I loved the film. IT was epic. I haven't seen a movie like this in a long time and that says a lot. I watch a lot of movies in theater.
The effect, the atmosphere, everything from the bottom of the screen to the corner of the top was perfect. It was by far the best movie when it comes to the way it looks.
The story itself was pretty good. I am not going to spoil it, but I was drawn to it quickly and by the time it end was I wanted even more. Yes, it is very predictable, but it doesn't go nothing to hate it.
The battle seen was the best especially the
Spoiler:
the big winged creature leading the charge
I saw this last night, yeah it could have been called 'Dances With Smurfs.' I enjoyed this movie a lot. I thought the flying creatures were the best aspect. The 3-D was cool as well, but I'm not sure it's worth the extra few bucks to see movies in 3-D anymore, it's kind of a novelty that has lost it's wow factor for me. Great movie and all, but it was no 'Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow.'
Just saw this, in 3-D.
Overall? I was underwhelmed. The insane amount of hype didn't help and the praise it's recieved from the everyday joe/common moviegoer didn't help either. I couldn't help but have somewhat high expectations, even though I wasn't too impressed by the trailers and I had a somewhat lukewarm reaction to them.
The human characters aka bad guys were about as interesting as cardboard. "Unobtainium"? Gimme a break, a 5 year old could come up with a less blatant/cheesy name for the underexplained fuel source.
Jake Sully was a decent hero and Sam Worthington did a fine job. But I don't think we'll remember him as one of the all-time, memorable heroes of film like Luke Skywalker, Indiana Jones, etc. Even he should've had more character development though, or at least something that would make me care for him more.
Everyone who is saying how the story is unoriginal is pretty much right. At no point was I surprised by anything that happened in the movie.
I will say what everyone else is saying though, it is visually amazing to look at and probably should be seen in theaters for this reason; not a big fan of 3-D though, I find it kind of distracting.
Final thoughts - Looks expensive, some nice battles, weak story - something I would've loved if I was 10 years old again.
Rating... maybe a 7/10 or so.
District 9 was a far better film, and it covered similar thematic material a LOT more effectively. And as far as "epic" goes? I'd rather watch the Lord of the Rings any day. I didn't feel like Avatar was that epic. But I did like Avatar, I kind of want to watch it again purely for the world of Pandora and the visuals on display.
still haven't seen this yet. i'll catch it next weekend. it's just sold out at the times i can go which in and that's at 7pm and we only have 2 imax theatres in the whole state of Mass. playing avatar in 3d.
i'll just have to wait. but i will watch it in 3d, the way it's meant to be seen. i'll never ever watch it in a regular movie theatre unless i see it in 3d first.
Originally posted by SnakeEyes
Just saw this, in 3-D.Overall? I was underwhelmed. The insane amount of hype didn't help and the praise it's recieved from the everyday joe/common moviegoer didn't help either. I couldn't help but have somewhat high expectations, even though I wasn't too impressed by the trailers and I had a somewhat lukewarm reaction to them.
The human characters aka bad guys were about as interesting as cardboard. "Unobtainium"? Gimme a break, a 5 year old could come up with a less blatant/cheesy name for the underexplained fuel source.
Jake Sully was a decent hero and Sam Worthington did a fine job. But I don't think we'll remember him as one of the all-time, memorable heroes of film like Luke Skywalker, Indiana Jones, etc. Even he should've had more character development though, or at least something that would make me care for him more.
Everyone who is saying how the story is unoriginal is pretty much right. At no point was I surprised by anything that happened in the movie.
I will say what everyone else is saying though, it is visually amazing to look at and probably should be seen in theaters for this reason; not a big fan of 3-D though, I find it kind of distracting.
Final thoughts - Looks expensive, some nice battles, weak story - something I would've loved if I was 10 years old again.
Rating... maybe a 7/10 or so.
District 9 was a far better film, and it covered similar thematic material a LOT more effectively. And as far as "epic" goes? I'd rather watch the Lord of the Rings any day. I didn't feel like Avatar was that epic. But I did like Avatar, I kind of want to watch it again purely for the world of Pandora and the visuals on display.
Yeah, calling it "unobtainium" is really stupid. You'd think they'd think of a more original name like..
Curium because of the hommage paid to Peirre and Marie Curie. Americium...because they discovered this element in America at Chicago...and decided to call it that. Or Berkelium...cause it was discovered at Berkeley. Or Californium cause it was discovered at the University of California. Or Bohrium, because someone thought Neils Bohr was awesome. Mercury: named so because it's "quick". lulz. [/sarcasm]
You must think that those are stupid names for elements as well, right?
Probably the stupidest name that could have been thought of by a 5 year old is Thorium. Named after Thor cause some scientist dude thought Thor was awesome. Let's put it this way: it's the same thing as naming an element Christium.
