Avatar Superthread

Anakin.S

drkpower wrote: »

Sci-fi movies are all intellectually weak. Precisley for that reason, I have never seen a single one.

how can you comment on something you have not seen?

jaykhunter

such a sweeping, obnoxious statement is obviously troll bait. just ignore him!

AckwelFoley

im nearly 4 years on boards and this is my first post in the arts>movies..

im generally not a fan of sci fi.. ala lord of the rings, star trek etc..


i did like transformers..

Avatar .. i only went because i heard it was great but also because of james cameron..

i wouldnt watch 3D, my last expierence was Nightmare on elm streed 3D back in the early 90's

So i went in bought the ticket and i nearly refused the glasses...

I missed the first 10mins of the movie

I was a huge fan of movies, used to go nearly 3 times a week + videos but the last couple years have become tired of the same ol same ol..

This movie from the first min i watched blew me away, it was AWESOME and for me has brought back the magic of Cinema.. absolute magic

Take kudos from snyper James Cameron

Beruthiel

If you missed the first 10 mins then you have to go back and see it again snyper.

It won't win an oscar for dialogue. But the visual was a feast for the eyes and the planet a wonder to behold.
Loved it!

AckwelFoley

Beruthiel wrote: »

If you missed the first 10 mins then you have to go back and see it again snyper.

It won't win an oscar for dialogue. But the visual was a feast for the eyes and the planet a wonder to behold.
Loved it!

Apparently im going again tonight, this time with herself.

TheIrishGrover

cnn.com did a "25 movies to watch in 2010" and said avatar 2 for 2010...... Think they're a liiiiiiiiitle bit optimistic.

seanbmc

Saw it twice...simply amazing

drkpower

Anakin.S wrote: »

how can you comment on something you have not seen?

jaykhunter wrote: »

such a sweeping, obnoxious statement is obviously troll bait. just ignore him!

Settle, boys.

I was satirising FuelInjections point; scroll back a bit rather than knee-jerk reacting....:)

Coriolanus

irish_bob wrote: »

most successfull movie of all time based on tickets sold is gone with the wind , when inflation is taken into account , rhett and scarlet took 1.4 billion dollars in the usa alone , almost three times what titanic grossed :eek:

the sound of music comes in a distant second followed by snow white and the seven dwarfs ( 1937) , star wars is in the top 5 titanic is number 6 or something

Good info! I'm surprised that films that old are in the top 5. I mean, I didn't think cinema going was that big a deal, or if it was, that it just wasn't an affordable big deal.

hick

Nevore wrote: »

Good info! I'm surprised that films that old are in the top 5. I mean, I didn't think cinema going was that big a deal, or if it was, that it just wasn't an affordable big deal.

Seriously? outside radio it was the only option, that's where a lot of folk even used to get the news! Cinema was the major past time.

Coriolanus

hick wrote: »

Seriously? outside radio it was the only option, that's where a lot of folk even used to get the news! Cinema was the major past time.

Shows what I know! :pac:

jaykhunter

drkpower wrote: »

Settle, boys.

I was satirising FuelInjections point; scroll back a bit rather than knee-jerk reacting....:)

I'm glad!! It's hard to gauge context without smilies! The whole fiasco could've been averted with an emoticon :pac:

AckwelFoley

hick wrote: »

Seriously? outside radio it was the only option, that's where a lot of folk even used to get the news! Cinema was the major past time.

Exactly the point i was going to make. While we cant underestamte how popular that ****e was (gone with the wind) back in those days cinema was a much bigger deal as downloading and hoarding vast quantities or pr0n wasnt an option.

Sneakee

Have to say, first 3D movie I have seen was mightly impressed, I think the planet Pandora was the real star of the film. It was stunning especially with the 3D effects thrown in however I can't but feel somehow let down by the super weak clinche'd story. So many comparisons with the world today, it's been discussed at ends in this and other threads and won't bother going over it.
I was left wondering if they watered it down too much for the kids to get the crowds in, it was a major niggle for me but overall the experience was very positive though.
Would I go back for a second time, no, was it worth going the first time...Yes. A strong 3.75/5 for me.

irish_bob

snyper wrote: »

Exactly the point i was going to make. While we cant underestamte how popular that ****e was (gone with the wind) back in those days cinema was a much bigger deal as downloading and hoarding vast quantities or pr0n wasnt an option.

gone with the wind was the biggest event movie of all time , that thier were less films released back then didnt hurt either in terms of gross

AckwelFoley

irish_bob wrote: »

that thier were less films released back then didnt hurt either in terms of gross

..a good point i overlooked

hick

there was 1,518 films released in 1939 with Gone with the wind
so it's not like there was no competition then either actually!

in 1997 when Titanic was released there were 3,438 flicks released, so in just shy of 60 years not much over double, and I guarantee that a lot more of those released in 1997 went straight to video where as in 1939 they obviously didn't have the luxuary of doing that and producing as much...well, crap
so you can't say there's that much difference in competition really after all!

