Mandalorian Hunter

On second listen, these songs are WAY too loud. I put some Biffy Clyro on after (modern, heavy rock band) and could hardly hear that music on the same volume level. Hopefully they'll sort that out later. Also, not to ruin the song for anyone, but after the first few seconds of Caravan did anyone else expect Ghostbusters to start playing?

From 3:32 to 4:50 something Caravan is heaven.

QUOTE (Necromancer @ May 23 2010, 07:39 PM) Y'know when it really hit me? When it was obvious that Leia wasn't going to give Luke the time of day. I think that was the bell ringer for me. But the kiss!!! And if I were female, I'd go for Han over Luke anyday.

Watched it last night!

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.

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)

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

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.

I know this is only a 30 second-clip, but Muse just lost me. Oh, Matt, where did it all go wrong. I blame it on your shameless 'we'll do anything to conquer America' quest. No offence, Americans. Stupid Twilight. I'm going to be raging for the rest of today now. http://buzzworthy.mtv.com/2010/05/13/30-se...-video-eclipse/

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.

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.

QUOTE (Xanadoood @ May 12 2010, 05:46 AM) QUOTE (Mandalorian Hunter @ May 10 2010, 04:47 AM) QUOTE (Xanadoood @ May 9 2010, 10:16 PM) but if you are a movie buff, i just don't consider Avatar to be a movie worth discussing. LOL!! Snob? I jest. If you're a self-proclaimed 'Movie Buff', you're meant to discuss EVERY movie that comes out and has an impact, you can't pick and choose. How boring would it be being an elitist 'buff' who discusses Godfather 1&2 and Shawshank all the time. I cant believe you lumped Shawshank in with The Godfather movies. Get used to it, because the majority of filmgoers lump them together too.

QUOTE (Xanadoood @ May 9 2010, 10:16 PM) but if you are a movie buff, i just don't consider Avatar to be a movie worth discussing. LOL!! Snob? I jest. If you're a self-proclaimed 'Movie Buff', you're meant to discuss EVERY movie that comes out and has an impact, you can't pick and choose. How boring would it be being an elitist 'buff' who discusses Godfather 1&2 and Shawshank all the time.

QUOTE (Xanadoood @ May 9 2010, 02:29 PM) I cant believe this movie is still being discussed. Amazing what 3-d will do to boost the popularity of a film. On the contrary, watching it at home I've realised how much of a gimmick 3D is.

QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ May 9 2010, 11:12 AM) I guess when Hollywood throws enough bubble gum and lollipops in a film a lot of people don't care about actual content. On the flip side, if it is meant to be a form of entertainment and is based entirely in fiction, should things be scrutinised to the tiniest detail? Ok, it's a floating mountain and we're never told why, but would explaining that enhance the story? No, probably not. The woman doesn't get court-marshalled or reprimanded, but would including that add to the story? Absolutely not. For a film that has one eye on kids, should exit wounds be shown? Probably not.

QUOTE (Astromancer @ May 9 2010, 04:40 AM) And yet no one could answer any of the questions at the bottom of my post. The important thing to remember about the sci-fi genre is the second part; FICTION. To help enhance that; IT DOESN'T HAVE TO MAKE SENSE. But seriously, are you Stephen Lang or the character he portrays?

QUOTE (Slaine mac Roth @ May 9 2010, 09:02 AM) QUOTE (Astromancer @ May 8 2010, 10:30 PM) PS: How the f**k did the Smurf's arrows pierce the windows of the gunships? How did that one pilot bitch go "I didn't sign up for this", and fly away without being shot down or court marshaled? How did the protagonist ass block the Kernel dickhead's mechsuit at the end of the movie without being turned into a big blue stain(I know they have carbon fiber level of strength bones, it wouldn't have helped that much)? How did the floating mountains float? Where were the exit wounds(i don't care about the rating)? Why are so many people Avatards? Haven't you ever heard the phrase suspension of disbelief? I bet he's one of those that goes around ruining Star Wars for everyone by stating you can't hear all that laser stuff in space.

I thought they made it quite clear at the start of the movie that the marines couldn't go in all guns blazing and hang the Na'vi skinned from goddamned soul trees! Anyone get the impression Astromancer's actually Stephen Lang getting in character for Avatar 2?

They were on 'pop' radio over here when Abso and Origin were out. PiB and SS were genuine hits in the UK.

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 5 2010, 05:53 AM) QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ May 4 2010, 03:02 PM)QUOTE (Graham_W @ May 4 2010, 02:47 PM) Holy crap, is Return of the Jedi really that old? that was before The Normans invaded I saw Jedi in the theater on opening day. Thanks for making me feel ancient. It could be worse, at least this old you are not: http://media.canada.com/074dfb0f-a99d-4640-9732-cc12e712ec59/yoda.jpg The force is still strong with you. Atleast we think he isn't. He has wisdom, which must mean he's oooooold. Yoda old. Love you really, Jack.

QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ May 4 2010, 10:02 PM) QUOTE (Graham_W @ May 4 2010, 02:47 PM) Holy crap, is Return of the Jedi really that old? that was before The Normans invaded I saw Jedi in the theater on opening day. Thanks for making me feel ancient. You could just say it was for the 1997 re-releases. Thus making you firmly in your twenties

Yeah, but apart from Exogenesis, The Resistance is just that: Solid. MK and Unnatural are good, but they're the best of a lacklustre bunch, and the other songs wouldn't have got onto the first three albums at all. Owl, think carefully. Yeah, it's consistent, but there are no strong songs like PIB, SS, New Born, B&H etc on this album!

I'm glad they made the space available for the actual film on the disc, rather than include loads of extras. I'm sure they'll come with a super-duper edition of everything. I'm quite surprised how good it was on blu. Just finished watching it, and the detail they put into the film for 3-D seems to mean that although things don't jump out at you, the definition, the clarity in colour and the spectacle all remain. Plus, I don't think I could watch every movie in 3-D, so it's refreshing to know there isn't such a drop-off in quality. It'll be interesting to see the sequel and the next sequel. Maybe the story will be unique and more original, not that it was bad in the first, but to create a unique story for a unique cinematic world would be awesome, because, let's face it, we're witnessing a LOTResque spectacle here, that should be remembered as the defining series of the 2010's.

QUOTE (metaldad @ Apr 26 2010, 06:50 PM) QUOTE (Score Out @ Apr 26 2010, 01:46 PM) QUOTE (trenken @ Apr 25 2010, 05:21 AM) QUOTE (Score Out @ Apr 24 2010, 03:21 PM) QUOTE (powerwindows @ Apr 24 2010, 07:39 AM) QUOTE (Score Out @ Apr 23 2010, 01:08 PM)QUOTE (powerwindows @ Apr 22 2010, 02:30 PM) Oh for Christ's sake......NOBODY on this forum knows anything for sure! We do know that they are playing Moving Pictures in it's entirety...two new songs (one is named Caravan) and Jacob's Ladder (according to a new interview on Rush is a band by Alex). Other than that, speculate all you want, but nobody knows what the opener will be yet. In fact, I would imagine that Rush themselves have only recently finalized the set-list to give the engineers time to start pre-production on lighting, audio, and visuals while the band works through rehearsals. Mid May should see the band get together and start running through the entire show on a semi-permamanet basis for rehearsals to work out the kinks. However, given the criteria on the question at hand......my money is on The Spirit of Radio but I am hoping for a vault type of song like Analog Kid or Afterimage followed by an even more rare gem like Kid Gloves or Chemistry. The key to the Time Machine Tour is Geddy's vocals.........I doubt we'll see Hemisphere's, Cinderella Man, Anthem, Bastille Day, or A Farewell To Kings unless they are in medley form. As much as I would LOVE to see it again, those days and tours are over (glad I got to see them back then though). Either way...it's Rush, so it will kick ass! I'm sorry but you're incorrect. What I post I do know for sure - or else I'd state that it was opinion and not fact. There could always be some tweaks to the setlist in rehearsals (recall that the R30 Overture came about late in the game) but the setlist was created about 6 weeks ago. If you are 100% sure of the opening song, as you claim, my question would be your source and whether or not you know the entire set-list? I'm not going to give sources - sorry. I think we went through this on the tour postings a month or two ago. As far as the setlist, let's say I have access to the whole thing. I know the setlist conceptually and just about everything that's going to be in there however I want to leave a few surprises for myself. Lol, of course you wont post sources, because you dont have any. This guy says he knows the setlist, but wont say how. You dont know anything and dont have any connection with the band. This happens with every single tour, these people come out trying to impress everyone with their "inside knowledge" and "connections". You're not posting the setlist because you know damn well you dont know what it is. If you really knew it there isnt a single good excuse you can come up with not to post it. Noone knows who you are, there is no way for you to get in trouble. In the entire time that rush has toured while the internet has been around, Ive never seen a single person that posted an accurate setlist prior to the tour starting. You're just looking for attention. I post my opinions on things, which I do believe im allowed to do, but you're actually lying which is pathetic. If you cant post the real set list or site sources then go away please. Wow...you really are a putz! How about you put up or shut up? Here's an offer for you: Pick any slot in the setlist (ie - fourth song of the second set) and you give me 50 to 1 and let me bet you what the song is. By all rights the odds of blindly selecting any random song in the right spot in the setlist should be about 150 to 1 since it could be anything in their catalog. Maybe 100-1 if you eliminate songs that couldn't possibly be played. So 50-1 should be easy money for you. Hell, I'll even let you make it 25 to 1. If you're so sure I have no information and no connections, why don't you take me up on my offer? It should be the easiest money you've ever made. If you P.M. the setlist i will send you a case of beer [your choice ] Let the bidding war commence!

Pocahontas never looked as good as this though. And really, it's the Spanish Conquest of Latin America in Space.