http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film-reviews/avatar-film-review-1004052868.story

But let's cut to the chase: A fully believable, flesh-and-blood (albeit not human flesh and blood) romance is the beating heart of "Avatar." Cameron has never made a movie just to show off visual pyrotechnics: Every bit of technology in "Avatar" serves the greater purpose of a deeply felt love story.

Titanic in space?

Let me review this really quick...

A fully believable, flesh-and-blood (albeit not human flesh and blood) romance is the beating heart of "Avatar."

Ugh...

Very much looking forward to this

It helps assuage some concerns but it still basically read as Disney's Pocahontas but with FX that have to be seen to be believed. A very hyperbole driven review.

Romance?

Nooooooooooooo!

We need more guns and explosions, not smooching.

XENOPHILES! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

That's extra heretical.

Gitzbitah wrote:That's extra heretical.

We are getting a reading on the meter.

The Heresy Meter! It's off the scale!

So far its got a 92% rating at RT and a 100% on their top critics list although there's only a handful or so reviews.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/avatar/?name_order=asc


Can't wait; having a James Cameron scifi blockbuster in the Holiday Season is a great Xmas present in itself.

I can't wait to see it.

G

Rule 34 is going to have a field day!

How did Commissar Fuklaw make his way into the OT? And not even by EF's bidding?

The Commissar makes his way in anywhere he damn well pleases.

I usually stay away from the whole IMAX 3-D thing, because it gives me a headache, but I just might have to make an exception for this one.

It has actually gotten GREAT reviews. Even by despondent limey bastards who usually hate anything not starring Keira Knightley.

I can´t remember where but I saw a review of the mocie calling it Dances with Smurfs. So unless the HQ orders me to go with her I´ll be skipping it.

M.

Altered_Soul wrote:Rule 34 is going to have a field day!

Lol, not even Fuklaw can stop this heresy...

Yay! Xenos-human por... um, weak-point chart. Uh, yeah. *whistles as he goes to the small closet no one knows about*

The story takes place in 2154, three decades after a multinational corporation has established a mining colony on Pandora, a planet light years from Earth.

(...)

It seems -- although the scientists led by Sigourney Weaver's top doc have barely scratched the surface -- a flow of energy ripples through the roots of trees and the spores of the plants, which the Na'vi know how to tap into.

The center of life is a holy tree where tribal memories and the wisdom of their ancestors is theirs for the asking. This is what the humans want to strip mine.

Jake manages to get taken in by one tribe where a powerful, Amazonian named Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) takes him under her wing to teach him how to live in the forest, speak the language and honor the traditions of nature.

I am so not seeing this movie.

Roger Ebert compared Avatar to watching Star Wars back in 1977; now my expectations are pretty high. Definitely buying IMAX tickets for the family ASAP before it gets sold out until February.

The wife and I are watching it this week.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

The story takes place in 2154, three decades after a multinational corporation has established a mining colony on Pandora, a planet light years from Earth.

(...)

It seems -- although the scientists led by Sigourney Weaver's top doc have barely scratched the surface -- a flow of energy ripples through the roots of trees and the spores of the plants, which the Na'vi know how to tap into.

The center of life is a holy tree where tribal memories and the wisdom of their ancestors is theirs for the asking. This is what the humans want to strip mine.

Jake manages to get taken in by one tribe where a powerful, Amazonian named Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) takes him under her wing to teach him how to live in the forest, speak the language and honor the traditions of nature.

I am so not seeing this movie.

Damn straight.

Im a limey bastard and i have to say, i think i would rather run Keira Knightley over than watch a film with her in.

James Cameron: What I'd like to do is remake Disney's Pochahanta's, only this time in space with more explosions and increase the New Age philosophy. It's been awhile since I've seen a major release that re-inforces the 'noble savage' stereotype or used an Indian Princess.

Studios: Sounds good, how much?

JC: 400 million.

Studios: Make it an even 500 million.

JC: Sweet. Your general audience will be so wowed by the pretty colors they won't realize that the story is so so or been done soooooooooooooooooooooo many times before. Probably won't even notice that it will be an environmental movie that leaves a carbon footprint the size of Manhattan.

Too much Titanic and The Abyss, not enough Aliens and The Terminator.

You do realize that Titanic made more money than all of your favorite movies put together, right?

And this is a ripoff of Dances With Wolves far more than Pocahontas?

LMAO at any professed sci-fi or pulp fan not seeing Avatar in theaters because it features a love story.

This is like the fourth thread on this flick... I mean really?

I will see it on DVD... yeah... being rather patient, I forsee dozens, if not hundreds of fantastic CGI movies (in the actual upcoming blossoming of that style) over the next decade, so this flick looks like an ant on stilts to me.

3-d. Movies. Online. That is all...

Even with the reviews I might just wait to see it on DVD or blue ray. I must admit I am getting tired of movies that basically say, nature is great and technology is bad. Which from the the shots I have seen, seems a message of the movie.

dienekes96 wrote:You do realize that Titanic made more money than all of your favorite movies put together, right?

So? Money = superiority now? Are you saying that when someone who make more money than you walks down the street you step aside out of deference to the superior being? I can think of at least 20 movies off the top of my head that are far better films. Titanic was and is a very 'meh' film but a product of the time. It hasn't aged well and you can find academic journals and other writing that agree. Not a horrible movie (though I hated it), but not a great one either. It was at the right place at the right time. It also only made more money if you choose not to use figures that are adjusted for inflation. Since you want to compare it to all possible movies it is unfair to try and say a dollar from 1940 is worth the same as a dollar today. If you adjust for inflation it is the third highest behind #2 Star Wars and #1 Gone With The Wind.

dienekes96 wrote:And this is a ripoff of Dances With Wolves far more than Pocahontas?

I am confused because you phrased a statement but put a question mark at the end. I think I know what you are saying though: It isn't a total rip-off of one movie, it is a total rip-off of another! Really it is both since it is another western imperialism meets indigenous peoples film hitting the same beats and and the same tropes.

dienekes96 wrote:LMAO at any professed sci-fi or pulp fan not seeing Avatar in theaters because it features a love story.

I agree that is a bit silly.

guardpiper wrote:Even with the reviews I might just wait to see it on DVD or blue ray. I must admit I am getting tired of movies that basically say, nature is great and technology is bad. Which from the the shots I have seen, seems a message of the movie.

I can't see any movie that relishes in shots of fantastic aircraft and robots the way this one does genuinely meaning any anti-technology message. I think it's more of a straightforward "exploiting aborigines is bad" and "people we see as primitive may have something useful we can learn from instead of strip-mining"-type of message. Neither of which is particularly original or inspired, but neither are Killer Robots or Fight Scary Aliens, and both of those concepts made for goddamn great sci-fi movies from this director.

