AVATAR

[Xanadoood]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 9 2010, 06:19 PM)

QUOTE (Xanadoood @ May 9 2010, 03:34 PM) QUOTE (Slaine mac Roth @ May 9 2010, 05:31 PM) QUOTE (Xanadoood @ May 9 2010, 10:16 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 9 2010, 09:50 AM) QUOTE (Xanadoood @ May 9 2010, 07:29 AM) I cant believe this movie is still being discussed. Amazing what 3-d will do to boost the popularity of a film. It's more that that. The movie made almost $750 million domestically, and almost 2 billion dollars for the rest of the world - that's over 2.7 billion dollars worldwide. Those numbers are absolutely insane, and obviously a LOT of people saw the movie multiple times.   I'm not saying high sales numbers mean everything, as obviously they don't, but obviously a LOT of people (myself included) thought this was a great movie. Yeah, it's obviously massive , as far as sales go, but if you are a movie buff, i just don't consider Avatar to be a movie worth discussing.   It's great entertainment, but as far as the story goes, and the dialogue, its shit, IMO. If its not worth discussing, why are you discussing it then? I'm discussing why we are discussing it But to be clear, you're not actually discussing it, just discussing discussing it. I know if we were actually discussing it you'd find it disgusting, and I wouldn't want to disgust you by discussing it directly, so for now I will just discuss discussing it with you. If at the end of this discussion, however, we deem that it's worth discussing, would you be willing to enter into a discussion about it then? I think this is something we should discuss.     "Look, I gotta go pee, but I'd really like to continue talking about this conversation when I come back." ~ Derek Zoolander to Winona Ryder in Zoolander As you said , a good popcorn movie.   Its for kids.

[Xanadoood]

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.

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (Xanadoood @ May 11 2010, 10:45 PM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 9 2010, 06:19 PM) QUOTE (Xanadoood @ May 9 2010, 03:34 PM) QUOTE (Slaine mac Roth @ May 9 2010, 05:31 PM) QUOTE (Xanadoood @ May 9 2010, 10:16 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 9 2010, 09:50 AM) QUOTE (Xanadoood @ May 9 2010, 07:29 AM) I cant believe this movie is still being discussed. Amazing what 3-d will do to boost the popularity of a film. It's more that that. The movie made almost $750 million domestically, and almost 2 billion dollars for the rest of the world - that's over 2.7 billion dollars worldwide. Those numbers are absolutely insane, and obviously a LOT of people saw the movie multiple times.   I'm not saying high sales numbers mean everything, as obviously they don't, but obviously a LOT of people (myself included) thought this was a great movie. Yeah, it's obviously massive , as far as sales go, but if you are a movie buff, i just don't consider Avatar to be a movie worth discussing.   It's great entertainment, but as far as the story goes, and the dialogue, its shit, IMO. If its not worth discussing, why are you discussing it then? I'm discussing why we are discussing it But to be clear, you're not actually discussing it, just discussing discussing it. I know if we were actually discussing it you'd find it disgusting, and I wouldn't want to disgust you by discussing it directly, so for now I will just discuss discussing it with you. If at the end of this discussion, however, we deem that it's worth discussing, would you be willing to enter into a discussion about it then? I think this is something we should discuss.     "Look, I gotta go pee, but I'd really like to continue talking about this conversation when I come back." ~ Derek Zoolander to Winona Ryder in Zoolander As you said , a good popcorn movie.   Its for kids. You're really coming close to discussing this, just so you know.

[Mandalorian Hunter]

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.

[Mandalorian Hunter]

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.

[Presto-digitation]

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.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Presto-digitation

[Astromancer]

QUOTE (Andrew1 @ May 11 2010, 08:19 PM)

