Movie Discussion Thread - Page 852

jayceheathman · 01-16-2010, 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paranoidmoonduck

Did you see it in 3D?

Yeah I did although not much of the movie seemed to be in 3D.

Paranoidmoonduck · 01-16-2010, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayceheathman

Yeah I did although not much of the movie seemed to be in 3D.

Um, what? The whole movie was shot in 3D as far as I could tell.

What I'm hearing is that you saw a version of Avatar that allowed you to give a crap about the plot. Which is too bad.

jayceheathman · 01-16-2010, 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paranoidmoonduck

Um, what? The whole movie was shot in 3D as far as I could tell.

What I'm hearing is that you saw a version of Avatar that allowed you to give a crap about the plot. Which is too bad.

Very few parts seemed to be in 3D and pop out of the screen. It is pretty much an expensive Pixar movie.

Paranoidmoonduck · 01-16-2010, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayceheathman

Very few parts seemed to be in 3D and pop out of the screen. It is pretty much an expensive Pixar movie.

That doesn't sound anything like the movie I saw. I don't really know what else to say.

prock · 01-16-2010, 11:49 AM

the book of eli is ******* awesome! way better than the reviews!

Whistler6 · 01-16-2010, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paranoidmoonduck

That doesn't sound anything like the movie I saw. I don't really know what else to say.

If you go into Avatar with massive expectations and having read all the knocks like hidden religious messages and Native American racism, then you might be a bit disappointed.

I feel sorry for the people who did that, because to me, I got to escape real life for 2 and a half hours and simply enjoy a freak'n awesome sci-fi adventure flick. Can't think too hard during a movie like Avatar.

Shiver · 01-16-2010, 01:07 PM

Avatar is a movie that had lost its luster in the weeks after I saw it. (multiple times at that) In fact, I dare say that in the years that follow, as its trademark effects and 3D are improved upon and used for other films, its limitations in regards to story and acting will become all the more apparent. I don't think it will age well.

The Unseen · 01-16-2010, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiver

Avatar is a movie that had lost its luster in the weeks after I saw it. (multiple times at that) In fact, I dare say that in the years that follow, as its trademark effects and 3D are improved upon and used for other films, its limitations in regards to story and acting will become all the more apparent. I don't think it will age well.

This is what I've been saying. Effects and stuff are ultimately secondary to me when I rate a movie. It's nice and cool but it's icing on the cake - it exists to further the storyline that is made. And if the storyline sux as I thought it did, so much for the effects.

Jvig43 · 01-16-2010, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prock

the book of eli is ******* awesome! way better than the reviews!

I thought the exact opposite, that movie wasnt very good at all. I was very disappointed.

Also, I agree with Shiver. I thought Avatar was cool after I saw it but afterwards I just kept realizing how average the movie was. I could never sit through it again unless I saw it in Imax.

BuckNaked · 01-16-2010, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prock

the book of eli is ******* awesome! way better than the reviews!

If you were baked..maybe. But no it wasn't. He beheaded a guy and that's about the only redeemable part of the film. I thought for a second I was gonna see naked Mila Kunis but noooooo, Denzel don't roll with no white skank ass hoes.

prock · 01-16-2010, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BuckNaked

If you were baked..maybe. But no it wasn't. He beheaded a guy and that's about the only redeemable part of the film. I thought for a second I was gonna see naked Mila Kunis but noooooo, Denzel don't roll with no white skank ass hoes.

lol for one i was baked, and for two, mila kunis is a sexy ass girl! so therefore, i enjoyed it lol

Shiver · 01-16-2010, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Unseen

This is what I've been saying. Effects and stuff are ultimately secondary to me when I rate a movie. It's nice and cool but it's icing on the cake - it exists to further the storyline that is made. And if the storyline sux as I thought it did, so much for the effects.

The best part about Avatar's success is the upcoming 3D re-releases of The Matrix and Lord of the Rings.

comahan · 01-16-2010, 02:53 PM

I loved Avatar, fun movie

Shiver · 01-16-2010, 02:56 PM

Fun for sure, definitely escapist entertainment at its zenith. But the idea that it may be nominated (and even win) Best Picture while The Dark Knight wasn't even nominated puts me into rage.

Jvig43 · 01-16-2010, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiver

Fun for sure, definitely escapist entertainment at its zenith. But the idea that it may be nominated (and even win) Best Picture while The Dark Knight wasn't even nominated puts me into rage.