Mannahnin wrote:

guardpiper wrote:Even with the reviews I might just wait to see it on DVD or blue ray. I must admit I am getting tired of movies that basically say, nature is great and technology is bad. Which from the the shots I have seen, seems a message of the movie.

I can't see any movie that relishes in shots of fantastic aircraft and robots the way this one does genuinely meaning any anti-technology message. I think it's more of a straightforward "exploiting aborigines is bad" and "people we see as primitive may have something useful we can learn from instead of strip-mining"-type of message. Neither of which is particularly original or inspired, but neither are Killer Robots or Fight Scary Aliens, and both of those concepts made for goddamn great sci-fi movies from this director.

Well it isn't just scary robots are original, it is what you do with them, same with scary aliens. This doesn't seem to do anything very original with old concepts like T/T2, Aliens did. It is anti-technology in the sense that it is anti-Western, of which reliance on/and development of technology is a part of.

Did you see it yet?

I'm looking forward to it.

I screwed up with the question mark.

1) There are four threads on this movie because this is primarily a 40K board and Avatar is directed by Jim Cameron. The Jim Cameron that has probably had more influence (as an inspiration) on the 40K universe than any other visualist save Ridley Scott and JRR Tolkien. The man directed The Terminator, Aliens, The Abyss, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, True Lies, and Titanic. He built the modern visual language of action spectacles. His films pushed special effects into the computer age (with The Abyss and T2) while maintaining a extremely good narrative facet, something modern hacks like Bay (whjo worships Cameron) aren't able to do.

So when people say they'll wait until DVD to see a film that Fox and Cameron spent $400M to make, specifically in theaters, and 3D where possible, I find that amusing. No directors put the budget on screen more effectively than Cameron. The idea that there will be dozens of online 3D movies in a few years, so why "waste time" on this is laughable. Watching a movie on your computer isn't the same as your 30" TV. Which isn't the same as your 60" 1080P. Which, still, isn't even close to experience you get in a movie theater.

But hey, I love movies. I can't fathom the idea of skipping a Jim Cameron pulp sci-fi adventure in 3D on an IMAX screen. It is unfathomable.

If the money Titanic made (which I only mentioned to tweak fanboys) doesn't work, then how about this...it won more awards than all of your favorite movies put together. Of course Cameron will use elements of his most successful film in this new one. When Fox spends $400M on a movie, they don't want the audience to be solely made up of people scared of cooties. They'd like to get some crossover with half of the population.

How can anyone be a member of Dakka and not look forward to a Cameron film?

It's the Night Elves from Warcraft 3 beating the Terran from Starcraft, even down to the magic tree filled with nature spirits.

I don't care how graphically well rendered this setting is, it's awful.

To better explain myself, with this movie, the good guys are fly on animals and use spears, and the bad guys are in exoskeleton armor, have tanks and planes and use guns. To me at least, an anti technology theme, but then again, I am probably looking to much into it.

Orkeosaurus wrote:It's the Night Elves from Warcraft 3 beating the Terran from Starcraft, even down to the magic tree filled with nature spirits.

I don't care how graphically well rendered this setting is, it's awful.

Yeah, seriously.
People should stop making movies. They might look like something from the now very distant childhood-past.

Or not.

You know Warcraft 3 is only 7 years old, right?


(And the point isn't that it's like Warcraft 3, it's that Warcraft 3 sucked, and the Night Elves made it suck more than anything else, and now there's a 2 hour movie about them in which they are possibly even more annoying than before.)

Do the Na'Vi remind anyone else of Mudkips?

If they were Mudkips I probably would watch it.

Yeah man. I herd everyone liekz mudkipz.

What's a mudkip?

Orkeosaurus wrote:You know Warcraft 3 is only 7 years old, right?

You know the scriptment for Avatar is 11 years old, right?

The concepts of the Na'Vi were set down before Night Elves ever sullied warcraft x.

You're not reading me, so I'll put it in bold:

I only care that they're similar to Night Elves because I hate Night Elves.

It doesn't matter which one was conceived first, I'm not accusing him of plagiarism. The Na'vi have been done already, and it didn't turn out well. The super-perfect Night Elves that kill all of the stupid, technologically advanced humans with their bows and animal friends and tree spirits was lame. The ending to the campaign was lame, and it's repeated in Avatar. It's a cliche, and it's a tired one. The movie is saturated with a "message" that's been done a million times, and is absurdly hamfisted. CGI doesn't make up for this.

I will be seeing it with the kids over Christmas break for sure. I just hopr the CGI is believable.

Orkeosaurus wrote:You're not reading me, so I'll put it in bold:

I only care that they're similar to Night Elves because I hate Night Elves.

It doesn't matter which one was conceived first, I'm not accusing him of plagiarism. The Na'vi have been done already, and it didn't turn out well. The super-perfect Night Elves that kill all of the stupid, technologically advanced humans with their bows and animal friends and tree spirits was lame. The ending to the campaign was lame, and it's repeated in Avatar. It's a cliche, and it's a tired one. The movie is saturated with a "message" that's been done a million times, and is absurdly hamfisted. CGI doesn't make up for this.

Got it. You won't see a movie by one of the best action/sci-fi directors in history because of surface similarities with some POS video game you played a few years ago.

dienekes96 wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:You're not reading me, so I'll put it in bold:

I only care that they're similar to Night Elves because I hate Night Elves.

It doesn't matter which one was conceived first, I'm not accusing him of plagiarism. The Na'vi have been done already, and it didn't turn out well. The super-perfect Night Elves that kill all of the stupid, technologically advanced humans with their bows and animal friends and tree spirits was lame. The ending to the campaign was lame, and it's repeated in Avatar. It's a cliche, and it's a tired one. The movie is saturated with a "message" that's been done a million times, and is absurdly hamfisted. CGI doesn't make up for this.

Got it. You won't see a movie by one of the best action/sci-fi directors in history because of surface similarities with some POS video game you played a few years ago.

Yea that was my only beef with the movie but I've gotten over it. Not to mention that this movie is going to feature quite a lot of violence against such a race

dienekes96 wrote:I'm ignoring your post because I can't defend the movie's hackneyed plotline even though I kiss the director's ass.

Im seeing it at the IMAX on Friday, i do think the story sounds a bit dull.. and i do think it is cliched, but it looks so wonderful visually i feel i still have to see it. And explosions and robots and guns are always cool, even if the story kinda sucks!

I do hate that whole "tribal nice people" vs "evil expanionists" thing though. I mean seriously, how could puny tribesman riding animals fight off giant robots and helicopters with plasma cannons?

dienekes96 wrote:I like pretty pictures more than a compelling plot

Fixed. Do you want a squeaky toy as well?

What plot line archetype isn't overdone nowadays?

Cane wrote:What plot line archetype isn't overdone nowadays?

Summer Glau beats up everyone?