QUOTE (Astromancer @ May 11 2010, 07:45 PM) QUOTE (Andrew1 @ May 11 2010, 05:33 PM) QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ May 11 2010, 07:57 AM) QUOTE (Astromancer @ May 10 2010, 07:46 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 8 2010, 06:14 PM) QUOTE (Astromancer @ May 8 2010, 03:30 PM) Wow, really? f**k this movie. Very, very disappointed in Cameron. I've seen every Cameron film except Titanic, and this was just a flashy dud. Weak dialog, WEAKER story, weak "allegory", weak space marines. Watch Aliens, okay? The space marines in that movie would have had Navi hanging upside down, skinned, from goddamned soul trees. 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? Hmmm, it sounds like maybe this movie would be more appropriate for you?   http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u170/Triskaidekaphobe/2008-03-27/AngerManagementPoster.jpg                   Go watch "The Land Before Time", that's about as appropriate for an Avatar fan as anything else, based on the plot. A simple plot doesn't necessarily make a dumb or unsuccessful (in terms of ability to convey it properly) or unenjoyable film. The basic story of Star Wars, for instance, is very simple....not terribly original...and rooted in archetypes you can pick and pluck from dozens of classic. That's also the reason the film is so accessible, because it's not lost up its own ass with convoluted ideas and pretentiousness.   Both films are visual marvels which is a good thing, since film is a visual medium. Oh man! I'm chomping at the bit! I can't wait to respond to this! O.K. dude, where do I start? ALIENS is one of my favorite movies by the way. Kick-ass movie. I'm with you on that one. You've never seen Titanic? Statistically, you should have seen it by accident after 10 years. What have you been doing for the past decade? Studying mountain gorillas in Africa? Anyway.....   I'm guessing the arrows pierced the glass of the gunships because they hit dead on. Trajectory? Line of sight? Physics? Fantasy? Just a movie maybe? The Navi' are 10 feet high and obviously much stronger. Can you imagine the draw-back force on one of those bows? Here's one for you? How did the APC in ALIENS blow a trans-axle by going over a bump? That was a lot worse if you want to get technical.   Next...the "space-marines" you refered to in AVATAR are not Marines at all. They're mercenaries on contract. Given, a lot of them are ex-military but this isn't a military operation. It's the RDA's baby. They call the shots.   When Trudy abandoned her post during the attack on Hometree, she didn't break any rules so no action was taken against her. Also, she piloted a transport and not a 'Scorpion' gunship. So why was she even there you ask? Because it was supposed to be a shock and awe campaign. They were sending a message so they brought everything to appear more menacing I guess.   The mountains float because they contain huge amounts of unobtainium. Unobtainium floats.   The blow the protagonist Jake takes from "Kernel" Colonel Quarithch's AMP-suit? Low gravity probably reduced the downforce and he deflected it off to the side instead of taking the full force of the blow. Good move. Jake is an ex-marine you know.   I don't know what you're talking about when you mention "exit-wounds" though, but I'm sure I have an explanation.   What else do you have for me?   This is James Cameron's world anyway. Stop picking the movie apart and just enjoy it for what it is. An entertaining film and one I thought was well written.   So what about that APC's trans-axle in ALIENS? And why didn't they keep extra magazines for the pulse rifles on it? I can go all day long with this shit. Do your worst..... The APC in Aliens rolled over a lot of Xenomorphs, which, if you'll remember have concentrated acid for blood. Seems like that would f**k up a trans axle, huh? There was probably a clip shortage because Goreman was an asshole, but if you'll remember, they all had loaded pulse rifles in the rest of the scenes where they were still alive (albeit, that's not many scenes).   Also, if Unobtainium floats, why where the samples in the mercenaries base just f***ing rocks? They didn't float.   Your magical force deflecting protagonist would have been ripped apart by COLONEL Archetype's mech, no matter low the gravity. If your in even zero gravity, an object with high speed and large mass still has speed and mass. In fact, in lower gravity the mech would swing even faster and easier. If Blue bastard's strong bones somehow didn't break from a hit, they would have been disconnected, completely intact, from the rest of his body.   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.   P.S.- Dances With Smurfs featuring Hornets from Halo 3 and Mechassault Very good possibility on acid eating up the trans-axle. But I figure if the tires were just smoldering when the APC rolled to a stop, then the trans-axle should have been O.K.. You don't have to remind me about the aliens having acid for blood. I am an Alien fanatic (just the first two movies though), anything after ALIENS was an embarrassment to the franchise. Did you know Ridley Scott is directing an Alien prequel? Really looking forward to that one. Can't wait...   Yes, I also know that Gorman ordered Apone to collect magazines from everybody. Here's what I'm getting at....If the APC was carrying automatic motion-sensored cannons that they set up outside the barricades, I would think they would also have extra munitions. Pulse rifle magazines, extra tanks for the flame-throwers, etc.. Here's another one off the top of my head...Why did Ripley take just one magazine with her when she went after Newt? I NEVER could figure that one out. Anyway....   I'm not recalling the scene you're talking about in the base where the rocks weren't floating. But I did say the mountains contained "huge" quantities of unobtainium. Maybe the rocks in the movie contained small amounts and they were outweighed by the rest?   Come on man! We don't know how strong the Navi' are. They're alien. Remember in ALIENS when the xenomorphs were busting down welded, steel doors with their bare hands? Same thing with AVATAR isn't it?   BTW, I know what exit-wounds are. I just didn't know what scene you were talking about where ther should have been some.   Dude, I understand you didn't like it and that's cool. I just like talking about shit like this. I hope you're not getting to bent out of shape over this! There should be a James Cameron 'Mythbusters'! My god! I'm a genius! Avatar is regurgitated characters, weak ass dialog, and giant Smurfs. Continuity issues in fake science can be dealt with, I know of a great many in Terminator and T2, but they are what you call GOOD. Good Cameron films. Good characters, good dialog, a story that compels. I was waiting for Avatar, in all it's digital superglory, to END. When you find yourself sitting in a theater watching a movie instead of being IN the story, with the characters, something is wrong. Avatar was pretty, like an ornate plate that comes apart when you try to eat off of it, or in this case, get into the story. WEAK.   BTW: James Cameron Mythbusters =

