, Dutch, SPANIARDS (they were the worst of all of them).


Sorry, I didn't realize you were Asian.

UberBroncoMan
12-19-2009, 10:14 AM
Sorry, I didn't realize you were Asian.

That supposed to be some sort of race joke??? Sorry it went way past me. Try a comeback that makes more sense rather than being a retard.

Many believe the Native Americans to be of Asian blood through migration from Russia.

Speaking of Asians... it's not like they ever butchered each other either am I right.

OH ****... wait a second. Every damn culture of humanity on this planet has killed each other.

Rather than being an idiot you should know I meant "we" as in AMERICANS. Americans ARE NOT Europeans. Perhaps by blood relation, but not culturally, especially through the years.

... oh an btw I'm 1/2 Mexican... **** I guess I'm part Native too... I better rebel on those around me.

(this thread should probably be moved to off-topic ... just saying)

TonyR
12-19-2009, 10:19 AM
TonyR's old what?

Old enough to know that broncosteven butchered grammar while calling me old...

broncosteven
12-19-2009, 11:16 AM
Old enough to know that broncosteven butchered grammar while calling me old...

And your only answer to my subtle irony is to pull the old "grammar police" card out of the EPIC FAIL deck?

BTW I am so old I saw Jaws in the theater.

Beantown Bronco
12-19-2009, 11:30 AM
Sorry, I didn't realize you were Asian.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4E9X-y3ylbY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4E9X-y3ylbY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Tombstone RJ
12-19-2009, 12:02 PM
I just don't like the fact that this movie is painting the military in a bad light. We are in the middle of a war and last time I checked, the military is doing the job we are asking them to do.

I love Camaron, I just don't like this story line.

TonyR
12-19-2009, 01:52 PM
BTW I am so old I saw Jaws in the theater.

I think I saw it at a drive in with my parents. Covered my eyes for quite a bit of it.

hookemhess
12-19-2009, 02:07 PM
The movie was far too long, esp in 3D, sensory overload. Extremely predictable. Super duper corny at times. The scenes with both CGI and human interaction didn't mesh that well. The attempted underlying political statements were so obvious it was annoying. The music, seriously, was a Lion King soundtrack-redux.

The best thing about going to see this movie last night was this:

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KSqL9ygBCck&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KSqL9ygBCck&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

UberBroncoMan
12-19-2009, 04:04 PM
The movie was far too long, esp in 3D, sensory overload. Extremely predictable. Super duper corny at times. The scenes with both CGI and human interaction didn't mesh that well. The attempted underlying political statements were so obvious it was annoying. The music, seriously, was a Lion King soundtrack-redux.

The best thing about going to see this movie last night was this:

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KSqL9ygBCck&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KSqL9ygBCck&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

I love Aliens and Terminator 2 from Cameron (even though I can see the anti-military/anti-capitalism/anti-corporation in the films). There was a good story behind it though. Such as a machine learning to love, and showing humanity... or learning to that it was ok to dream again. Very powerful stuff.

To me though Avatar was just going overboard... are all humans in the future American accented individuals who go out and butcher indigenous life-forms on other planets... come on. It's screams **** America, we're a bunch of murderous warmongers, which in reality isn't the case when you look at the entire country OR the military... not even close. No one I knew in the military WANTED to go to war, or WANTED to kill people, but they were willing to if it needed to happen.

I could see the whole military technology getting so crazy that we destroy ourselves theme, I could get the whole corporation willing to sacrifice others to get stuff (I can see governments doing the same thing). Still... like you said, it paints our military is a pathetic light which it DOES NOT DESERVE. Kind of a spit in the face of the men and women risking their lives to do their job.

As for Robin Hood... I also love Ridley Scott (btw he directed the first Alien movie).

Thanks for the trailer link, I hadn't seen it yet.

I have to say though the whole Temrminator: Salvation trailer music and cutting for the Robin Hood trailer didn't work for me.

SonOfLe-loLang
12-19-2009, 05:24 PM
The last time I was blown away at a movie was the Matrix. The special effects told the story as much as it carried it. I think that's true here too. It's a 3D that retains full depth and color, and Cameron took full advantage of it.

James Cameron may very well have just saved Hollywood.

Saved Hollywood? They had a record BO again this year. Hollywood aint goin anywhere

Doc
12-19-2009, 07:39 PM
I took my two teenage daughters tonight hoping to be entertained. Mission accomplished. Both of my girls talked about the movie all of the way home and we had a great time together. They didn't take the movie too seriously or worry about any political statements it may contain. They were just overwhelmed by the action and the visual buffet. They also realized it is fiction. Fun movie and I felt I got a return on the money I spent.

BroncoLifer
12-19-2009, 08:35 PM
To me though Avatar was just going overboard... are all humans in the future American accented individuals who go out and butcher indigenous life-forms on other planets... come on. It's screams **** America, we're a bunch of murderous warmongers...


That matches what I have read in multiple places, and is why I will be skipping this flick. I have no desire to send my money to the people who make that sort of trash. **** Hollywood.

baja
12-19-2009, 08:43 PM
Am I the only one who feels like I already know the whole movie plot and haven't seen it?

Is this close?

Lead soldier guy is in awesome fight at beginning of film that ends with him being paralyzed. He loses all hope but then he gets a second chance. He's taken to a research facility on an alien moon/planet/whatever that has some resource humans need. Pesky natives are preventing humans from extracting the valuable resources. A scary general with scars on his head has other ideas (oh noes!), An ahead-of-her-time doctor, with strong moral values is pioneering experimental technology to transplant consciousness into another living being. They clone/create/whatever the natives and want to use the now paralyzed soldier to enter the natives' body to infiltrate the native camp to launch a final assault.

Now formerly paralyzed man and maybe another embark on a re-imagining of brigadoon. They are attacked by something scary on the way there and are saved by a beautiful she-native. Other guy either comes along or dies there. Doesn't really matter. She takes him to learn her ways and culture. Slowly he does his job, and slowly he falls in love with the her and her people! Then when he realizes how wrong he and his humans are it's too late! Either because of other-guy who came along, or some other means like a jealous native, soldier-guy gets "disconnected" through some sort of tragic means just as the attack is coming! But he somehow, though ingenuity and appealing to Sigourney-doctor's morals, finds a way back and helps lead the natives to attack the humans' weaknesses as only he can (huzzah)! An epic battle ensues full of CGI and dramatic music with cliche' shots of guys hanging/falling off high places, and then at the end of the battle someone important dies, including the mean general with scars. It is beautiful and sad. The credits roll. And deep down you kind of knew what was going to happen anyway.

Am I close?

You could see it that way. What I saw was a brilliant movie that beautifully pointed up the insanity of our times and the interconnected world that exists even if in our arrogance we fail to ''see" it.

WolfpackGuy
12-19-2009, 08:55 PM
I refuse to watch any movie that isn't about the life and times of Peyton Hillis.

LOL

Mr.Meanie
12-19-2009, 09:55 PM
What an incredible movie. I can't remember the last time I was so involved in a movie like that.

The only way to see that movie is in 3D btw... and IMAX if you can get it. The 3D is the best I have seen done yet. It's not gimmicky and it doesn't strain your eyes like every other 3D movie so far.

I highly recommend it.

Also, I don't understand all the "political message" comments. If anything, the movie more paralleled what happened to the Native Americans than anything else...

chanesaw
12-20-2009, 08:31 AM
I watched it in IMAX 3-D last night because I was hoping to see something amazing... mission accomplished. It was the most visually brilliant movie I have ever seen. The plot was nothing new, but the effects were. I highly recommend seeing it in IMAX if you can.

UberBroncoMan
12-20-2009, 08:58 AM
What an incredible movie. I can't remember the last time I was so involved in a movie like that.

The only way to see that movie is in 3D btw... and IMAX if you can get it. The 3D is the best I have seen done yet. It's not gimmicky and it doesn't strain your eyes like every other 3D movie so far.

I highly recommend it.

Also, I don't understand all the "political message" comments. If anything, the movie more paralleled what happened to the Native Americans than anything else...

I've heard the Pocahontas metaphor used with it as well.

The reason why is because all the "bad guys" are American accented individuals. This is also in a time where everyone has been told by the media how we only went to the Middle East for OIL (guess what the evil American sounding people in this movie want a resource).

How many of them were all sad or didn't want to attack the natives? Then how many were enjoying it?

Hell look at the bad general. He's the stereotypical (false might I add) hard ass American military general.

So you need to look at it in multiple contexts because that what the film is hitting. It's hitting Native Americans getting their habitat destroyed, it's hitting anti-capitalism, it's hitting "war-mongering" America.

The movie is basically saying, we were monsters for ruining the Native Americans land, we deserved to die/pushed back for doing so, we're wrong to be in the Middle East at all, we are only there for Oil, and our corporations only invade other places like in South America/Africa to steal resources.

I bash this movie to hell because of it's pathetically p***Y/hippy plot, but I'd see it in IMAX if there was one where I lived just to experience the technological side of the film.

I took my two teenage daughters tonight hoping to be entertained. Mission accomplished. Both of my girls talked about the movie all of the way home and we had a great time together. They didn't take the movie too seriously or worry about any political statements it may contain. They were just overwhelmed by the action and the visual buffet. They also realized it is fiction. Fun movie and I felt I got a return on the money I spent.

You poor poor man :spit:... tell me you didn't get drug into the Twilight movies.

ChampBailey24
12-20-2009, 09:55 AM
ROFL. You're clueless bro. I'm a military brat myself. Lived in bases all over the world my entire life. I know what the military is and what it truly signifies. I almost vomited in my mouth at your words.

Hey little info btw. You know Indians right? Psst. Did you know that in their "native" habitat they ****ing killed the **** our of each other as well? Wait no way right? I mean we're the barbarians, and Indians were all peaceful happy fluffy love balls.

The Aztec's sure were nice to the other tribes around them right? I mean it's not like they sacrificed them to their gods and stuff.

The North American natives all loved one another too right? They never went to war with each other, or butchered families and women... oh no, no. They were nature loving lovey wuvvies.

What planet do you live on? SERIOUSLY... what world do you live on. You have absolutly no concept of reality.

ROFL if you think it was okay what we did to the indians, and actually yes i do know indians i am 50% Cherokee. and i know indians and many other native cultures killed each other, but thats a fight within their own race and country. its not even close to being the same as genocide. we came from a different country came over and killed them for their land and resources. it is a travesty. i agree that the military can be a good thing but not when its used as a tool to try and convert other places into what we think is right or to again take resources. i have no problem fighting people who attack us, but to go over and just say hey we dont like the way your being run and then create a war over it, thats not right.but keep telling yourself you know everything

bowtown
12-20-2009, 10:04 AM
ROFL if you think it was okay what we did to the indians, and actually yes i fo know indians i am 50% Cherokee. and i know indians and many other native cultures killed each other, but thats a fight within their own race and country. its not even close to being the same as genocide. we came from a different country came over and killed them for their land and resources. it is a travesty. i agree that the military can be a good thing but not when its used as a tool to try and convert other places into what we think is right. i have no problem fighting people who attack us, but to go over and just say hey we dont like the way your being run and then create a war over it, thats not right.but keep telling yourself you know everything

It's really not worth it... he probably also thinks slavery was not really that bad because black people used to have tribal wars in Africa before we brought them over and gave them food and jobs. Besides, if they had only shown a little more initiative, they probably could have ended it sooner if they didn't like it.

UberBroncoMan
12-20-2009, 10:41 AM
ROFL if you think it was okay what we did to the indians, and actually yes i do know indians i am 50% Cherokee. and i know indians and many other native cultures killed each other, but thats a fight within their own race and country. its not even close to being the same as genocide. we came from a different country came over and killed them for their land and resources. it is a travesty. i agree that the military can be a good thing but not when its used as a tool to try and convert other places into what we think is right or to again take resources. i have no problem fighting people who attack us, but to go over and just say hey we dont like the way your being run and then create a war over it, thats not right.but keep telling yourself you know everything

You completely missed the point of what I was getting at as well as how it pertained to the the words you said earlier and why I hammered you for them.

