NationStates

14 years to make? 3D? Slow down because i went to go see this movie yesterday and it was amazing. I was like... wow when it started because that was my first 3D movie and Avatar was truely great. This epic is so vulnerable to people because I mean theres a bunch of tall blue aliens shooting arrows at marines. But Avatar was completed the acting was good but the visuals got me i mean "2012" is nothing compared to this and I mean "Transformers" looks so fake now.
Avatar is like watching a movie made in 2050 because its so high tech and amazingly briliant I want to see it again but I wont because those tickets are expensive.
That movie did not disapoint me so go buy a ticket to that movie and watch it, it was not "bad" at all.
I like the horses in this movie 'cause they got six legs and they look super ret****d and it was nice to see something ORIGINAL for once! These dragons were cool I mean I can't describe anything well from this movie its too hard ok? Just go see it because if you haven't seen it you are missing out. dont miss out because this movie was better than i expected. I give it 5outa5 u?



see? i can be blue toow!

I've heard it's visually stunning, but the script is like a space western where the evil american marines serving their evil corporate masters are out to slaughter the natives.

I'll prbable go see it.

I think reading the OP was all I needed to finally convince my body it's time for bed. I'm sure I'll have nightmares, though.

I was just going to make a thread asking people if it's worth seeing. I've not seen it. I was considering going but two things are making me baulk:
1. The ticket prices are ridiculously high here. It's almost double the normal price because it's 3-D and 3+ hours long. What with travelling, and the usual vittals necessary for movie-going, I'll be spending close to the equivalent of $35US. For a movie. For me to consider parting with that much dosh, it needs to be an extremely great movie.

2. It's written and directed by James Cameron. Which means, if Titanic is anything to go by, this movie'll
a. Be at least an hour too long;
b. Be self-indulgent twaddle;
c. Be over-wrought and sodden with simplistic & simple-minded moralising;
d. Have a piss-poor plot so full of holes you could sail the Titanic through;
e. Be stuffed full of 2-dimensional characters (more caricarture than character) emoting and chewing the scenery;
f. Have dialogue so painful, so cheesy and so banal one wonders if it's not in fact a parody on bad movie-making;
g. Have 2 hours of mind-numbing dullness building up towards the climax of an hour or so of total action. The knowledge of impending cool special effects and big explosions is to ensure the male theatre goer remains in the theatre while the drippy love story being played out in the first 2 hours is there to entertain the female theatre goer. I notice the trailers focus almost solely on, what I'm assuming, will be the final battle scenes. Which makes one wonder what happens to get us to that point and why is it not worth promoting.

I've only seen the trailers and already I can see one major plothole that perhaps someone who has seen it can explain. And this is: Why is it, when humanity has achieved the technology to allow them to transverse intergalactic space, to create massive war machines: robots, hoverships, laser cannons etc, and to be able to clone and create lifeforms and transfer a person's consciousness into it then why the hell is the main character stuck in a 20th Century wheelchair? Am I really meant to believe that with all these major advances in science and technology and biology, no-one's managed to make a better wheelchair? Let alone not have advanced surgery enough to repair spinal injuries? Least they could have done is put him in a floating jet chair.
Seems to me, the only reason he's in the wheelchair is to give his character depth and pathos (thus going from 1 dimension all the way up to 1.5) and to give him a reason for siding with the blue aliens against the nasty evil humans. I would not be surprised if there's even a scene in the movie where his blue love interest tells him the humans are crippling them by destroying their forest but he doesn't know what that's like. Because one could ever accuse James Cameron of subtlety.

But of course I could be wrong. So if anyone has seen, what are your reviews?


I was dismayed to read a review of the new Sherlock Holmes movie as 'being Snatch meets Holmes!"
If ever there was a sentence designed to keep me as far from a theatre as possible twould be this one. Snatch was a truly awful movie,: the cry of a pathetically uncool person (Guy Ritchie) desperately trying to be cool. It was akin to an overweight 35 yr old getting into a 'John Travolta circa 1978' white suit and heading down to the local night club, thinking the entire time he's hip and cool.
Having just watched the trailer, it's not so much 'Snatch meets Homes' as 'Snatch v1.5'. There were scenes that I swear must have come from Snatch cutting room floor.

You-Gi-Owe wrote:I've heard it's visually stunning, but the script is like a space western where the evil american marines serving their evil corporate masters are out to slaughter the natives.

I'll prbable go see it.

Except they SHOULD SLAUGHTER THE NATIVES, STEAL THEIR LAND AND RAPE THEIR PLANET FOR OUR USE. D:<

Techno-Soviet wrote:

You-Gi-Owe wrote:I've heard it's visually stunning, but the script is like a space western where the evil american marines serving their evil corporate masters are out to slaughter the natives.