Unobtainium is a rather fitting name for that element: It is very difficult to obtain. It fits very nicely in with the other element names. Basically, your reason for a stupid name for an element basically makes almost every other element name stupid. So you must think that almost every single element name is stupid, right?
Other than that, I have no complaints about your post.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, calling it "unobtainium" is really stupid. You'd think they'd think of a more original name like..Curium because of the hommage paid to Peirre and Marie Curie. Americium...because they discovered this element in America at Chicago...and decided to call it that. Or Berkelium...cause it was discovered at Berkeley. Or Californium cause it was discovered at the University of California. Or Bohrium, because someone thought Neils Bohr was awesome. Mercury: named so because it's "quick". lulz. [/sarcasm]
You must think that those are stupid names for elements as well, right?
Probably the stupidest name that could have been thought of by a 5 year old is Thorium. Named after Thor cause some scientist dude thought Thor was awesome. Let's put it this way: it's the same thing as naming an element Christium.
Unobtainium is a rather fitting name for that element: It is very difficult to obtain. It fits very nicely in with the other element names. Basically, your reason for a stupid name for an element basically makes almost every other element name stupid. So you must think that almost every single element name is stupid, right?
Other than that, I have no complaints about your post.
I gotta say, I agree with the name being lame. I laughed when they first said it becase I thought, "Duh, hello! It's called 'unobtainium'!! Why bother trying to obtain it! It's called that for a reason!" No big deal, just thought it was funny is all.
Yeah, let me repeat - unobtainium = dumb fvckin name.
I don't care about other elements that you listed. A lot of element names/origins actually pertain to the biological/chemical characteristics of the element itself. Is unobtainium chemically or structurally hard to obtain? No, it's just under a giant ass tree, so they apparently call it unobtainium, it's just stupid.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Hey, troll. If you had any drop of intelligence, you'd know that I was referring to polygons, color diversity; surface, background, ambient, etc. etc. lighting effects; motion capture, facial expressions, and surface texture complexity. But, hey, you can go ahead and troll by pretending my comment meant something it didn't. These are fact based, can be measured quite easily by both the required processing power and new or inovative uses of CGI. Again, THAT aspect of it cannot be argued against.
They're also something that nobody brings up in a thread like this unless they honestly like to get off on how a load of people on a forum see them, or hope they see them.
Obviously those aspects aren't arguable, but they're also massively irrelevant, so why even mention it?
It's not arguable that certain musicians asre technically astounding, but not many mention that aspect when debating it because debating about taste (Movies, music) will only ever be exciting or have a point if people are sharing opinions.
You can only share opinions if the subject being discussed is one of subjective nature, otherwise opinion doesn't exist.
Debating who is the better guitarist out of Steve Vai and Joe Trohman from Fall Out Boy is a fruitless one. It can be factually ended by anyone with any knowledge of the instrument.
So it's dumb to do so. What do you discuss in its place? Whose music you prefer.
Thus we come to my point about Avatar and your post regarding it:
You chipped in needlessly by saying that those things can't be argued in hope that some knowledgeless sap (Or someone who rightfully doesn't necessarily give a shit) would come in and assume you meant something else, then challenge you.
You are so high on the fact that you know a lot about science (As do many people here, myself included), that you'll irrelevantly crowbar it into any debate.
You're right that the technical elements can't be argued, and you're right about a lot of the scientific evidence you present because you have a great deal of education in the area.
So why can't you use the intellect you seemingly love about yourself and apply that with logic? You'd arrive at the destination: nobody gives a shit about polygons in this instance, so no sense in bringing them up.
Did you like Avatar or didn't you? Why? Why not? That's all you need to say about the movie, and all you need to discuss about other peoples' opinions. Not you, though. Always trollbaiting.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
They're also something that nobody brings up in a thread like this unless they honestly like to get off on how a load of people on a forum see them, or hope they see them.Obviously those aspects aren't arguable, but they're also massively irrelevant, so why even mention it?
It's not arguable that certain musicians asre technically astounding, but not many mention that aspect when debating it because debating about taste (Movies, music) will only ever be exciting or have a point if people are sharing opinions.
You can only share opinions if the subject being discussed is one of subjective nature, otherwise opinion doesn't exist.
Debating who is the better guitarist out of Steve Vai and Joe Trohman from Fall Out Boy is a fruitless one. It can be factually ended by anyone with any knowledge of the instrument.
So it's dumb to do so. What do you discuss in its place? Whose music you prefer.
Thus we come to my point about Avatar and your post regarding it:
You chipped in needlessly by saying that those things can't be argued in hope that some knowledgeless sap (Or someone who rightfully doesn't necessarily give a shit) would come in and assume you meant something else, then challenge you.
