AVATAR

[Stormtron]

I don't care about it being unrealistic or anything like that, the story just wasn't there for me. I was bored during the middle of the film. It felt so predictable and more like a Cameron tech demo.

 

Princess Mononoke did the Pocahontas thing in a much more interesting (and epic) way.

[Slaine mac Roth]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 14 2010, 05:55 AM)

Wow. Greatest movie ever? Great fun time and uplifting story with breathtaking visuals? Do I care if others don't like it? Was I wildly entertained? Has anyone (James Cameron) ever been this successful while being so deeply polarizing at the same time?

I honestly don't think I could have put it any better

 

with bells and whistles on

[Jack Aubrey]

QUOTE (Slaine mac Roth @ May 14 2010, 12:01 PM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 14 2010, 05:55 AM) Wow. Greatest movie ever? Great fun time and uplifting story with breathtaking visuals? Do I care if others don't like it? Was I wildly entertained?  Has anyone (James Cameron) ever been this successful while being so deeply polarizing at the same time?  I honestly don't think I could have put it any better   with bells and whistles on I agree, that is a very good post.   If you like it, you like it. And that's just fine! The same thing goes if you don't like it, too. Liking or hating this movie is simply a personal preference and neither side is any less bright than the other for how they feel about the movie.   I pledge to do my best to always remember that, and not just about Avatar but about all movies/tv shows/books, etc. Who's with me?

[Mandalorian Hunter]

QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ May 14 2010, 06:36 PM)

QUOTE (Slaine mac Roth @ May 14 2010, 12:01 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 14 2010, 05:55 AM) Wow. Greatest movie ever? Great fun time and uplifting story with breathtaking visuals? Do I care if others don't like it? Was I wildly entertained?  Has anyone (James Cameron) ever been this successful while being so deeply polarizing at the same time?  I honestly don't think I could have put it any better   with bells and whistles on I agree, that is a very good post.   If you like it, you like it. And that's just fine! The same thing goes if you don't like it, too. Liking or hating this movie is simply a personal preference and neither side is any less bright than the other for how they feel about the movie.   I pledge to do my best to always remember that, and not just about Avatar but about all movies/tv shows/books, etc. Who's with me? While there's people out there calling me a dumbass for enjoying a movie, I'll always be here to defend myself. That's my pledge.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Mandalorian Hunter

[Astromancer]

QUOTE (Mandalorian Hunter @ May 14 2010, 04:14 AM)

