Overwritten.net
Community => Entertainment => Topic started by: ScaryTooth on Wednesday, August 19, 2009, 06:18:32 PM
-
Who is excited about the Avatar trailer coming out tomorrow?
I have to say I'm pretty interested in checking it out.
-
James Cameron's Avatar or Shyamalan's The Last Airbender (based on the Avatar animated series)?
Either way I'm looking forward to both.
-
Cameron's Avatar
-
In that case.. Six minutes to go.
-
Visually, it's quite impressive.
But beyond that, since very little is actually revealed about the plot except for war, it doesn't seem like anything special.
-
God damned furries.
That aside... yeah, it's all big and epic looking but it's sort of sad that being like that isn't enough anymore. Simply making bigger and crazier battles only adds more noise to the background now. It's all about context now. We'll see if they can pull that off.
It's interesting just how much things have been able to be kept under wraps. It looks like a big huge expensive movie and we know it's been in the works for years, but up until now there was little clue as to what it would be like at all. Now it's set to come out in just a couple months and seems to be pretty much done. That in of itself is a pretty impressive feat these days.
-
The fact that there was only one piece of spoken dialog in that trailer shows that for now, the focus was wowing us with the visuals, rather than establishing a storyline.
Anyway it looks pretty incredible. Let's just hope it has a story to match. Been a while since someone spun a good yarn in a film with a budget as HUGE as this. Like the video game industry, most of the big bucks seem to be set aside for sequels and stuff based on established intellectual properties. That's why it is nice to see this from Cameron.
It's interesting just how much things have been able to be kept under wraps. It looks like a big huge expensive movie and we know it's been in the works for years, but up until now there was little clue as to what it would be like at all. Now it's set to come out in just a couple months and seems to be pretty much done. That in of itself is a pretty impressive feat these days.
Yea, good point.
-
Awesome visuals.
So....ummm...what the hell is this film all about, anyways? :o
-
http://www.overwritten.net/forum/index.php?topic=5514.0
-
The actual trailer is out now and it reveals a lot more plot. While the storyline appears to be nothing new, it still looks like a fairly interesting movie.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/avatar/
-
Meh.
-
Yea the movie is starting to look very stupid to me. That storyline is so underwhelming and cliched.
-
Meh.
-
I hadn't even heard about this movie until watching that trailer. I'm so going to see that....probably because my expectations up to this point just didn't exist.
-
:(
-
Dunno what I meant by that...deleted.
-
hahaha
-
Wow so this could actually be good?
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/avatar/
-
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091211/REVIEWS/912119998
Watching "Avatar," I felt sort of the same as when I saw "Star Wars" in 1977. That was another movie I walked into with uncertain expectations. James Cameron's film has been the subject of relentlessly dubious advance buzz, just as his "Titanic" was. Once again, he has silenced the doubters by simply delivering an extraordinary film. There is still at least one man in Hollywood who knows how to spend $250 million, or was it $300 million, wisely.
-
I don't buy it. Everything about the movie looks fucking terrible. If it's actually good, I would truly be shocked, and I probably still wouldn't see it just because of how terrible it looks.
-
Yea, there was another review I read which also had positive buzz, but it felt like it was written by somebody who just watched an impressive fireworks show when they were 6 years old. I don't know, there's been so much hype for it, I guess film critics have nothing better to do than crap their pants when they hear the word Avatar.
Moral of the story: Hyping a CG movie when Micheal Bay is still making movies is a bad idea.
-
While I do agree that the whole prerelease hype felt quite underwhelming, I'd give film critics more credit than that. It has a 91% rating on rotten tomatoes, which is quite quite good from a survey of 35 critics.
If you are saying that the critics couldn't see through the hype, then I can give you a dozen examples of overly hyped titles that were panned. If you are saying that the critics were charmed by the mere knowledge that it came from a highly acclaimed director, then I can give you another dozen examples of movies that were poorly reviewed despite coming from directors of awe inspiring track records.
I am not defending Avatar here -- as you can see from reply#11 that I was disappointed as well. The first trailer was quite anticlimactic, and the second I found to be even worse. But if the movie has a 91% approval rating, then I am going to see it and reach judgment on the final product myself.
I don't always like movies with high approval scores on Rotten Tomatoes, but I find them at least interesting to watch.
Had this been a game on the other hand, I would have been in total agreement. Video game press scores mean almost nothing to me now.
edit:
One of the more negative reviews. You guys will probably find this an interesting take:
http://www.joblo.com/2nd-review-avatar
edit 2:
In general, while the movie does have a 91% rating, it seems most of the reviewers have given the movie a 3/4 rating rather than anything close to perfect. It seems the general consensus is that it is worth a watch, but no one is denying the story telling is full of cliches.
-
And they have BluePeople™ that look like they were designed by an eight year old. All the designs for practically everything look stupid. I don't know who was in charge of the art, but he shouldn't get work anymore.
-
Speaking of Rotten Tomatoes, Terminator: Salvation has a 32% while Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines has a 70%. I thought the last one was far better, with T3 being utter crap from beginning to end. Christian Bale kinda sucked in T4, but the rest of the movie was solid.
-
I have to say. I'm getting slightly excited about this. I've been hearing lots of good things about it. At the very least, there will be some spectacular eye candy in it.
-
On my flight out to Boston, I picked up a Wired. It had this huge article about Avatar. I'm pretty excited about it now, honestly. This is basically James Cameron's Star Wars. He invented the universe, had a linguist create a real language, created taxomony of plants and animals. The world has like a 300-page encyclopedia. He also had to improve on a lot of movie-making technology to make it happen. It's going to be this big 3D blockbuster. He talked about how other movies try to preserve the plane of the screen where it's still relatively flat but this will be 3D unlike any that's ever been seen before supposedly. We'll see, but I think I'm sold.
-
You people make me sad. Enjoy your generic blue people.
(it should be noted that I really don't care one way or the other, I just like giving you guys shit... though I do still think it looks incredibly stupid)
-
Did anyone actually see this on opening night? (a couple hours ago, depending on where you live) I have the chance to go with a couple people to see it tomorrow for a matinee showing, and we're wondering if it's worth paying $9.50 instead of $6.50 to see it in 3D.
-
I hear the 3D is amazing.
-
Did anyone actually see this on opening night? (a couple hours ago, depending on where you live) I have the chance to go with a couple people to see it tomorrow for a matinee showing, and we're wondering if it's worth paying $9.50 instead of $6.50 to see it in 3D.
I'd say go for the extra $3 and get the full experience. Even if it isn't worth it, at least you won't regret not having tried it. Plus if it is actually good, you will regret not getting your first Avatar viewing in 3D.
-
I've decided I want to see it in 3D just to know how the technology preforms. I want to know if it's the same shit we had before, moderately better, or something I'd like to see more of. All sorts of TVs are starting to support different forms of 3D and most of the time I've heard it being pitched it's talking about games. So is the tech worth it or is it a lame gimmick? Avatar is my chance to get a taste without buying an expensive television or something.
-
The tech is very simple, really, and has been around in more primitive mechanical form for, oh, a century at least. Each eye sees its own perspective into the world, and the parallax difference is integrated by the brain to give us a 3D view, or stereoscopic vision. All that needs to be done is have 2 images captured from the appropriate perspectives, and supply each eye with the corresponding image exclusively.
There are different methods for achieving this with film, with the most recent one I know of being 2 overlapping projections with the light somehow polarized differently. Eyeglasses filter out the opposite polarity and you get a mostly exclusive view of the correct perspective in each eye.
For TV, the old red/blue method I think sucks. But what they're pushing now is a refresh rate that is double the frame rate, then having LCD glasses that ping-pong shutters so that each eye only sees the appropriate perspective. (In practice, the frame rate would be 120 Hz, where each consecutive pair of images is 2 perspectives into the same scene and moment, and each of the images is fed only to the correct eye, giving you stereoscopic vision at 60 Hz.) I have yet to experience this for myself, but I see no reason why it shouldn't work properly. My only question is how bulky (and dorky) is the eyewear to make this possible?