Sorry, you must have missed quite a few of Joss Whedon productions J. Black

Kanluwen wrote:Sorry, you must have missed quite a few of Joss Whedon productions J. Black

Are you saying you think it's overdone?! What are you? Crazy on drugs?

I think there's maybe one theme in Hollywood that's never been done.

Homosexual alien hardcore pornography.

And I'm about 99.98% sure we won't see it, ever, either.

At least I hope not.

Cane wrote:What plot line archetype isn't overdone nowadays?

True enough. I thinks its just this particular archetype which has people miffed. So many movies have been about the evils of humanity lately. We need a good, old-fashioned mighty whitey!

Hmm, in Hollywood maybe.

Even without checking 4chan, i bet there is some Manga/hentai that covers that base though. We'll have to let Cheese verify it for us.

I really liked District 9. The Prawn were actually sympathetic.

Now we get 10 foot tall "noble savages" who are right about everything and super strong and super agile and attractive to humans and friends with all the forest creatures.

J.Black wrote:Hmm, in Hollywood maybe.

Even without checking 4chan, i bet there is some Manga/hentai that covers that base though. We'll have to let Cheese verify it for us.

Hmm, I've never seen any on 4chan, not even around /d/ (which is a really fethed-up board), but the Rule 34 site might have it.

Oh God.

Rule 34 has Barney and Gordon from HL2 getting it on. I will look no further but will assume that there is some hot alien on alien action there somewhere.

My eyes, my eyes...... :,(

Oh, well if you're looking for hetero alien-on-alien there's tons of that.

What can you expect from filthy little heathens?

Here's what you get when races are diverse!

Their skin's a hellish red; they're only good when dead,

They're vermin as I said and worse!

They're savages, savages, barely even human! Savages, savages, drive them from our shore!

They're not you and me, which means they must be evil, now we sound the drums of war!

Orkeosaurus wrote:

dienekes96 wrote:I'm ignoring your post because I can't defend the movie's hackneyed plotline even though I kiss the director's ass.

I don't need to defend the movie's hackneyed plotline. Neither of us have seen it. I have read the scriptment, back in 2004, though I am certain it changed somewhat. But the aliens weren't quite the noble savages you seem to expect.

As Ebert says, it is not what a movie is about, but HOW it is about it. Feel free to read his 4 star review of Avatar here. Though obviously your mind is made up without seeing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Fixed. I am a huge douche who needs to pile on another argument for a cheap zing. I like little boys as well, especially since we share penile size.

See how easy that is.

dienekes96 wrote:
See how easy that is.

It is quite easy to fabricate an insult instead of simply pointing out what is happening, and allowing the target to find the insult in the revelation.

Its good to know that your first recourse is phallic imagery.

It was easy. It was also enjoyable. I will continue to look for opportunities for further fabrication.

Don't talk to me about having judged it before seeing it; you're just as bad with your fawning over it because of the director. At least I'm taking the movie on it's individual merits. Ebert's review only strengthens my belief that the movie is only worth anything on a visual basis.

I watched part of Transformers 2 and shut it off during one of the giant robot fights. Why? Because when there's no point to the events happening on screen I can't gather much enthusiasm for these events having cost a lot of money to display.

If you have any secrets about how the Na'vi are significantly flawed (besides justifiably hating/looking down on humans) I'd be interested in hearing them. So far everything I've heard of them puts them in the same box as every other Mary Sue forest magic elf race.

You need an outside force to instruct you to fabricate?

From this...

dogma wrote:

dienekes96 wrote:I like pretty pictures more than a compelling plot

Fixed. Do you want a squeaky toy as well?

To this?

dienekes96 wrote:

dogma wrote:Fixed. I am a huge douche who needs to pile on another argument for a cheap zing. I like little boys as well, especially since we share penile size.

See how easy that is.

Fail... I am not even sure why you would get so defensive, all Dogma did was point out the obvious. He didn't even take the time to poke you with a stick for fawning so hardcore over James Cameron.

I hate when some primitives win over high-tech force.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would like to see humans dropping some nukes on Mary Sue elves.

One of my buddies voiced his fear that it would simply be a Sci-Fi Dances with Wolves... Dunno how I feel about that.

I agree that District 9 was probably one of those most interesting Sci-Fi movies I've seen in a while.

Re-watched Monsters vs. Aliens. Still way better...

As i said, im going to see it, but i do hate those lame plots where the savages with no technology beat the advanced guys. Remember blackadder saying how much he liked other wars, where the enemy had spears and guava halves? I think that sounds more realistic, i mean seriously, blue guys with birds are going to fight PLASMA TANKS?

Ewoks!

lol Gornall.

Exactly! I mean.. come on!!? Clones of the galaxies finest soldier in armor and with laser guns getting trashed by 3 foot furballs with rocks?! I know it was a kids film but /facepalm

mattyrm wrote:As i said, im going to see it, but i do hate those lame plots where the savages with no technology beat the advanced guys.

Yeah, it's not like that's ever happened before.

Just lucky dice IMO.

Platuan4th wrote:

mattyrm wrote:As i said, im going to see it, but i do hate those lame plots where the savages with no technology beat the advanced guys.

Yeah, it's not like that's ever happened before.

-Of course the Zulus Lost the battle of Rork's Drift and had their heads handed to them in the war.

-Little Big Horn saw the the "savages with no technology" having better technology (repeating rifles and better horses) than the advanced guys. Custer didn't bring the artillery....

-Also US forces lost several small engagements to the filipinos and the Japanese had problems with certain headhunters in Borneo in WWII.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
the flip side is Pizzarro who just went berserk and smashed the Inca empire, without allies.

Yeah... generally the less technolgically advanced wins a few battles, but very rarely pull out the overall win.

There's a few exceptions to this however, the biggest ones coming to mind for me being Rome, Vietnam, Afghanistan (historically... making no comment about currently).

dienekes96 wrote:But hey, I love movies.

Well there is one difference between us: I love cinema.

dienekes96 wrote:then how about this...it won more awards than all of your favorite movies put together

How about double fail? More money at the box office has never meant better in the same that more awards has never meant better either. Citizen Kane is widely regarded as one of the greatest films and a touchstone in the medium but when it was released it hardly won any awards. So what we know then is that the Academy doesn't mind giving awards to mediocre movies if they can appeal to the lowest common denominator to draw in a crowd. You also don't know my favorite movies so that is a bit of a disingenuous statement. It didn't win that many awards

dienekes96 wrote:How can anyone be a member of Dakka and not look forward to a Cameron film?

When you don't let blind devotion blind your judgment, it isn't hard.

I also disagree with your assesment of JC being the biggest influence on Warhammer but that is a different thread.

Respectfully Ahtman, if money isn't an indicator, awards are not an indicator, er what is? When a movie does both, thats usually an indicator its a fine movie.

Frazzled wrote:Respectfully Ahtman, if money isn't an indicator, awards are not an indicator, er what is?