I'll prbable go see it.

Except they SHOULD SLAUGHTER THE NATIVES, STEAL THEIR LAND AND RAPE THEIR PLANET FOR OUR USE. D:<

DAMN STRAIGHT!!!

Techno-Soviet wrote:

You-Gi-Owe wrote:I've heard it's visually stunning, but the script is like a space western where the evil american marines serving their evil corporate masters are out to slaughter the natives.

I'll prbable go see it.

Except they SHOULD SLAUGHTER THE NATIVES, STEAL THEIR LAND AND RAPE THEIR PLANET FOR OUR USE. D:<

...

I would prefer SLAUGHTER THE LAND, STEAL THEIR PLANET AND RAPE THE NATIVES!

but hey... that's just me...

Love love love love LOVE Avatar! I've seen it twice now, and it's only been out here, mmn...two or three days? I'm planning on going to see it again, actually! (Maybe, you know, once I've let it settle a bit; a week sounds about right. )

But yes, LOVED it to death, and I just got back from seeing the IMAX version of it, which is just incredibly awesome. And yes, the rumours that the visuals are stunning while the plotline is basic is mostly true; it is a lot like Dances With Wolves on a jungle moon. That's not important! The story is one that I love, too, no matter how many times and in how many ways it's told, and this is - by far - the best telling of it I've ever seen. The planet is beautiful, the imagination and detail put into the flora and fauna is simply inspiring, and the vastness of the scope of the movie is just...well, it's jaw-dropping. Everything from the geological formations to the exact content specifics of the atmosphere to how certain creatures regulate body temperatures has been detailed, although you don't get it all from just seeing the movie once or twice.

But yes, anyway, as if it's not blatantly obvious, I am a hundred percent enamoured with the film. It's just awesome! A great ride, and the best use of my money on a theatre experience ever!

Plus, like...Sam Worthington! Come on!

Zombie PotatoHeads wrote:I was just going to make a thread asking people if it's worth seeing. I've not seen it. I was considering going but two things are making me baulk:
1. The ticket prices are ridiculously high here. It's almost double the normal price because it's 3-D and 3+ hours long. What with travelling, and the usual vittals necessary for movie-going, I'll be spending close to the equivalent of $35US. For a movie. For me to consider parting with that much dosh, it needs to be an extremely great movie.

2. It's written and directed by James Cameron. Which means, if Titanic is anything to go by, this movie'll
a. Be at least an hour too long;
b. Be self-indulgent twaddle;
c. Be over-wrought and sodden with simplistic & simple-minded moralising;
d. Have a piss-poor plot so full of holes you could sail the Titanic through;
e. Be stuffed full of 2-dimensional characters (more caricarture than character) emoting and chewing the scenery;
f. Have dialogue so painful, so cheesy and so banal one wonders if it's not in fact a parody on bad movie-making;
g. Have 2 hours of mind-numbing dullness building up towards the climax of an hour or so of total action. The knowledge of impending cool special effects and big explosions is to ensure the male theatre goer remains in the theatre while the drippy love story being played out in the first 2 hours is there to entertain the female theatre goer. I notice the trailers focus almost solely on, what I'm assuming, will be the final battle scenes. Which makes one wonder what happens to get us to that point and why is it not worth promoting.

I've only seen the trailers and already I can see one major plothole that perhaps someone who has seen it can explain. And this is: Why is it, when humanity has achieved the technology to allow them to transverse intergalactic space, to create massive war machines: robots, hoverships, laser cannons etc, and to be able to clone and create lifeforms and transfer a person's consciousness into it then why the hell is the main character stuck in a 20th Century wheelchair? Am I really meant to believe that with all these major advances in science and technology and biology, no-one's managed to make a better wheelchair? Let alone not have advanced surgery enough to repair spinal injuries? Least they could have done is put him in a floating jet chair.
Seems to me, the only reason he's in the wheelchair is to give his character depth and pathos (thus going from 1 dimension all the way up to 1.5) and to give him a reason for siding with the blue aliens against the nasty evil humans. I would not be surprised if there's even a scene in the movie where his blue love interest tells him the humans are crippling them by destroying their forest but he doesn't know what that's like. Because one could ever accuse James Cameron of subtlety.

But of course I could be wrong. So if anyone has seen, what are your reviews?


