Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.