Amount of bewbs.

In all seriousness, I find that almost without fail, if the critics pan a movie, I end up loving it, and vice versa. I guess I'm too uneducated to appreciate fine cinema, lowest common denominator, and all that jazz. TBH, If I want to really think about something and enjoy a good story, I'll bust out a book.

Frazzled wrote:Respectfully Ahtman, if money isn't an indicator, awards are not an indicator, er what is? When a movie does both, thats usually an indicator its a fine movie.

When looking at a short period of time it can be, but looking over a longer period of time it means much less. If your movie-viewership only goes back a few years than I suppose it is fine but if you watch movies going back to the birth of the medium as well as global cinema then it again changes. To put it more simply, Awards don't tell us about the film, they tell us about the people and the culture of that time. Again, if you just use those awards as a measure they should almost never bring up Citizen Kane in Film School (either Academic or Trade) but talk a lot about Titanic. But guess what? Titanic will hardly be mentioned where Citizen Kane will be talked about extensively. Or how about AFI's (a group made up of mostly AMPAS members) list of 100 greatest American Films in which Titanic is number 83. It won more awards than the 82 movies picked as better films yet doesn't get the top spot.


Also, the indicator is whether you like a movie or not. I never try to justify liking a film with weak arguments such as money or awards. My argument is I like it, I don't care how many other people like it or how many others spent money to see it. Why I like it will be different from film to film but I have never liked a movie because of it's box office or number of awards. How silly is that? "Why'd you like that film?" "Oh, because it made a lot of money (or vice versa)"

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Respectfully Ahtman, if money isn't an indicator, awards are not an indicator, er what is? When a movie does both, thats usually an indicator its a fine movie.

When looking at a short period of time it can be, but looking over a longer period of time it means much less. If your movie-viewership only goes back a few years than I suppose it is fine but if you watch movies going back to the birth of the medium as well as global cinema then it again changes. To put it more simply, Awards don't tell us about the film, they tell us about the people and the culture of that time. Again, if you just use those awards as a measure they should almost never bring up Citizen Kane in Film School (either Academic or Trade) but talk a lot about Titanic. But guess what? Titanic will hardly be mentioned where Citizen Kane will be talked about extensively. Or how about AFI's (a group made up of mostly AMPAS members) list of 100 greatest American Films in which Titanic is number 83. It won more awards than the 82 movies picked as better films yet doesn't get the top spot.


Also, the indicator is whether you like a movie or not. I never try to justify liking a film with weak arguments such as money or awards. My argument is I like it, I don't care how many other people like it or how many others spent money to see it. Why I like it will be different from film to film but I have never liked a movie because of it's box office or number of awards. How silly is that? "Why'd you like that film?" "Oh, because it made a lot of money (or vice versa)"

Sorry, I see your arguments against why those standards are good, but you didn't say what qwualifies a movie as being "good."

If its experiential then I thought it was an award level film, which cancels out your lack of faith, which I find disturbing...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gornall wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Respectfully Ahtman, if money isn't an indicator, awards are not an indicator, er what is?

Amount of bewbs.

In all seriousness, I find that almost without fail, if the critics pan a movie, I end up loving it, and vice versa. I guess I'm too uneducated to appreciate fine cinema, lowest common denominator, and all that jazz. TBH, If I want to really think about something and enjoy a good story, I'll bust out a book.

I hear ya and that is often the case. however, I've found if they garner both they are usually pretty decent, even if they may not be my cup of tea.

I liked David Lynch's Dune...

man, feel so much better saying that

Frazzled wrote:If its experiential then I thought it was an award level film, which cancels out your lack of faith, which I find disturbing...

It isn't entirely subjective but for the purposes of a place like this it is easier to go with that explanation, besides also being true. It can be difficult to seperate ones own personal preferences from objective viewing which is why for most people if they don't care for something that means it is bad and if they like it that means it is good. Of course the two aren't connected. There are films I don't care for that I think are good and ones I enjoy that are bad, bad movies.

I thought the standard of whether entertainment is "good" or "bad" is on how much it entertains?

And the AFI top 100 list is invalid because it does NOT include ANY of the Die Hard movies.

I think what Ahtman is trying to say, is that different people will like different movies.

What makes AFI more correct than Heat magazine? Is it only that they agree with your opinions on a more consistent basis?

Gornall wrote:I thought the standard of whether entertainment is "good" or "bad" is on how much it entertains?

And the AFI top 100 list is invalid because it does NOT include ANY of the Die Hard movies.

Yippekayay Mutha kah!!!

Platuan, i am genuinelly puzzled, why on earth would you name Rourkes Drift is you want to sarcastically say that the savages had never beat the advanced guys before?

Have you seen Zulu?! The technologically advanced guys MALLETED them!

I think he was refering to the battle just days before that... basically a British Custer's Last Stand.

Well, the Zulus attacked while the Brits were singing "God Save the Queen." The Brits don't stop singing for nothing. That would just not be proppa what what.

dienekes96 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Fixed. I am a huge douche who needs to pile on another argument for a cheap zing. I like little boys as well, especially since we share penile size.

See how easy that is.

Cool it, both of you.

Orke, IMO it's perfectly defensible to expect good or bad things of a movie based on the director's prior performance. As D noted, with a James Cameron film you can reasonably expect the better sort of big-budget actioner. If it's Uwe Bolle, OTOH, the opposite.

I thought they interupted tea and crumpets...

Gornall wrote:I thought they interupted tea and crumpets...

Is there a difference? I'm a southerner from the US, this is all second hand to me.

I'm from Arkansas orginally, so I guess it's the equivelent of interrupting NASCAR.

No, it's the equivalent of using the union flag as a toilet swab.

When i was in Iraq if anyone dared to interrupt Crumpet Hour we were legally entitled to use the nukes.

Union flag as in the Union Jack or as in civil-war, "Dirty Yankees" flag?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The question is whether you finish Crumpet Hour first...

"But I am le tired..."
"Well... take a nap.... THEN FIRE ZE MISSILES!"

Damn, i meant the confederate flag. See it as an oblique attempt to annoy Frazzled and an indicator of the lack of education pertaining to America here in England :S

That would be the Stars and Bars. (National Flag... not the Battle Flag which is the one that draws all the controversy.)

You mean the Confederate Battleflag? meh. Texas Lone Star, thats different. that entitles me to be self deputized and hang you from the nearest oak or mesquite tree. If the tree is too short to hang you proper, I'm permitted to utilize cutlery to make you size appropriate. if the violation is particularly heinous or yankee like, I am permitted to bury you to your neck, next to a fire ant nest :O

And i can drop hot crumpets down the back of your trousers

No need for nukes.

Ah hell... didn't notice he's Texan.

Mannahnin wrote:Orke, IMO it's perfectly defensible to expect good or bad things of a movie based on the director's prior performance.