QUOTE (Andrew1 @ May 14 2010, 01:56 AM) QUOTE (Astromancer @ May 13 2010, 08:26 PM) QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ May 13 2010, 08:10 AM) QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ May 12 2010, 06:55 AM) QUOTE (Mandalorian Hunter @ May 12 2010, 04:04 AM) QUOTE (Astromancer @ May 11 2010, 11:45 PM) Also, "Just a movie" is not an excuse. If something doesn't work, it doesn't work. The setting is in what year? I think that combat craft would have glass capable of resisting Thundercat-Smurf arrows by then. BTW, "Exit wounds" are those things that happen when a projectile exits the other side of the object that it comes in contact with. Futuristic weapons would do that sort of thing to the blue f*cks. Again. IT IS SCI-FI. SCIENCE-FICTION. MEANING IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE TRUE. NOTE THE FICTION PART. How boring would Star Wars be without noises in space. How boring would the last Star Trek have been without noises in space (even if it did stick to it for a while). Stuff like this happens in movies all the time so get used to it. If you want realism, well, it's right outside your door.   And graphic exit wounds on a film Cameron intended all to see (including kids)? Yeah, that's a really good way to getting loads of money.   In addition, I can't believe you're having a dig at the science in this Cameron film, and you've seen his others, and you seem astounded it could be so bad in Avatar. Time-Travel? Load of balls. Aliens and all that stuff in space? Give me a break, it 'doesn't work' (as you say) now, so how can it work in the next century. Also, how do you know Glass will be a great deal stronger in that time? You can't have a go at a film about a fact you don't even know about yet. I agree with this post 100%. It's sci-fi. You have to suspend disbelief since many of these technologies either don't yet exist (and may never) or don't exist in the future the way it does now. Either way, sitting back and analyzing a film like this is ridiculous. If some of these scientific details are a big reason this film seems bunk to you (general you...no one specific), I suggest giving up entirely on the sci-fi genre and getting into something else altogether.   There was an entire program devoted to the technolgies of Star Wars not too long ago and most things there are absurd at the moment. Things like a light saber with a finite "end" of its laser. Wouldn't the light just travel on??? Sound in space, which MH brought up above. Fire in space.   But it's a movie. That's not an excuse, it's what it is. It's not a science documentary. Cameron made the film to be entertaining first. You can pretty much throw out the Terminator too, based on existing "time traveling" technologies and other such details that are purely and wholly speculative and hopeful at best. Still you can do that with Aliens as well. So point that criticism at his other beloved films if you're going to call out a film like Avatar for being the height of ridiculous.   But what the f**k fun is that?? Is that why Cameron made Avatar...to be scientifically accurate?   Here's the truth. It's a movie you either didn't like or have no interest in, so the only way to make any kind of argument is to piss all over the details of it. It's sure a lot of time devoted to something you didn't enjoy or have no interest in, which then seems more like people with chips on their shoulders and not points to make. Sorry guys, but Astromancer is right. Let's look at this using a little thing I like to call "logic":   The Marines in the movie use kinetic energy weapons (that's "guns that fire bullets") so therefore the people that they have fought in the past used them, too. If they use kinetic energy weapons and are used to fighting people who use them, then the windshields on their ground and air craft would have been capable of resisting projectiles fired from kinetic energy weapons and anything capable of resisting that kind of force could easily resist an arrow fired from a bow.   I can suspend my disbelief but I get pissed off when the filmmaker assumes that I'm a dumbass, which is the case here. Thank you, Mr. Aubrey. The filmmakers did assume the viewer is a dumbass. And they were right when it comes to the majority of the people who saw it.The fact is that Avatar was engineered to pander to the lowest common denominator of viewer. Not just children, that would be a different story, but to make every person to walk out of the theater feel that they had "gotten" some complex allegory which, in reality, was completely simplified and obvious. It faked being the greatest thing ever made, and the masses devour it.   "So much style without substance So much stuff without style It's hard to recognize the real thing when it comes along once in a while"   Avatar is not the real thing. Just style without substance. Damn dude! Are you saying that we're dumbasses? It's an arrow that went through glass. I never even thought anything about it until you brought it up a couple of days ago. You see shit like that in every movie. I see where you're coming from but some others here might not feel the same. There are some intelligent people here who liked AVATAR. I'm cool with you, but they might not be. Simply because of the "dumbass" remark. All I'm saying is be ready for the backlash. For someone whos idea of description and point-enforcement is a load of swearwords and derogatory remarks, well, I'm not going to worry about him calling me a dumbass anytime soon, if you get my meaning. Yes, talk about the speaker instead of backing your movie up. Genus, really. Later. Iv'e expended my Avahatred. I want to go talk about other stuff. I don't particularly dislike any of you.

[Mandalorian Hunter]

QUOTE (Astromancer @ May 14 2010, 10:34 PM)