Edited May 13, 2010 by Astromancer

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (Astromancer @ May 12 2010, 05:29 PM)

QUOTE (Andrew1 @ May 11 2010, 08:19 PM) QUOTE (Astromancer @ May 11 2010, 07:45 PM) QUOTE (Andrew1 @ May 11 2010, 05:33 PM) QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ May 11 2010, 07:57 AM) QUOTE (Astromancer @ May 10 2010, 07:46 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 8 2010, 06:14 PM) QUOTE (Astromancer @ May 8 2010, 03:30 PM) Wow, really? f**k this movie. Very, very disappointed in Cameron. I've seen every Cameron film except Titanic, and this was just a flashy dud. Weak dialog, WEAKER story, weak "allegory", weak space marines. Watch Aliens, okay? The space marines in that movie would have had Navi hanging upside down, skinned, from goddamned soul trees. 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? Hmmm, it sounds like maybe this movie would be more appropriate for you?   http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u170/Triskaidekaphobe/2008-03-27/AngerManagementPoster.jpg                   Go watch "The Land Before Time", that's about as appropriate for an Avatar fan as anything else, based on the plot. A simple plot doesn't necessarily make a dumb or unsuccessful (in terms of ability to convey it properly) or unenjoyable film. The basic story of Star Wars, for instance, is very simple....not terribly original...and rooted in archetypes you can pick and pluck from dozens of classic. That's also the reason the film is so accessible, because it's not lost up its own ass with convoluted ideas and pretentiousness.   Both films are visual marvels which is a good thing, since film is a visual medium. Oh man! I'm chomping at the bit! I can't wait to respond to this! O.K. dude, where do I start? ALIENS is one of my favorite movies by the way. Kick-ass movie. I'm with you on that one. You've never seen Titanic? Statistically, you should have seen it by accident after 10 years. What have you been doing for the past decade? Studying mountain gorillas in Africa? Anyway.....   I'm guessing the arrows pierced the glass of the gunships because they hit dead on. Trajectory? Line of sight? Physics? Fantasy? Just a movie maybe? The Navi' are 10 feet high and obviously much stronger. Can you imagine the draw-back force on one of those bows? Here's one for you? How did the APC in ALIENS blow a trans-axle by going over a bump? That was a lot worse if you want to get technical.   Next...the "space-marines" you refered to in AVATAR are not Marines at all. They're mercenaries on contract. Given, a lot of them are ex-military but this isn't a military operation. It's the RDA's baby. They call the shots.   When Trudy abandoned her post during the attack on Hometree, she didn't break any rules so no action was taken against her. Also, she piloted a transport and not a 'Scorpion' gunship. So why was she even there you ask? Because it was supposed to be a shock and awe campaign. They were sending a message so they brought everything to appear more menacing I guess.   The mountains float because they contain huge amounts of unobtainium. Unobtainium floats.   The blow the protagonist Jake takes from "Kernel" Colonel Quarithch's AMP-suit? Low gravity probably reduced the downforce and he deflected it off to the side instead of taking the full force of the blow. Good move. Jake is an ex-marine you know.   I don't know what you're talking about when you mention "exit-wounds" though, but I'm sure I have an explanation.   What else do you have for me?   This is James Cameron's world anyway. Stop picking the movie apart and just enjoy it for what it is. An entertaining film and one I thought was well written.   So what about that APC's trans-axle in ALIENS? And why didn't they keep extra magazines for the pulse rifles on it? I can go all day long with this shit. Do your worst..... The APC in Aliens rolled over a lot of Xenomorphs, which, if you'll remember have concentrated acid for blood. Seems like that would f**k up a trans axle, huh? There was probably a clip shortage because Goreman was an asshole, but if you'll remember, they all had loaded pulse rifles in the rest of the scenes where they were still alive (albeit, that's not many scenes).   Also, if Unobtainium floats, why where the samples in the mercenaries base just f***ing rocks? They didn't float.   Your magical force deflecting protagonist would have been ripped apart by COLONEL Archetype's mech, no matter low the gravity. If your in even zero gravity, an object with high speed and large mass still has speed and mass. In fact, in lower gravity the mech would swing even faster and easier. If Blue bastard's strong bones somehow didn't break from a hit, they would have been disconnected, completely intact, from the rest of his body.   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.   P.S.- Dances With Smurfs featuring Hornets from Halo 3 and Mechassault Very good possibility on acid eating up the trans-axle. But I figure if the tires were just smoldering when the APC rolled to a stop, then the trans-axle should have been O.K.. You don't have to remind me about the aliens having acid for blood. I am an Alien fanatic (just the first two movies though), anything after ALIENS was an embarrassment to the franchise. Did you know Ridley Scott is directing an Alien prequel? Really looking forward to that one. Can't wait...   Yes, I also know that Gorman ordered Apone to collect magazines from everybody. Here's what I'm getting at....If the APC was carrying automatic motion-sensored cannons that they set up outside the barricades, I would think they would also have extra munitions. Pulse rifle magazines, extra tanks for the flame-throwers, etc.. Here's another one off the top of my head...Why did Ripley take just one magazine with her when she went after Newt? I NEVER could figure that one out. Anyway....   I'm not recalling the scene you're talking about in the base where the rocks weren't floating. But I did say the mountains contained "huge" quantities of unobtainium. Maybe the rocks in the movie contained small amounts and they were outweighed by the rest?   Come on man! We don't know how strong the Navi' are. They're alien. Remember in ALIENS when the xenomorphs were busting down welded, steel doors with their bare hands? Same thing with AVATAR isn't it?   BTW, I know what exit-wounds are. I just didn't know what scene you were talking about where ther should have been some.   Dude, I understand you didn't like it and that's cool. I just like talking about shit like this. I hope you're not getting to bent out of shape over this! There should be a James Cameron 'Mythbusters'! My god! I'm a genius! Avatar is regurgitated characters, weak ass dialog, and giant Smurfs. Continuity issues in fake science can be dealt with, I know of a great many in Terminator and T2, but they are what you call GOOD. Good Cameron films. Good characters, good dialog, a story that compels. I was waiting for Avatar, in all it's digital superglory, to END. When you find yourself sitting in a theater watching a movie instead of being IN the story, with the characters, something is wrong. Avatar was pretty, like an ornate plate that comes apart when you try to eat off of it, or in this case, get into the story. WEAK.   BTW: James Cameron Mythbusters = Ok, so I'm confused, are you saying you liked the movie, or you didn't?

