theworkingman Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 We also learn that in 150 years, wheelchair technology will not have developed at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphseeker Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 QUOTE (theworkingman @ Dec 30 2009, 12:19 AM) We also learn that in 150 years, wheelchair technology will not have developed at all. exactly - they could have used just a little bit of imagination you'd think - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udanax Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Visually this movie was stunning. I think the storyline was alright as far as movies go, but as a fan of sci-fi books and such, I think it really could've been taken much further. First of all, I think the they should've had a whole science movement on figuring out why a planet with gravity has floating mountains. If humans grasp the power of gravity, then they are indestructable. Okay, I'm getting a little too nit picky here, and I'm setting aside the point that floaty mountains look really cool... Second of all, Na'vi sex? What the heck was up with that? Why do they have sex like humans? You would think that weird braid thingy that they had would also serve for reproductive purposes, simply because it serves for dominance purposes.... Ok, again I'm not being fair. If they had alien like sex then it also wouldn't be a James Cameron film. It's the same reason the female Na'vi have boobs. They really don't need them though. Even Cameron admits he put them there because he likes boobs, which is fine with me. Adding boobs makes them look more "normal" (for aliens). The thing is, if you make the aliens too alien then the people who watch the movie won't like them and wouldn't be able to relate to them, but then the movie has no point. If aliens act human then are they really aliens???? Wow, I read way too much Orson Scott Card to have fun at the theaters..... NERD ALERT!!!!! Anyways... I guess I'm just saying that if you want to set aside little technicalities and such for a visually appealing, feel good kind of movie, with a lead character who is a go getter but a little numb in the mind. Then Avatar is for you. Overall I give it a B+ it needs that extra 10% I think. I couldn't help but think that Pocahontas and Fern Gully had a rated R? PG-13? baby with a really talented effects team, lots of explosions, and fair acting.... Oh yeah, and BOOBS!!!! (P.S. When he said it took 6 years to get to the planet, is that 6 real years, or six years distorted by the fact that they are travelling at the speed of light?... Oh shoot I'm being too technical again...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUSHHEAD666 Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 QUOTE (theworkingman @ Dec 29 2009, 10:19 PM) We also learn that in 150 years, wheelchair technology will not have developed at all. HAHAHAHAHA! Maybe the Rolling Stones will still be alive and they can do a "STEEL WHEELCHAIRS" Anniversary Tour! Signed, "Sad Sad Sad" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 QUOTE (alphseeker @ Dec 29 2009, 10:32 PM) QUOTE (theworkingman @ Dec 30 2009, 12:19 AM) We also learn that in 150 years, wheelchair technology will not have developed at all. exactly - they could have used just a little bit of imagination you'd think - One thing the move does NOT lack is imagination. I'm sure there was some reason he was using a wheelchair that was more than 20 years old technology-wise from now, much less 2154. A movie that spends over $300 million wouldn't miss something that obvious without some kind of reason behind it, although that particular item didn't escape my notice either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 QUOTE (udanax @ Dec 29 2009, 11:53 PM) Visually this movie was stunning. I think the storyline was alright as far as movies go, but as a fan of sci-fi books and such, I think it really could've been taken much further. First of all, I think the they should've had a whole science movement on figuring out why a planet with gravity has floating mountains. If humans grasp the power of gravity, then they are indestructable. Okay, I'm getting a little too nit picky here, and I'm setting aside the point that floaty mountains look really cool... Second of all, Na'vi sex? What the heck was up with that? Why do they have sex like humans? You would think that weird braid thingy that they had would also serve for reproductive purposes, simply because it serves for dominance purposes.... Ok, again I'm not being fair. If they had alien like sex then it also wouldn't be a James Cameron film. It's the same reason the female Na'vi have boobs. They really don't need them though. Even Cameron admits he put them there because he likes boobs, which is fine with me. Adding boobs makes them look more "normal" (for aliens). The thing is, if you make the aliens too alien then the people who watch the movie won't like them and wouldn't be able to relate to them, but then the movie has no point. If aliens act human then are they really aliens???? Wow, I read way too much Orson Scott Card to have fun at the theaters..... NERD ALERT!!!!! Anyways... I guess I'm just saying that if you want to set aside little technicalities and such for a visually appealing, feel good kind of movie, with a lead character who is a go getter but a little numb in the mind. Then Avatar is for you. Overall I give it a B+ it needs that extra 10% I think. I couldn't help but think that Pocahontas and Fern Gully had a rated R? PG-13? baby with a really talented effects team, lots of explosions, and fair acting.... Oh yeah, and BOOBS!!!! (P.S. When he said it took 6 years to get to the planet, is that 6 real years, or six years distorted by the fact that they are travelling at the speed of light?... Oh shoot I'm being too technical again...) I totally understand where you're coming from. Ironically, my first reaction to the movie was that it was an amazing depiction of a science-fiction world/book/story come to life with a scope I'd never seen before. That said, it did have an appealing to the masses quality to it that necessarily sacrificed some of the finer points of a fully-realized intelligent and highly original science-fiction story. Maybe someday someone will come along and do a film version of Ender's Game or some other intelligently written and complex sci-fi story with