-
It's $12.50 here...
But a guy I work with went and saw it last night. This guy is the biggest movie snob I know, and he hated on Avatar before it was released. But apparently he really really like Avatar.
-
I want to see it in 3D, that'd be the whole point of the movie. It's not just about how it's presented in 3D, but how it was also filmed originally by Cameron. I really hope the movie banks so we can see the camera technology in future projects (an early version of the tech was supposedly used in Spy Kids 3D) and I have a lot of respect for Cameron.
-
The tech is very simple, really, and has been around in more primitive mechanical form for, oh, a century at least. Each eye sees its own perspective into the world, and the parallax difference is integrated by the brain to give us a 3D view, or stereoscopic vision. All that needs to be done is have 2 images captured from the appropriate perspectives, and supply each eye with the corresponding image exclusively.
There are different methods for achieving this with film, with the most recent one I know of being 2 overlapping projections with the light somehow polarized differently. Eyeglasses filter out the opposite polarity and you get a mostly exclusive view of the correct perspective in each eye.
For TV, the old red/blue method I think sucks. But what they're pushing now is a refresh rate that is double the frame rate, then having LCD glasses that ping-pong shutters so that each eye only sees the appropriate perspective. (In practice, the frame rate would be 120 Hz, where each consecutive pair of images is 2 perspectives into the same scene and moment, and each of the images is fed only to the correct eye, giving you stereoscopic vision at 60 Hz.) I have yet to experience this for myself, but I see no reason why it shouldn't work properly. My only question is how bulky (and dorky) is the eyewear to make this possible?
I wonder about durability. Obviously the shuttering technique would be mechanical... though I suppose if they can achieve 240 Hz on an LCD, that the shutter itself could be LCD. So maybe it's possible that it wouldn't be mechanical. But the nVidia solution definitely sounded mechanical from the description.
You guys should really read the Wired article if you get the chance. It's really cool, at least technologically.
-
I saw it earlier today in 3D. Overall it wasn't really amazing, but it was pretty good. The story is sort of a been there done that scenario, though still done alright. There were a few surprises that I saw coming from a mile away, though they were still fun to see happen. The big blue people became much more tolerable than I expected, as they turned me off from the first time I saw them in trailers. Also, call me a pervert but that chick had a nice blue ass. Though her nipples were pretty much always hidden by a leaf or shadow that just happened to be at the right spot. The couple times when I thought it should definitely be visible, I couldn't tell if it was hidden by shadow or just not present.
At first the 3D was a bit weird. The first thing I noticed was the framerate, but that's probably just because it's been so long since I've seen a movie in the theaters that the 24 fps on the big screen sort of stood out to me. Also it just seemed weird that there was foreground and background stuff out of focus. In real life you can focus on what you want, and the rest becomes out of focus. In this I could focus on a background object, but it would still be blurry. I understand the live action stuff was probably filmed with 2 cameras and thus the focus is going to be fixed on one point on the Z plane, but it just seemed odd to me. Also lens flares looking closer to me than the rest of the image was weird.
I guess the big difference here when compared to previous 3D stuff is that it's not 1 or 2 objects lying on a separate plane than the rest. There's a couple super close-up shots of the main guy's face and you can tell different parts are closer and further away. Once I got used to some of the weirdness and oddities, I think it really started sucking me in and made a lot of the stuff seem more real, even in obviously not-CG areas. I'd love to see something done like this but with more camera work and less CG
The glasses I got are just a simple pair of glasses, like if you bought some cheap shades at a dollar store and put untinted lenses in them. If you looked at the screen without them, you could see the image was separated a bit horizontally.
-
The glasses I got are just a simple pair of glasses, like if you bought some cheap shades at a dollar store and put untinted lenses in them. If you looked at the screen without them, you could see the image was separated a bit horizontally.
Still doing the polarized thing then. It does work well.
-
At first the 3D was a bit weird. The first thing I noticed was the framerate, but that's probably just because it's been so long since I've seen a movie in the theaters that the 24 fps on the big screen sort of stood out to me. Also it just seemed weird that there was foreground and background stuff out of focus. In real life you can focus on what you want, and the rest becomes out of focus. In this I could focus on a background object, but it would still be blurry. I understand the live action stuff was probably filmed with 2 cameras and thus the focus is going to be fixed on one point on the Z plane, but it just seemed odd to me. Also lens flares looking closer to me than the rest of the image was weird.
That's an interesting note about the blurriness. My brother mentioned it as well. With regular human stereoscopic vision, things in your periphery or things you aren't focusing on aren't always blurry, they are less sharp. And in this 3D movie, they are basically trying to simulate 3D focus, but it falls flat in the sense that if you want to focus on a different object than what James Cameron did, you just can't and it comes off as strange like you said. I haven't seen it, but that's sort of the gist I've been getting.
-
Lens flare? A movie trying to replicate 3D vision and they still have lens flares? Protip: your eyes dont produce those.
-
Lens flare? A movie trying to replicate 3D vision and they still have lens flares? Protip: your eyes dont produce those.
Yea it was really weird. The one that really caught my eyes was two smallish circles floating across the screen and they were closer than anything else on screen, so they really stuck out.
And yea, the 3D is basically what we've seen before. But there's enough levels to it that it doesn't look like a bunch of 2D cutouts in 3D space, which is what all previous stuff like this has looked like to me. Once the movie got going I found myself almost swatting at flies that were in the foreground, thinking for a split second that something was really buzzing in my face. Though it's still odd to see someone in the foreground cut off at the bottom of the screen like some floating bust.
-
Went and saw it today. Loved it. The story is a tad cliche, and slightly predictable, but it's so well done. I was entertained the entire way through. And I love the world of, Pandora. All the inhabitants, and flora. Most of the movie is CGI, and it is freaking amazing. The only time I thought of it as CGI was when I was thinking. "damn, I can't believe that's CGI." It's pretty incredible. I really enjoyed the story, even though it was a little bit cliche.
Go see it. It's awesome. I want to live on Pandora...
-
Basically everything you just said is why I will never watch this movie.
-
You won't see it because it's awesome?
-
Because it's cliche and entirely CG.
-
Went and saw it today. Loved it. The story is a tad cliche, and slightly predictable, but it's so well done. I was entertained the entire way through. And I love the world of, Pandora. All the inhabitants, and flora. Most of the movie is CGI, and it is freaking amazing. The only time I thought of it as CGI was when I was thinking. "damn, I can't believe that's CGI." It's pretty incredible. I really enjoyed the story, even though it was a little bit cliche.
Go see it. It's awesome. I want to live on Pandora...
Did you see it in a 3D theater?
-
It's not that cliche, it's a good story. There are some twist and turns. And the art work, and eye candy are absolutely beautiful.
Yeah, I went and saw it in 3D. It was a treat to the eyes. There are these little spores here and there in the forest, and they kind of float right out in front of you. There is some depth to the movie too. As they walk through the forest, and they movie limbs of trees and plants, they swing back almost like they are going to hit you in the face. It's sweet!
-
Yeah, see... I don't prefer CG (generally speaking) and I think the whole 3D movie thing is unbelievably stupid.
-
Yeah, see... I don't prefer CG (generally speaking) and I think the whole 3D movie thing is unbelievably stupid.
This is actually sort of why I DID go to see it. I thought the 3D was gonna be lame, and I wanted to see for myself. Every 3D movie I've seen before looks like it has paper cutouts on different points in the Z plane, and it's usually one object flying at the camera. This looked way better than that, to the point that now I'm excited about the idea of this stuff taking off.
I actually came home and started searching around to see if there was a way to use the same glasses with any of my games. I thought I remembered messing with WoW settings that partially split the image and had some different options, but can't find them now. If all these new TVs and monitors that support 3D without glasses work as well as this movie did, I would love for it to catch on.