I was dismayed to read a review of the new Sherlock Holmes movie as 'being Snatch meets Holmes!"
If ever there was a sentence designed to keep me as far from a theatre as possible twould be this one. Snatch was a truly awful movie,: the cry of a pathetically uncool person (Guy Ritchie) desperately trying to be cool. It was akin to an overweight 35 yr old getting into a 'John Travolta circa 1978' white suit and heading down to the local night club, thinking the entire time he's hip and cool.
Having just watched the trailer, it's not so much 'Snatch meets Homes' as 'Snatch v1.5'. There were scenes that I swear must have come from Snatch cutting room floor.

The ticket prices are high which is sad because its hard to bring alot of people along and you can only go and see it once which I wish I could see it twice because after all the sh**ty movies I have seen in 2009 Avatar was break-through for me. The movie was a little too short actually I wish it would have been longer because it ends with a running time of 2 hours and 30 minutes I mean you could have let it run a little longer for 30 minutes so I didnt have to take off the glasses and leave that cool little planet with the blue people.

Zombie PotatoHeads wrote:I've only seen the trailers and already I can see one major plothole that perhaps someone who has seen it can explain. And this is: Why is it, when humanity has achieved the technology to allow them to transverse intergalactic space, to create massive war machines: robots, hoverships, laser cannons etc, and to be able to clone and create lifeforms and transfer a person's consciousness into it then why the hell is the main character stuck in a 20th Century wheelchair?

the healthcare bill failed.

Zombie PotatoHeads wrote: Am I really meant to believe that with all these major advances in science and technology and biology, no-one's managed to make a better wheelchair?

Military cutbacks

Zombie PotatoHeads wrote: Let alone not have advanced surgery enough to repair spinal injuries?

not covered by private insurace,

Zombie PotatoHeads wrote: Least they could have done is put him in a floating jet chair.

not environmentally friendly.

Playing In The Water wrote:Love love love love LOVE Avatar! I've seen it twice now, and it's only been out here, mmn...two or three days? I'm planning on going to see it again, actually! (Maybe, you know, once I've let it settle a bit; a week sounds about right. )

But yes, LOVED it to death, and I just got back from seeing the IMAX version of it, which is just incredibly awesome. And yes, the rumours that the visuals are stunning while the plotline is basic is mostly true; it is a lot like Dances With Wolves on a jungle moon. That's not important! The story is one that I love, too, no matter how many times and in how many ways it's told, and this is - by far - the best telling of it I've ever seen. The planet is beautiful, the imagination and detail put into the flora and fauna is simply inspiring, and the vastness of the scope of the movie is just...well, it's jaw-dropping. Everything from the geological formations to the exact content specifics of the atmosphere to how certain creatures regulate body temperatures has been detailed, although you don't get it all from just seeing the movie once or twice.

But yes, anyway, as if it's not blatantly obvious, I am a hundred percent enamoured with the film. It's just awesome! A great ride, and the best use of my money on a theatre experience ever!

Plus, like...Sam Worthington! Come on!

Lucky! Yeah thats what I liked about it was because it was so original ad make believe. And I DID stare at those wierd pink, blue, and orange glowing plants during the whole movie haha

Kiah-Lani-Lew wrote: cool little planet with the blue people.

So they're the smurfs on steroids?

I wont see it because

• It doesn't have enough robots. James Cameron films have to contain humanoid killing machines (Although I'll settle for flying Piranhas if need be)
• I've a grand total of one (1) eye. Those fancy 3D graphics you need to wear those ridiculous glasses that make everyone point and laugh at you for? I can't see them

Fuck 3D cinema.

Kiah-Lani-Lew wrote:Lucky! Yeah thats what I liked about it was because it was so original ad make believe. And I DID stare at those wierd pink, blue, and orange glowing plants during the whole movie haha

Haha I know, I'm spoiling myself on this film.

And yes! The originality; I LOVED that! Seriously, all these stupid comic book/old show/randomly-already-done WHATEVER movies that are coming out nowadays, they're just...ugh! They're so boring! Honestly, when are people going to stop making super-hero movies already? I get it; the main guy - cause yes, it's always a guy - has inner conflicts, and then he gets super powers, or something, and it basically goes along with whatever cheesy storyline everybody already knows about them. Like batman, or spiderman, or whatever.

Avatar just drips with originality, though! The entire planet - and those awesomely-lovely pink, blue, and orange bioluminescent plants - was just done so, so, SO wonderfully, I would kill just to get a book on the natural ecology of the place! I seriously can't say enough about the detail, and the colours, and the animals, and...everything!

Whoever hasn't seen it; see it! If you're anything like me - which presumably everyone should be, at least a liiiittle - then you're going to get something out of it! Maybe it'll only be the incredibly stunning visuals, which would be enough in their own right; I've never cried for aliens before, but this movie...yeah.