No ****ing **** genocide is bad.

Good job.

It's really not worth it... he probably also thinks slavery was not really that bad because black people used to have tribal wars in Africa before we brought them over and gave them food and jobs. Besides, if they had only shown a little more initiative, they probably could have ended it sooner if they didn't like it.

The complete sheer ignorance and filthy stupidity in your words is repulsive. You're a pathetic individual.

Pick Six
12-20-2009, 10:49 AM
Am I the only one who feels like I already know the whole movie plot and haven't seen it?

Is this close?

Lead soldier guy is in awesome fight at beginning of film that ends with him being paralyzed. He loses all hope but then he gets a second chance. He's taken to a research facility on an alien moon/planet/whatever that has some resource humans need. Pesky natives are preventing humans from extracting the valuable resources. A scary general with scars on his head has other ideas (oh noes!), An ahead-of-her-time doctor, with strong moral values is pioneering experimental technology to transplant consciousness into another living being. They clone/create/whatever the natives and want to use the now paralyzed soldier to enter the natives' body to infiltrate the native camp to launch a final assault.

Now formerly paralyzed man and maybe another embark on a re-imagining of brigadoon. They are attacked by something scary on the way there and are saved by a beautiful she-native. Other guy either comes along or dies there. Doesn't really matter. She takes him to learn her ways and culture. Slowly he does his job, and slowly he falls in love with the her and her people! Then when he realizes how wrong he and his humans are it's too late! Either because of other-guy who came along, or some other means like a jealous native, soldier-guy gets "disconnected" through some sort of tragic means just as the attack is coming! But he somehow, though ingenuity and appealing to Sigourney-doctor's morals, finds a way back and helps lead the natives to attack the humans' weaknesses as only he can (huzzah)! An epic battle ensues full of CGI and dramatic music with cliche' shots of guys hanging/falling off high places, and then at the end of the battle someone important dies, including the mean general with scars. It is beautiful and sad. The credits roll. And deep down you kind of knew what was going to happen anyway.

Am I close?

The fact that you are VERY close sums up why I didn't like this movie. Yes, it is visually stunning (and should win an Oscar for special effects), but I don't go to a movie to be lectured on the "evils" of humans...

baja
12-20-2009, 10:51 AM
ROFL. You're clueless bro. I'm a military brat myself. Lived in bases all over the world my entire life. I know what the military is and what it truly signifies. I almost vomited in my mouth at your words.

Hey little info btw. You know Indians right? Psst. Did you know that in their "native" habitat they ****ing killed the **** our of each other as well? Wait no way right? I mean we're the barbarians, and Indians were all peaceful happy fluffy love balls.

The Aztec's sure were nice to the other tribes around them right? I mean it's not like they sacrificed them to their gods and stuff.

The North American natives all loved one another too right? They never went to war with each other, or butchered families and women... oh no, no. They were nature loving lovey wuvvies.

What planet do you live on? SERIOUSLY... what world do you live on. You have absolutly no concept of reality.

The depicting of righteousness and justification of the killing another group for their treasure is not a statement on the American condition but rather a statement on the human condition. This is a ancient theme born of human ego and it's ability to justify anything.

UberBroncoMan
12-20-2009, 10:54 AM
The fact that you are VERY close sums up why I didn't like this movie. Yes, it is visually stunning (and should win an Oscar for special effects), but I don't go to a movie to be lectured on the "evils" of humans...

It wasn't even that though. Had the cast had Europeans, Latin, African, Asian etc sounding individuals and a mix of different languages THEN it would be the "evils" of humans.

You know what? I would have been PERFECTLY FINE with that. Then it would have been hearkening back to the Old World times where people of different nationalities butchered indigenous natives all the time. I could have gone with that without any issue because it would have been more accurate. Humanity as a whole has done very bad things through its existence.

That wasn't the case though... it was ALL American sounding individuals hence the EVIL of America. This is a time of "war" in America and it's a spit in the face of all the people fighting overseas right now risking their lives every day.

That's why this movie is so ****ing pathetic. It's a slap at our nation, not the human race as a whole.

It would have been easy as **** to have various accents all over the place thus symbolizing humanity once again doing a genocidal act not "Americans."

The depicting of righteousness and justification of the killing another group for their treasure is not a statement on the American condition but rather a statement on the human condition. This is a ancient theme born of human ego and it's ability to justify anything.

I agree. But read above why I think it's hitting AMERICA more than the "human condition."

baja
12-20-2009, 10:57 AM
The fact that you are VERY close sums up why I didn't like this movie. Yes, it is visually stunning (and should win an Oscar for special effects), but I don't go to a movie to be lectured on the "evils" of humans...

The greater message is that a greater power exists beyond the might of human ability to destroy and that power lays dormant but can be accessed with the knowledge of the pathway to the One. The Meek shall Inherit the Earth".

ChampBailey24
12-20-2009, 11:19 AM
You completely missed the point of what I was getting at as well as how it pertained to the the words you said earlier and why I hammered you for them.

No ****ing **** genocide is bad.

Good job.



The complete sheer ignorance and filthy stupidity in your words is repulsive. You're a pathetic individual.

and what point is that oh great master

UberBroncoMan
12-20-2009, 11:31 AM
and what point is that oh great master

You think I'm going to bother retyping everything to a retarded question phrased in that manner?

Reread everything... if you still can't grasp it, too bad for you.

snowspot66
12-20-2009, 11:55 AM
I just don't like the fact that this movie is painting the military in a bad light. We are in the middle of a war and last time I checked, the military is doing the job we are asking them to do.

I love Camaron, I just don't like this story line.

They aren't the military. They're mercenaries. States it point blank in the beginning.

Archer81
12-20-2009, 11:56 AM
ROFL if you think it was okay what we did to the indians, and actually yes i do know indians i am 50% Cherokee. and i know indians and many other native cultures killed each other, but thats a fight within their own race and country. its not even close to being the same as genocide. we came from a different country came over and killed them for their land and resources. it is a travesty. i agree that the military can be a good thing but not when its used as a tool to try and convert other places into what we think is right or to again take resources. i have no problem fighting people who attack us, but to go over and just say hey we dont like the way your being run and then create a war over it, thats not right.but keep telling yourself you know everything


Genocide is a systematic effort to exterminate an ethnic group. It can be done by members of the same ethnic group to one another or to a seperate ethnic group. Its highly debatable that a concerted effort existed to wipe out North American natives, unless you buy into the Ward Churchill view of American history. No American alive today came from another country, killed a native then became American as a reward. To paint natives as some unified group who were peaceful and then butchered by whitey is a complete falsehood. The use of "we" here is a little ridiculous. More often then not, early European and later on American settlements were attacked without provocation.

I am not saying American government treatment of Natives was always fair or right(trail of tears); but it hardly compares as one of the worst extermination of people in the history of man. Making movies that perpetuate this myth of the noble savage is an attempt to engender white guilt for things that 1. didnt happen at all or happened so long ago no one alive today was involved or 2. push a political agenda. In every single one of Cameron's movies, even ****ing Titanic there is some ridiculous political point of view.

:Broncos:

snowspot66
12-20-2009, 12:00 PM
It's unfortunate this film came out when it did. A lot of you bashing this film for it's "environmental message" consider this. This film has been in production for over a decade. It was being written before it was cool to be environmentally conscious.

It's simply a plot device. It's a very standard plot device too. Invader comes to take land. Fight off invader.

The same plot was in Dances with Wolves.

Stop reading politics into the movies you see and you'll enjoy them more.

People do that with Wall-E too and it prevents them from enjoying the best animated film quite possibly ever. The real truth behind the Wall-E story doesn't even come close to an environmental message (it's so subtle I don't recall reading any article where the reviewer got it right) and I really doubt Camoran set out ten years ago to make a pro Earth anti human story with Avatar.

Tombstone RJ
12-20-2009, 12:06 PM
They aren't the military. They're mercenaries. States it point blank in the beginning.

I thought they were Marines? I take Marines to be US Soldiers. Camaron is taking a lot of liberties by suggesting Marines are mecenaries.

If I'm wrong, my bad. I have not seen the movie.

Archer81
12-20-2009, 12:09 PM
The Marine seems to be standard military outfitting in a Cameron movie. I am going to see Avatar next week, possibly on Christmas day so I'll get to see what the fuss is all about.

:Broncos:

snowspot66
12-20-2009, 12:09 PM
I thought they were Marines? I take Marines to be US Soldiers. Camaron is taking a lot of liberties by suggesting Marines are mecenaries.

If I'm wrong, my bad. I have not seen the movie.

They were Marines that had complete their enlistments and were hired as mercenaries by a corporation. Not exactly unheard of.

This movie could exist in the exact same universe as the Alien movies. Big corporation hires military people. Goes to far off planets.

snowspot66
12-20-2009, 12:09 PM
The Marine seems to be standard military outfitting in a Cameron movie. I am going to see Avatar next week, possibly on Christmas day so I'll get to see what the fuss is all about.

:Broncos:

It is. He's used it in multiple movies spanning decades.

*edit*

Oh yeah. They were all American accented in Aliens as well. Although one did have a Spanish accent so I guess there was one immigrant in the bunch.

Boobs McGee
12-20-2009, 12:33 PM
LOL and Ho ly **** everybody. It's a movie. A FICTIONAL movie. I don't understand how for two hours people can't enjoy an artistic masterpiece and have some fun, because they interpret everything they see on the screen as political agenda.

ITS A FICTIONAL STORY.

Go enjoy it for its entertainment value.

SonOfLe-loLang
12-20-2009, 01:13 PM
I thought they were Marines? I take Marines to be US Soldiers. Camaron is taking a lot of liberties by suggesting Marines are mecenaries.

If I'm wrong, my bad. I have not seen the movie.

You sure are doing a lot of hating on this movie without seeing it.

ChampBailey24
12-20-2009, 01:18 PM
You think I'm going to bother retyping everything to a retarded question phrased in that manner?

Reread everything... if you still can't grasp it, too bad for you.

classy

baja
12-20-2009, 01:18 PM
I thought they were Marines? I take Marines to be US Soldiers. Camaron is taking a lot of liberties by suggesting Marines are mecenaries.

<b>If I'm wrong, my bad. I have not seen the movie.

Get the hell out of here, come back when you have actually seen that which you criticize. Gezz!!!

epicSocialism4tw
12-20-2009, 01:42 PM
Personally, I'm tired of politicalized movies. You cannot present the mainstream liberal ideologies and expect that it be a new or groundbreaking plot...its old hat and boring.

However, dont get lost in the stupid plot for this movie...its all about the scenery. Its beautiful. I saw it once on opening day in 3D and will return again for sure. The CGI is breathtaking. Its really something else.

UberBroncoMan
12-20-2009, 01:44 PM
It is. He's used it in multiple movies spanning decades.

*edit*

Oh yeah. They were all American accented in Aliens as well. Although one did have a Spanish accent so I guess there was one immigrant in the bunch.

The Colonial Marines were not doing anything bad. They were there to help... they were not there to butcher an indigenous species or anything of the like. In fact they were victims.

It was the Wayland Yutani Corporation that was evil... which actually was originally based on the names of two different (and real) British/Japanese corporate empires.

So to an extent Cameron showed a more fair (anti-human/anti-capitalistic) sentiment by including a major European and Asian power as well as the American accented slime ball who tries to get the Ripley and Newt impregnated.

Like I said... I love Aliens. I love it because it's it has an amazing story, even with the shots at capitalism and weapons making. That isn't what drives it though. That isn't the MAIN point.

It's about a woman and a kid who can't sleep (as well as how they bond together)... they need to confront their fears (the aliens) and then they can sleep again without fear/bad dreams. Again... very powerful well done story. One of my favorite movies ever made.

Avatar is far different.

Like I've said though... a movie like this is worth experienced for the visuals. This is a film you have to see in theaters, not on a DVD player at home.