QUOTE (Mandalorian Hunter @ May 14 2010, 04:14 AM) QUOTE (Andrew1 @ May 14 2010, 01:56 AM) QUOTE (Astromancer @ May 13 2010, 08:26 PM) QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ May 13 2010, 08:10 AM) QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ May 12 2010, 06:55 AM) QUOTE (Mandalorian Hunter @ May 12 2010, 04:04 AM) QUOTE (Astromancer @ May 11 2010, 11:45 PM) Also, "Just a movie" is not an excuse. If something doesn't work, it doesn't work. The setting is in what year? I think that combat craft would have glass capable of resisting Thundercat-Smurf arrows by then. BTW, "Exit wounds" are those things that happen when a projectile exits the other side of the object that it comes in contact with. Futuristic weapons would do that sort of thing to the blue f*cks. Again. IT IS SCI-FI. SCIENCE-FICTION. MEANING IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE TRUE. NOTE THE FICTION PART. How boring would Star Wars be without noises in space. How boring would the last Star Trek have been without noises in space (even if it did stick to it for a while). Stuff like this happens in movies all the time so get used to it. If you want realism, well, it's right outside your door.   And graphic exit wounds on a film Cameron intended all to see (including kids)? Yeah, that's a really good way to getting loads of money.   In addition, I can't believe you're having a dig at the science in this Cameron film, and you've seen his others, and you seem astounded it could be so bad in Avatar. Time-Travel? Load of balls. Aliens and all that stuff in space? Give me a break, it 'doesn't work' (as you say) now, so how can it work in the next century. Also, how do you know Glass will be a great deal stronger in that time? You can't have a go at a film about a fact you don't even know about yet. I agree with this post 100%. It's sci-fi. You have to suspend disbelief since many of these technologies either don't yet exist (and may never) or don't exist in the future the way it does now. Either way, sitting back and analyzing a film like this is ridiculous. If some of these scientific details are a big reason this film seems bunk to you (general you...no one specific), I suggest giving up entirely on the sci-fi genre and getting into something else altogether.   There was an entire program devoted to the technolgies of Star Wars not too long ago and most things there are absurd at the moment. Things like a light saber with a finite "end" of its laser. Wouldn't the light just travel on??? Sound in space, which MH brought up above. Fire in space.   But it's a movie. That's not an excuse, it's what it is. It's not a science documentary. Cameron made the film to be entertaining first. You can pretty much throw out the Terminator too, based on existing "time traveling" technologies and other such details that are purely and wholly speculative and hopeful at best. Still you can do that with Aliens as well. So point that criticism at his other beloved films if you're going to call out a film like Avatar for being the height of ridiculous.   But what the f**k fun is that?? Is that why Cameron made Avatar...to be scientifically accurate?   Here's the truth. It's a movie you either didn't like or have no interest in, so the only way to make any kind of argument is to piss all over the details of it. It's sure a lot of time devoted to something you didn't enjoy or have no interest in, which then seems more like people with chips on their shoulders and not points to make. Sorry guys, but Astromancer is right. Let's look at this using a little thing I like to call "logic":   The Marines in the movie use kinetic energy weapons (that's "guns that fire bullets") so therefore the people that they have fought in the past used them, too. If they use kinetic energy weapons and are used to fighting people who use them, then the windshields on their ground and air craft would have been capable of resisting projectiles fired from kinetic energy weapons and anything capable of resisting that kind of force could easily resist an arrow fired from a bow.   I can suspend my disbelief but I get pissed off when the filmmaker assumes that I'm a dumbass, which is the case here. Thank you, Mr. Aubrey. The filmmakers did assume the viewer is a dumbass. And they were right when it comes to the majority of the people who saw it.The fact is that Avatar was engineered to pander to the lowest common denominator of viewer. Not just children, that would be a different story, but to make every person to walk out of the theater feel that they had "gotten" some complex allegory which, in reality, was completely simplified and obvious. It faked being the greatest thing ever made, and the masses devour it.   "So much style without substance So much stuff without style It's hard to recognize the real thing when it comes along once in a while"   Avatar is not the real thing. Just style without substance. Damn dude! Are you saying that we're dumbasses? It's an arrow that went through glass. I never even thought anything about it until you brought it up a couple of days ago. You see shit like that in every movie. I see where you're coming from but some others here might not feel the same. There are some intelligent people here who liked AVATAR. I'm cool with you, but they might not be. Simply because of the "dumbass" remark. All I'm saying is be ready for the backlash. For someone whos idea of description and point-enforcement is a load of swearwords and derogatory remarks, well, I'm not going to worry about him calling me a dumbass anytime soon, if you get my meaning. Yes, talk about the speaker instead of backing your movie up. Genus, really. Later. Iv'e expended my Avahatred. I want to go talk about other stuff. I don't particularly dislike any of you. I did back the movie up. Many, many times. Unfortunately you never responded to any kind of movie discussion from me, which I guess is due to being completely and utterly stumped by most of my responses. You know, you give a silly review, people call you out, and you have no answer. Such is the way of the world though.   On the subject of dumbasses though, it's genIus, not genus

[Mandalorian Hunter]

Sorry all, that last post was rather provocative of me. I do get riled when someone starts a slagging match then throws a hissy-fit when someone answers back. No-one enjoys a good old back-and-forth war of words anymore, and that's a shame.