the necessary depth to go along with the amazing visual and technical splendor. Until then, we have this. I guess I appreciate it more for what it is than what it's not. It's still a marvel to sit through, and I know I'll see it numerous times over the years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyBlaze Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 30 2009, 10:46 PM) QUOTE (alphseeker @ Dec 29 2009, 10:32 PM) QUOTE (theworkingman @ Dec 30 2009, 12:19 AM) We also learn that in 150 years, wheelchair technology will not have developed at all. exactly - they could have used just a little bit of imagination you'd think - One thing the move does NOT lack is imagination. I'm sure there was some reason he was using a wheelchair that was more than 20 years old technology-wise from now, much less 2154. A movie that spends over $300 million wouldn't miss something that obvious without some kind of reason behind it, although that particular item didn't escape my notice either. I overlooked the wheelchair because I didn't think it was that important. And I'm guessing most people didn't nitpick it that much either. Besides, if you're going to nitpick the wheelchair then why not nitpick the guns, clothes, hairstyles, etc. while you're at it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Presto-digitation Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Dec 30 2009, 09:23 AM)QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 30 2009, 10:46 PM) QUOTE (alphseeker @ Dec 29 2009, 10:32 PM) QUOTE (theworkingman @ Dec 30 2009, 12:19 AM) We also learn that in 150 years, wheelchair technology will not have developed at all. exactly - they could have used just a little bit of imagination you'd think - One thing the move does NOT lack is imagination. I'm sure there was some reason he was using a wheelchair that was more than 20 years old technology-wise from now, much less 2154. A movie that spends over $300 million wouldn't miss something that obvious without some kind of reason behind it, although that particular item didn't escape my notice either. I overlooked the wheelchair because I didn't think it was that important. And I'm guessing most people didn't nitpick it that much either. Besides, if you're going to nitpick the wheelchair then why not nitpick the guns, clothes, hairstyles, etc. while you're at it? Right. There are lots of areas you can go there if you want to delve into the minutia. I don't think every aspect of everything needs to be re-designed or it has no tangible or relatable aspects at all. I mean, look at Alien. Perfect example. That film was far in the future and much of what they wore or how they looked was seemingly blasse and contemporary. They hadn't advanced beyond the Eraser Mate pen at that point?? (When they touch the pen to the acid blood) http://www.business-supply.com/sku_images/image/PAP39301_2_1.JPG Technically Star Wars was this ancient-but-far advanced civilization, but they still had computer screens that looked like you were playing Asteroids in 1976...and the buttons on the big computer desks were the size of your fist and lit up in pretty primary colors. I know that had to do with the limits of 1977 but it looks awfully unconvincing now. I think we overthink and over-expect at times. Edited December 30, 2009 by Presto-digitation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udanax Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 30 2009, 08:53 AM) QUOTE (udanax @ Dec 29 2009, 11:53 PM) Visually this movie was stunning. I think the storyline was alright as far as movies go, but as a fan of sci-fi books and such, I think it really could've been taken much further. First of all, I think the they should've had a whole science movement on figuring out why a planet with gravity has floating mountains. If humans grasp the power of gravity, then they are indestructable. Okay, I'm getting a little too nit picky here, and I'm setting aside the point that floaty mountains look really cool... Second of all, Na'vi sex? What the heck was up with that? Why do they have sex like humans? You would think that weird braid thingy that they had would also serve for reproductive purposes, simply because it serves for dominance purposes.... Ok, again I'm not being fair. If they had alien like sex then it also wouldn't be a James Cameron film. It's the same reason the female Na'vi have boobs. They really don't need them though. Even Cameron admits he put them there because he likes boobs, which is fine with me. Adding boobs makes them look more "normal" (for aliens). The thing is, if you make the aliens too alien then the people who watch the movie won't like them and wouldn't be able to relate to them, but then the movie has no point. If aliens act human then are they really aliens???? Wow, I read way too much Orson Scott Card to have fun at the theaters..... NERD ALERT!!!!! Anyways... I guess I'm just saying that if you want to set aside little technicalities and such for a visually appealing, feel good kind of movie, with a lead character who is a go getter but a little numb in the mind. Then Avatar is for you. Overall I give it a B+ it needs that extra 10% I think. I couldn't help but think that Pocahontas and Fern Gully had a rated R? PG-13? baby with a really talented effects team, lots of explosions, and fair acting.... Oh yeah, and BOOBS!!!! (P.S. When he said it took 6 years to get to the planet, is that 6 real years, or six years distorted by the fact that they are travelling at the speed of light?... Oh shoot I'm being too technical again...) I totally understand where you're coming from. Ironically, my first reaction to the movie was that it was an amazing depiction of a science-fiction world/book/story come to life with a scope I'd never seen before. That said, it did have an appealing to the masses quality to it that necessarily sacrificed some of the finer points of a fully-realized intelligent and highly original science-fiction story. Maybe someday someone will come along and do a film version of Ender's Game or some other intelligently written and complex sci-fi story with the necessary depth to go along with the amazing visual and technical splendor. Until then, we have this. I guess I appreciate it more for what it is than what it's not. It's still a marvel to sit through, and I know I'll see it numerous times over the years... I just wish they would've explained the reason for certain things a little better.... Or even better, make certain technologies that they used a more pivotal part of the storyline. I know they are already making a movie out of Ender's Game, but it's going to be really tricky and I hope they don't ruin it. I look up Orson Scott Card's website every now and then. Apparently he's trying to get the script finished as soon as he possibly can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuppetKing2112 Posted January 1, 2010 Share Posted January 1, 2010 I just saw this tonight. I was going to see it in IMAX but it was sold out so I just saw it in regular 3D. All I can say is the visuals more than lived up to the hype. Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