DBroncos4life
12-20-2009, 01:51 PM
I went with my mom, step dad and my son. It was a awesome movie. I would hate to be a person that read into everything a movie is about. I don't look for messages I look for entertainment.

SportinOne
12-20-2009, 02:17 PM
I felt like I was watching a disney movie. The avatars themselves looked like cheaply made video game characters. The indigenous people were completely non-realistic. The main character was a moron and the whole story was centered wayyy too much around him and this "female" he fell in love with. Sure, this society of people could be completely wiped out at any moment but let's make sure there is a great closeup of this "female" creature's reaction to this crippled american guy's patheticly desparate "love" for her. That was quick, by the way, how two beings from separate species just immediately felt that for each other. Very convenient.

If Cameron were trying to send a political message, he failed. Yes, there is the obvious "bad america" vs. "good indigenous" but everything about this film is completely american. It was made to thrill the most people it could, not to have a great story. It was made to utilize the technology and make money. If Cameron is getting preachy, he needs to take a look in the mirror.

Oh, also glad that the female creature had the presence of mind to find exactly where the marine's body was at the end and knew exactly what she had to do. My roommate says that this was due to the fact that, "Obviously, they would have talked about where his body was and how important the oxygen masks were. Any body with common sense should know that they would have talked about it therefore it didn't need to be in the movie." No... Anyone who was watching the film knows this, the creature would not have. It's not hard to imagine a life other than the one you live, i don't know why film makers can't get over this.

baja
12-20-2009, 02:34 PM
I agree the lead actor was not very good but still it was a very entertaining movie.

DBroncos4life
12-20-2009, 02:42 PM
You would think that given the fact that EVERY human had masks on that planet the aliens would have come to understand that they "might" be important. The humans where on the planet for awhile mining that rock and the humans had other avatars in the alien camp before.

ZONA
12-30-2009, 01:46 AM
Wow. Just got back from watching it at IMAX 3D and I have to say Wow again.

Who cares about the storyline. It was decent, a bit corny that the blue Avatar people acted and talked like Native American Indians but other then that, it was a decent storyline. But the visuals will blow your frickin mind away.

I was not thrilled at first that the wife made me go see this in 3D because I wanted to see it in normal mode. At first, the glasses did take about 10 minutes to really adjust to. I did feel a little weird but was soon just so overtaken by the visuals I didn't notice it anymore. I did get eye fatigue by the end though and so did the wife. Still, I would totally recommend somebody to go see this at the IMAX 3D, it was totally awesome.

go_broncos
12-30-2009, 02:04 AM
Sam Worthington resembles Philip Rivers. Did anyone else find the similarities?

yavoon
12-30-2009, 02:07 AM
what's the body fat percentage on those natives? also where the hell were the pregnant blue ppl?

these are important questions!!!!!!!

ZONA
12-30-2009, 02:18 AM
what's the body fat percentage on those natives? also where the hell were the pregnant blue ppl?

these are important questions!!!!!!!

I know you wanted to bang that female one didn't you.

http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/avatar-new-image3.jpg

400HZ
12-30-2009, 08:34 AM
I know you wanted to bang that female one didn't you.

http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/avatar-new-image3.jpg

Hell ya. Apart from the tails and nerve receptacle things in the hair, the female aliens were smokin'.

I thought the anti-military aspect was mixed. They clearly stated at the beginning of the movie that they were mercenaries, and that the entire mission was a corporate endeavor. To me, that was a good sort of cop out, but not that type that everyone understands. I'm a former marine. Enlisted military get paid peanuts and are asked to make huge sacrifices. Patriotism is much more significant driving factor for your average soldier or marine than money is. On the other hand, I worked plenty with security contractors. They get paid five or six times more than enlisted military. Their motivations are different. Plus their corporate ethos creates and fosters a high douchebag factor. To me, it was easy to hear "mercenary" and put them in a different category, but I understand that most people probably just see the uniforms and hear the jargon and lose the separation.

Two things to keep in mind, though:

1) The protagonist of the story was a marine.
2) The human giving the orders was the toolish corporate guy and not the colonel.

The story wasn't anything special - Pocohontas - but the way technology tied in was amazing. It was an epic movie.

TonyR
12-30-2009, 09:10 AM
Final comment of the EW review sums up what a lot of you have been saying:

As spectacle, Avatar is indelible — a true rush — but as a movie it all but evaporates as you watch it.

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20326743,00.html

baja
12-30-2009, 12:05 PM
I just went to see it again, this time in 3D

WOW!!!!

Aside from the bad acting from the lead character I really liked the move.

Mr.Meanie
12-30-2009, 12:12 PM
Hell ya. Apart from the tails and nerve receptacle things in the hair, the female aliens were smokin'.

I thought the anti-military aspect was mixed. They clearly stated at the beginning of the movie that they were mercenaries, and that the entire mission was a corporate endeavor. To me, that was a good sort of cop out, but not that type that everyone understands. I'm a former marine. Enlisted military get paid peanuts and are asked to make huge sacrifices. Patriotism is much more significant driving factor for your average soldier or marine than money is. On the other hand, I worked plenty with security contractors. They get paid five or six times more than enlisted military. Their motivations are different. Plus their corporate ethos creates and fosters a high douchebag factor. To me, it was easy to hear "mercenary" and put them in a different category, but I understand that most people probably just see the uniforms and hear the jargon and lose the separation.

Two things to keep in mind, though:

1) The protagonist of the story was a marine.
2) The human giving the orders was the toolish corporate guy and not the colonel.

The story wasn't anything special - Pocohontas - but the way technology tied in was amazing. It was an epic movie.

Well said.

yavoon
12-30-2009, 12:25 PM
I know you wanted to bang that female one didn't you.

http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/avatar-new-image3.jpg

thatd be freaky, she's 10 feet tall.


I'd do it though.

baja
12-30-2009, 12:27 PM
thatd be freaky, she's 10 feet tall.


I'd do it though.

I liked the way she moved and the way she protected her man. ;D

I also liked that he did the right thing and he got his legs back anyway, plus the chick and all that good fruit.

houghtam
12-30-2009, 12:49 PM
thatd be freaky, she's 10 feet tall.


I'd do it though.

.

400HZ
12-30-2009, 12:57 PM
.

For you maybe.

loborugger
12-30-2009, 01:49 PM
Final comment of the EW review sums up what a lot of you have been saying:

As spectacle, Avatar is indelible — a true rush — but as a movie it all but evaporates as you watch it.

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20326743,00.html

Ya, that sentence ties it up in a nutshell. I found myself bored as I watched it.

loborugger
12-31-2009, 04:38 PM
http://kissingsuzykolber.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/lasertar.jpg

Archer81
12-31-2009, 04:43 PM
http://kissingsuzykolber.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/lasertar.jpg


That is hideous.


:Broncos:

TomServo
01-01-2010, 01:28 AM
entertaining but still "Dances with wolves"
In Outer Space in 3D

bpc
01-01-2010, 02:02 AM
http://kissingsuzykolber.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/lasertar.jpg

OMFG!!!!

I just woke up my wife between laughing at that picture and the hotdog in the hallway!

TomServo
01-01-2010, 03:01 AM
we cant even defend ourselves against domestic muslims. like we could ever defeat an indiginous alien enemy anyway.

Boobs McGee
01-13-2010, 10:49 PM
Just saw it in 3D at the highlands ranch 24 (not imax).....


WOW.

That movie is ****ing insane!!!! I don't understand how people can NOT like this movie. The visuals were absolutely stunning. The action was intense, and the plot was pretty engrossing. Yes, it was a little predictable at times, but I honestly wasn't even thinking that far ahead. Just getting lost in that incredibly well thought up world.

One of the best movies I've ever seen!

I'm still shaking my head in disbelief at how well done that animation was. Extremely fun movie

Doggcow
01-14-2010, 01:51 AM
Because of the bump.

What is stopping the Humans from coming back with TWO bigass bombers next time? Seriously. I thought the ending was lame as hell.

Civilization owns, Guns own, Rocket Launchers own. Faggy arrows and spears should be stomped out because of their own idiocy for trying to fight back.

carlosgmz1
01-14-2010, 04:01 AM
Perhaps, but my premis remains the same: Humans advance to incorporate mind blowing technology yet ignore basic and fundamental truths which are ingrained in Free Societys (we are talking about Marines, yes?): the right to self govern, protection of freedoms, freeing the oppressed NOT being the oppressor.

Its just crap that Camaron is spilling out in order to create a vision.

In the end, Camaron is falling into Shakespeare's frustrated MaBeth: "it is a tale/Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,/Signifying nothing."

No because we did that to the indians and still did it to hawaii and it's people after we were more advanced, people will always believe they are superior to others and repeat mistakes....

Jason in LA
01-14-2010, 08:10 AM
Because of the bump.

What is stopping the Humans from coming back with TWO bigass bombers next time? Seriously. I thought the ending was lame as hell.

Civilization owns, Guns own, Rocket Launchers own. Faggy arrows and spears should be stomped out because of their own idiocy for trying to fight back.

Kind of like Ewoks defeating stormtroopers who had high tech laser guns and all kind of high tech military vehicles. The Ewoks were throwing rocks at them and somehow won.

Mr.Meanie
01-14-2010, 09:15 AM
Because of the bump.

What is stopping the Humans from coming back with TWO bigass bombers next time? Seriously. I thought the ending was lame as hell.

Civilization owns, Guns own, Rocket Launchers own. Faggy arrows and spears should be stomped out because of their own idiocy for trying to fight back.

They were getting owned until the planet's network decided to fight back by involving every single thing connected to the network. They just overwhelmed the humans.

Jason in LA
01-14-2010, 09:35 AM
Any movie I ever started to watch using the 3D glasses only disappointed me. The glasses came off and I enjoyed the rest of it. Look, movies are 2D and there is no way they even come close to portraying what true 3D is about and I doubt any "screen" will ever do that. Just watch it in normal 2D, you will like it better.

That's what I was thinking before I saw Avatar. 3D was always cheesy with objects flying off the screen. But Avatar wasn't really like that. It was almost like watching the movie through a window. It gave a truer sense of depth of field, which 2D doesn't do as well.

Doggcow
01-14-2010, 10:12 AM
They were getting owned until the planet's network decided to fight back by involving every single thing connected to the network. They just overwhelmed the humans.

Yeah, but they still almost made it. If they brought 2 bombers, or like 2-3 of the attack cruisers the badass general was using they'd easily make it regardless.

snowspot66
01-14-2010, 10:16 AM
That's what I was thinking before I saw Avatar. 3D was always cheesy with objects flying off the screen. But Avatar wasn't really like that. It was almost like watching the movie through a window. It gave a truer sense of depth of field, which 2D doesn't do as well.

They intentionally held back on the 3d. They only wanted to give a sense of depth and it worked as you noticed. I was very impressed with the fact that they never really went over the top with anything. When developing a movie for the better part of a decade it can be pretty easy to go hog wild with everything. Especially with the technology the developed to make the film. When you see bugs on screen you'll see maybe 20 to 30. There are actually about 10,000 for every 10 you can see. If they have that ability just think about all the crazy over the top **** they could have gone out and done. I'm glad they managed to keep it all focused.

Jason in LA
01-14-2010, 10:51 AM
I'd say that Avatar was a very good movie, but I wouldn't say it was a great movie, and it wasn't the best movie that I've seen this year (Up in the Air was the best in my opinion).

The visuals were amazing. Totally lived up to the hype. The story was just decent. Nothing great, nothing bad. Which is why I say it wasn't a great movie, but a very good movie. Mainly because of the visuals. After a while I got over the amazement of the visuals, and then I was just watching a movie. There were certain shots here and then that were amazing, but amazing visuals isn't going to hold me for very long. Great visuals isn't going to hold me for nearly three hours.

I've seen this movie once, enjoyed it, but I really don't care to see it again. Some people are saying that this movie should win best picture. I totally disagree with that.

UberBroncoMan
01-14-2010, 10:52 AM
They were getting owned until the planet's network decided to fight back by involving every single thing connected to the network. They just overwhelmed the humans.

In the end it doesn't matter.