 

Anyway, apparently we're getting a release on an Avatar 2 date in the coming months! Any thoughts on whether the current plans for the second film are going to be any good? (not named for spoiler purposes)

[Slaine mac Roth]

Does this mean the whole Avatar spat has run its course?

 

Please let it be so

[rushgoober]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_jJwwgVSDH9g/S5n7STCtIuI/AAAAAAAABRE/1BA5gyJZen4/s400/FUNNY-AVATAR.jpg

[Andrew1]

QUOTE (Mandalorian Hunter @ May 14 2010, 06:57 PM)

Sorry all, that last post was rather provocative of me. I do get riled when someone starts a slagging match then throws a hissy-fit when someone answers back. No-one enjoys a good old back-and-forth war of words anymore, and that's a shame. Anyway, apparently we're getting a release on an Avatar 2 date in the coming months! Any thoughts on whether the current plans for the second film are going to be any good? (not named for spoiler purposes)

No apologies necessary. I'm the same way in case you haven't noticed. It can get very irritating.

[ReRushed]

QUOTE (Andrew1 @ May 14 2010, 09:09 PM)

QUOTE (Mandalorian Hunter @ May 14 2010, 06:57 PM) Sorry all, that last post was rather provocative of me. I do get riled when someone starts a slagging match then throws a hissy-fit when someone answers back. No-one enjoys a good old back-and-forth war of words anymore, and that's a shame. Anyway, apparently we're getting a release on an Avatar 2 date in the coming months! Any thoughts on whether the current plans for the second film are going to be any good? (not named for spoiler purposes) No apologies necessary. I'm the same way in case you haven't noticed. It can get very irritating. You guys obviously have no idea what you are talking about!

[Alex]

QUOTE (1-0-0-1-0-0-1 @ May 13 2010, 10:20 PM)

QUOTE (Alex @ May 13 2010, 10:54 PM) QUOTE (1-0-0-1-0-0-1 @ May 13 2010, 09:50 PM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ May 13 2010, 10:32 PM) James Cameron is simply a hard working hack. Yeah, pretty much.   Cameron's strengths are directing action sequences, finding innovative ways to shoot movies and use special effects, and coming up with story ideas. But he and George Lucas share the same weakness -- they think they're screenwriters, too. They're not. They're both egomaniacal control freaks who think they're auteurs. They're not. Well Star Wars: A New Hope WAS well written and Empire Strikes back was also amazingly written. I don't think putting Lucas in the same category for screenwriting as Cameron is fair I'm mainly talking about the three SW prequels. That was all George thinking he had to have his mitts in every area of those movies, and he simply doesn't have the goods to do it all. He absolutely should have passed those stories on to more seasoned screenwriters. He didn't, and IMO those movies suffered because of that.   "Star Wars: A New Hope" was indeed written and directed by Lucas...but that was 33 years ago before he got too full of himself. The screenplay wasn't Oscar-worthy, and it recycled a lot of ideas from older movies, but it was entertaining, the plot made sense, and the characters were well drawn out.   "The Empire Strikes Back," the installment many feel is the best of the six SW films, is credited as follows:   Director - Irvin Kershner Writing credits - Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan (screenplay), George Lucas (story)   George gave up the helm there, provided the story, and let the pros run with it. And it made for a great film. I'd love to see Cameron do that, at least in the screenwriting department. Ah, yes. I understand what you are saying now and I agree. I see that you are making a point with the difference between STORY writing and SCREENPLAY.