TheDoc

Big meh from me.

The whole 3D thing was decent in parts, hardly made it the best thing I've ever seen.

I've spent two weeks wondering do I or do I not like this film, and I've come to say I don't like it. I didn't like the way it was essentially a modern take on the "native american troubles" etc.

It gave me a big meh experience, went in expecting my face to melt with aww, I'm a big James Cameron fan, and there was so much hype.

Me and the misses left with a very underwhelming feeling.

Wont be rushing anytime soon to see this again. It was worth a watch once, but I dont feel the need to watch it again ever : / which is a pity.

Draupnir

TheDoc wrote: »

I didn't like the way it was essentially a modern take on the "native american troubles" etc.

Why? Because if Earth did discover a planet of technologically inferior alien inhabitants that had a desirable resource(s) we wouldn't take it by whatever means and probably wipe out the natives?

Eh, yeah, ok!

daithijjj

opinion guy

One thing I couldn't figure. Who does the Navi's teeth for them? Not a chipped tooth in site !

Coriolanus

Interesting article on io9.com here.
Basically they released the full script and the article goes through all the deleted one picking out tidbits.
Interesting enough, especially some of the stuff that would have dealt with Earth as it was at the time of the movie.

MooseJam

Just back from watching this enjoyed it a lot, it's a great spectacle, the story was ok nothing new.

Haven't read this thread but the ending was aliens turned around - human fights alien in suit only this time human baddy alien goodie.

I thought the bit where the baddie in the suit pulled a knife was hilarious
Using native americans to voice the aliens was a bit naff

opinion guy

Fir crying out loud Moosejam learn to use the spoiler tags. Mods could ye edit that last post please ?

Spiritoftheseventies

opinion guy wrote: »

Fir crying out loud Moosejam learn to use the spoiler tags. Mods could ye edit that last post please ?

why did he not format it right. Seems okay to me now.

Otacon

MooseJam wrote: »

Using native americans to voice the aliens was a bit naff

I think only one or two were Native Americans. Zoe Saldana certainly isn't.

Sleazus

Otacon wrote: »

I think only one or two were Native Americans. Zoe Saldana certainly isn't.

Nor was CCH Pounder.

johnnyboy4711

What is with the 3D headache after it?
I got a hewer behind the eyes!
slan
j

Spiritoftheseventies

johnnyboy4711 wrote: »

What is with the 3D headache after it?
I got a hewer behind the eyes!
slan
j

Did anyone else think that the plot was a bit poor. Along very predictable lines. Is it best oscar material?

speedboatchase

hick wrote: »

there was 1,518 films released in 1939 with Gone with the wind
so it's not like there was no competition then either actually!

in 1997 when Titanic was released there were 3,438 flicks released, so in just shy of 60 years not much over double, and I guarantee that a lot more of those released in 1997 went straight to video where as in 1939 they obviously didn't have the luxuary of doing that and producing as much...well, crap
so you can't say there's that much difference in competition really after all!

Gone with the Wind was on limited release for two years before it's general release and re-released in 1947, 1954, 1961, 1967, 1971, 1989 and 1998 - all of these re-releases are added into its box office figure In its original release there was no such thing as movie home entertainment - DVD, video, streaming videos or movie piracy of any kind obv. Also it didn't need to worry about the same competitiveness for theatre screens that we see today, where movies could stay in theatres for years because there was nowhere for them to go afterwards aside from re-release. It is still a incredible box office performance and you can never take that away from it, but there is zero comparison to any box office runs of the modern age, there is much of a difference in consumer habits and infrastructure of the entire business. Avatar is doing an incredible job and will take down the Titanic in 6 weeks I reckon - and yet it was still the fastest pirated movie of all time (980,000 in its first week)