The Na'vi are just delaying the inevitable.

The humans just need to come back and rape the Na'vi from orbit... not very hard.

Scan for heat signatures, and rape every major settlement from orbit on top of their spirit well.

Na'vi are now scattered, low in numbers, and the hive of their network is destroyed.

Get resource.

The End.


I should add btw, that the entire concept of the film about a mineral was retarded due to the lack of info. At the end in typical Cameron fashion it says the humans are going back to "their dying world."

If our planet is dieing you'd think we'd be trying to inhabit the Na'vi planet rather than only get a mineral. As for the mineral... it's never said what it's used for.

For all we know it's what's keeping humans alive on earth or fuel for star ships to travel faster than light... stuff we need to survive as a species.

Anyhow, the film's graphics were awesome but the entire premise was completely retarded and if there was any continuation of the film that aimed for realism it would be a hilarious yet boring film about how some blue cat people are getting annihilated within a few minutes from space.

Doggcow
01-14-2010, 10:54 AM
I'd say that Avatar was a very good movie, but I wouldn't say it was a great movie, and it wasn't the best movie that I've seen this year (Up in the Air was the best in my opinion).

The visuals were amazing. Totally lived up to the hype. The story was just decent. Nothing great, nothing bad. Which is why I say it wasn't a great movie, but a very good movie. Mainly because of the visuals. After a while I got over the amazement of the visuals, and then I was just watching a movie. There were certain shots here and then that were amazing, but amazing visuals isn't going to hold me for very long. Great visuals isn't going to hold me for nearly three hours.

I've seen this movie once, enjoyed it, but I really don't care to see it again. Some people are saying that this movie should win best picture. I totally disagree with that.

I'm more excited about Book of Eli tomorrow than I ever was about Avatar.

baja
01-14-2010, 10:56 AM
They were getting owned until the planet's network decided to fight back by involving every single thing connected to the network. They just overwhelmed the humans.

It is sad that so many completely miss the powerful message that is the theme of this great movie at a time when this understanding is needed most.

baja
01-14-2010, 11:00 AM
here read this for a better understanding of the movie Avatar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_(novel)#Plot_summary

Archer81
01-14-2010, 11:08 AM
Considering who the director is, it is not at all surprising the story would be weak. Is it ever explained in the flick why the Navi are attacking human mining operations on this moon?

:Broncos:

UberBroncoMan
01-14-2010, 11:09 AM
It is sad that so many completely miss the powerful message that is the theme of this great movie at a time when this understanding is needed most.

LAWL???

This movie is nothing more than the love child of Dance With Wolves and FernGully.

People get the message. It's just gay a ****. It's been used countless times. It's stale and boring to hear at this point.

I don't enjoy hearing how ****ing lame my species is and how we'd all be better singing in circles and being children of nature.

I saw Terminator 2, guess what, same ****ing message. Seen Aliens? You've seen it again.

"Omg save the planet, omg humans are destroying the world, omg humans are evil warmongers, omg corporations will kill anyone to get what they want."

Rabble Rabble Rabble.

Doggcow
01-14-2010, 11:22 AM
LAWL???

This movie is nothing more than the love child of Dance With Wolves and FernGully.

People get the message. It's just gay a ****. It's been used countless times. It's stale and boring to hear at this point.

I don't enjoy hearing how ****ing lame my species is and how we'd all be better singing in circles and being children of nature.

I saw Terminator 2, guess what, same ****ing message. Seen Aliens? You've seen it again.

"Omg save the planet, omg humans are destroying the world, omg humans are evil warmongers, omg corporations will kill anyone to get what they want."

Rabble Rabble Rabble.

I'd just laugh my ass off if Terminator or Aliens came to pass, would be a great "Told ya so" moment.

Archer81
01-14-2010, 11:23 AM
I'd just laugh my ass off if Terminator or Aliens came to pass, would be a great "Told ya so" moment.


If Xenophorm aliens or self aware networks come to pass, no one will be laughing. We'd all be dead. Even then, both movies would still have the same concepts...


:Broncos:

Mr.Meanie
01-14-2010, 11:25 AM
I should add btw, that the entire concept of the film about a mineral was retarded due to the lack of info. At the end in typical Cameron fashion it says the humans are going back to "their dying world."

If our planet is dieing you'd think we'd be trying to inhabit the Na'vi planet rather than only get a mineral. As for the mineral... it's never said what it's used for.

For all we know it's what's keeping humans alive on earth or fuel for star ships to travel faster than light... stuff we need to survive as a species.

Anyhow, the film's graphics were awesome but the entire premise was completely retarded and if there was any continuation of the film that aimed for realism it would be a hilarious yet boring film about how some blue cat people are getting annihilated within a few minutes from space.

They meant the planet is dying from a nature standpoint. They said there is no green left on their world, which would be death to the Na'avi.

And I don't understand the comments that I keep hearing that the story isn't original. Can someone name me the last big budget hollywood movie that was original?

This story is the very definition of originality:

- A futuristic universe with a unique world inhabited by primitive humanoids
- The planet is networked together naturally in a way that the planets inhabitants can plug into the network
- A corporation desires a profitable mineral, and commissions a project where bodies that look native can be controlled by a human remotely so they can integrate with the native society to negotiate for the land.

So the hero gets lost in the world and switches sides to try to save it. That part has been done before in many different variations in books and movies forever, but that's your problem with the story? Really?

I ran into a store clerk the other day who was talking about Avatar, and how he thought the "visuals were good" but the story isn't "original". Dude, you're a ****ing store clerk. You just paid 10 dollars to watch something that cost $400 million to make. You probably loved Batman, Iron Man and Transformers, all of which were actual knockoffs of the original.

People are funny. I think most people just repeat stuff they hear other people say that they think sounds clever or smart.

baja
01-14-2010, 11:25 AM
LAWL???

This movie is nothing more than the love child of Dance With Wolves and FernGully.

People get the message. It's just gay a ****. It's been used countless times. It's stale and boring to hear at this point.

I don't enjoy hearing how ****ing lame my species is and how we'd all be better singing in circles and being children of nature.

I saw Terminator 2, guess what, same ****ing message. Seen Aliens? You've seen it again.

"Omg save the planet, omg humans are destroying the world, omg humans are evil warmongers, omg corporations will kill anyone to get what they want."

Rabble Rabble Rabble.

It is the "I Am" message you are missing.

Al lmatter is made of the same energy source also know as God.

I AM
I AM THAT I AM
I am a father to Israel
I am a great King
I am alive for evermore (Jesus)
I am Alpha and Omega (Jesus)
I am for you
I am from above (Jesus)
I am God
I am God Almighty
I am gracious
I am he
I am he that comforteth you
I am he that doth speak
I am he that liveth, and was dead (Jesus)
I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts (Jesus)
I am holy
I am in the midst of Israel
I am married unto you
I am meek and lowly in heart (Jesus)
I am merciful
I am the Almighty God
I am the bread of life (Jesus)
I am the door (Jesus)
I am the door of the sheep (Jesus)
I am the first and the last
I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob
I am the God of thy fathers
I am the good shepherd (Jesus)
I am the light of the world (Jesus)
I am the living bread (Jesus)
I am the LORD
I am the LORD, and there is none else
I am the Lord GOD
I am the LORD in the midst of the earth
I am the LORD that doth sanctify you
I am the LORD that healeth thee
I am the LORD that maketh all things
I am the LORD that smiteth
I am the LORD, the God of all flesh
I am the LORD thy God
I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt
I am the LORD thy God that divideth the sea
I am the LORD thy God which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go
I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit
I am the LORD which exercise loving-kindness, judgment, and righteousness
I am the LORD which hallow you
I am the LORD, your Holy One
I am the resurrection, and the life (Jesus)
I am the root and offspring of David (Jesus)
I am the Son of God (Jesus)
I am the vine (Jesus)
I am the way, the truth, and the life (Jesus)
I am their inheritance (speaking of the priests)
I am thy exceeding great reward
I am thy part and thine inheritance (said to the Levites)
I am thy salvation
I am thy Savior
I am thy shield
I am with thee
I am with thee to deliver thee
I am with thee to save thee
I am with you alway (Jesus)

Archer81
01-14-2010, 11:31 AM
They meant the planet is dying from a nature standpoint. They said there is no green left on their world, which would be death to the Na'avi.

And I don't understand the comments that I keep hearing that the story isn't original. Can someone name me the last big budget hollywood movie that was original?

This story is the very definition of originality:

- A futuristic universe with a unique world inhabited by primitive humanoids
- The planet is networked together naturally in a way that the planets inhabitants can plug into the network
- A corporation desires a profitable mineral, and commissions a project where bodies that look native can be controlled by a human remotely so they can integrate with the native society to negotiate for the land.

So the hero gets lost in the world and switches sides to try to save it. That part has been done before in many different variations in books and movies forever, but that's your problem with the story? Really?

I ran into a store clerk the other day who was talking about Avatar, and how he thought the "visuals were good" but the story isn't "original". Dude, you're a ****ing store clerk. You just paid 10 dollars to watch something that cost $400 million to make. You probably loved Batman, Iron Man and Transformers, all of which were actual knockoffs of the original.

People are funny. I think most people just repeat stuff they hear other people say that they think sounds clever or smart.


1. Starwars, Startrek

2. Ferngully, LOTRII (The Ents)

3. Hollywood has this habit of painting every single corporation as evil. (Alien, Aliens, Alien 3, Terminator 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 as direct examples)

As you pointed out, nothing in Hollywood is original. But how many times do we have to hear the same EXACT story arc from every movie made by the same director?

:Broncos:

yavoon
01-14-2010, 11:39 AM
It is the "I Am" message you are missing.

Al lmatter is made of the same energy source also know as God.

I AM
I AM THAT I AM
I am a father to Israel
I am a great King
I am alive for evermore (Jesus)
I am Alpha and Omega (Jesus)
I am for you
I am from above (Jesus)
I am God
I am God Almighty
I am gracious
I am he
I am he that comforteth you
I am he that doth speak
I am he that liveth, and was dead (Jesus)
I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts (Jesus)
I am holy
I am in the midst of Israel
I am married unto you
I am meek and lowly in heart (Jesus)
I am merciful
I am the Almighty God
I am the bread of life (Jesus)
I am the door (Jesus)
I am the door of the sheep (Jesus)
I am the first and the last
I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob
I am the God of thy fathers
I am the good shepherd (Jesus)
I am the light of the world (Jesus)
I am the living bread (Jesus)
I am the LORD
I am the LORD, and there is none else
I am the Lord GOD
I am the LORD in the midst of the earth
I am the LORD that doth sanctify you
I am the LORD that healeth thee
I am the LORD that maketh all things
I am the LORD that smiteth
I am the LORD, the God of all flesh
I am the LORD thy God
I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt
I am the LORD thy God that divideth the sea
I am the LORD thy God which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go
I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit
I am the LORD which exercise loving-kindness, judgment, and righteousness
I am the LORD which hallow you
I am the LORD, your Holy One
I am the resurrection, and the life (Jesus)
I am the root and offspring of David (Jesus)
I am the Son of God (Jesus)
I am the vine (Jesus)
I am the way, the truth, and the life (Jesus)
I am their inheritance (speaking of the priests)
I am thy exceeding great reward
I am thy part and thine inheritance (said to the Levites)
I am thy salvation
I am thy Savior
I am thy shield
I am with thee
I am with thee to deliver thee
I am with thee to save thee
I am with you alway (Jesus)

wow thats meaningless and gay. maybe it works better if ur on shrooms.

Mr.Meanie
01-14-2010, 11:40 AM
1. Starwars, Startrek

2. Ferngully, LOTRII (The Ents)

3. Hollywood has this habit of painting every single corporation as evil. (Alien, Aliens, Alien 3, Terminator 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 as direct examples)

As you pointed out, nothing in Hollywood is original. But how many times do we have to hear the same EXACT story arc from every movie made by the same director?

:Broncos:

Well in every story you typically have a protagonist and an antagonist. The idea that the antagonist is typically a powerful authority figure (government, big corporation, secret society, etc) is not new, and it's something you'll find in just about every action movie or book you will ever see or read.