-
Just got back from seeing it in 3D. It was completely awesome and I was blown away. There is nothing else I have to add that others haven't said.
And Que, what's up with you man? Are you just anti-establishment or what? It's as if there is anything big and popular, you automatically hate it. I bet if something like the original Doom came out today and had an impact on gaming like that game did, you would hate that too.
-
God damn it, I'm so tired of that comment. No, that's fucking false. I like plenty of things that everyone else likes. How many ultra-mega-popular games do I have in my house right now? How many popular movies do I own? How many popular TV shows have I enjoyed? Just because I generally happen to like things that are off the beaten path doesn't mean I hate everything that's popular. It's entirely on a case by case basis. Yeah, a lot of popular shit is utter drivel that tries to reach a wide audience and thereby fails to make any considerable impact one way or the other, but not all of it.
I'll reserve the rest of my comments.
Anyway... with games, I can *sort of* see the 3D thing, in very limited circumstances... if it's done well enough to provide some sort of tangible value (though this is in serious question for me). For movies, I just really have no desire to see anything in 3D, no matter how good. You're watching through a window, through a very limited field, and the illusion of greater depth is simply at odds with the entire medium as a whole at the most basic level as far as I'm concerned. I think it's stupid, regardless of how well the effect is carried out. It's goofy and hamfisted and does nothing to increase my enjoyment of a film.
-
God damn it, I'm so tired of that comment. No, that's fucking false. I like plenty of things that everyone else likes. How many ultra-mega-popular games do I have in my house right now? How many popular movies do I own? How many popular TV shows have I enjoyed? Just because I generally happen to like things that are off the beaten path doesn't mean I hate everything that's popular. It's entirely on a case by case basis. Yeah, a lot of popular shit is utter drivel that tries to reach a wide audience and thereby fails to make any considerable impact one way or the other, but not all of it.
Hey man, it was just an observation. And it's not an observation of you liking more niche or lesser-known things. It's me seeing you hating popular things, constantly. Hey I agree with you that there is a lot of mainstream crap and just because a lot of people like something doesn't mean it actually any good or gets a pass from me. That said, I feel like I give a lot of things a fair shake. It's just that you seem pretty dismissive in a lot of cases. Maybe you have good reason to and I just see the final opinion that is the result of a lot of research and inner dialog.
Honestly, it's nothing personal and I'm not trying to be judgmental. I just think you would be better served sometimes by being more open to some things, even if they are mega-popular or have a ton of hype behind them. I don't know you aside from the few minutes a day I spend on here so if your musings on here are just the output of a lot of previous processing, I apologize. Again, it's just an observation.
Anyway... with games, I can *sort of* see the 3D thing, in very limited circumstances... if it's done well enough to provide some sort of tangible value (though this is in serious question for me). For movies, I just really have no desire to see anything in 3D, no matter how good. You're watching through a window, through a very limited field, and the illusion of greater depth is simply at odds with the entire medium as a whole at the most basic level as far as I'm concerned. I think it's stupid, regardless of how well the effect is carried out. It's goofy and hamfisted and does nothing to increase my enjoyment of a film.
See, this is what I mean: "I think it's stupid, regardless of how well the effect is carried out." You're being dismissive.
That said, I do see what you are saying in this paragraph. I saw the movie tonight and my post earlier in this thread prior to seeing the movie about its 3D and how you are forced to focus on what James Cameron wants to focus on is pretty true. The movie doesn't allow our eyes and brains to always truly focus on the object we want to look at. This is a current limitation of the technology that I'm sure they'll figure out someday. Probably not soon though.
However, despite this limitation, Avatar is easily the best 3D movie to date and nothing else comes even remotely close. And honestly, the focus issue is really only noticeable in scenes with a huge amount of depth to them and there are less of those than you would think.
And while the 3D is pretty awe-inspiring sometimes in this movie, the movie would stand tall even in 2D form. It really is very good.
-
Well, how would I say it in a way that doesn't sound dismissive? I mean... I think it's stupid. I don't like the effect, it doesn't do anything for me. I don't like the trend of seeing movies do this all the time. I don't think there's really a good way to say you think something is dumb, most of the time. What can I say... it just isn't for me.
I can see applications for it in the future, if other technology comes to bear on the formula, but just taking a flat movie and trying to add depth? Doesn't work for me. I can't take these films seriously.
And I don't know if the movie is good or bad because I haven't seen it... all I can say is that the advertising has pretty much made me want to make sure that I never, ever spend any money on it, because it looks absolutely fucking terrible. Maybe the movie's great, sure... Dragon Age had the worst advertising ever and turned out to be a pretty okay game. But still... why would I go out of my way to take the risk?
-
I don't know... maybe because a shit ton of people really liked it? I mean look at this thread alone. The people here aren't all the "sheep" you talk about sometimes, are they? You know them.
I thought the advertising sucked as well. I was not interested in seeing the movie at all until I read that Wired article. After reading it, I was really excited to see it and you know what? It was better than I thought it would be. It exceeded my expectations.
If you don't want to see the movie that's fine. It's not like it negatively affects me or anyone else in any way. No one is going to be personally offended or anything like that. I just think it seems pretty typical coming from you. Here comes something with a lot of hype behind it. You automatically hate it. You automatically think it sucks. Maybe those words are a bit to strong. You're... "not interested".
-
Well, no offense to you guys, but you, W7, and scary aren't exactly on the same page with me when it comes to a lot of this stuff. You guys routinely like things that I think suck (and vice versa). Not all the time, sure, but on a semi-regular basis. If it were someone whose opinions were generally more on par with my own, I'd be more apt to reconsider. But I hardly ever get out to the theater these days anyway. I barely even watch TV. It just isn't something I like to waste my time on, so something has to be pretty special for me to care. Even if the movie were obviously pretty cool instead of really shitty looking on top with cool underneath, chances would be high that I wouldn't go see it. This one just happens to hit pet peeves of mine and comes from a director I don't like.
Anyway, I remember having a couple of exchanges with you about stuff where everyone told you it wasn't the way you thought it was, and you said, "Meh... it doesn't matter, I just don't care," and admitted outright that you're very closed-minded about a lot of stuff, so this seems a little funny coming from you. Some movie thing (ironically) and something about food. I don't remember exactly. But no, I don't automatically think anything sucks. I think stuff sucks when it gives me a reason to think it. Cliched sci-fi action movie in 3D with lots of CG directed by James Cameron... that's pretty much the perfect recipe for making me think something is going to suck.
-
It is a pity there are no 3D capable theaters here. I might have to take that trip to Dubai to watch it.
-
I don't think you can compare the 3D gimmick in other movies to the 3D in this movie. The effect is similar, but looks way better. Like I said already, that's partly why I wanted to see this movie in 3D: to see if it was the same old shit, or actually good. And it WAS actually good.
BTW with the technological limitation of that results in some parts being out of focus, I don't think this would apply to video games, since they render everything instead of capturing it on film. I assume the filming method is to use 2 cameras side by side. For a game, I assume it would just split the display of objects based on location, and nothing would be blurry.
-
3D movies have a ways to go. I'm sure theres a movie just waiting to be made that justifies it, a movie that would lose a lot by not being in 3D. It just feels gimmicky now, especially when theres all those zoom around/flyby shots that are basically there to show off how 3D everything is. And thats just the impression I get from pretty much every 3D movie. "This shot was made exclusively for those glasses you are wearing."
Avatar looks like something I'd rent just to see what the hype was about. Though to be fair I haven't been to a theater in forever so its not like I'm picking on this one specifically.
-
What are "all these 3D movies"? I thought the trend of making them went out in the early 90s and was being brought back by Avatar. If there's other 3D movies out there that look this good, I want to know about them. Seriously the only ones I can name are Jaws 3D, Friday the 13th 3D, and Evil Dead 2. So when I hear "all these 3D movies" that's what I think of, and I wouldn't compare Avatar to those AT ALL.