[Astromancer]

QUOTE (Mandalorian Hunter @ May 14 2010, 05:40 PM)

QUOTE (Astromancer @ May 14 2010, 10:34 PM) QUOTE (Mandalorian Hunter @ May 14 2010, 04:14 AM) QUOTE (Andrew1 @ May 14 2010, 01:56 AM) QUOTE (Astromancer @ May 13 2010, 08:26 PM) QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ May 13 2010, 08:10 AM) QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ May 12 2010, 06:55 AM) QUOTE (Mandalorian Hunter @ May 12 2010, 04:04 AM) QUOTE (Astromancer @ May 11 2010, 11:45 PM) Also, "Just a movie" is not an excuse. If something doesn't work, it doesn't work. The setting is in what year? I think that combat craft would have glass capable of resisting Thundercat-Smurf arrows by then. BTW, "Exit wounds" are those things that happen when a projectile exits the other side of the object that it comes in contact with. Futuristic weapons would do that sort of thing to the blue f*cks. Again. IT IS SCI-FI. SCIENCE-FICTION. MEANING IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE TRUE. NOTE THE FICTION PART. How boring would Star Wars be without noises in space. How boring would the last Star Trek have been without noises in space (even if it did stick to it for a while). Stuff like this happens in movies all the time so get used to it. If you want realism, well, it's right outside your door.   And graphic exit wounds on a film Cameron intended all to see (including kids)? Yeah, that's a really good way to getting loads of money.   In addition, I can't believe you're having a dig at the science in this Cameron film, and you've seen his others, and you seem astounded it could be so bad in Avatar. Time-Travel? Load of balls. Aliens and all that stuff in space? Give me a break, it 'doesn't work' (as you say) now, so how can it work in the next century. Also, how do you know Glass will be a great deal stronger in that time? You can't have a go at a film about a fact you don't even know about yet. I agree with this post 100%. It's sci-fi. You have to suspend disbelief since many of these technologies either don't yet exist (and may never) or don't exist in the future the way it does now. Either way, sitting back and analyzing a film like this is ridiculous. If some of these scientific details are a big reason this film seems bunk to you (general you...no one specific), I suggest giving up entirely on the sci-fi genre and getting into something else altogether.   There was an entire program devoted to the technolgies of Star Wars not too long ago and most things there are absurd at the moment. Things like a light saber with a finite "end" of its laser. Wouldn't the light just travel on??? Sound in space, which MH brought up above. Fire in space.   But it's a movie. That's not an excuse, it's what it is. It's not a science documentary. Cameron made the film to be entertaining first. You can pretty much throw out the Terminator too, based on existing "time traveling" technologies and other such details that are purely and wholly speculative and hopeful at best. Still you can do that with Aliens as well. So point that criticism at his other beloved films if you're going to call out a film like Avatar for being the height of ridiculous.   But what the f**k fun is that?? Is that why Cameron made Avatar...to be scientifically accurate?   Here's the truth. It's a movie you either didn't like or have no interest in, so the only way to make any kind of argument is to piss all over the details of it. It's sure a lot of time devoted to something you didn't enjoy or have no interest in, which then seems more like people with chips on their shoulders and not points to make. Sorry guys, but Astromancer is right. Let's look at this using a little thing I like to call "logic":   The Marines in the movie use kinetic energy weapons (that's "guns that fire bullets") so therefore the people that they have fought in the past used them, too. If they use kinetic energy weapons and are used to fighting people who use them, then the windshields on their ground and air craft would have been capable of resisting projectiles fired from kinetic energy weapons and anything capable of resisting that kind of force could easily resist an arrow fired from a bow.   I can suspend my disbelief but I get pissed off when the filmmaker assumes that I'm a dumbass, which is the case here. Thank you, Mr. Aubrey. The filmmakers did assume the viewer is a dumbass. And they were right when it comes to the majority of the people who saw it.The fact is that Avatar was engineered to pander to the lowest common denominator of viewer. Not just children, that would be a different story, but to make every person to walk out of the theater feel that they had "gotten" some complex allegory which, in reality, was completely simplified and obvious. It faked being the greatest thing ever made, and the masses devour it.   "So much style without substance So much stuff without style It's hard to recognize the real thing when it comes along once in a while"   Avatar is not the real thing. Just style without substance. Damn dude! Are you saying that we're dumbasses? It's an arrow that went through glass. I never even thought anything about it until you brought it up a couple of days ago. You see shit like that in every movie. I see where you're coming from but some others here might not feel the same. There are some intelligent people here who liked AVATAR. I'm cool with you, but they might not be. Simply because of the "dumbass" remark. All I'm saying is be ready for the backlash. For someone whos idea of description and point-enforcement is a load of swearwords and derogatory remarks, well, I'm not going to worry about him calling me a dumbass anytime soon, if you get my meaning. Yes, talk about the speaker instead of backing your movie up. Genus, really. Later. Iv'e expended my Avahatred. I want to go talk about other stuff. I don't particularly dislike any of you. I did back the movie up. Many, many times. Unfortunately you never responded to any kind of movie discussion from me, which I guess is due to being completely and utterly stumped by most of my responses. You know, you give a silly review, people call you out, and you have no answer. Such is the way of the world though.   On the subject of dumbasses though, it's genIus, not genus Okay, Mr. Mandalorian Hunter, the only way you defended the film is by saying it's ridiculous to analyze it, and offering examples of superior films with their own holes.   I challenge you to find one aspect of the space travel in Alien or Aliens that isn't plausible.   Your comment about Star Wars being boring without space sounds was irrelevant because it already is.   Those graphic exit wounds that would have ruined it for kids? If you want a children's movie, don't include firearms. Nerfing things is shit.   Also, glass would be a great deal stronger in that time because it's a great deal stronger now. Take a compound bow and go fire it at the window of an Apache attack helicopter from the appropriate Avatar glass piercing range, and see what happens.   Oh, and BTW, don't criticize my spelling until you improve your wording, Mr. "that's a really good way to getting loads of money"