It's really, really, REALLY good.

Linker Niederrhein wrote:[*] I've a grand total of one (1) eye. Those fancy 3D graphics you need to wear those ridiculous glasses that make everyone point and laugh at you for? I can't see them[/list]

Fuck 3D cinema.

You should sue.

I wanted to see it last night but it's completely sold out for the foreseeable future.

If I didn't have to listen to them talk and I didn't have to suffer through that horrible, cliched plot, yes, it would be a decent 3D CGI visual jerkoff.
It's still 3 hours long, though, and I don't really need to suffer through that horse shit.

Linker Niederrhein wrote:I wont see it because

• It doesn't have enough robots. James Cameron films have to contain humanoid killing machines (Although I'll settle for flying Piranhas if need be)
• I've a grand total of one (1) eye. Those fancy 3D graphics you need to wear those ridiculous glasses that make everyone point and laugh at you for? I can't see them

Fuck 3D cinema.

they should have normal 2D ones.

TBH, after a while, you don't even notice the 3d effect.

Kiah-Lani-Lew wrote:The ticket prices are high which is sad because its hard to bring alot of people along and you can only go and see it once which I wish I could see it twice because after all the sh**ty movies I have seen in 2009 Avatar was break-through for me. The movie was a little too short actually I wish it would have been longer because it ends with a running time of 2 hours and 30 minutes I mean you could have let it run a little longer for 30 minutes so I didnt have to take off the glasses and leave that cool little planet with the blue people.

Really? Was that expensive there? Was only, like, fifteen or something here. Hm.

But yeah, I really hear you on the length thing; I could've had this movie go on for daaaays and not been satisfied, though, so yeah. Still, it's hard to walk out of the theatre afterwards, just because you've still got all these beautiful images floating through your mind's eye and then you're hit with...concrete. Street lights. Automobiles. Ugh.

Zombie PotatoHeads wrote:Have 2 hours of mind-numbing dullness building up towards the climax of an hour or so of total action. The knowledge of impending cool special effects and big explosions is to ensure the male theatre goer remains in the theatre while the drippy love story being played out in the first 2 hours is there to entertain the female theatre goer. I notice the trailers focus almost solely on, what I'm assuming, will be the final battle scenes. Which makes one wonder what happens to get us to that point and why is it not worth promoting.

But the climax is so well done! Of course I'm not gonna say anything to spoil it - cause I would hate it if people did that to me, and like for like, yannow - but yeah! And as for the first two hours...those were, like, my favourite part. Parts. Time length. Thing! And yes, maybe it's because of the burgeoning love story that bubbles up, but...come oooon, who doesn't like some good sappy romance, hmmm? It's so cute to watch!

(Especially with the facial expressions on the Na'vi. Seriously, like...OMG )

And believe me; the entire movie is worth promoting. The adverts are what they are to attract people in general, but I appreciated - very, very much - all the effort the designers put into this film, not just the explosions or whatever. All the work they had to go through to develop the new technology to film things, to get the actors' performances translated to a whole different species, and simply to create a brand new world. It's magically done, the whole thing, and totally worth seeing, 3D or not.

JuNii wrote:

Linker Niederrhein wrote:I wont see it because

• It doesn't have enough robots. James Cameron films have to contain humanoid killing machines (Although I'll settle for flying Piranhas if need be)
• I've a grand total of one (1) eye. Those fancy 3D graphics you need to wear those ridiculous glasses that make everyone point and laugh at you for? I can't see them

Fuck 3D cinema.

they should have normal 2D ones.

TBH, after a while, you don't even notice the 3d effect.

But what about the killdeath 'bots?

With the exception of True Lies, I've only ever watched Cameron films that have either killdeath 'bots, killdeath' Piranhas or killdeath' aliens.

And True Lies still has a killdeath 'bot, he just pretends not to be one.

And no. Oversized hippie smurfs don't count as killdeath aliens.

Linker Niederrhein wrote:

JuNii wrote:they should have normal 2D ones.

TBH, after a while, you don't even notice the 3d effect.

But what about the killdeath 'bots?

With the exception of True Lies, I've only ever watched Cameron films that have either killdeath 'bots, killdeath' Piranhas or killdeath' aliens.

And True Lies still has a killdeath 'bot, he just pretends not to be one.

And no. Oversized hippie smurfs don't count as killdeath aliens.

I think there are 2D shows playing. Not sure where, but I thought I heard about it. Could be wrong, though!

Additionally...they are NOT hippies, and they are NOT smurfs. Ugh. Also, since when does a movie have to have a 'killdeath' anything? I prefer movies that are killdeath free, personally! They can have killing and/or death IN it, but...you know, it's not the whole, like, premise of the movie.