-
There've been a ton of movies. I remember a few, but Wikipedia fills in the rest: Spy Kids, Ghosts of the Abyss, Polar Express, Open Season, The Ant Bully, Monster House, Journey to the Center of the Earth, Bolt, My Bloody Valentine, Coraline, Monsters vs. Aliens, Up, and The Final Destination. That's skipping a few of the more obscure ones or non-US releases.
I'm sure you'll mention that most of these are kiddie movies and that you think the quality of this 3D is so much better, but that's still not really my point, as my argument isn't about the quality of the 3D effect, it's that I think the concept is fundamentally stupid.
-
Whats wrong with CGI? It's good art. It has just as much artistry involved in it than any other form of art. Especially in Avatars instance. I mean, it's seriously a beautiful looking movie. I commend the people involved. I felt very immersed in a gorgeous alien world. It felt real, I got to escape reality for a bit and go to a really awesome place.
I mean, it's just another form. I like art in all of it's forms, and this is good. I don't see any reason to bash it. Did you hate Wall-E? or Toy Story? Incredibles? I mean, sometimes it's overused in shitty movies that try to cover up their shittyness with lame special effects. This is not like that though. It is a quality movie.
And yeah, there have been quite a few 3d movies as of late. I saw Up, Monsters vs Aliens, Coraline, and something else that I can't recall. Most of it decent, didn't enjoy "Up", or "MvA" as much as I thought I would, they were just okay.
But those movies didn't take it near to the level Avatar does.
-
I'm with Que on this, I think 3D is a lame gimmick that doesn't work well.
I like CGI, but I believe CGI should only be used in two ways:
1. If there is absolutely no other way to pull off the effect realistically ( i.e. the dragon in The Goblet of Fire).
2. When CGI is used, you should look at it and not think "Wow, thats CGI". I think it should blend seamlessly with the movie, and those fake cat people aren't doing it for me.
-
It is gimmicky. But I think the general consensus is that Avatar has done it the best so far. It doesn't seem gimmicky. It seems like more of a tool to immerse you in this cool ass world.
And the Na-Vi look real as shit in the movie. I didn't once think of them as CGI characters. Only to question weather or not I was looking at something real or artificial.
-
Up (Pixar) is also 3D. That movie doesn't push it, though. It's there just for added effect, but doesn't throw ping-pong balls at your face or anything like that.
Stereoscopy is simply a tool. How well it works depends on how the artist employs it. The tech itself is so simple that it has worked perfectly for a long time. There's no way to prevent the focus problem, other than have infinite depth-of-field focus (and even that would look unnatural, if less so, since we don't have that with our eyes). Only by having a real 3D projection (hologram?) could that be solved.
I am interested in the movie. I hope I get to see it in a 3D theater. The few times I go to movie theaters, it's usually with my brother Tony. Unfortunately, his vision in one eye is so bad that he gets nothing out of stereoscopy, so this time it wouldn't be with him.
-
Well, no offense to you guys, but you, W7, and scary aren't exactly on the same page with me when it comes to a lot of this stuff. You guys routinely like things that I think suck (and vice versa). Not all the time, sure, but on a semi-regular basis. If it were someone whose opinions were generally more on par with my own, I'd be more apt to reconsider. But I hardly ever get out to the theater these days anyway. I barely even watch TV. It just isn't something I like to waste my time on, so something has to be pretty special for me to care. Even if the movie were obviously pretty cool instead of really shitty looking on top with cool underneath, chances would be high that I wouldn't go see it. This one just happens to hit pet peeves of mine and comes from a director I don't like.
Anyway, I remember having a couple of exchanges with you about stuff where everyone told you it wasn't the way you thought it was, and you said, "Meh... it doesn't matter, I just don't care," and admitted outright that you're very closed-minded about a lot of stuff, so this seems a little funny coming from you. Some movie thing (ironically) and something about food. I don't remember exactly. But no, I don't automatically think anything sucks. I think stuff sucks when it gives me a reason to think it. Cliched sci-fi action movie in 3D with lots of CG directed by James Cameron... that's pretty much the perfect recipe for making me think something is going to suck.
Hey, again I wasn't trying to personally attack you. I will freely admit that I've unintentionally trolled some threads and that I'm not a perfect individual. There are some things I am definitely closed minded about. Usually it's stuff related to food, RPGs, or fantasty type stuff. History shows me that there are certain foods I don't or won't like, I only get into 5% of all RPGs I play, and I've liked few (any?) games, books, or movies that were in a fantasy setting.
So if your reason for being closed minded about Avatar is because of your last sentence, then hey there is nothing wrong with that. It's just that I've seen you hate on popular stuff time and time again and to me it seemed like just another example. It's just something I've noticed about how you represent yourself on these boards, that's all. In your mind you may think it's a false claim, but it's a pattern I hate to tell you.
Anyway, I went back and checked over some of this thread. I wish movies were $6.50 here like W7RE says. Movies here are $9.75 to see them in 2D/non-directors-hall/non-digital. That's the baseline price. Jennie and I paid $13.50/ea. to see this movie in 3D last night. $27.00. That's crazy. But I thought it was worth it.
-
What you do is go up to the ticket ATM thing, and get child tickets. The kid that takes the ticket doesn't give a shit. He's 16 and that's his first job...
Okay, I did that once. But yeah. Movie prices are kind of crazy. We got to see it for $10 each in 3D. That was the matinee. It's $12.50 otherwise. No one does student tickets anymore either. Which is crappy. I remember when I was a kid, movies were like $4 for a matinee, and $5 regularly. Totally worth my $20 though. Kind of want to go again. But I'm probably going to stay in tonight and watch some Inglorious Basterds.
-
When Jennie and I got to the theater they weren't seating the movie yet and there was this huge line of people lined up waiting for them to start seating in front of the ticket guy. The ticket guy lets us know this, doesn't tear our ticket, and directs us to the back of the line. Jennie asks the guy if we can go to the bathroom and he says ok. I stand inside the theater area right by the ticket guy and wait for her to come out. She's a girl, so she takes a long time. As a few minutes pass, I sort of scoot down the cordoned-off area, and put a guy between us and the ticket dude and lean against the wall. Jennie comes out and I tell her we should move over to this vending area they have set up that is recessed from the hallway. Clearly the ticket dude has forgotten about us at this point, but I feel like if he sees us hanging around he will remember and have us escorted out of the theater area. So we go over to the recessed area where he can't see us and just hang out until they start taking tickets for the movie. In the meantime, I have Jennie tear our tickets in case someone asks. Where we are standing is directly across from the theater. We get in first. Pretty sweet move. I love being with a sneaky Jersey girl. She knows all the tricks and has taught me well.
-
I think the tickets here are $8.50. Matinee is $6.50, and there was a $3 charge per ticket for 3D.
Also, I live in a small town in NC, and the movie theater is rarely packed. We saw Avatar at 12:45 pm opening day, and there were probably 6-7 groups (2-4 people each) in the theater. I guess it was probably more crowded later in the day, but still it was opening day. Not that I'm complaining, I like a less crowded theater. The chick in front of my leaned back into my knee during the pre-trailer commercials. It didn't hurt, but I wasn't gonna sit through a 3 hours movie like that. So I moved back a row. Can't do that in a crowded theater.
-
Hahaha. That's awesome.
I'm stuck with a nice girl who will do no wrong...
-
I think the tickets here are $8.50. Matinee is $6.50, and there was a $3 charge per ticket for 3D.
Also, I live in a small town in NC, and the movie theater is rarely packed. We saw Avatar at 12:45 pm opening day, and there were probably 6-7 groups (2-4 people each) in the theater. I guess it was probably more crowded later in the day, but still it was opening day. Not that I'm complaining, I like a less crowded theater. The chick in front of my leaned back into my knee during the pre-trailer commercials. It didn't hurt, but I wasn't gonna sit through a 3 hours movie like that. So I moved back a row. Can't do that in a crowded theater.