[Alex]

Do yourselves a favour and watch this

 

[Mandalorian Hunter]

Astro,

 

The thing is, your problems with the film are all hypothetical points, that's what I'm getting at. No-one knows how strong glass will be in 100 or so years time and predicting by using a method of looking at previous rates of 'glass evolution' doesn't always work.

 

Anyway, I'm not repeating myself, go and look at some of my other posts and I've said more than "It's ridiculous to analyse this film", I've given reasons why I find your points to be invalid.

 

But in relation to the guns comment, guns are in childrens films anyway but you WILL NOT find a film that's trying to appeal to all ages include graphic exit wounds. If James Cameron was aiming for Avatar to have the Star Wars effect it would be silly to include exit wounds. If you can't accept that then that's your problem.

[1-0-0-1-0-0-1]

QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 11:55 AM)

Do yourselves a favour and watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJarz7BYnHA

That reviewer is funny as hell, and he uses that humor to make good points. That "Avatar" review was good, but his masterpiece is the 7-part review of

[tel]

avatar....its shit because i said so!

[Andrew1]

QUOTE (ReRushed @ May 14 2010, 09:55 PM)

QUOTE (Andrew1 @ May 14 2010, 09:09 PM) QUOTE (Mandalorian Hunter @ May 14 2010, 06:57 PM) Sorry all, that last post was rather provocative of me. I do get riled when someone starts a slagging match then throws a hissy-fit when someone answers back. No-one enjoys a good old back-and-forth war of words anymore, and that's a shame. Anyway, apparently we're getting a release on an Avatar 2 date in the coming months! Any thoughts on whether the current plans for the second film are going to be any good? (not named for spoiler purposes) No apologies necessary. I'm the same way in case you haven't noticed. It can get very irritating. You guys obviously have no idea what you are talking about! That's what I keep telling my psychiatrist.

[Alex]

QUOTE (1-0-0-1-0-0-1 @ May 15 2010, 12:52 PM)

QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 11:55 AM) Do yourselves a favour and watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJarz7BYnHA That reviewer is funny as hell, and he uses that humor to make good points. That "Avatar" review was good, but his masterpiece is the 7-part review of He also has an hour and a half one of Attack of the Clones.