Beantown Bronco
01-14-2010, 11:41 AM
3. Hollywood has this habit of painting every single corporation as evil. (Alien, Aliens, Alien 3, Terminator 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 as direct examples)


The International

Great movie IMO.

Archer81
01-14-2010, 11:44 AM
Well in every story you typically have a protagonist and an antagonist. The idea that the antagonist is typically a powerful authority figure (government, big corporation, secret society, etc) is not new, and it's something you'll find in just about every action movie or book you will ever see or read.

Agreed. I dont feel Avatar is groundbreaking with its story or the thought process its trying to get people to go through. Its a pretty movie visually, but should it win best picture simply because its pretty to watch?

:Broncos:

Mr.Meanie
01-14-2010, 11:53 AM
Agreed. I dont feel Avatar is not groundbreaking with its story or the thought process its trying to get people to go through. Its a pretty movie visually, but should it win best picture simply because its pretty to watch?

:Broncos:

I wouldn't say that... I think Up in the Air, District 9 or Up should win it personally.

I do think that Stephen Lang should win best supporting actor though.

UberBroncoMan
01-14-2010, 12:02 PM
I'd just laugh my ass off if Terminator or Aliens came to pass, would be a great "Told ya so" moment.

Dude same with Godzilla. One of these days our evil weapons are going to create bunches of giant monsters that are going to wage battles on our planet through major cities!



They meant the planet is dying from a nature standpoint. They said there is no green left on their world, which would be death to the Na'avi.

And I don't understand the comments that I keep hearing that the story isn't original. Can someone name me the last big budget hollywood movie that was original?

This story is the very definition of originality:

- A futuristic universe with a unique world inhabited by primitive humanoids
- The planet is networked together naturally in a way that the planets inhabitants can plug into the network
- A corporation desires a profitable mineral, and commissions a project where bodies that look native can be controlled by a human remotely so they can integrate with the native society to negotiate for the land.

So the hero gets lost in the world and switches sides to try to save it. That part has been done before in many different variations in books and movies forever, but that's your problem with the story? Really?

I ran into a store clerk the other day who was talking about Avatar, and how he thought the "visuals were good" but the story isn't "original". Dude, you're a ****ing store clerk. You just paid 10 dollars to watch something that cost $400 million to make. You probably loved Batman, Iron Man and Transformers, all of which were actual knockoffs of the original.

People are funny. I think most people just repeat stuff they hear other people say that they think sounds clever or smart.

I'd hit this but sirhcyennek81 nailed it.



Well in every story you typically have a protagonist and an antagonist. The idea that the antagonist is typically a powerful authority figure (government, big corporation, secret society, etc) is not new, and it's something you'll find in just about every action movie or book you will ever see or read.

It's in every Cameron movie though. Where were the evil Na'vi btw? Lets take a good look at reality. There should have been rival Na'vi tribes... hell Na'vi that would team up with the humans to kill the tree Na'vi. We saw that **** when the Spaniards started taking over **** in the New World, same with the English etc. So the "bad" Na'vi would get the tree Na'vi land when the humans were done mining the mineral... what a deal! The film is ****ing p***Y fantasy land.

Meanwhile, the Na'vi are enslaving the animals on the planet with their superior connection. Where's the outrage! Why can't they just let the other living creatures live in peace /cry!

This movie was literally all about how ****ing lame the human species is, how evil capitalism/corporations are, how violent and wicked humans are, how bloodthirsty a lot of military/ex-military are, how we will destroy our own planet to get minerals and wealth etc.

It's about the very small amount "enlightened and educated" humans stand up to the majority of oh so stupid ex-military and corporates (sounds familiar). I felt like I was in Hippies & Tree Hugging 101.

There could have been ways to make the story FAR MORE engaging and different. Instead I felt like I was watching other movies in a new setting.



It is the "I Am" message you are missing.

Al lmatter is made of the same energy source also know as God.

I AM etc...


Cameron = full fledged atheist

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/James-Cameron-To-Terminate-Christianity-4562.html

So don't know why you'd bring up God or Jesus and all of that for a film he made.

... all matter is made up of "God" ok so...? If you found all of this in that film you've looked WAY too into it... and anyone else who sees that connection has merely formulated it out of nothing because that's not what this movie is focused on.

Mr.Meanie
01-14-2010, 12:04 PM
It's in every Cameron movie though.



Titanic says hi

UberBroncoMan
01-14-2010, 12:06 PM
I wouldn't say that... I think Up in the Air, District 9 or Up should win it personally.

I do think that Stephen Lang should win best supporting actor though.

District 9 was good till the end of the movie where it became... "this is stupid" to me.

Up in the Air was a damn good film all around, about something I never saw really tackled before.

If I had a vote that film gets it.

Star Trek is also being talked about for Best Picture bt some, and I liked it MORE than Up in the Air... but there were some really stupid mistakes in the film that push it away for me.

Archer81
01-14-2010, 12:06 PM
Titanic says hi


Titanic...where the rich white guy (who worked on Wall Street, no less) is a complete foil, while Jack represents the "everyman" of a socialist utopia...


:Broncos:

Archer81
01-14-2010, 12:08 PM
District 9 was good till the end of the movie where it became... "this is stupid" to me.

Up in the Air was a damn good film all around, about something I never saw really tackled before.

If I had a vote that film gets it.

Star Trek is also being talked about for Best Picture bt some, and I liked it MORE than Up in the Air... but there were some really stupid mistakes in the film that push it away for me.


Star Trek being talked about surprised me for a couple of reasons. Sci-Fi themed stories dont often win these things, and its been done as a movie before.

:Broncos:

UberBroncoMan
01-14-2010, 12:08 PM
Titanic says hi

Really? I could have sworn it was about some poor impoverished American boy falling in love with the rich girl who rejects wealth for love?

Meanwhile there's a rich corporate dude who's just ****ing evil and even tries to get the poor boy killed. Cuss rich people don't give a **** about poor people dieing. Hell the rich dude even cowers to save his own life at the expense of others.

Then there's all the rich people being saved on boats, while all the awesome poor people we saw having fun dancing are being locked so they drown while the rich people get away safely.

God those rich people are always trying to **** over the poor people.

... oh **** it's the same ****.

SonOfLe-loLang
01-14-2010, 12:14 PM
Titanic...where the rich white guy (who worked on Wall Street, no less) is a complete foil, while Jack represents the "everyman" of a socialist utopia...


:Broncos:

That's kind of a....stretch. I, for one, never really see too much political message in Cameron's films as much as generic story construction that often times can be read politically.

UberBroncoMan
01-14-2010, 12:14 PM
Star Trek being talked about surprised me for a couple of reasons. Sci-Fi themed stories dont often win these things, and its been done as a movie before.

:Broncos:

They say this is a weird year because Avatar, District 9, and Star Trek are all being talked about... it's A TON of Sci-Fi.

Avatar is likely going to win it all though. Generic plot and tree hugging crap aside, the academy voters eat that **** up.

I'd give Avatar ALL of the Visual awards easily... but beyond that, nothing.

I may actually give Sound Editing to Star Trek to be honest. It had some superb work.

... and for composition, James Horner was a pile of **** in Avatar. He reused the same ****ing melody after the tree gets destroyed that he used in Willow and Enemy at the Gates. He also reused some Titanic during before the alien sex scene. I can't stand rehashing material like that.

SonOfLe-loLang
01-14-2010, 12:15 PM
Really? I could have sworn it was about some poor impoverished American boy falling in love with the rich girl who rejects wealth for love?

Meanwhile there's a rich corporate dude who's just ****ing evil and even tries to get the poor boy killed. Cuss rich people don't give a **** about poor people dieing. Hell the rich dude even cowers to save his own life at the expense of others.

Then there's all the rich people being saved on boats, while all the awesome poor people we saw having fun dancing are being locked so they drown while the rich people get away safely.

God those rich people are always trying to **** over the poor people.

... oh **** it's the same ****.


Ever wonder why his movies resonate with so many?

snowspot66
01-14-2010, 12:16 PM
Considering who the director is, it is not at all surprising the story would be weak. Is it ever explained in the flick why the Navi are attacking human mining operations on this moon?

:Broncos:

Yeah. They were being shot at. Pretty easy to understand.

SonOfLe-loLang
01-14-2010, 12:18 PM
They say this is a weird year because Avatar, District 9, and Star Trek are all being talked about... it's A TON of Sci-Fi.

Avatar is likely going to win it all though. Generic plot and tree hugging crap aside, the academy voters eat that **** up.

I'd give Avatar ALL of the Visual awards easily... but beyond that, nothing.

I may actually give Sound Editing to Star Trek to be honest. It had some superb work.

... and for composition, James Horner was a pile of **** in Avatar. He reused the same ****ing melody after the tree gets destroyed that he used in Willow and Enemy at the Gates. He also reused some Titanic during before the alien sex scene. I can't stand rehashing material like that.


The oscars are a bunch of bull****. It's all about which studio buys enough votes (pretty much). I worked on the inside of this for YEARS and saw, up close, how much money is put into oscar campaigning, party planning, its a bunch of ****.

Mr.Meanie
01-14-2010, 12:19 PM
You guys really read into everything. Titanic was about a live-in-the-moment boy who meets a priviledged girl and they fall in love right before tragedy strikes.

It's a love story with a tragic ending. Socialist utopia? Wow. How do you enjoy watching any movies at all?

UberBroncoMan
01-14-2010, 12:19 PM
Ever wonder why his movies resonate with so many?

They are always well done from top to bottom. I won't deny that.

If you read earlier in the thread I said Aliens is one of my favorite films ever made, despite the corporate bashing... but that's because it wasn't the central focus of the film. It was about making the nightmares stop, about dreaming again, and a powerful bond created between Ripley and Newt.

Doesn't mean there aren't major faults with any of his films, or that they have overused messages.

Beantown Bronco
01-14-2010, 12:19 PM
The Hangover should get nominated for Best Picture over some of this other crap. Seriously.

Archer81
01-14-2010, 12:20 PM
That's kind of a....stretch. I, for one, never really see too much political message in Cameron's films as much as generic story construction that often times can be read politically.


Its specifically political because Cameron points out and hyperinflates the "class" distinctions at the beginning of the 20th century. You could view it as classically American. The American people do not put a ton of stock into titles or class distinctions generally. Cameron made it specific by making the lead antagonist everything he hates, namely a self centered, cowardly, wealthy corporate stock broker; which is a summation of the hard left's views of most people who are successful under a capitalist system. They had to exploit someone else to achieve their wealth. In this case, the poor people get locked in the ship's hold and the wealthy are the ones who get rescued.

:Broncos:

UberBroncoMan
01-14-2010, 12:21 PM
You guys really read into everything. Titanic was about a live-in-the-moment boy who meets a priviledged girl and they fall in love right before tragedy strikes.

It's a love story with a tragic ending. Socialist utopia? Wow. How do you enjoy watching any movies at all?

How was that reading into everything? It's what ****ing happened. It's what the movie was about. Learn about dissecting films. Multiple things are going on, what you said is right but so is what we both said.

UberBroncoMan
01-14-2010, 12:23 PM
Its specifically political because Cameron points out and hyperinflates the "class" distinctions at the beginning of the 20th century. You could view it as classically American. The American people do not put a ton of stock into titles or class distinctions generally. Cameron made it specific by making the lead antagonist everything he hates, namely a self centered, cowardly, wealthy corporate stock broker; which is a summation of the hard left's views of most people who are successful under a capitalist system. They had to exploit someone else to achieve their wealth. In this case, the poor people get locked in the ship's hold and the wealthy are the ones who get rescued.

:Broncos:

Damn you good sir! :thumbsup:

Archer81
01-14-2010, 12:26 PM
You guys really read into everything. Titanic was about a live-in-the-moment boy who meets a priviledged girl and they fall in love right before tragedy strikes.

It's a love story with a tragic ending. Socialist utopia? Wow. How do you enjoy watching any movies at all?