Wow, that's crazy. I think the entire theater was full except for a single seat each directly to the left and right of Jennie and I. Jennie kept thinking someone would ask us to move over a seat (thus freeing up two seats together) and vowed not to. I thought that was kind of mean since how bad would moving one seat over really hurt our view? We were in first and had the best seats in the house already. What would one seat over really hurt?
But then again, she's from NJ and I had just read a book called "Asshole-ology: The Science Behind Getting Your Way and Getting Away with it" (long story). So we just glowered at people that even bothered to glance near our direction. Not only did we have the best seats in the house, but we had a one-seat cushion each direction.
I'm stuck with a nice girl who will do no wrong...
Uh not true! What about the porn film next door and the whole masturbatory-join-in thing? Jennie is a true NJ bitch, but she is such a prude.
-
The last movie I snuck into was Saving Private Ryan...yes I'm that old. If you're going to sneak in don't do it on a Friday or Saturday night. They have a full staff, the check/tear tickets (even at the movie's entrance with an ID if it's rated R) and theres atleast a few cops there (not good for sneaking in beers).
I recommend going on Sunday night,there is usually just one person selling tickets, no one checking them and no cops.
-
We didn't really sneak in. We already bought tickets. We just went from like 100th in line to 1st.
We did used to sneak into movies though. We would catch one of those 10:00pm shows and then sneak into on of the 12:00pm or so ones after our movie ended. We did this with Million Dollar Baby and Batman Begins. But it doesn't seem like they show movies that late around here anymore.
-
Oh, that was the only time. And I think she felt obligated to as a friend or something. Don't think there was any joining in though.
I just mean, morally, she is goody-two-shoes. She is just to sweet to everyone. I don't trust people as much as she does. A bum will come up and aggressively try to get some change from us, and she has to stop, and be all polite and shit to them. I have to just grab her hand and pull her away...Shes not very confrontational with people. It's funny, but kind of annoying sometimes.
-
I just mean, morally, she is goody-two-shoes. She is just to sweet to everyone. I don't trust people as much as she does. A bum will come up and aggressively try to get some change from us, and she has to stop, and be all polite and shit to them. I have to just grab her hand and pull her away...Shes not very confrontational with people. It's funny, but kind of annoying sometimes.
It's funny you mention the situations with bums. I have a really hard time reading Jennie sometimes. She's Hispanic and by nature very family oriented and just a really giving person in general. But with bums it's weird. Sometimes she'll nudge me and say: "Give that guy some money!" Other times I'll give a guy some money and she'll say "Why in the hell did you just do that?!" I have never figured out here secret bum code that lets me know what situation is right to give a bum money and which is wrong.
Speaking of her giving nature, we almost had some loser chick with her three kids (her kids are actually all really great) living in our tiny house. Jennie said it would only be for a few weeks until she got on her feet after leaving her really loser husband, who has automatic weapons. I had to remind her over and over what a bad idea it would be. She ended up moving in with some other people. They were charging her a modest rent of about $700/mo. for the four of them. They ended up kicking her out after two months after she never paid them a dime or contributed in any way, told them she would not be paying them for several months due to her financial troubles, mooched endlessly, had the cops over several times due to confrontations with her loser husband, and complained mercilessly about their house rules. To put insult to injury, she also tried to get one of her former hosts fired from his job after he kicked her out.
Now keep that in mind. After this, she asked Jennie if she could borrow $5,000 and there were also indications she was hoping to move in with us. This is how giving and caring Jennie can be: I had to talk her out of both things!
-
The last movie I snuck into was Saving Private Ryan...yes I'm that old.
I saw the first Crocodile Dundee movie in a theater. Yes, when it was new.
-
Oh don't even start this. I'll raise your Crocodile Dundee (I saw it too) with this: I saw Empire Strikes Back when it was new at a drive-in (do any of you even know what those are?). I was barely two, so it was more like my parents couldn't find a babysitter than taking me to see a movie. Still, I was there! Hell, I saw Jabba the Hutt's desert skiff from Return of the Jedi under construction in Arizona.
I'm trying to think of the first movie I remember seeing in a theater or at a drive-in, and I just can't. Right now I'm leaning towards The Care Bears Movie.
-
What you do is go up to the ticket ATM thing, and get child tickets. The kid that takes the ticket doesn't give a shit. He's 16 and that's his first job...
Okay, I did that once. But yeah. Movie prices are kind of crazy. We got to see it for $10 each in 3D. That was the matinee. It's $12.50 otherwise. No one does student tickets anymore either. Which is crappy. I remember when I was a kid, movies were like $4 for a matinee, and $5 regularly. Totally worth my $20 though. Kind of want to go again. But I'm probably going to stay in tonight and watch some Inglorious Basterds.
What do you do if you get caught?
Oh I am sorry, I have progeria.
OK that's a horrible disease.
-
No one here can beat me at this game. I saw 2001: A Space Odyssey when it was new in theaters. It's a Mad[x4] World too. Blazing Saddles, Smokey and the Bandit, The Sting . . .
-
What do you do if you get caught?
Oh I am sorry, I have progeria.
OK that's a horrible disease.
I dunno. I doubt very much. Like I said, it's a bunch of kids who don't give a shit. Nor should they. Go back and buy a regular ticket? "Oh, sorry, I dunno how I got a kids ticket, must have pushed the wrong button. My bad.
-
"Oh, sorry, I dunno how I got a kids ticket, must have pushed the wrong button. My bad.
You know what's crazy? How in the heck are there any tellers any more? Jennie and I prefer the Rave in West Chester. It has some tellers, but it also has a bank of ticket machines right inside the entrance. There is always a line for the tellers but not for the machines. Why? I have no idea but it's awesome for us because it's so quick.
On the flip side, occasionally we'll go to Regal in Deerfield Towne Center. They have a whole one ticket machine and not once have we been able to buy tickets off of it. It's either broken or it's running some useless informational program all the time. No, instead we're always waiting in line there, even if it is fast.
There is no way a ticket machine doesn't pay for itself very, very quickly in comparison to paying for a teller.
As far as the original point about having the wrong ticket... I totally see what Scary is saying. There is no way the kids that work on movie theaters are actually going to challenge you about anything. They are too intimidated plus they just don't care.
-
I love the differences between movie theaters in different parts of the country. Ours are all so utterly crappy, and the people who work at them are often subhuman. A couple of them are pretty dangerous. I had "I hate you fuckin' white boy!" yelled at me once when I was coming out of a movie with my wife and a friend of ours, used to regularly hear gunshots at another one that's now closed, and other fun stories like that. I snuck in beer once, we used to regularly sneak in hamburgers and stuff, and once we even managed to get a freaking pizza in. I have no idea how we pulled that off.
Movies really are expensive these days, though... puts me off from going a lot of the time, especially if I'm not completely sure about the movie beforehand.
As for the now-old discussion... I get why people would sort of think I'm anti-popular-stuff, scott, just not so much the people here because I would figure they'd see that I like a lot of popular stuff too... but I guess not. I think it comes down to the fact that most people immediately forget when you like something popular because so does everyone else. But the minute you dislike something popular, that stands out, especially when you're sometimes vehement in your displeasure as I often am with something that I think is actively negative or bad. But it never has anything to do with popularity whatsoever. I do sometimes worry when things I like get popular after not being so, but that's because I worry that the popularity will change the thing, not just because "Oh damn, now I like something that's popular... I better start not liking it". You know?
But yeah, nick and I are on the same page as far as CG. I put up with it with certain things, and there are sometimes effects that can't really be achieved without it, but for the most part I prefer my movies to be a CG-free as possible. Sure it's another form of artistry, but it's one that's used at the expense of other methods of craftsmanship that I think achieve much better-feeling results.