Why did we have to bring up TDK not getting nominated, I swear if Avatar even gets nominated and TDK didnt i'm killing the lady who wrote twilight. KILLING HER!

seriously tho, Avatar is only going to get nominated because its from James Cameron.

comahan · 01-16-2010, 03:01 PM

I actually prefer Avatar's story lol, TDK had a lot of random nonsense in the middle like Gordons death (SWERVE! HES NOT DEAD!), and Joker purposely getting caught so that he could do a very specific plan and so forth. I loved TDK, but the middle part of that movies story sucked imo. Avatar was simple and effective.

TDK's villain was slightly better, though! :D

Jvig43 · 01-16-2010, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by comahan

I actually prefer Avatar's story lol, TDK had a lot of random nonsense in the middle like Gordons death (SWERVE! HES NOT DEAD!), and Joker purposely getting caught so that he could do a very specific plan and so forth. I loved TDK, but the middle part of that movies story sucked imo. Avatar was simple and effective.

TDK's villain was slightly better, though! :D

That was awesome, and adapted from the comics. I loved that part. Gordons death wasnt all that bad, if anything, the weakest part was the character development of two face.

comahan · 01-16-2010, 03:07 PM

Yea, I mean, like I said, I loved TDK. But sometimes id rather just have a simple, straight forward plot than trying to squeeze a ton of stuff into one movie.

Whistler6 · 01-16-2010, 03:22 PM

The story might be cliche, but I think it just speaks to James Cameron's brilliance. When the movie was 1st released, I read that the audience was something like 75% men...It looked like nothing but a battle fueled sci-fi movie.

But with the story he actually made it enticing for women as well. With the leading actress and Siguorney Weaver and including a love story, the audience has shifted to being 50-50 since opening weekend. Maybe the story is just meh, but he probably doubled the profit by making it a story for both sexes and all different ages.

comahan · 01-16-2010, 03:28 PM

Also, theres pretty much no chance that it DOESNT get nominated, with 10 Best Pic nods this year instead of 5.

The Unseen · 01-16-2010, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiver

The best part about Avatar's success is the upcoming 3D re-releases of The Matrix and Lord of the Rings.

3D re-release of Lord of the Rings?

WANT

Scotty D · 01-16-2010, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Unseen

3D re-release of Lord of the Rings?

WANT

So you can see Sam brick in Frodo's mouth in 3D???

The Unseen · 01-16-2010, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scotty D

So you can see Sam brick in Frodo's mouth in 3D???

So I can see Frodo's outie in 3D

comahan · 01-16-2010, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Unseen

3D re-release of Lord of the Rings?

WANT

I... agree... with Severus.

Er, Unseen. I agree with Unseen. Want.

Paranoidmoonduck · 01-16-2010, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Unseen

This is what I've been saying. Effects and stuff are ultimately secondary to me when I rate a movie. It's nice and cool but it's icing on the cake - it exists to further the storyline that is made. And if the storyline sux as I thought it did, so much for the effects.

For any other movie I've ever seen I would completely agree. But not Avatar.

The story was never treated as particularly pertinent. It was nothing more than a delivery system for the world that the effects had created. Much more was communicated running around the jungle than any particular scene of dialogue managed to deliver (even with the infodumps that were present). Visuals can save a cliche'd movie, but they have to be exactly as groundbreaking as they were in Avatar. Any time a line hit me the wrong way or I felt like rolling my eyes at the plot (for all people deride the plot, it wasn't that bad. That basic story is older than modern literature and worked fine) I was presented with something so visually enticing that all I could do was marvel at it. Even things so simple as the floating seeds of the great tree were marvelous, floating about in such a way that I was surprised when they didn't continue to travel past the borders of the screen.

I'm usually the first to harp on bad screenwriting or poor storyboarding or the minute problems with a movie. But with Avatar I didn't (couldn't) even come close to caring about all that. Despite its problems, it was a fantastic spectacle, the greatest ever offered by cinema, and I had a blast witnessing it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by comahan

Yea, I mean, like I said, I loved TDK. But sometimes id rather just have a simple, straight forward plot than trying to squeeze a ton of stuff into one movie.

Looking back, of course, it's hard to suggest that TDK should have been two movies because the loss of Heath Ledger in between would have been catastrophic. He pulled that movie together to an amazing degree. But yeah, the plot could have easily covered two movies.