If its a Cameron movie, it always has a political angle. Terminator II has Sarah Connor going into monologues about what true creation is, or has John Connor asking a ****ing robot "are we gonna make it" while looking at two kids fighting over a gun, and the Terminator waxes poetic on our tendency towards self destruction as a species. Aliens has an evil corporation placing the capture of an Alien queen over the lives of colonists and Marines on some rock in space. Its the same thing with Cameron, every time. Its bs social commentary.

:Broncos:

SonOfLe-loLang
01-14-2010, 12:27 PM
Its specifically political because Cameron points out and hyperinflates the "class" distinctions at the beginning of the 20th century. You could view it as classically American. The American people do not put a ton of stock into titles or class distinctions generally. Cameron made it specific by making the lead antagonist everything he hates, namely a self centered, cowardly, wealthy corporate stock broker; which is a summation of the hard left's views of most people who are successful under a capitalist system. They had to exploit someone else to achieve their wealth. In this case, the poor people get locked in the ship's hold and the wealthy are the ones who get rescued.

:Broncos:

I'm no Titanic historian, but what if thats what actually happened? Then he's portraying something that's historically accurate. You and I have argued about politics many times, you know my views (which is fine, we're all entitled to our opinion), but when I watch Titanic, I see a love story first that has a Romeo and Juliet type of senitment. The easiest way to achieve this is through class distinction, especially on a boat where there are actually 1st, 2nd, 3rd class tickets. This is hardly some Che Guevera esque propaganda message, you're reading into it too much.

Mr.Meanie
01-14-2010, 12:27 PM
How was that reading into everything? It's what ****ing happened. It's what the movie was about. Learn about dissecting films. Multiple things are going on, what you said is right but so is what we both said.

I understand that, but I just can't get the entertainment value of taking that approach with every movie. It seems like you follow this thought process:

1. What is the message the author/director is trying to spread?
2. Does that message coincide with my personal beliefs?
3. Reject/Accept the story

Why not just enjoy the story?

Archer81
01-14-2010, 12:34 PM
I'm no Titanic historian, but what if thats what actually happened? Then he's portraying something that's historically accurate. You and I have argued about politics many times, you know my views (which is fine, we're all entitled to our opinion), but when I watch Titanic, I see a love story first that has a Romeo and Juliet type of senitment. The easiest way to achieve this is through class distinction, especially on a boat where there are actually 1st, 2nd, 3rd class tickets. This is hardly some Che Guevera esque propaganda message, you're reading into it too much.


Actually the first time I watched Titanic, I clapped when Leo drowned. And then i wondered why if Rose is on a giant door, why she couldnt move over for the dude she claims to love, because the "love story" angle seemed forced to me. And the fact this lady is in her 90s and still has the heart of the ocean and never pawned it or sold it...

Titanic as made by Cameron was not historically accurate. If you are on a boat hit by an iceberg and sinking, who is going to have the presence of mind to lock the poor below, or the moral compunction to do it? Its not like the ship workers were any better socially then the ones who got locked in the hold. If the movie was made with the arrogance of man thinking they could make something that could not be destroyed, then that would have flown with me.

:Broncos:

TDmvp
01-14-2010, 12:37 PM
I keep hearing people say things like WOW it looks great and the effects are unreal , but the story sucks . So why would anyone see it ... I go see movies for a story line not effects and EVERYONE i have talked to says well the story line kinda suck B UT YOU HAVE TO SEE IT... yea right .... If i wanted cool effects I'd play xbox and call it a day.

And the cult following this movie is getting is just stupid ... People being depressed after seeing it cause they loved the place and want to live in a place like it...
There was even a story on the news of someone attempting suicide cause they knew that life would never be as good as it is in that movie ... And people thinking the girls in this movie are hot are just as stupid.
Gimmie break ... It's a **** James Cameron movie , nothing more....

Everything Cameron does to me is over hyped lameness ...
Yea just what the world needed , Avatar , another movie based on Heart of Darkness.
Hell just watch Apocalypse Now and get it over with.

SonOfLe-loLang
01-14-2010, 12:42 PM
Actually the first time I watched Titanic, I clapped when Leo drowned. And then i wondered why if Rose is on a giant door, why she couldnt move over for the dude she claims to love, because the "love story" angle seemed forced to me. And the fact this lady is in her 90s and still has the heart of the ocean and never pawned it or sold it...

Titanic as made by Cameron was not historically accurate. If you are on a boat hit by an iceberg and sinking, who is going to have the presence of mind to lock the poor below, or the moral compunction to do it? Its not like the ship workers were any better socially then the ones who got locked in the hold. If the movie was made with the arrogance of man thinking they could make something that could not be destroyed, then that would have flown with me.

:Broncos:

Haha! Well fair enough on your wanting Leo to die. And do you have proof thats not historically accurate? if there's one thing I've learned in my 30 years of living, humans do deplorable things to each other, especially in times of tragedy (not saying they dont swing the other way, but it certainly wouldnt shock me if they did lock the poor.) Lots of people in the lower/middle class have Stockholm Syndrome when it comes to rich people and defend them at every turn even if they have been wronged (perhaps a subconscious feeling that they might join them one day? Just look at the south in general.) In this case, the psyche of the worker probably sides with his/her rich owners/employers rather than the poor people in the lower decks. He's given power (the ability to lock them down there) and will generally consider himself among a higher class due to his ability to control the situation. Also, in situations like the Titanic, I think humans take an every man for himself kind of attitude, and by blocking hundreds of passengers, it enhances the chances that the worker gets off safe (and at the time, i assume no one thought most would die.)

I dunno, lots to think about here, but my main point is I don't think workers would necessarily side with the poor in this case even though they belong to the same social class.

SonOfLe-loLang
01-14-2010, 12:44 PM
I keep hearing people say things like WOW it looks great and the effects are unreal , but the story sucks . So why would anyone see it ... I go see movies for a story line not effects and EVERYONE i have talked to says well the story line kinda suck B UT YOU HAVE TO SEE IT... yea right .... If i wanted cool effects I'd play xbox and call it a day.

And the cult following this movie is getting is just stupid ... People being depressed after seeing it cause they loved the place and want to live in a place like it...
There was even a story on the news of someone attempting suicide cause they knew that life would never be as good as it is in that movie ... And people thinking the girls in this movie are hot are just as stupid.
Gimmie break ... It's a **** James Cameron movie , nothing more....

Everything Cameron does to me is over hyped lameness ...
Yea just what the world needed , Avatar , another movie based on Heart of Darkness.
Hell just watch Apocalypse Now and get it over with.


I think saying the story sucks has just become the cool thing to say. Honestrly, it kept my interest, which is more than i can say for 85 percent of the movies out there (and including every single comic book movie ive ever seen). Im not saying it was a life changing story, but it was tried, true, and effective enough.

TDmvp
01-14-2010, 12:50 PM
I think saying the story sucks has just become the cool thing to say. Honestrly, it kept my interest, which is more than i can say for 85 percent of the movies out there (and including every single comic book movie ive ever seen). Im not saying it was a life changing story, but it was tried, true, and effective enough.



That's the first thing i've heard said that makes me the least bit interested ...
All I keep hearing is hype of it's effects and people saying the story blows.
And knowing James took the story from Heart of Darkness made me really not care about seeing it.

effective way to sum it up SonOf... I'll at least check it out when it's on dvd ...

SonOfLe-loLang
01-14-2010, 12:51 PM
That's the first thing i've heard said that makes me the least bit interested ...
All I keep hearing is hype of it's effects and people saying the story blows.
And knowing James took the story from Heart of Darkness made me really not care about seeing it.

effective way to sum it up SonOf... I'll at least check it out when it's on dvd ...

Id strongly suggest you see it in 3d. Its quite immersive. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

TDmvp
01-14-2010, 12:52 PM
Actually the first time I watched Titanic, I clapped when Leo drowned. And then i wondered why if Rose is on a giant door, why she couldnt move over for the dude she claims to love, because the "love story" angle seemed forced to me. And the fact this lady is in her 90s and still has the heart of the ocean and never pawned it or sold it...

Titanic as made by Cameron was not historically accurate. If you are on a boat hit by an iceberg and sinking, who is going to have the presence of mind to lock the poor below, or the moral compunction to do it? Its not like the ship workers were any better socially then the ones who got locked in the hold. If the movie was made with the arrogance of man thinking they could make something that could not be destroyed, then that would have flown with me.

:Broncos:


Sums up my feelings of Titanic and most of Camerons work... I too cheered when Decrapio died.. and thought what a selfish Bish to let him die LOL...

TDmvp
01-14-2010, 12:53 PM
Id strongly suggest you see it in 3d. Its quite immersive. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

It would end up giving me motion sickness LOL ...

Pick Six
01-14-2010, 01:06 PM
Avatar in 3-D is the ONLY way to see this movie. The storyline isn't powerful enough to carry the film, alone...

Jason in LA
01-14-2010, 01:10 PM
I wouldn't say that... I think Up in the Air, District 9 or Up should win it personally.

I do think that Stephen Lang should win best supporting actor though.

I didn't really feel District 9 like everybody else did. But Up in the Air, man that was a good movie. The conversations that I had about that movie with friends of mine were just awesome. Like, life conversations. I hope it wins best picture.

ak1971
01-14-2010, 01:10 PM
It would end up giving me motion sickness LOL ...

drop a bunch of acid

Pick Six
01-14-2010, 01:13 PM
District 9 was horrible. I've heard some really great things about Up In The Air. I think that could be my movie choice for this weekend...:thumbsup:

SonOfLe-loLang
01-14-2010, 01:21 PM
I didn't really feel District 9 like everybody else did. But Up in the Air, man that was a good movie. The conversations that I had about that movie with friends of mine were just awesome. Like, life conversations. I hope it wins best picture.

Im with you on D9...i actually thought it was an amazing 20 min, followed by BS. I think if they broadened the scope of the movie, it could have been something special, but i couldnt care less about a guy turning into one of them. Bored me.


As for up in the air, i liked it, but didnt love it (im a big jason reitman fan too). I thought it was telling three movies in one and each plotline kind of got short changed. I also didn't buy that he'd be willing to change his entire lifestyle from the events shown. That said, i liked it, but wasnt particularly moved by it.

Requiem
01-14-2010, 01:24 PM
I didn't enjoy D9, but Avatar was all right. I was pretty lit up when I went, so that probably helped my overall thoughts.

ak1971
01-14-2010, 01:36 PM
Now if they could just do Gigli in 3D it would be awesome

UberBroncoMan
01-14-2010, 02:21 PM
Now if they could just do Gigli in 3D it would be awesome

God your avatar pic freaks me out.

Tombstone RJ
01-14-2010, 03:28 PM
The oscars are a bunch of bull****. It's all about which studio buys enough votes (pretty much). I worked on the inside of this for YEARS and saw, up close, how much money is put into oscar campaigning, party planning, its a bunch of ****.

Yep, pretty much what I think about the Oscars... sometimes they do get it right, but most of the time, they completely whiff.

Tombstone RJ
01-14-2010, 03:34 PM
Actually the first time I watched Titanic, I clapped when Leo drowned. And then i wondered why if Rose is on a giant door, why she couldnt move over for the dude she claims to love, because the "love story" angle seemed forced to me. And the fact this lady is in her 90s and still has the heart of the ocean and never pawned it or sold it...

Titanic as made by Cameron was not historically accurate. If you are on a boat hit by an iceberg and sinking, who is going to have the presence of mind to lock the poor below, or the moral compunction to do it? Its not like the ship workers were any better socially then the ones who got locked in the hold. If the movie was made with the arrogance of man thinking they could make something that could not be destroyed, then that would have flown with me.

:Broncos:

Actually, that did happen. The Titanic did not have enough life boats for everyone so they put the lock down doors on the lower class passengers to prevent them from escaping to the life boats.

This was part of the design of all passenger liners of that day due to the fact that there were no maritime laws telling the boat companies that they had to have enough life boats for everyone. That law came to pass after the Titanic disaster.