(Additionally, I hate smurfs. They're creepy little things. )

Zombie PotatoHeads wrote:2. It's written and directed by James Cameron. Which means, if Titanic is anything to go by, this movie'll
a. Be at least an hour too long;
b. Be self-indulgent twaddle;
c. Be over-wrought and sodden with simplistic & simple-minded moralising;
d. Have a piss-poor plot so full of holes you could sail the Titanic through;
e. Be stuffed full of 2-dimensional characters (more caricarture than character) emoting and chewing the scenery;
f. Have dialogue so painful, so cheesy and so banal one wonders if it's not in fact a parody on bad movie-making;
g. Have 2 hours of mind-numbing dullness building up towards the climax of an hour or so of total action. The knowledge of impending cool special effects and big explosions is to ensure the male theatre goer remains in the theatre while the drippy love story being played out in the first 2 hours is there to entertain the female theatre goer. I notice the trailers focus almost solely on, what I'm assuming, will be the final battle scenes. Which makes one wonder what happens to get us to that point and why is it not worth promoting.

The plot wasn't terrible. Mediocre, but not terrible. I didn't think the dialogue was horrendous either. The rest is pretty much dead on though.

I've only seen the trailers and already I can see one major plothole that perhaps someone who has seen it can explain. And this is: Why is it, when humanity has achieved the technology to allow them to transverse intergalactic space, to create massive war machines: robots, hoverships, laser cannons etc, and to be able to clone and create lifeforms and transfer a person's consciousness into it then why the hell is the main character stuck in a 20th Century wheelchair? Am I really meant to believe that with all these major advances in science and technology and biology, no-one's managed to make a better wheelchair? Let alone not have advanced surgery enough to repair spinal injuries? Least they could have done is put him in a floating jet chair.
Seems to me, the only reason he's in the wheelchair is to give his character depth and pathos (thus going from 1 dimension all the way up to 1.5) and to give him a reason for siding with the blue aliens against the nasty evil humans. I would not be surprised if there's even a scene in the movie where his blue love interest tells him the humans are crippling them by destroying their forest but he doesn't know what that's like. Because one could ever accuse James Cameron of subtlety.

They do have advanced surgery to repair spinal injuries, but he can't afford it on his veterans' benefits, which is the main reason why he accepts this avatar job.

I thought the major plot hole was why they didn't just level the jungle from orbit in a kilometer radius around all the mining sites and routes to them. Or better yet, maybe set up in the plains instead of the jungle where everything is trying to kill you.

JuNii wrote:

Techno-Soviet wrote:

You-Gi-Owe wrote:I've heard it's visually stunning, but the script is like a space western where the evil american marines serving their evil corporate masters are out to slaughter the natives.

I'll prbable go see it.

Except they SHOULD SLAUGHTER THE NATIVES, STEAL THEIR LAND AND RAPE THEIR PLANET FOR OUR USE. D:<

...

I would prefer SLAUGHTER THE LAND, STEAL THEIR PLANET AND RAPE THE NATIVES!

but hey... that's just me...

I like this better. The blue alien chicks are actually pretty hawt too. o:

Hamilay wrote:They do have advanced surgery to repair spinal injuries, but he can't afford it on his veterans' benefits, which is the main reason why he accepts this avatar job.

I thought the major plot hole was why they didn't just level the jungle from orbit in a kilometer radius around all the mining sites and routes to them. Or better yet, maybe set up in the plains instead of the jungle where everything is trying to kill you.

Well, I don't think they have the technology to fire lasers from space and torch the planet like in star wars or something goofy and stupid like that. Plus, I mean, this movie WAS trying to be realistic, somewhat, if not at least a little plausible; we haven't developed all-killing weapons nowadays that wouldn't make mining something a horribly more hazardous venture, so that probably holds true for whatever year it was in Avatar.

As for your second part...I dunno! My best guess, though, is that the whole 'unobtanium' thing is maybe found in a certain type of soil, or the soil is a byproduct of it, and the soil itself encourages plant growth by being nutrient-rich to some degree. Maybe? I dunno, could be why!

*random guess*

Techno-Soviet wrote:I like this better. The blue alien chicks are actually pretty hawt too. o:

It's only a matter of time before someone makes a "Do You Want To Date My Avatar?" AMV on YouTube.

I really enjoyed the movie, especially since Cameron's usual hamfisted message was diluted by a secondary theme supporting escapism, something we leaders of nations made of data on a server should relate to.

Spoiler ALERT!
Dude the best scene, by far, was the praying scene, it looked fucking awesome.