But not the plot.

Because I was told off for using that as the metric instead.


And at no point in time have I ever implied that the movie will lack in visuals or action scenes.

It would probably be too harsh of me to say this will be a truly bad film. Just another mediocre CGI movie. I'm sure the kids will love the blue cat people, and the whole thing will be good family fun. Lots of pretty scenery, all sorts of fights with scary monsters and robots, lots of jumping around, a tryingly predictable storyline, a shoehorned in romance, and a dull cinderblock of a message.

If I see it on TV four years from now I'll probably sit through it.

J.Black wrote:And i can drop hot crumpets down the back of your trousers

No need for nukes.

Whats a crumpet? Is that like a biscuit? Biscuits are best when made by Granny. Its the law.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Orke, IMO it's perfectly defensible to expect good or bad things of a movie based on the director's prior performance.

But not the plot.

Because I was told off for using that as the metric instead.


And at no point in time have I ever implied that the movie will lack in visuals or action scenes.

It would probably be too harsh of me to say this will be a truly bad film. Just another mediocre CGI movie. I'm sure the kids will love the blue cat people, and the whole thing will be good family fun. Lots of pretty scenery, all sorts of fights with scary monsters and robots, lots of jumping around, a tryingly predictable storyline, a shoehorned in romance, and a dull cinderblock of a message.

If I see it on TV four years from now I'll probably sit through it.

well if its 3.5 hours long ya won't. Thats a freeking bladder burster.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Orke, IMO it's perfectly defensible to expect good or bad things of a movie based on the director's prior performance.

But not the plot.

Because I was told off for using that as the metric instead.

Plot and story are certainly important. But a summary from online only tells you so much, and is not necessarily accurate or representative. I can certainly understand the elements of it which are annoying folks. Mary Sue giant elves and Technology BAD are lame. I just haven't seen enough data to say whether they're present to such an extent (hey, maybe the aliens have some redeeming qualities) as to ruin the whole movie. Cameron's got a good track record, though, so I'm certainly interesting in checking it out in the theater. I won't expect to be blown away, but I expect it to be a good movie.

What's left besides the plot and characters? The visuals, but that's enough for me to see the movie. The acting doesn't matter if the characters don't.

Frazzled wrote:Respectfully Ahtman, if money isn't an indicator, awards are not an indicator, er what is? When a movie does both, thats usually an indicator its a fine movie.

Titanic won a bunch of Oscars and rake in a ton of cash.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Respectfully Ahtman, if money isn't an indicator, awards are not an indicator, er what is? When a movie does both, thats usually an indicator its a fine movie.

Titanic won a bunch of Oscars and rake in a ton of cash.

Yep.

Well, here is Cracked.com's review from one of its segments entitled, "Hate by Numbers." Enjoy!

http://www.cracked.com/video_18123_5-moments-from-avatar-that-are-suspiciously-familiar.html

Orkeosaurus wrote:What's left besides the plot and characters? The visuals, but that's enough for me to see the movie. The acting doesn't matter if the characters don't.

Agreed 100%, but I’m hoping that the annoying elements are a relatively small part of the whole. One group of characters having a superficially annoying quality (which again, I’m hoping is not their overwhelming trait), and one aspect of the plot being lame, does not mean that they are the dominant themes of the movie.

Gornall wrote:I think he was refering to the battle just days before that... basically a British Custer's Last Stand.

This.

As for Little Bighorn, I pointed it out because of perceptions. Custer believed that he was facing poorly armed savages with only a slight numerical advantage. And while, yes some warriors were armed with better(though shorter ranged) rifles than the US soldiers, many were still armed with more traditional weapons(half or more, according to Native American accounts, and White Bull gives accounts of stripping the dead of their rifles and ammo for those lacking the modern equipment). As well, the Native Americans enjoyed propagating this, as their own paintings of the battle show bows vs rifles.

Platuan4th wrote:

Gornall wrote:I think he was refering to the battle just days before that... basically a British Custer's Last Stand.

This.

As for Little Bighorn, I pointed it out because of perceptions. Custer believed that he was facing poorly armed savages with only a slight numerical advantage. And while, yes some warriors were armed with better(though shorter ranged) rifles than the US soldiers, many were still armed with more traditional weapons(half or more, according to Native American accounts, and White Bull gives accounts of stripping the dead of their rifles and ammo for those lacking the modern equipment). As well, the Native Americans enjoyed propagating this, as their own paintings of the battle show bows vs rifles.

Half or more. So half or somewhat less had better weaponry and that portion still outsized Custer's force.

Mannahnin wrote:One group of characters having a superficially annoying quality (which again, I’m hoping is not their overwhelming trait), and one aspect of the plot being lame, does not mean that they are the dominant themes of the movie.

Unless it's Star Wars Episode 1: The Jar Jar Binks Story.

The cat people can't be that bad.

Gornall wrote:Unless it's Star Wars Episode 1: The Jar Jar Binks Story.

HERESY!

Hating Jar-Jar. Now THERE'S a criticism of a CGI-heavy movie we can all get behind!

Yep.

Orkeosaurus wrote:The cat people can't be that bad.

The producers of Avatar have clearly bought off a few newspapers here on our sceptred isle. Most are running 2 page features every day (presenting the information as a feature rather than as an advert) about how great the movie will be and pushing the CGI as the dominant reason to go see it. Perhaps unsurprisingly, most of these papers are owned by Rupert Murdoch (gakker).

I shall reserve judgement until i shamelessly pirate it off a torrent site in a couple of weeks but, in the meantime, will happily gamble that it is a big, egotistical wankfest made purely to show off the new technology.

J.Black wrote:The producers of Avatar have clearly bought off a few newspapers here on our sceptred isle. Most are running 2 page features every day (presenting the information as a feature rather than as an advert) about how great the movie will be and pushing the CGI as the dominant reason to go see it. Perhaps unsurprisingly, most of these papers are owned by Rupert Murdoch (gakker).

There is a massive 'viral' campaign right now for this flick. Multimillion dollar project to be sure. Flooding the market with promotions for a movie usually pays of TBTH, so this flick should seriously rake in a lot of dough, at least for it's release.

I shall reserve judgement until i shamelessly pirate it off a torrent site in a couple of weeks but, in the meantime, will happily gamble that it is a big, egotistical wankfest made purely to show off the new technology.

Ummm... don't mean to burst your bubble or anything, but why in the feth would you want to watch a pirated (read: gakkyy-ass-booboo-screener-unwatchable-dookie-poop) copy of this flick? There is literally no way in flying feck that there would be a DVDrip quality torrent within the first few months, if not much longer.

Cheese Elemental wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:The cat people can't be that bad.

This.

I must have it.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Ummm... don't mean to burst your bubble or anything, but why in the feth would you want to watch a pirated (read: gakkyy-ass-booboo-screener-unwatchable-dookie-poop) copy of this flick? There is literally no way in flying feck that there would be a DVDrip quality torrent within the first few months, if not much longer.