So, yes, things like that are historically accurate. I least, I think they are... could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that is correct...

Tombstone RJ
01-18-2010, 09:58 AM
OK, saw Avatar this weekend and it was pretty much exactly what I thought it would be... I did not like the story line...

I could go into details about how James Cameron failed miserably in this movie but suffice to say, I didn't like the overall preachy crap that Cameron spewed out...

Chris
01-18-2010, 10:16 AM
Am I the only one that thought this wasn't a good movie? Forget about any political message. What I saw wasn't compelling. The technical wizardry was great but I didn't think the actual imagery was all that original.

Every 20-30 years you get a new flux of talent coming in with a visual sense that matches their generation. Cameron is a great forward thinking engineer but his visual ideas are still very much rooted in a past filled with aliens, mech robots and an altogether ordinary vision of "Sci Fi" (or "Sy Fy" if you prefer the way NBC has contributed to American illiteracy by changing their channel name).

Peoples Champ
01-18-2010, 11:18 AM
http://www.hulu.com/watch/121065/saturday-night-live-avatar-chamber (http://www.hulu.com/watch/121065/saturday-night-live-avatar-chamber)

Bronco Yoda
01-20-2010, 01:48 AM
I finally saw the movie in 3-D tonight. I didn't have any expectations and wasn't in the mood to be critical. All I wanted to see was some cool visuals... and that it did.

It was good fun. Nothing more nothing less.

Doggcow
01-20-2010, 02:15 AM
I still have no answer.

What stops the humans from coming back with 2 badass bombers?

UberBroncoMan
01-20-2010, 07:56 AM
I still have no answer.

What stops the humans from coming back with 2 badass bombers?

Happy dancing, singing, and tree-hugging will prevent the orbital launches that wipe out every major Na'vi population area.

Beantown Bronco
01-20-2010, 07:59 AM
I just can't get over the fact that this movie is just about 2-3 weeks away from overtaking Titanic for top world-wide gross of all time. That was hella-quick.

Even with higher ticket prices, I didn't think anything was going to top Titanic anytime soon.

http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross?region=world-wide

Mr.Meanie
01-20-2010, 08:27 AM
I still have no answer.

What stops the humans from coming back with 2 badass bombers?

Maybe we'll find out in the sequel

bendog
01-20-2010, 08:52 AM
I miss the old days ... when we'd kick the Indians asses for being treacherous savages, got the girl and rode off into the sunset.

Tombstone RJ
01-20-2010, 09:29 AM
Did anyone else notice how ultimately crappy the ending of the movie is? Ok, let me break it down for you:

The protagonist (ex-Marine with bad legs) commits suicide in order to become a Navi. The message Cameron is saying here is clear to me: Humans are so bad, they should kill themselves in order to become "better" via becoming a Navi.

IMHO Cameron is basically thumbing his nose at all of Western Civilization by showing the big bad and yes, AMERICAN MILITARY (which represents the West) destroying all that is beautiful and right in Cameron's make believe world. The only way to stop this travesty in the eyes of Cameron is to kill yourself and become one of the natives. In other words, everything that American is built on is bad. Everything.

That's just my personal interpretation of this latest film of James Cameron.

bendog
01-20-2010, 09:46 AM
I liked the movie where the savages were roasting that british soldier alive and planning to rape Madeline Stowe and Jodhi Maye, and then kill them too, so Daniel Day Lewis has to kick some ass

UberBroncoMan
01-20-2010, 09:46 AM
Did anyone else notice how ultimately crappy the ending of the movie is? Ok, let me break it down for you:

The protagonist (ex-Marine with bad legs) commits suicide in order to become a Navi. The message Cameron is saying here is clear to me: Humans are so bad, they should kill themselves in order to become "better" via becoming a Navi.

IMHO Cameron is basically thumbing his nose at all of Western Civilization by showing the big bad and yes, AMERICAN MILITARY (which represents the West) destroying all that is beautiful and right in Cameron's make believe world. The only way to stop this travesty in the eyes of Cameron is to kill yourself and become one of the natives. In other words, everything that American is built on is bad. Everything.

That's just my personal interpretation of this latest film of James Cameron.

No, you're pretty much spot on. That's what I saw too.

Beantown Bronco
01-20-2010, 09:50 AM
I liked the movie where the savages were roasting that british soldier alive and planning to rape Madeline Stowe and Jodhi Maye, and then kill them too, so Daniel Day Lewis has to kick some ass

A+

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/--Z45aw8b7c&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/--Z45aw8b7c&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

bendog
01-20-2010, 09:54 AM
The flying dragons were cool though.

UberBroncoMan
01-20-2010, 09:54 AM
I liked the movie where the savages were roasting that british soldier alive and planning to rape Madeline Stowe and Jodhi Maye, and then kill them too, so Daniel Day Lewis has to kick some ass

Speaking of savage, I'm still perplexed as to why there wasn't a truly "savage" group of Na'vi.

There were peaceful tree-hugging Native Americans but there were also bloodthirsty warmongering Native Americans as well.

The concept of an entire "moon" filled with a species of people that are separated yet all in peace and happy luv wuv with each other is ludicrous.

What is it because they're all connected to that network?

It Cameron saying that humanity would be better off if everyone was manipulated by a strong central power (the well of souls)? - think of his political leaning.

The entire film was just so ****ing fake... it was a fantasy trying to pass itself off as a ridiculous reality we should be living in as humans.

Mr.Meanie
01-20-2010, 09:57 AM
Did anyone else notice how ultimately crappy the ending of the movie is? Ok, let me break it down for you:

The protagonist (ex-Marine with bad legs) commits suicide in order to become a Navi. The message Cameron is saying here is clear to me: Humans are so bad, they should kill themselves in order to become "better" via becoming a Navi.

IMHO Cameron is basically thumbing his nose at all of Western Civilization by showing the big bad and yes, AMERICAN MILITARY (which represents the West) destroying all that is beautiful and right in Cameron's make believe world. The only way to stop this travesty in the eyes of Cameron is to kill yourself and become one of the natives. In other words, everything that American is built on is bad. Everything.

That's just my personal interpretation of this latest film of James Cameron.

Everyone's entitled to their own interpretation of things, obviously. I just didn't see it that way.

I see it more along the lines of the movie "The Last Samurai" with Tom Cruise. Cruise was sent over to fight the natives, became involved in their culture, fell in love with it and with a woman, and ultimately joined them to fight against his own people who were much more technologically advanced. Obviously different endings to the movies with Avatar being more of a Hollywood ending, but the stories are very, very similar.

You could argue that the Last Samurai was also a story that condemned "big bad" Western civilization, but I personally would disagree. I think it was more about a person who didn't really have an identity and found his identity in another culture, again in almost the exact same way that happens with the protagonist in Avatar.

Also, the movie clearly had nothing to do with the American military (unlike "Last Samurai" btw) and more to do with corporate mercenaries who were attempting to mine a valuable mineral from the planet. The movie explicitly stated that several times.

UberBroncoMan
01-20-2010, 09:57 AM
A+

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/--Z45aw8b7c&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/--Z45aw8b7c&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

A classic film. I love that song and how it fits the scene.

UberBroncoMan
01-20-2010, 10:00 AM
Everyone's entitled to their own interpretation of things, obviously. I just didn't see it that way.

Also, the movie clearly had nothing to do with the American military (unlike "Last Samurai" btw) and more to do with corporate mercenaries who were attempting to mine a valuable mineral from the planet. The movie explicitly stated that several times.

Except for the fact that it's said every single security force member was an EX MARINE, and every single one of them had an AMERICAN ACCENT.

Hence, American Marines are warmongers who's lust for blood knows no bounds. So much that when they leave the military they are ready to sell themselves into being mercenaries to do whatever violent acts $ will buy.

bendog
01-20-2010, 10:00 AM
I can't say I thought about it that much .... beyond Jodhi Maye being an outstanding looking human female. however, even if Magwa had not killed Uncas, and not forced her to choose between rape and suicide, I don't think their love would have worked out due to social differences. (-:

Mr.Meanie
01-20-2010, 10:19 AM
Except for the fact that it's said every single security force member was an EX MARINE, and every single one of them had an AMERICAN ACCENT.

Hence, American Marines are warmongers who's lust for blood knows no bounds. So much that when they leave the military they are ready to sell themselves into being mercenaries to do whatever violent acts $ will buy.

Do you realize that in real life most every private military contractor (KBR, Blackwater, etc) hires ex-military personnel? To tell the story otherwise would not only be unrealistic but completely unbelievable.

UberBroncoMan
01-20-2010, 10:21 AM
Do you realize that in real life most every private military contractor (KBR, Blackwater, etc) hires ex-military personnel? To tell the story otherwise would not only be unrealistic but completely unbelievable.

Do you realize that ex-military don't only come from the United States?

Br0nc0Buster
01-20-2010, 10:25 AM
I thought it was just a condemnation of the Iraq war

I thought it was good though, some people get way too defensive

UberBroncoMan
01-20-2010, 10:28 AM
I thought it was just a condemnation of the Iraq war

I thought it was good though, some people get way too defensive

That would make sense if Iraq wasn't previously run by a dictator who was kindly provided the genocide of Kurdish people in his country.

I mean those Na'vi and their genocidal leader right?

The Iraqi people sure loved to sing in circles, love each other and nature right?

The only GOOD thing out of that film was the visuals.

Pick Six
01-20-2010, 10:32 AM
I thought it was just a condemnation of the Iraq war

I thought it was good though, some people get way too defensive

Cameron started working on the story long before the Iraq war. Maybe it was a commentary on war itself, but it couldn't have been about the Iraq war...

Mr.Meanie
01-20-2010, 10:33 AM
Do you realize that ex-military don't only come from the United States?

The protagonists and antagonists in the movie were all American. I could see your point if all the good guys were say Japanese, and all the bad guys were American... but literally everyone was American.

So you're upset with the lack of cultural diversity in Avatar?

Br0nc0Buster
01-20-2010, 10:33 AM
That would make sense if Iraq wasn't previously run by a dictator who was kindly provided the genocide of Kurdish people in his country.

I mean those Na'vi and their genocidal leader right?

The Iraqi people sure loved to sing in circles, love each other and nature right?

The only GOOD thing out of that film was the visuals.

The idea of invading an area for resources

Im not going to debate the Iraq war with you, but there are other genocidal leaders in charge the US hasnt declared war against

Br0nc0Buster
01-20-2010, 10:39 AM
Cameron started working on the story long before the Iraq war. Maybe it was a commentary on war itself, but it couldn't have been about the Iraq war...

I didnt know that
Maybe that is the case or it is against imperialism
Either way I dont see why some people are getting upset over it

Flex Gunmetal
01-20-2010, 10:49 AM
Did anyone else notice how ultimately crappy the ending of the movie is? Ok, let me break it down for you:

The protagonist (ex-Marine with bad legs) commits suicide in order to become a Navi. The message Cameron is saying here is clear to me: Humans are so bad, they should kill themselves in order to become "better" via becoming a Navi.

IMHO Cameron is basically thumbing his nose at all of Western Civilization by showing the big bad and yes, AMERICAN MILITARY (which represents the West) destroying all that is beautiful and right in Cameron's make believe world. The only way to stop this travesty in the eyes of Cameron is to kill yourself and become one of the natives. In other words, everything that American is built on is bad. Everything.

That's just my personal interpretation of this latest film of James Cameron.
I swear people look for reasons to get riled up.
The marine wanted to walk again. That's it. Hence him transporting his consciousness into a working body.
The soldiers were mercenaries, which is made clear early in the film. Maybe there were soldiers from all over the world, and it was easier to make most of them American. The protagonists are all American as well.

This script was written a decade before the Iraq war.
It's a very simple story, made interesting by amazing visuals.

UberBroncoMan
01-20-2010, 10:50 AM
The protagonists and antagonists in the movie were all American. I could see your point if all the good guys were say Japanese, and all the bad guys were American... but literally everyone was American.

So you're upset with the lack of cultural diversity in Avatar?