[Jack Aubrey]

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.

[Astromancer]

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.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Astromancer

[Andrew1]

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.

[Presto-digitation]

Ultimately who cares what anyone else thinks? If you like it, great. If you don't, that's fine too. I've liked far dumber films than Avatar and vastly disliked far smarter ones too. I got out of Cameron's film what I get out of almost all of his movies...I was entertained visually for 2 hours. Aliens didn't "enlighten" me and T2 didn't play up my intelliegence. I simply enjoyed the films. They were visceral rollercoasters. No more, no less.

 

Honestly I think people say such things (as above) to make themselves look more intelligent. Good on you if you feel that way. I'm not impressed...and I fully disagree.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Presto-digitation

[ReRushed]

James Cameron is simply a hard working hack.

[Andrew1]

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ May 13 2010, 10:26 PM)

Ultimately who cares what anyone else thinks? If you like it, great. If you don't, that's fine too. I've liked far dumber films than Avatar and vastly disliked far smarter ones too. I got out of Cameron's film what I get out of almost all of his movies...I was entertained visually for 2 hours. Aliens didn't "enlighten" me and T2 didn't play up my intelliegence. I simply enjoyed the films. They were visceral rollercoasters. No more, no less. Honestly I think people say such things (as above) to make themselves look more intelligent. Good on you if you feel that way. I'm not impressed...and I fully disagree.