third hand grace Posted January 3, 2010 Share Posted January 3, 2010 Hello all, it been a while... didn't read all these posts, just wanted to say that I watched this movie (3D Imax) w/ my 6 yo daughter, my best bud and his 7 yo son. My buddy and I were as excited as the kids, and a GRANDMA walking out commented to her peeps that it was the best ovie she has seen in years. I couldn't agree more. Perect? no. Nothing is but the story wasn't an afterthought for the effects- it stands up. This will be one that I purchase and I by no means collect video like I collect music. I highly recommend it. on a side note, I'm sure this is not the first but like I said I didn't read all posts, ROGER DEAN may have to sue them for stealing his art to create the world in Avatar! I felt like I was IN A YES ALBUM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
third hand grace Posted January 3, 2010 Share Posted January 3, 2010 oh supposedly there is a scene right after he shaves in which he has his beard again! My buddy said this I didn't notice. Is he right?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshman Posted January 3, 2010 Share Posted January 3, 2010 3D was amazing. Plot was pretty much Dances with Wolves in Space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted January 3, 2010 Share Posted January 3, 2010 QUOTE (joshman @ Jan 3 2010, 07:42 AM) 3D was amazing. Plot was pretty much Dances with Wolves in Space. The fate of both civilizations is very different, however. No one is saying this is the most original movie of all time in terms of the general concept, but still it does have a ton of original elements in it. In terms of it being one of the coolest movies of all time? I'd have to give that a big yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rushman14 Posted January 3, 2010 Share Posted January 3, 2010 it appears to be killing at the box office. James Cameron can now proclaim "I'm the King Of Pandora!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theworkingman Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 It really is amazing how well this movie has done in just three weeks. Third highest grossing movie of all time and still going strong. Wow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 QUOTE (theworkingman @ Jan 3 2010, 05:20 PM) It really is amazing how well this movie has done in just three weeks. Third highest grossing movie of all time and still going strong. Wow $350 million so far U.S. - 2nd fastest movie to reach that goal after The Dark Knight, and over 1 BILLION total worldwide so far. Not bad for 17 days. This thing COULD overtake Titanic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiriusRushFan Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 The IMAX movie ticket price is also a factor in making this thing generate so much box office money. If it wasn't for IMAX then box office earnings would be a lot lower for sure, and IMAX is the only reason this thing will ever get to number one, if it ever does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Presto-digitation Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 According to BO Mojo it's actually still 4th all time world wide and 15th domestically in the U.S., but yes...that's quibbling. Very impressive....for less than a month. Something about Cameron's "hypes" not falling short at the box office. What hurt The Dark Knight a bit was that it wasn't as big overseas as these other films (LOTR, Titanic, Pirates). It's interesting that of the world wide top 10 that the Batman film is the only one that's NOT roughly 2/3 total gross overseas versus roughly 1/3 in the U.S. (TDK = slightly over 50% of its total in the U.S.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Presto-digitation Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 QUOTE (SiriusRushFan @ Jan 3 2010, 11:11 PM) The IMAX movie ticket price is also a factor in making this thing generate so much box office money. If it wasn't for IMAX then box office earnings would be a lot lower for sure, and IMAX is the only reason this thing will ever get to number one, if it ever does. There's truth in this. I saw a statistic over the weekend that claimed nearly $150 million of its world wide gross was the up-charge from 2-D to 3-D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Presto-digitation Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tick Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 QUOTE (joshman @ Jan 3 2010, 10:42 AM) 3D was amazing. Plot was pretty much Dances with Wolves in Space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
workingcinderellaman Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 QUOTE (tick @ Jan 4 2010, 09:35 AM) QUOTE (joshman @ Jan 3 2010, 10:42 AM) 3D was amazing. Plot was pretty much Dances with Wolves in Space. Have you seen it? That's a good comparison with a little Fern Gully and Pocahontas thrown in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
workingcinderellaman Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 3 2010, 08:10 PM) QUOTE (theworkingman @ Jan 3 2010, 05:20 PM) It really is amazing how well this movie has done in just three weeks. Third highest grossing movie of all time and still going strong. Wow $350 million so far U.S. - 2nd fastest movie to reach that goal after The Dark Knight, and over 1 BILLION total worldwide so far. Not bad for 17 days. This thing COULD overtake Titanic. I think it will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunter Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 (edited) I agree with this summury. Avatar Edited January 4, 2010 by hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now