[ReRushed]

QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 11:55 AM)

Do yourselves a favour and watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJarz7BYnHA

Man, that's funny!

[Presto-digitation]

QUOTE (Alex @ May 16 2010, 01:39 PM)

QUOTE (1-0-0-1-0-0-1 @ May 15 2010, 12:52 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 11:55 AM) Do yourselves a favour and watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJarz7BYnHA That reviewer is funny as hell, and he uses that humor to make good points. That "Avatar" review was good, but his masterpiece is the 7-part review of He also has an hour and a half one of Attack of the Clones. Here's an interesting review of The Phantom Menace:   http://www.lardbiscuit.com/lard/ilovetpm.html

[Weatherman2112]

QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 10:55 AM)

Do yourselves a favour and watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJarz7BYnHA

Well, I have been searching for a way to express how I felt about this movie without sounding too offensive to those that loved it. This may be offensive but it was perfect!

[Andrew1]

I just heard a few days ago that the Avatar Special Edition is coming back to theaters, August 27.

 

I predicted this awhile back. It's giving everyone a chance to see it in 3D if they missed it the first time around. I've talked to several people who, after seeing it for the first time at home, were kicking themselves for not checking it out at the theater in 3D.

 

It's also giving 20th Century Fox and James Cameron another chance to make boatloads of money. That's fine with me though. To me, it's worth it. I love this movie. IMO, I think everyone who enjoyed this film, should take the oppurunity to see it in 3D, if they haven't already.

 

The Special Edition contains about 8 minutes of never before seen footage. That's not much, considering the film hits the three hour mark, but I'm on board. I'm looking forward to seeing it in 3D again. Extra footage or not. It's a good time.

 

Anyone thinking about going to see it again? Or for the first time in 3D?

 

 

[Jack Aubrey]

QUOTE (Andrew1 @ Aug 25 2010, 05:42 AM)

I just heard a few days ago that the Avatar Special Edition is coming back to theaters, August 27. I predicted this awhile back. It's giving everyone a chance to see it in 3D if they missed it the first time around. I've talked to several people who, after seeing it for the first time at home, were kicking themselves for not checking it out at the theater in 3D. It's also giving 20th Century Fox and James Cameron another chance to make boatloads of money. That's fine with me though. To me, it's worth it. I love this movie. IMO, I think everyone who enjoyed this film, should take the oppurunity to see it in 3D, if they haven't already. The Special Edition contains about 8 minutes of never before seen footage. That's not much, considering the film hits the three hour mark, but I'm on board. I'm looking forward to seeing it in 3D again. Extra footage or not. It's a good time. Anyone thinking about going to see it again? Or for the first time in 3D?

8 extra minutes of suck? No thanks. Move over George Lucas, here comes James Cameron!

 

[Andrew1]

QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ Aug 25 2010, 06:44 AM)

QUOTE (Andrew1 @ Aug 25 2010, 05:42 AM) I just heard a few days ago that the Avatar Special Edition is coming back to theaters, August 27. I predicted this awhile back. It's giving everyone a chance to see it in 3D if they missed it the first time around. I've talked to several people who, after seeing it for the first time at home, were kicking themselves for not checking it out at the theater in 3D. It's also giving 20th Century Fox and James Cameron another chance to make boatloads of money.    That's fine with me though. To me, it's worth it. I love this movie. IMO, I think everyone who enjoyed this film, should take the oppurunity to see it in 3D, if they haven't already. The Special Edition contains about 8 minutes of never before seen footage. That's not much, considering the film hits the three hour mark, but I'm on board. I'm looking forward to seeing it in 3D again. Extra footage or not. It's a good time. Anyone thinking about going to see it again? Or for the first time in 3D? 8 extra minutes of suck? No thanks. Move over George Lucas, here comes James Cameron! I guess it's not for everyone. I didn't know you were such a fan, Jack Aubrey. I'm shocked.   Oh, happy late birthday dude!   Avatar and James Cameron rules. It's still better than Matchstick Men.