-
I see what you're saying, Que.
As for CG, I am torn on it. I am often more impressed when I know a movie or a particular scene isn't using CG for some good special effects because CG is often the easy way out or even just really fake looking. But I don't really care if a movie is all CG. I really liked The Incredibles and the Toy Story movies and Wall-E. Stuff that is supposed to look a bit more real comes off looking strange on occasion. Like Final Fantasy: The Spirit Within had some really life-like images, but it just felt weird. I guess it was the kind of soulless look of the characters and their movements. And The Polar Express had some really off-looking facial animations.
Avatar is different in the sense that while you know everything is CG, it comes across as very lifelike. You'd be surprised how real it feels although I will admit that on occasion it has some cartoon-like qualities.
The only thing that really bugged me about the movie was the sound of the bumblebee helicopter things. They sounded just like regular helicopters except that their small, fast, quad-rotor setup would in reality sound nothing at all like a helicopter. Everytime they were flying, I struggled to suspend my disbelief.
-
CG can be okay when you're using it for what's essentially a cartoon, but I don't like when it replaces people or the art of good costume design. And I'm sorry, but those fucking blue people in this movie are just idiotic looking. I can't take that shit seriously even a little bit.
But yeah, I mostly hate when a movie uses CG to try and make something look real that they should have made look real by having it BE real. That frustrates me a lot, and I think technology is now often a cop-out for so many things. This is just another extension of it. It's like Japanese people not being able to write tons of kanji they should be able to write because they use computers so much to do it for them, or people not being able to spell anything because they're used to having a spell-check do everything for them, or people never proofreading anything because they're always so sure that spellcheck will catch everything (which is why you so frequently see there/their or you're/your or verses/versus and other such mistakes), or people not being able to read a clock because they always look at their digital watches and cell phones, or people not being able to do basic math because they always have access to a calculator on their phone. That sort of thing just bugs the shit out of me. I see CG in the same light. What happens when you don't have 80 bajillion dollars to spend on a gigantic team of 47 people to make your movie monster? You hire that one fucking super-talented guy that can still do it with rubber, plastic, and ketchup.
-
I don't care what anyone says - that 3D shit was fucking unreal.
-
Just got home after watching Avatar in 3D. Frickin' awesome movie. The 3D effects were amazing. Coupled with the incredible quality (story, plot, conflict, CGI, special effects, everything) of the movie it was a great experience. Loved every second of it.
-
I didn't think I'd go and see this. But my hubby got a gift for free passes. So we went and saw it in 3D. i wasn't really into seeing it.. But I'm glad I did. I've heard a lot of stuff about it lacking story etc.. But it's got more heart and truth in it than most movies out there. The whole thing about respecting other living creatures (plants, animals, etc) was refreshing!
-
You've obviously failed to see the 12,000 movies that already had the exact same plot.
-
the plot's old, but the little components that make up the story is what makes it different.
it's kind of funny how you bash something to death and hate on it without giving it a chance. if that carries over to other things in life--you'll probably miss a lot.
-
That's a rather extreme judgment considering this is a conversation about a meaningless action movie. You going to tell me I have a narrow view on life for judging Transformers without seeing it?
-
Yeah. I'm going to go see it again this weekend. It's just cool. I'm really curious to see what he's going to do with this universe that he's created. I want to know more about the planet, the plant life, and the animals. And I want to know more about the Na'vi, and the different tribes.
It's James Cameron, he isn't known for making super original movies. He's known for making good ones, except maybe his first two or so. Although I disliked Titanic. Just wasn't feeling the love story. Not to say that the movie was bad. It was actually very good. I just got bored with the love story.
-
Actually, I thought Titanic was kind of terrible. It had its moments, but there were a ton of inconsistencies with the script, some very bad acting (the lead gal was good, but a lot of the others were awful), and what I thought were some questionable cinematographic choices made. I was never a huge fan of Cameron, but I think Titanic was about when I decided he should go find another job.
-
Nobody ever mentions The Abyss, which was fucking amazing, probably the best emotional driven movie he's ever done.
-
I'm pretty sure we can all agree with that one. That was a good flick. That was back when he was less of a colossal douchebag and still cared about making movies rather than wanking around with technology and his own personal beliefs.
-
Aliens anyone? One of the best action or sci-fi movies ever?
-
Aliens, T1, T2... some of the best movies ever made. I really don't get the hatred... I really truly don't get it. I mean there are easily bigger jackass directors... like Brett Rattner for example.
-
I'm taken aback too. There are things I feel this strongly about, but they all involve human death and despair, not silver-screen entertainment.
-
I think hatred is too harsh of a word. A lot of this mostly has to do with the movie's hype which I do find a little annoying. Why so much excitement over some nice CG? We all know that CG alone doesn't make something worth watching. So yea, I do see Que's point, if he doesn't like CG, he will not like this movie.
On the other hand, Cameron did set out to create a visually rich world and setting, and after seeing the movie, I think he did accomplish that. The movie is very beautiful and the 3D in some parts is really fucking cool. When coming in to see the movie, I knew what I was in for and I was satisfied, it didn't exceed my expectations nor did it fall short of them. There was no original story to be seen like I have heard previously so I wasn't expecting one, so in the end, I was entertained by the CG spectacle. It certainly wasn't a bad story, and like Raisa said, it does have some heart to it, but I would say that something like Pixar has pulled this off far better. I think the best description I've heard someone say is that it's Dances with Wolves meets Fern Gully.
Avatar is what it is, great CG with a competently told story, take it or leave it.
-
Yeah. I'm going to go see it again this weekend. It's just cool. I'm really curious to see what he's going to do with this universe that he's created. I want to know more about the planet, the plant life, and the animals. And I want to know more about the Na'vi, and the different tribes.
It's James Cameron, he isn't known for making super original movies. He's known for making good ones, except maybe his first two or so. Although I disliked Titanic. Just wasn't feeling the love story. Not to say that the movie was bad. It was actually very good. I just got bored with the love story.
Titanic did NOT need to be 3 hours.
The love story portion was boring as it was - it could've been summed up in 25 minutes and been a much better film.
BTW, after the ship got into deep shit, the movie really began to kick all kinds of major ass.
Aliens, T1, T2... some of the best movies ever made. I really don't get the hatred... I really truly don't get it. I mean there are easily bigger jackass directors... like Brett Rattner for example.
T2 was freakin' awesome.
-
I think hatred is too harsh of a word. A lot of this mostly has to do with the movie's hype which I do find a little annoying. Why so much excitement over some nice CG? We all know that CG alone doesn't make something worth watching. So yea, I do see Que's point, if he doesn't like CG, he will not like this movie.
I am not talking about hatred for Avatar, but hatred for James Cameron.
edit:
Just did a quick search:
I think we all hate Ubisoft and James Cameron is a colossal tool.
Now that's some fucking crap. James Cameron needs to die. By a sword. And he can spray his blood everywhere in comic fashion.
Why do you hate Cameron -- aside from Titanic? (OK so that was a big one)
I think he's an overrated egomaniac who has produced very little work of actual value.
-
Actually, I thought Titanic was kind of terrible. It had its moments, but there were a ton of inconsistencies with the script, some very bad acting (the lead gal was good, but a lot of the others were awful), and what I thought were some questionable cinematographic choices made. I was never a huge fan of Cameron, but I think Titanic was about when I decided he should go find another job.
it was terrible. not kind of. but i guess if it wasn't made, we wouldn't have a kate winslet.
and to your earlier post, transformers was bad, i walked out on that one. they kind of ruined the cartoons.
i walked out on 2012 too
-
I think you guys take a lot of what I say too seriously. My gag on here has always been that I'm an angry bastard, and I play up a lot of this stuff. Of course there's truth behind it all, but I don't generally feel so strongly when it comes to stupid shit like this (though I usually do about more serious stuff). I don't really hate Cameron, I just don't like him as a person and I think he's totally thrown away his career on bullshit. He once made good movies, but that time is not now.