You haven't been on the interweb long have you...

J.Black wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:
Ummm... don't mean to burst your bubble or anything, but why in the feth would you want to watch a pirated (read: gakkyy-ass-booboo-screener-unwatchable-dookie-poop) copy of this flick? There is literally no way in flying feck that there would be a DVDrip quality torrent within the first few months, if not much longer.

You haven't been on the interweb long have you...

I guess not then... Congratulations on your gold mine though. One thing that I do see a lot of, is fake movies, as well as people shrugging of the fact that the rip of that extra new movie they are watching is actually of extremely low quality. If the only redeeming part of this movie is the special effects... I dunno... nevermind then...

86% On Rotten Tomatoes.

dogma wrote:86% On Rotten Tomatoes.

Out of the 57 reviews only 7 are actual film critics, the rest are from people who's qualifications are having an internet connection, of which I would be willing to bet a great deal of them haven't even seen the film. The 7 real critics are just a few of the overall actual articles that will be posted when the film finally is released. It isn't a reliable measure by any standard at this point.

I hope the movie is good, but I have my doubts. I have no doubt the special effects are amazing, but FX alone do not a movie make.

dogma wrote:

For someone who has on several occasions gone on about statistics, sampling errors, and poling in general I would think that you would know that doing a survey of, say 100 people, and after getting the first 10 responses stopping and using that as the metric is foolish. Not all the data is in to make any determination yet, good or bad.

Sarcasm, my man, sarcasm.

Though, granted, the interwebz are not leant to such.

In an effort to derail this thread again, I would like to ask what qualifications do film critics have over regular people to grade a movie?

Usually just that they’ve seen a LOT of movies (and not just ones within one or two categories they prefer), that they’ve got some writing chops, and often some formal study of film, which gives a person more knowledge of the craft and history of filmmaking. Ideally all adding up to greater perspective and a more informed viewer, who can then better recognize and explain the good and bad parts of a movie.

That’s not to say that some film critics aren’t crap, though, or that one can’t legitimately disagree with a good one on many subjective elements of movies.

Film critics are generally more involved in the concept of filmmaking, production, and have a encyclopedic nature of viewing. Printed ones obviously have a gift of writing on top, potentially from personal skill or education.

I used to be a film critic though, so it doesn't take much . Even a critic's opinion is just that. Its more of a collective assessment of a diverse range of critics that associates how a movie can be generally received. There are very few movies with a consensus of love or hate.

The role of the critic, is to utilize one's position (industry) to help influence a decision of the public, individually, as a whole, or as an academic reaction.

That is the ideal of a critic. In practice, the nebulous nature of criticism can create both good and bad scenarios, with certain undesirable releases being rightfully ignored, or some undeserving creation getting mass attention. And all the grey areas in between (which is usually the case).

A lot of strong opinions over this movie. Though I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

I'm seeing it. It will either be amazingly awesome or a complete train-wreck. If it is terrible, 3 hours is plenty of time to get completely wasted and pass out before the end of the movie.

Ozymandias wrote:A lot of strong opinions over this movie. Though I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

I'm seeing it. It will either be amazingly awesome or a complete train-wreck. If it is terrible, 3 hours is plenty of time to get completely wasted and pass out before the end of the movie.

Amen to that!

And the best part is, local theaters now serve alcohol!

WOO!

Kanluwen wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:A lot of strong opinions over this movie. Though I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

I'm seeing it. It will either be amazingly awesome or a complete train-wreck. If it is terrible, 3 hours is plenty of time to get completely wasted and pass out before the end of the movie.

Amen to that!

And the best part is, local theaters now serve alcohol!

WOO!

Dude why do you think I'm such a movie buff?

Enjoy the NY Post Review. You'll either rage with the heat of 1000 suns or agree with him but not much in between. Enjoy an excerpt.

These F/X show Cameron’s ex-Marine hero, Jake Sully (the great everyman Sam Worthington), taking part in a quasi-military program where he enters the alien society via a hybrid body (an avatar) made from human and Na’vi DNA. Cameron’s “fully immersive” 3-D technology is irritating to watch for nearly three hours. And then there’s his underlying purpose: Avatar is the corniest movie ever made about the white man’s need to lose his identity and assuage racial, political, sexual and historical guilt.

Only children—including adult-children—will see Avatar as simply an adventure film; their own love of technology has co-opted their ability to comprehend narrative detail. Cameron offers sci-fi dazzle, yet bungles the good part: the meaning. His undeniably pretty Pandora—a phosphorescent Maxfield Parrish paradise with bird-like lizards, moving plant life and floating mountains—distracts from the inherent contradiction of a reported $300-$500 million Hollywood enterprise that casually berates America’s industrial complex.

Cameron’s superficial B-movie tropes pretend philosophical significance. His story’s rampant imperialism and manifest destiny (Giovanni Ribisi plays the heartless industrialist) recalls Vietnam-era revisionist westerns like Soldier Blue, but it’s essentially a sentimental cartoon with a pacifist, naturalist message. Avatar condemns mankind’s plundering and ruin of a metaphorical planet’s ecology and the aboriginals’ way of life. Cameron fashionably denounces the same economic and military system that make his technological extravaganza possible. It’s like condemning NASA—yet joyriding on the Mars Exploration Rover.

As long as we're at it:

Absent from the big screen for over a decade now, Oscar-winning director James Cameron returns armed with a reported half-billion dollars, a story he’s been desperate to tell for 15 years, and the very latest in cutting-edge visual technology. The result is “Avatar,” a sanctimonious thud of a movie so infested with one-dimensional characters and PC clichés that not a single plot turn – small or large – surprises. I call it the “liberal tell,” where the early and obvious politics of the film gives away the entire story before the second act begins, and “Avatar” might be the sorriest example of this yet. For all the time and money and technology that went into its making, the thing that matters most – character and story – are strictly Afterschool Special.

What a crushing disappointment from one of our most original and imaginative filmmakers.

Orkeosaurus wrote:As long as we're at it:

Absent from the big screen for over a decade now, Oscar-winning director James Cameron returns armed with a reported half-billion dollars, a story he’s been desperate to tell for 15 years, and the very latest in cutting-edge visual technology. The result is “Avatar,” a sanctimonious thud of a movie so infested with one-dimensional characters and PC clichés that not a single plot turn – small or large – surprises. I call it the “liberal tell,” where the early and obvious politics of the film gives away the entire story before the second act begins, and “Avatar” might be the sorriest example of this yet. For all the time and money and technology that went into its making, the thing that matters most – character and story – are strictly Afterschool Special.

What a crushing disappointment from one of our most original and imaginative filmmakers.

Is that a politics website that does media or a media website obsessed with politics?