That's the point I've been making this entire time. The bad people are all American. If James Cameron had made the "evil corporation" multinational and made it represent humanity as a whole rather than how ****ing bad he thinks America is then I wouldn't be hating so much on this film (even with its generic unoriginal plot).

Flex Gunmetal
01-20-2010, 10:51 AM
And lol@the people getting suicidal and depressed over not being able to live in the movie.
facepalm

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/11/avatar.movie.blues/index.html

Mr.Meanie
01-20-2010, 10:51 AM
That's the point I've been making. The bad people are all American. If James Cameron had made the "evil corporation" multinational and made it represent humanity as a whole rather than how ****ing bad he thinks America is then I wouldn't be hating so much on this film (even with its generic unoriginal plot).

So are all the good people...

Flex Gunmetal
01-20-2010, 10:52 AM
That's the point I've been making. The bad people are all American. If James Cameron had made the "evil corporation" multinational and made it represent humanity as a whole rather than how ****ing bad he thinks America is then I wouldn't be hating so much on this film (even with its generic unoriginal plot).

Have you noticed this is a trend among the vast majority of American movies?? Should the germans be all worked up over Die Hard?

Get real.

UberBroncoMan
01-20-2010, 10:56 AM
So are all the good people...

Yeah, the five "enlightened" American's who stood up against their vast evil counterparts. My point remains, that has little to do with this.


Have you noticed this is a trend among the vast majority of American movies?? Should the germans be all worked up over Die Hard?

Get real.

Don't forget the American hacker!


Also a horribly different context... a very poor metaphor... way to miss the boat.

Flex Gunmetal
01-20-2010, 11:03 AM
Yeah, the five "enlightened" American's who stood up against their vast evil counterparts. My point remains, that has little to do with this.




Don't forget the American hacker!


Also a horribly different context... a very poor metaphor... way to miss the boat.
Miles Bennet Dyson!
Actually it was sarcasm. But it speaks to how silly your complaint is. It sounds like you are just looking for reasons to get mad. How about the empire being mostly American in Star Wars? I never heard a stormtrooper with an accent.

UberBroncoMan
01-20-2010, 11:07 AM
Miles Bennet Dyson!
Actually it was sarcasm. But it speaks to how silly your complaint is. It sounds like you are just looking for reasons to get mad. How about the empire being mostly American in Star Wars? I never heard a stormtrooper with an accent.

Wow funny... I thought my comment about the American hacker was sarcasm as well. Not sure why you brought up the Terminator 2 dude though.

Trying to compare Avatar to other films (especially non Cameron films) is retarded. It makes absolutly no sense in the context of what's being talked about.

As for Star Wars, most all of the bad officers had British accents, while the good guys had American... though that's neither here or there.

Requiem
01-20-2010, 11:08 AM
And lol@the people getting suicidal and depressed over not being able to live in the movie.
facepalm

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/11/avatar.movie.blues/index.html

It isn't about living in the movie, just the fact that people have become depressed or suicidal over their inability to live in an alternate reality and explore such endeavors as the movie portrayed. :yayaya:

Flex Gunmetal
01-20-2010, 11:09 AM
Wow funny... I thought my comment about the American hacker was sarcasm as well. Not sure why you brought up the Terminator 2 dude though.

Trying to compare Avatar to other films (especially non Cameron films) is retarded. It makes absolutly no sense in the context of what's being talked about.

As for Star Wars, most all of the bad officers had British accents, while the good guys had American... though that's neither here or there.
They were the same actors, MBD and the hacker. I think.
Hmmm...
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e369/Stefangs/126360413926att.jpg
Haven't seen star wars in years, my bad.

UberBroncoMan
01-20-2010, 11:09 AM
And lol@the people getting suicidal and depressed over not being able to live in the movie.
facepalm

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/11/avatar.movie.blues/index.html

Holy ****...

"When I woke up this morning after watching Avatar for the first time yesterday, the world seemed ... gray. It was like my whole life, everything I've done and worked for, lost its meaning," Hill wrote on the forum. "It just seems so ... meaningless. I still don't really see any reason to keep ... doing things at all. I live in a dying world."

ROFL

They were the same actors, MBD and the hacker. I t hink.
Hmmm...
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e369/Stefangs/126360413926att.jpg
Haven't seen star wars in years, my bad.

Dude, my brother told me about that but I hadn't looked at it yet. Pretty damn hilarious.

As for comparing to other films I meant in a radical way... German terrorists had nothing to do with aliens etc, but you said it was sarcasm so ok.

bendog
01-20-2010, 11:10 AM
Shoot, I get depressed over not getting to be a trapper and kick savage ass for madeline stowe

Flex, i did just that for my 14 year old after we saw the movie. lol

Flex Gunmetal
01-20-2010, 11:12 AM
Holy ****...

"When I woke up this morning after watching Avatar for the first time yesterday, the world seemed ... gray. It was like my whole life, everything I've done and worked for, lost its meaning," Hill wrote on the forum. "It just seems so ... meaningless. I still don't really see any reason to keep ... doing things at all. I live in a dying world."

ROFL



Dude, my brother told me about that but I hadn't looked at it yet. Pretty damn hilarious.

As for comparing to other films I meant in a radical way... German terrorists had nothing to do with aliens etc, but you said it was sarcasm so ok.
Crazy, huh?
Ya, I wasn't taking myself seriously.
I didn't see it as an anti-American film. Especially because it was written in the mid-90's. Just my opinion.

UberBroncoMan
01-20-2010, 11:16 AM
Crazy, huh?
Ya, I wasn't taking myself seriously.
I didn't see it as an anti-American film. Especially because it was written in the mid-90's. Just my opinion.

The "story" was written in the 90's... also that's a claim there's no validity to how much of that is the same as what you saw.

I work a lot with writing and the like... believe me when I tell you it's gone under the knife a **** ton since he first "came up with it."

My gripe could have EASILY been enacted into the film. Replacing a few voice actors and creating more variety in pigment tones isn't that hard to do.

Flex Gunmetal
01-20-2010, 11:19 AM
Ya, I can see your point.

yavoon
01-20-2010, 11:25 AM
Holy ****...

"When I woke up this morning after watching Avatar for the first time yesterday, the world seemed ... gray. It was like my whole life, everything I've done and worked for, lost its meaning," Hill wrote on the forum. "It just seems so ... meaningless. I still don't really see any reason to keep ... doing things at all. I live in a dying world."

ROFL



Dude, my brother told me about that but I hadn't looked at it yet. Pretty damn hilarious.

As for comparing to other films I meant in a radical way... German terrorists had nothing to do with aliens etc, but you said it was sarcasm so ok.
lol

snowspot66
01-20-2010, 11:27 AM
Wow funny... I thought my comment about the American hacker was sarcasm as well. Not sure why you brought up the Terminator 2 dude though.

Trying to compare Avatar to other films (especially non Cameron films) is retarded. It makes absolutly no sense in the context of what's being talked about.

As for Star Wars, most all of the bad officers had British accents, while the good guys had American... though that's neither here or there.

Guess what? George Lucas has been quoted as saying his inspiration for the Empire was the U.S. Nobody got pissy about it.

UberBroncoMan
01-20-2010, 11:33 AM
Guess what? George Lucas has been quoted as saying his inspiration for the Empire was the U.S. Nobody got pissy about it.

Where's this quote? Also was it recent because that's the cool thing to say now. He must have gotten British people and American's all confused. **** I didn't know the U.S. was run by an Emperor.

BTW he's quoted as calling the Empire as a reflection of Nazi Germany not the United States. Way to go.

Hence "STORM TROOPERS," hence an Emperor coming to sole power through an election to power like Hitler, hence the uniforms worn by the officers that were very Nazi like... even the Empire's Theme was a reflection of a Nazi march.

Archer81
01-20-2010, 11:57 AM
I saw Avatar this past saturday. It was pretty, which I expected. The story was run of the mill and classically Cameron. Sucks what happens to Weaver but thats life I guess. The smart scientist dumb military schtick is getting old though.


:Broncos:

Mr.Meanie
01-20-2010, 12:01 PM
Yeah, the five "enlightened" American's who stood up against their vast evil counterparts. My point remains, that has little to do with this..

How many of the "bad" people did we hear speak? 10 total maybe? There wasn't a whole lot of dialogue from bad guy's side, as most of the talking was done by the Giovanni Ribsi and Stephen Lang (the Corporal and the executive).

So you have dialogue by 5 good guys and maybe 10 bad guys and they all spoke American english... and you're really offended because just the bad guys weren't a multi-ethnic group of people?

Honestly if that's your true beef with this movie, there must be very, very few American action movies you enjoy, because almost every antagonist I've ever seen in Hollywood movies are American. And they are usually part of a secret society, a big powerful corporation, or a government conspiricy - plotting to destroy something for profit or power.

UberBroncoMan
01-20-2010, 12:05 PM
Honestly if that's your true beef with this movie, there must be very, very few American action movies you enjoy, because almost every antagonist I've ever seen in Hollywood movies are American. And they are usually part of a secret society, a big powerful corporation, or a government conspiricy - plotting to destroy something for profit or power.

/facepalm

I'm not going to repeat everything I've written in this ****ing thread to counter this.

It's the context of the film. It's how it's presented. There's a meaning behind it. It's a common sighting in Cameron films that's only grown more potent in time. Tons of ****ing movies are different. I happen to LOVE movies... I LIVE movies and quite a few TV shows, not to mention video games. I'm constantly exposed to these things in my daily life. It's my ****ING JOB (no I don't work at Blockbuster if you want to be funny).

Perhaps what I've said goes beyond your frame of mind or how you're thinking. **** if I know at this point.

Archer81
01-20-2010, 12:14 PM
Where's this quote? Also was it recent because that's the cool thing to say now. He must have gotten British people and American's all confused. **** I didn't know the U.S. was run by an Emperor.

BTW he's quoted as calling the Empire as a reflection of Nazi Germany not the United States. Way to go.

Hence "STORM TROOPERS," hence an Emperor coming to sole power through an election to power like Hitler, hence the uniforms worn by the officers that were very Nazi like... even the Empire's Theme was a reflection of a Nazi march.


Yeah...HENCE. Oh House Bunny...funny funny flick.

:Broncos:

bendog
01-20-2010, 12:14 PM
One more Nick Cage secret message movie and I .....

Well, I already want to see him in a reality show about life in very dangerous prisons.

Archer81
01-20-2010, 12:17 PM
Considering its part of modern military doctrine to avoid purposely bombing sacred sites and holy places, I found it odd that in Avatar the military forces on hand would immediately attempt to strike a Navi holy site on purpose. OTOH, if they are mercenaries, that would make sense, but OTOHOH, how many companies would finance not only boots on the ground but air support to go with it? Intriguing.

:Broncos:

Chris
01-20-2010, 01:21 PM
Does anyone else throw up a little when Cameron tries to speak in his fake alien language?

Mr.Meanie
01-20-2010, 01:36 PM
/facepalm

I'm not going to repeat everything I've written in this ****ing thread to counter this.

It's the context of the film. It's how it's presented. There's a meaning behind it. It's a common sighting in Cameron films that's only grown more potent in time. Tons of ****ing movies are different. I happen to LOVE movies... I LIVE movies and quite a few TV shows, not to mention video games. I'm constantly exposed to these things in my daily life. It's my ****ING JOB (no I don't work at Blockbuster if you want to be funny).

Perhaps what I've said goes beyond your frame of mind or how you're thinking. **** if I know at this point.

I understand your point, I just think the points people are presenting about what they dislike with this film are more based around their dislike of Cameron and their preconcieved notions about what the film is going to "preach" to them before they even see it. Then when seeing those themes that you would find in most holywood action films, they just confirm the preconcieved ideas and reinforce the previous dislike of the movie.

It's all good... I'm not trying to change your mind, I was just curious why all the dislike for the movie.

Houshyamama
01-20-2010, 01:38 PM
I've seen it three times in 3D, haven't seen a movie 3 times in the theater in quite a few years.

Also, Public Enemies was f'n great.