But really... don't take it all so seriously. It's the internet, we come to vent and screw around. Maybe I've trolled this thread a little too much, but it's true... these really are the kinds of films I just really, really don't like. Generally speaking. Though you guys get a lot of residual annoyance that spills over from work all the time. People bug me about politics and popular shit and it gets to me after a while. "Omg, have you seen Avatar yet?" is a common question, and it does kind of make you want to punch someone after a while.
-
I think you guys take a lot of what I say too seriously. My gag on here has always been that I'm an angry bastard, and I play up a lot of this stuff. Of course there's truth behind it all, but I don't generally feel so strongly when it comes to stupid shit like this (though I usually do about more serious stuff). I don't really hate Cameron, I just don't like him as a person and I think he's totally thrown away his career on bullshit. He once made good movies, but that time is not now.
Thrown his career away on bullshit? You have got to be kidding. The guy is amazingly rich, claims directorship of the highest grossing movie of all time, and might just be the most well known action director ever with some true legends under his belt (already mentioned in this thread).
You may not like him or his movies, but you are flat out wrong if you think he has thrown his career away. Hm... be a truck driver or make millions of dollars, become ridiculously famous (a legend, really), and be known for helping to create several of the most memorable action movies of all time... Yeah, he definitely made the wrong choice. :o
Also, I'd like to point out that you seem to indicate that Titanic was the beginning of some downward trend for James Cameron. Maybe you don't realize this, but Titanic was his second-to-last movie and you haven't seen his last one so I don't know what you are basing this off of.
But really... don't take it all so seriously. It's the internet, we come to vent and screw around. Maybe I've trolled this thread a little too much, but it's true... these really are the kinds of films I just really, really don't like. Generally speaking. Though you guys get a lot of residual annoyance that spills over from work all the time. People bug me about politics and popular shit and it gets to me after a while. "Omg, have you seen Avatar yet?" is a common question, and it does kind of make you want to punch someone after a while.
I find it odd that punching someone for asking if you have seen Avatar or any other such inane question even crosses your mind for a split second.
-
When you're asked the same question a billion times because you're automatically expected to like something everyone else does, and are forced to listen to a bunch of cackling hens go on and on about it day in and day out like they do with anything popular, you'll probably feel otherwise.
In regards to the other topic, you and I don't have a great deal in common, but here it's more obvious than probably anywhere else. Popular success and money don't mean a great deal to me, either personally or as far as respecting someone else's accomplishments. I would never say that simply because you're rich you've done something worthwhile. In fact, many rich people have done the equivalent of absolutely nothing with their lives unless you count making money as some sort of admirable pursuit, which I don't. That makes me sound like a hippy, but it doesn't mean I don't respect businesspeople. I just respect them more when they do something they love and thereby achieve success, rather than when they set out to do something merely with the goal of making money.
What I'm talking about is artistic merit. I don't think we need to debate this, as given your prior statements, I'm sure we don't see eye to eye on the subject in any way. I don't like the guy and I don't like what he's done with his career. I started to like him less as he went, then he stopped making movies to do his documentary thing, and now he's back with a movie that looks awful to me. I don't see that there should be any mystery there.
Anyway, it's just an opinion. If you don't like it, don't listen to it. I never even tried to get this far into it. I don't see why I should have to quantify every last goddamn detail of why I do or don't like something anyway. What's the big fucking deal?
-
You don't know anything about James Cameron if you think his aspirations in movie-making were all about making money, especially in relation to Avatar but also past movies like Terminator and Terminator 2. It doesn't matter anyway, I'm not trying to force you to respect him. I was just pointing out your asinine comments about his career.
Look, here's the deal. Wouldn't it be easier to say that you just don't like James Cameron and therefore aren't interested in Avatar, or don't think Avatar looks interesting enough to spend your money or time on and leave it at that? Instead, we have to listen to you, multiple times, drone on about what a piece of crap you think James Cameron and Avatar are, even though you haven't even seen the aforementioned movie. We have to listen to you make ludicrous statements such as "[James Cameron has] totally thrown away his career on bullshit".
You are basically trolling this thread over and over. I admit that I've been guilty of the same in the past, but I try to be conscious of it and not come into threads and take a big ol' steaming shit in them anymore, much less multiple times.
Someone wise once said, "There is a difference between having a strong opinion, and forcing your opinion on others".
-
it was terrible. not kind of. but i guess if it wasn't made, we wouldn't have a kate winslet.
and to your earlier post, transformers was bad, i walked out on that one. they kind of ruined the cartoons.
i walked out on 2012 too
I am a big transformers fan.. so I have to ask... have you seen the old cartoons lately? They are TERRIBLE. The cartoon movie by some miracle was quite decent, but a few years ago I bought the first few seasons of the show and I was completely shocked.
What I'm talking about is artistic merit.
I am not trying to badger you or anything. I am trying to have a friendly discussion on this because you've mentioned you are on a different level than people like Scary_tooth and Scottws when it comes to movies. That's why it just confuses me when you talk about artistic merit. I thought the two T2 movies and Aliens had landmark moments when it came to film-making. There was plenty of artistry in those three pictures alone.
Popular success and money don't mean a great deal to me, either personally or as far as respecting someone else's accomplishments. I would never say that simply because you're rich you've done something worthwhile. In fact, many rich people have done the equivalent of absolutely nothing with their lives unless you count making money as some sort of admirable pursuit, which I don't. That makes me sound like a hippy, but it doesn't mean I don't respect businesspeople. I just respect them more when they do something they love and thereby achieve success, rather than when they set out to do something merely with the goal of making money.
I don't think anyone would disagree with that, but then we aren't talking about Girls gone Wild.
I don't judge the first two Terminator movies and Aliens by the amount of money they made at the box office. It would be insulting to assume that anyone liked those films because of the box office.
The other thing is that no one here seems to be really fond of Titanic either, and we all would be had it solely been about how much money it made.
-
Well, I apologize if everything I said can only be interpreted as trolling, scott. I was just offering my opinion at first, then I was just poking fun (we had been talking about it on IRC as well, so sometimes I forget others don't have that context), but then people kept asking questions about why I thought the movie looked stupid when they thought it looked cool, so I was just trying to respond and say why. You were asking if I had legitimate reasons or just didn't like it because it was popular, even... so I was trying to give reasons. Also note that I never said his career was all about making money, but that was the defense you offered when I said I questioned where he'd gone. Just because his personal goals didn't meet my own expectations doesn't mean I expect others to agree or that he should suddenly have some epiphany that he's been doing it all wrong, but that's partly why I personally don't like him anymore. Plus I saw a number of interviews and such with him that made him seem like a pretty gigantic dick... I don't know if that's true since I don't know him from a hole in the ground, but it was enough to turn me off considering the surrounding circumstances.
It's also worth noting that half of this thread was about 3D stuff in general and nothing to do with Avatar or Cameron at all. Just because I happen to have a negative opinion about that doesn't mean it should automatically count as trolling on the movie... I was just trying to say what turns me off about the trend toward these kinds of movies. My comment about all the other movies that had the same plot was perhaps ill-advised, and that was partly because we'd just been discussing it in IRC and I didn't think about how it sounded before I posted it. I should have made a real comment rather than just being an ass about it.
Anyway... what's done is done. Sorry if I spoiled the thread. I'll leave it be going forward.
-
OMG, have you guys seen Avatar yet?
-
You mean that show on Nickelodeon?
-
I caught Avatar in 3D today.
For now, I think some of these guys here can sum up my thoughts...
I don't care what anyone says - that 3D shit was fucking unreal.
Just got home after watching Avatar in 3D. Frickin' awesome movie. The 3D effects were amazing. Coupled with the incredible quality (story, plot, conflict, CGI, special effects, everything) of the movie it was a great experience. Loved every second of it.