Who can tell anymore
I might go see this, but I share the concerns about the Mary Sue Forest Elf aliens. I think I'd rather go see Michael Cane's new thing, and Ordinary Decent Citizen or whatever it's called. (That film looks pretty dumb, but dumb in a way that would appeal to my baser nature)

I'm not sure which it is, but it confirms my fears about the cookie-cutter plotline.

Evidently Ridley is coming out with a Robin Hood movie...
This could be coolio.

Just watched it.

It was pretty good.

Umm.... Anything more to add to that?

What, are you kidding? How in the hell could he impart any information onto us, without us having seen the movie already; at which point we could all nod in agreement.

YOU!!! Keep nodding buddy... god help you, keep nodding...

It cant be any worse than the Kevin Costner one, i mean, i could live with a bad American/Irish/Pakistani accent, but where the hell did Morgan Freeman come from?! Im pretty sure there was a lack of Africans in Medieval England.

Alan Rickmans Sheriff will take some beating though!

Frankly a lot of amateur critics' appraisals of a movie amount to "I liked the pretty butterflies".

The professional reviews in the UK are coming out with scores of 3 to 4 out of 5, which to me is not a must see however I've booked a ticket for the BFI 3D Imax in mid January.

I figure it's still Pocahontas in space with blue aliens but if I'm watching it for the SFX I may as well watch it on the biggest screen available.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Da Boss wrote:Who can tell anymore
I might go see this, but I share the concerns about the Mary Sue Forest Elf aliens. I think I'd rather go see Michael Cane's new thing, and Ordinary Decent Citizen or whatever it's called. (That film looks pretty dumb, but dumb in a way that would appeal to my baser nature)

That is a good example of a film which does not aspire or claim to be THE GREATEST MOVIE EVAR!!!!1111! and therefore does not need to live up to hifalutin pre-conceptions.

I'll put it on my watch list.

The rule 34 on this will be epic.

I have little faith in professional reviewers. They tend to be... well idiots. Sure there are times I want a deep powerful story or great characterization or social commentary. Other times I just want to watch blow up. I think this movie will lean more towards the latter viewing impulse.

Tyyr wrote:Sure there are times I want a deep powerful story or great characterization or social commentary. Other times I just want to watch blow up. I think this movie will lean more towards the latter viewing impulse.

Yar. Like I said earlier, I tend to go to the movies when I'm in a "beer and pretzels" mood. If I want an engaging/thought-provoking story, I go find a nearby book (Luckily I'm not in Laredo). Unlike a movie, books can really take the time to develop the characters, the setting, and the story. That and let's be honest... book-inspired imagination > CGI any day of the week.

After more and more reviews I´m thinking about skiping this movie for sure. I can stand a preachy black and white movie. What I can´t stand is a 3 hour long cliche fest I´d sooner kill myself.

M.

Gornall wrote:Unlike a movie, books can really take the time to develop the characters, the setting, and the story.

You need to expand your viewing list if you think this is true. Still, books and film are different mediums and comparing them is about as fair as comparing aeroplanes and automobiles. Sure they both get you were you are going but do so very differently. Does that make one inherently superior to the other? There are crappy books with poorly drawn characters and there are good movies with three-dimensional characters.

I have seen several movies that really surpassed what I could construct only with my head.

Take 'The Shining', or 'The Thing', or 'American Werewolf in London'. All fantastic, intensely intricate movies, that are simply too well done for me to claim that I really could have read them better than they watched.

Films and books are just different.

There are ideas and types of stories that can only be told in a book, as it is very hard for a film to show a character's thought processes, or to explore more conceptual ideas.

On the other hand, visuals are a powerful storytelling technique. It is one thing to describe the architecture of a city, it is another thing entirely to show it. As a result, there are things you can do in film that you couldn't ever do in a book.

They are just different, but at some point much of the information that goes into either, is written out in a storyboard of sorts; regardless, I am the one experiencing it on either end.

I tend to speed read, and I have always preferred looking at a book through wide eyes. I like to be able to taste my entertainment, and many of the good books I have read, tasted familiar in texture to that of many of the great movies I have seen.

Watching 'the making of' extras on DVD's was a bit of a pastime for me at one point. For a really experience rich movie, nothing beats seeing how it ticks from the inside out. That does find itself lacking when it comes to books in many ways though.

Meh. I like both. If I feel like reading I read, if I feel like watching a movie I watch. So far no one has ever come up to me and put a gun to my head and yelled "YOU CAN ONLY READ OR WATCH MOVIES OR I"LL BLOW YER HEAD OFF!". Thus, I am spared having to choose on over the other.

Wrexasaur wrote:I have seen several movies that really surpassed what I could construct only with my head.

Take 'The Shining', or 'The Thing', or 'American Werewolf in London'. All fantastic, intensely intricate movies, that are simply too well done for me to claim that I really could have read them better than they watched.

I wouldn't wholeheartedly agree with this, while it's true I was mesmerized by the "Abyss", sickened by the brutality of "American History X", and equally moved by countless other films including "Good Will Hunting" (it's late and I'm unable to name them all). I would have to say certain novels move me far more from reading them, "Tigana" by Guy Gavriel Kay is a romance that deals with relationship complexities and war. "Frankenstein" trully gave me shivers, not because he was a reanimated corpse, but how he calculatedly murdered. Anything by Micheal Chrichton, is extremely disturbing to think the technologies that were written about so long ago are real today. M.C is a good example because his books were made into movies and while Jurassic Park was a thrill during my childhood, the movie just does not compare with the detailed descriptions and the emotions/motivations of the written characters, IMHO.

Wrexasaur wrote:They are just different, but at some point much of the information that goes into either, is written out in a storyboard of sorts; regardless, I am the one experiencing it on either end.

I tend to speed read, and I have always preferred looking at a book through wide eyes. I like to be able to taste my entertainment, and many of the good books I have read, tasted familiar in texture to that of many of the great movies I have seen.

Watching 'the making of' extras on DVD's was a bit of a pastime for me at one point. For a really experience rich movie, nothing beats seeing how it ticks from the inside out. That does find itself lacking when it comes to books in many ways though.

Books do have history within and around them, just takes more digging to find. But I concur, I like seeing how actors relate to characters and draw from personal experience. Because as the audience, that is why we enjoy movies so much As we relate the characters to ourselves.

sebster wrote:Films and books are just different.

There are ideas and types of stories that can only be told in a book, as it is very hard for a film to show a character's thought processes, or to explore more conceptual ideas.

On the other hand, visuals are a powerful storytelling technique. It is one thing to describe the architecture of a city, it is another thing entirely to show it. As a result, there are things you can do in film that you couldn't ever do in a book.

I think it is agreed that books and movies are both different and bring about their conceptions differently. What I'm hearing though by many people is that movies are superior.