You are so high on the fact that you know a lot about science (As do many people here, myself included), that you'll irrelevantly crowbar it into any debate.
You're right that the technical elements can't be argued, and you're right about a lot of the scientific evidence you present because you have a great deal of education in the area.
So why can't you use the intellect you seemingly love about yourself and apply that with logic? You'd arrive at the destination: nobody gives a shit about polygons in this instance, so no sense in bringing them up.
Did you like Avatar or didn't you? Why? Why not? That's all you need to say about the movie, and all you need to discuss about other peoples' opinions. Not you, though. Always trollbaiting.
-AC
1. I ain't reading all of that.
2. Because you felt the need to respond with anything other than, "yeah, I was trolling you again, despite knowing exactly what you meant", you automatically missed my point or ignored it.
3. Stop trolling the forums. You are so damn annoying.
Originally posted by SnakeEyes
Yeah, let me repeat - unobtainium = dumb fvckin name.I don't care about other elements that you listed. A lot of element names/origins actually pertain to the biological/chemical characteristics of the element itself. Is unobtainium chemically or structurally hard to obtain? No, it's just under a giant ass tree, so they apparently call it unobtainium, it's just stupid.
Cool. I just wanted point out that there are other elements with names that are as stupid or stupider than unobtainium.
And, giant ass trees, huh? I bet they stink. 😆
This is one movie that i think would actually benefit from a sequel. There are seemingly limitless avenues that they could take the story in a sequel but as long as it further explores the physical world of Pandora they don't have to do much. I actually don't think this movie will do will well enough for a sequel. Unlike many people i thought the hype around this movie was relatively quiet. The hype seemed to focus more around Camerons return. Unless this movie blooms on dvd and Blu-ray i don't think this movie will stay with people.
Originally posted by SnakeEyes
Yeah, let me repeat - unobtainium = dumb fvckin name.I don't care about other elements that you listed. A lot of element names/origins actually pertain to the biological/chemical characteristics of the element itself. Is unobtainium chemically or structurally hard to obtain? No, it's just under a giant ass tree, so they apparently call it unobtainium, it's just stupid.
I agree they could of come up with a better name considering they used unobtainium in the movie the Core. The metal was called something eles but the guy couldn't pronounce it so he called it unobtainium.
Make something up like they did with adamantium.
Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
This is one movie that i think would actually benefit from a sequel. There are seemingly limitless avenues that they could take the story in a sequel but as long as it further explores the physical world of Pandora they don't have to do much. I actually don't think this movie will do will well enough for a sequel. Unlike many people i thought the hype around this movie was relatively quiet. The hype seemed to focus more around Camerons return. Unless this movie blooms on dvd and Blu-ray i don't think this movie will stay with people.
I think you are right about it not staying with people. I can't even remember the main character's name, or anyone else's for that matter, unlike the icons such as Luke Skywalker and Han Solo. A sequal would be cool, but if it's in the same environment it would just fail. They would have to explore different ecosystems of Pandora as you talked about. I highly doubt there will be a sequal though, since the movie held it's own quite well without any open ends.
And how about the release date for Avatar, pretty smart if you ask me. It came out the week before X-mas where everyone was on vacation and went to see it. It sold out all week long. Then on X-Mas, everone went to see Sherlock Holmes which sold out, so they decided to see Avatar instead, causing it to sell out again.
Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
This is one movie that i think would actually benefit from a sequel. There are seemingly limitless avenues that they could take the story in a sequel but as long as it further explores the physical world of Pandora they don't have to do much. I actually don't think this movie will do will well enough for a sequel. Unlike many people i thought the hype around this movie was relatively quiet. The hype seemed to focus more around Camerons return. Unless this movie blooms on dvd and Blu-ray i don't think this movie will stay with people.
Originally posted by Tired-Hiker
I think you are right about it not staying with people. I can't even remember the main character's name, or anyone else's for that matter, unlike the icons such as Luke Skywalker and Han Solo. A sequal would be cool, but if it's in the same environment it would just fail. They would have to explore different ecosystems of Pandora as you talked about. I highly doubt there will be a sequal though, since the movie held it's own quite well without any open ends.And how about the release date for Avatar, pretty smart if you ask me. It came out the week before X-mas where everyone was on vacation and went to see it. It sold out all week long. Then on X-Mas, everone went to see Sherlock Holmes which sold out, so they decided to see Avatar instead, causing it to sell out again.
this movie must be staying with people since it has made nearly $ 624 million worldwide
Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
this movie must be staying with people since it has made nearly $ 624 million worldwide
Really?
Cos I thought that sales prove nothing besides how many people paid to see it.
Oh wait, no...that's exactly what it means because it has no bearing on quality, just financial success.
-AC