-
I just saw this in 3D as well. The 3D was really cool, and the CGI in this movie is unreal. The plot was pretty weak, though. Very predictable.
-
I just saw this in 3D as well. The 3D was really cool, and the CGI in this movie is unreal. The plot was pretty weak, though. Very predictable.
I didn't think the plot and characters were weak. I just thought it was predictable and felt like it has been done before.
I definitely agree w/ you about the 3D and CGI - I've never seen anything like that in my life of going to the movies.
-
(http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/pocahontas-avatar.jpg)
Sorry. I just fucking had to. I'll leave now, I swear to god. I mean... it's relevant to the discussion of plot, right?
-
Hahahaha, thats exactly what the movie is.
-
I haven't seen it yet, but I must say there are plenty of parallels to Pocahontas.
-
I never saw Pocohontas. I thought Avatar was thematically very similar to Dances With Wolves.
-
Despite it's messages, experience, and whatever else it's trying to portray...
It's STILL just a movie, dammit.
Nothing to get depressed or suicidal over.
WTH is wrong w/ some people? (http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/11/avatar.movie.blues/index.html)
-
Page not found.
-
Page not found.
Link worked for me. :o
Retry. (http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/11/avatar.movie.blues/index.html)
-
What the....
-
That's fucking retarded.
-
CNN linking has been giving that that problem too sometimes. They must be having some issues.
-
That's fucking retarded.
Don't worry, D posted another link.
-
Don't worry, D posted another link.
I laughed really hard at this for some reason.
Anyways, I can second the Dances with Wolves comparison.
-
About Dances With Wolves and Pocahontas comparisons - well, no wonder this film felt done before in the plot and character portion for me! Been a LONG while since I seen either of those...
I still can't get over how awesome the 3D part was - with all the special effects and transporting me there into the world of Pandora...
-
Did it make you depressed and have suicidal thoughts?
-
I don't know about anyone else, but those blue chicks are hot. I'm seriously thinking about switching over.
It was boner level +5 when they were on screen.
-
Well, then you can indulge your creepy furry-but-not-furry fucking weirdo fantasies on the unrated DVD/bluray/whatever. Supposedly that will have the blue people doing it. So if you like your sex creepy and without artistic creativity... have at it.
-
I made that post solely to say "boner level +5". Just so you know.
-
One thing is for sure. Captain Kirk would have shagged every creature on that planet.
-
Well, then you can indulge your creepy furry-but-not-furry fucking weirdo fantasies on the unrated DVD/bluray/whatever. Supposedly that will have the blue people doing it. So if you like your sex creepy and without artistic creativity... have at it.
"Blue on Blu". I can see the ad campaign already.
-
Avatar is going to be a trilogy. (http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/movie-talk-avatar-trilogy.html)
-
I'm surprised that there is even going to be a sequel, given the utter failure of the first movie.
-
Actually it was always supposed to be a trilogy even before release.
-
Don't ruin my sarcasm, Pug. It's all that I have.
-
I know I'm late to the party, but I finally saw this movie yesterday. I have to say it, Cameron is a genius. Not because he's a great director, but because he completely shitted out a paint by numbers, predictable, cliched movie that tricked people into thinking it was amazing by making it 3D. If it weren't for the 3D (which was amazing by the way, it has come a long way from what I remember as a kid) this movie wouldn't be on anyone's radar.
I knew everything that was going to happen before it happened, there were so many "deus ex machina" moments that I didn't feel any urgency when it came to the character's well being and the movie was about an hour too long. I also felt that the use of 3D seemed to wan as the movie went on, which just left you with the uninspiring story.
P.S. My dad and I saw this in the daytime and paid for an adult and senior citizen ticket...$23! WTF!?
-
Got to see this today, in 3D. Kept the glasses as a souvenir. Amazing movie, derivative story notwithstanding. It really is a must-see, like Star Wars was when it first came out. I will also take this opportunity to tell Showcase Cinemas to kiss my ass for being cheap bastards with the brightness of their projector. It was noticeably dim, and I'm sure that's no accident. With tickets at $12 each and a half hour of ads, they can still turn a nifty profit with projections at full brightness. Fuck them sideways.
-
I saw it a second time (took Jennie's son), this time in IMAX 3D at the AMC at Newport on the Levee. I was pissed because they had a blown subwoofer near wear I was sitting and you could hear the thing rattling away when there was heavy bass. Luckily, it happened a lot more during the previews than the actual movie, so it didn't seem as bad once the movie started. Still, I thought it was pretty shitty that happened, since they could probably replace the damn thing with the revenue from one showing.
But yes, I definitely agree with the Star Wars comparison. The only thing is that I don't think Avatar has the same legs since the Na'vi are primitive. It will be tough for them to get off of Pandora and explore other places.
-
I want to see this again with the proper brightness. How was the IMAX picture? (Sorry about the sound problem. That sucks too.)
-
Well, it was the third movie I've seen in IMAX now. I guess I don't see the big deal. I mean the screen is definitely bigger, but it doesn't seem to make a big difference to me.
-
Yeah, I've seen a number of movies at IMAX and it really doesn't do all that much for me. We saw the original Matrix and 300, and they were cool, but sort of like... whatever.
-
I've been to IMAX too. I was wondering about the projection brightness. Showcase projections have gotten dim, and it's not just this movie. I'm sure it's a money thing. No doubt in my mind.
-
I have no idea about the brightness. All I can say is that it's not something I've noticed before anywhere.
I was just reading that Avatar has passed Titanic as the highest-grossing film ever, worldwide. I can't believe how fast that happened.
Titanic is still #1 in the U.S.
-
Thats amazing because Titanics success was from all the 12 year old girls that had a crush on whatshisname and went to see the movie 40 times each.
-
I guess it's impressive that the movie is grossing that much. However, it's not that impressive when you consider a ticket is at least double what everything else was even a few years ago (at least if you count the 3D stuff). If the movie sales a fair number of tickets, it's easy to overcome previous records.
Either that, or furries are really coming out of the woodworks. Like 12 year old girls who go see a movie a gillion times because they have a crush on someone, they need to be purged with fire.
-
I guess it's impressive that the movie is grossing that much. However, it's not that impressive when you consider a ticket is at least double what everything else was even a few years ago (at least if you count the 3D stuff). If the movie sales a fair number of tickets, it's easy to overcome previous records.
Either that, or furries are really coming out of the woodworks. Like 12 year old girls who go see a movie a gillion times because they have a crush on someone, they need to be purged with fire.
You make good points. I read a couple weeks back that even though the gross is really high, it doesn't come anywhere close to Star Wars in the number of tickets sold.
-
Scott, you should find this interesting:
http://screeningroom.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/26/is-avatar-really-the-biggest-movie-ever/
-
I posted this without reading the thread.
Avatar was fun, I saw it twice in 3D. Great movie? No. Great visuals? Yes++++++
It's worth seeing for the experience alone. Anyone who says otherwise is basically anti-fun. Like going to Disneyland and hating on people coming out of Space Mountain because there are better rollercoasters at other theme parks.
-
Holy shit it is Kams!
-
Really really late, but I finally saw this movie yesterday since it came out on DVD and blu ray. I rented the blu ray and it was amazing. Reference quality video and audio. The movie itself was really good too. That said, they decided to include no special features into this blu ray release, instead using all of the disc's space for the video and audio... they're going to release another version in November that will have special features. Hopefully it will be on a second disc. I'll probably pick up that edition when it comes out then.
-
So it was still very engrossing without the 3D? When I was watching, it seemed like the 3D made up a large part of the entertainment value.
-
I haven't seen it in 3D so I can't make the comparison, but it was still a treat for the eyes and ears on blu ray.
-
Well now I've seen it both in 3D at the theater and the DVD version in 2D at home. It's definitely worthwhile either way. I complained about the image being too dark at the theater. No such problem on the DVD, which is bright, more colorful, and lovely. I imagine the Bluray is even better.