I don't think this is true. I believe it is depending entirely on how a reader percieves the medium. In this day and age I would argue that people get really lazy and that our imaginations suffer for this, it is next to impossible to draw a profound experience out of a book anymore. Which isn't to say this is everyone, and that certain things are displayed better through action and are well done. This is why certain movies stay with you for so long. However we are easily amused by effects - OOH shiny, and well as explosions coming out of explosions (courtesy of M. Bay). As you can tell by my dripping sarcasm I was disappointed by Transformers 2. I guess I'm saying both are great, neither one being better. Just don't dismiss reading altogether.

Regardless of the mixed reviews, I still may see Avatar. However, I'm inching towards the negative.

binky wrote:What I'm hearing though by many people is that movies are superior.

I don't think I got that impression at all. Gornall didn't really qualify either as superior, but I could get that from him, but the rest seemed more in differentiating but not judging better or worse.

binky wrote:I think it is agreed that books and movies are both different and bring about their conceptions differently. What I'm hearing though by many people is that movies are superior.

I don't think this is true. I believe it is depending entirely on how a reader percieves the medium. In this day and age I would argue that people get really lazy and that our imaginations suffer for this, it is next to impossible to draw a profound experience out of a book anymore. Which isn't to say this is everyone, and that certain things are displayed better through action and are well done. This is why certain movies stay with you for so long. However we are easily amused by effects - OOH shiny, and well as explosions coming out of explosions (courtesy of M. Bay). As you can tell by my dripping sarcasm I was disappointed by Transformers 2. I guess I'm saying both are great, neither one being better.

People enjoy different things, a lot of people don't like reading at all, and myself, I prefer graphic novels at any rate. It is all about personal taste, I don't see a reason why someone should have to read books, to have an active imagination. Sure Hollywood makes things go boom, and I occasionally watch (though less and less these days), but that doesn't make people dumb or anything. If after that movie, they go out and try to recreate it.... THAT, is what makes a person dumb.

Ahtman wrote:

binky wrote:What I'm hearing though by many people is that movies are superior.

I don't think I got that impression at all. Gornall didn't really qualify either as superior, but I could get that from him, but the rest seemed more in differentiating but not judging better or worse.

I dunno, could be a misinterpretation on my part, but it's just the negative vibe I got from the use of certain words, phrasings... gawd I sound like my english teacher

Wrexasaur wrote:I think it is agreed that books and movies are both different and bring about their conceptions differently. What I'm hearing though by many people is that movies are superior.

People enjoy different things, a lot of people don't like reading at all, and myself, I prefer graphic novels at any rate. It is all about personal taste, I don't see a reason why someone should have to read books, to have an active imagination. Sure Hollywood makes things go boom, and I occasionally watch (though less and less these days), but that doesn't make people dumb or anything. If after that movie, they go out and try to recreate it.... THAT, is what makes a person dumb.

I don't think books are the only way to have an active imagination, or that not reading books makes people dumb. You inferred that. I meant to say - and this is why I shouldn't argue when I'm tired - is that it appears to me that nowadays our entire race is lazy. So much so we demand instant gratification at our finger tips, using movies as an example was a poor choice on my part. But that as a whole we don't use that part of our brain to imagine as much and that it's far nicer to have information NOW! Kinda like books, compared to internet and movies, media moves faster and it's easier to keep up with than say turning the pages of a book. That's all I wanted to say. That books are sometimes forgotten in the mad rush of technology. Is that any clearer?
But like many things it's a personal choice, media is amazing, and not everyone should be forced to read - we just have the choice.
Haha I like your example

binky wrote:it appears to me that nowadays our entire race is lazy.

As if the blacks are any better. *rimshot*

Movies are more accessible for people with poor abstract conceptualising skills.

Kilkrazy wrote:Movies are more accessible for people with poor abstract conceptualising skills.

Well put. Short and to the point.

Avatar has a 94% rating from the Top Critics @ Rottentomatoes.com (85% on the general meter) which is a pretty high rating and its from a pool of 18 of them. I think there's only a little over 20 Top Critics since the current top movies only have 22 or so reviews in the Top Critics category.

I just might try to go into a morning showing on Friday to see what this experience is all about. I definitely won't be expecting an incredibly new story or a groundbreaking script (interesting that Cameron writes nearly all of his movies, also learned today that he can make excellent movies not only with huge budgets but small ones one too like the original Terminator which cost less than $7 million).

What I am expecting though is what Michael Bay always strived to achieve: an entertaining blockbuster that raises the bar for special effects and the industry in general. Stuff along the lines of True Lies, Aliens, and Terminator 2 although not as graphic unfortunately.

Well now I am sold. I always let the critics decide what I watch.

Ditto. RT usually is spot on especially since its a bunch of critics and yes I realize the previous post was sarcasm

For a blockbuster movie as hyped up as Avatar it seems like a good indicator that it has such high ratings so far. Critics love to take a dump on failed and hyped up blockbusters like Transformers 2, Star Wars Prequels, etc.

Most movies that are made from books are a disappointment, but what's worse is a quickie paperback version of a movie that was only ever a movie. Some books I have read would make awesome movies, but I know that the movie would in no way resemble what I've imagined, so I would of course be disappointed.

Ahtman wrote:Well now I am sold. I always let the critics decide what I watch.

That's being more than a little obtuse, don't you think? The point of a RT score is the consensus of a variety of sources. If the majority of the people used to rate a movie liked it, then it's pretty likely that it's going to be what most people would consider a good movie.

Or at least consistent with what the movie was billed as.

I'm actually a little curious as to what's causing the dissent now. On one hand you've got a lot of people saying the movie is great but then you've got some outliers denouncing it as utter crap based off the story. RT is usually pretty good with things which makes me wonder if the people criticizing it's story aren't being contrary to just be that way. It would be far from the first time a critic latched onto one minor element in a story and blew it out of proportion to give themselves a reason to hate a popular movie so they could be "edgy"

A. Plot is weak.
B. Does a movie that cost $300 million really deserve a lot of credit for looking good?

Point B is irrelevant to people's enjoyment, of course, so I think some of the dissent is a kind of reaction against the hype.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

warpcrafter wrote:Most movies that are made from books are a disappointment, but what's worse is a quickie paperback version of a movie that was only ever a movie. Some books I have read would make awesome movies, but I know that the movie would in no way resemble what I've imagined, so I would of course be disappointed.

It is probably harder to make a film out of a book than the other way around. That's why Peter Jackson got so much credit for the LoTR trilogy.

The trick with books is that anyone reading the same book can see something different from the others that are reading it but with a movie they all see the same thing. So when someone adapts a book they are bringing what they visualized not what everyone has and that leads to disappointment. I try not to think of the book if I see a movie adaptation and judge it on it's own merits as a film since they such radically different mediums. The Shining is a good example. It is very different from the book (King loathed Kubrik's film) yet it is a great film.