Like I said....

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

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.

[Alex]

The arguement that Avatar is unrealistic is also very stupid. Like others said, its sci-fi get over it. That being said, AVATAR is overrated, but good. The effects were nice and all but it was essentially Pocahontas in space except modernized to make us feel bad about the human race in a political way.

 

I love how people defend Avatar with "Well its just sciecne fiction." Ok great. That doesn't make it good. GOOD Cameron Sci-Fi is Terminator. That thing rips the balls off Avatar and stomps on them.

 

 

[Alex]

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

[Tick]

QUOTE (Alex @ May 13 2010, 10:52 PM)

The arguement that Avatar is unrealistic is also very stupid. Like others said, its sci-fi get over it. That being said, AVATAR is overrated, but good. The effects were nice and all but it was essentially Pocahontas in space except modernized to make us feel bad about the human race in a political way. I love how people defend Avatar with "Well its just sciecne fiction." Ok great. That doesn't make it good. GOOD Cameron Sci-Fi is Terminator. That thing rips the balls off Avatar and stomps on them.

I might be the only person who thought The Terminator sucked shit! BIG f*ckin DEAL!

[Alex]

QUOTE (tick @ May 13 2010, 09:55 PM)

QUOTE (Alex @ May 13 2010, 10:52 PM) The arguement that Avatar is unrealistic is also very stupid. Like others said, its sci-fi get over it. That being said, AVATAR is overrated, but good. The effects were nice and all but it was essentially Pocahontas in space except modernized to make us feel bad about the human race in a political way. I love how people defend Avatar with "Well its just sciecne fiction." Ok great. That doesn't make it good. GOOD Cameron Sci-Fi is Terminator. That thing rips the balls off Avatar and stomps on them. I might be the only person who thought The Terminator sucked shit! BIG f*ckin DEAL!   I can't even respond when tick contradicts me :pepsi:(

Edited May 14, 2010 by Alex

[Tick]

QUOTE (Alex @ May 13 2010, 10:56 PM)

QUOTE (tick @ May 13 2010, 09:55 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 13 2010, 10:52 PM) The arguement that Avatar is unrealistic is also very stupid. Like others said, its sci-fi get over it. That being said, AVATAR is overrated, but good. The effects were nice and all but it was essentially Pocahontas in space except modernized to make us feel bad about the human race in a political way. I love how people defend Avatar with "Well its just sciecne fiction." Ok great. That doesn't make it good. GOOD Cameron Sci-Fi is Terminator. That thing rips the balls off Avatar and stomps on them. I might be the only person who thought The Terminator sucked shit! BIG f*ckin DEAL!   I can't even respond when tick contradicts me :pepsi:( http://i548.photobucket.com/albums/ii324/jawkjaw/classic-pepsi-branding1-1.jpg

[Alex]

QUOTE (tick @ May 13 2010, 10:05 PM)

QUOTE (Alex @ May 13 2010, 10:56 PM) QUOTE (tick @ May 13 2010, 09:55 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 13 2010, 10:52 PM) The arguement that Avatar is unrealistic is also very stupid. Like others said, its sci-fi get over it. That being said, AVATAR is overrated, but good. The effects were nice and all but it was essentially Pocahontas in space except modernized to make us feel bad about the human race in a political way. I love how people defend Avatar with "Well its just sciecne fiction." Ok great. That doesn't make it good. GOOD Cameron Sci-Fi is Terminator. That thing rips the balls off Avatar and stomps on them. I might be the only person who thought The Terminator sucked shit! BIG f*ckin DEAL!   I can't even respond when tick contradicts me :pepsi:( http://i548.photobucket.com/albums/ii324/jawkjaw/classic-pepsi-branding1-1.jpg   You're really enjoying your picture editing abilities aren't you?

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

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.

[rushgoober]

 

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?

[softfilter]

Liked it, I'm so ashamed...

Yeah, I can see the rehash of Pocahontas tale, but also elements of Tecumseh the great Ohio Shawnee Indian leader who's attempt to unite all Indian tribes and factions West of the Appalachian mountains and push white settlers out of there lands came close to realization but fell apart. In Avatar near the end talked about gathering of the different tribes to do battle and defeat the Marine intrusion.

Edited May 14, 2010 by softfilter

[Mandalorian Hunter]

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.