Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Slappy Moose]

I loved the movie. It had perfect effects, and much of them. While the story wasn't infinitely original and whatever, I don't give a shit because it wasn't at all bad and the actors were good enough that I was not only entertained, but mesmerized and enthralled for the entire 3 hours.

All of the art and design in the movie was fantastic as well, planet Pandora was very cool.

[Sergius]

The part I truly didn't like about the movie wasn't the lack of originality, or the scientific unplausability. It was the whole "humans are eevul" and "yay we beat those damn humans" and "humans are useless without their toys and avatars" and "bad non-ecological hunams!" and "we love nature! Super Internet Hippy Kittens to the rescue! Go Planet!" stuff. I really dislike all that soapbox crap, and it's one of the reason I dislike some other movies (like Superman, on principle. "Humans are useless, they can't cross the street without being gunned down or hit by a falling water tank, they need a savior!")

[Duke 2.0]

(like Superman, on principle. "Humans are useless, they can't cross the street without being gunned down or hit by a falling water tank, they need a savior!")

Or "World peace can be achieved if you want it hard enough. Also, getting rid of every nuke in the world."

[Muz]

Hey, it made over $1 billion. Can't be that bad

[Nadaka]

Hey, it made over $1 billion. Can't be that bad

The first billion dollar movie was that bad or worse. It was also a James Cameron flick.

[Neruz]

The more people who like your movie, the more money it will make. As it turns out, the average person likes average movies.

[Korbac]

It wasn't bad, but I thought it was really nerdy, and also yes it was very "humans are rubbish".

Graphics were very good too, didn't see it in 3D as Ice Age 3 in 3D was a bit of a disappointment, and the emotive effect wasn't that bad, but I really wanted to laugh at some points because it felt like a computer game that we nerds so often get made fun of for.

[moocowmoo]

I didn't care for it. Felt like one of those Nvidia commercials but 3 hours long. None of the characters were believable; they're just props to move the graphics display along. I remember in some other thread here someone distinguished between powerful graphic technology and good art design. I felt like the technology was powerful but the art was too synthetic and generic to really be beautiful and memorable.

[Neruz]

It wasn't bad, but I thought it was really nerdy, and also yes it was very "humans are rubbish".

It's a current theme that goes on what with the rediculous obsession with 'climate change'. We'll probably grow out of it eventually.


moocow, i'm not sure how you felt that Avatar's design was generic; the design direction taken looked pretty original to me. Consistant too.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

actually, generic is a pretty accurate adjective to characterise avatar's image, from blue cat faced elves to flying islands with lush forests

[redacted123]

-

[Duke 2.0]

 I think Pandorian air is more unbreathable than toxic. I really doubt he would have harmed anybody else leaving that door open for a minute or so. And it seems the outside air is at a slightly higher pressure than the inside, so no oxygen would likely be lost.

[JoshuaFH]

What's the difference between unbreathable and toxic?

[Realmfighter]

What's the difference between unbreathable and toxic?

I think he mean that when you breath it you won't die, you'll just asphyxiate in a few minutes..

[Cthulhu]

Toxic as in physiological damage from it, unbreathable as in you don't get any oxygen from it?