Forums » Off-Topic
I gave up on this movie the second after the ending of the five minute trailer, where they showed you the entire plot (worst marketing trend in decades); and then again after hearing some critic describe floating islands in subatmospheric environments as a "new" concept...
...anyway, reports from the front are saying:
1. Cornball
2. Bloated
3. Nauseating
4. Worth every cornball, bloated, nauseating second of it's $1.5 million/minute budget, simply because it's so evident the money is pouring off the screen.
5. Pretty kick-ass 3d and mocap.
So... opinions?
...anyway, reports from the front are saying:
1. Cornball
2. Bloated
3. Nauseating
4. Worth every cornball, bloated, nauseating second of it's $1.5 million/minute budget, simply because it's so evident the money is pouring off the screen.
5. Pretty kick-ass 3d and mocap.
So... opinions?
My thought after watching the short film version (as in the trailer): Fern Gully in Space.
I'll rent it for a dollar when it comes to Red Box, just out of morbid curiosity. Poor James Cameron....
I'll rent it for a dollar when it comes to Red Box, just out of morbid curiosity. Poor James Cameron....
IMHO, its not a bad movie, I enjoyed it. As for the floating islands, Iīm sure thereīs some obscure and twisted scientific explanation behind them, just like in every sci-fi movie out there.
Also: Suspension of disbelief ffs.
SPOILERS!!(But not really)
The planet, Pandora(lol cheesy name), is actually a giant brain. This should explain a lot of things.
Also: Suspension of disbelief ffs.
SPOILERS!!(But not really)
The planet, Pandora(lol cheesy name), is actually a giant brain. This should explain a lot of things.
A friend of mine just saw it, said "You were right... it's Fern Gully in Space!" but said that the special effects were enough eye candy to make the movie worth it. Also, he's a geology major/biology minor planning on going into paleontology, so viewing the film from that perspective he was impressed with the attention to detail with the biology of the film (James Cameron consulted many, many experts to make this film plausible). So, apparently crappy story, but if you go for eye candy you won't be disappointed. Maybe I'll see it in the theater, then, for the big-screen experience. Hmm.
Yeah, add Pocahontas and Dances with Wolves. Thatīs pretty much it.
Too bad, I was hoping for Masada in space.
Shadoen, the islands float because they're full of "Onobtanium" which has all those nice anti-gravity properties which "The Corporation" is THERE for in the first place, apparently.
Gotta read the website, that's where I read about the special "antigravity" stuff.
The movie was pretty good, the visuals were spectacular, sort of a combination of the Star Wars sweeping scenery shots added to the awesome colorful landscapes from "What Dreams May Come". I went for the 3D version, and was glad I did so - although all the little bugs floating around in the jungle made me want to swat the air in the theater. The special effects were of the highest caliber, better than anything I've ever seen in any film or TV show - ever, and I've seen a lot.
Characters were predictable yet well-portrayed. Zoe Saldana still comes off as smokin hot even when she's just the basis for a CGI blue alien.
Plotline was obvious from the moment you saw the first trailer, there's no surprises here. Calling it "Fern Gully vs. Mechwarrior" is over-simplistic but nonetheless accurate. If you expected something sweeping and interesting along the lines of "The Usual Suspects" or "The Shawshank Redemption", you'll be disappointed. Still, it's twice as good as the latest Star Trek movie idiotic storyline. Just go in and expect to see a 2.5 hour-long story that's the equal of your above average ST:TNG eposide.
It's still incredible. Go see it NOW in the nearest IMAX or 3D Theater.
Gotta read the website, that's where I read about the special "antigravity" stuff.
The movie was pretty good, the visuals were spectacular, sort of a combination of the Star Wars sweeping scenery shots added to the awesome colorful landscapes from "What Dreams May Come". I went for the 3D version, and was glad I did so - although all the little bugs floating around in the jungle made me want to swat the air in the theater. The special effects were of the highest caliber, better than anything I've ever seen in any film or TV show - ever, and I've seen a lot.
Characters were predictable yet well-portrayed. Zoe Saldana still comes off as smokin hot even when she's just the basis for a CGI blue alien.
Plotline was obvious from the moment you saw the first trailer, there's no surprises here. Calling it "Fern Gully vs. Mechwarrior" is over-simplistic but nonetheless accurate. If you expected something sweeping and interesting along the lines of "The Usual Suspects" or "The Shawshank Redemption", you'll be disappointed. Still, it's twice as good as the latest Star Trek movie idiotic storyline. Just go in and expect to see a 2.5 hour-long story that's the equal of your above average ST:TNG eposide.
It's still incredible. Go see it NOW in the nearest IMAX or 3D Theater.
god damnit i just read the spoilers
Actually Leebs, the corporation was interested in the Onobtanium because it was a source of energy and therefore extremely valuable since it was implied that Earth's resources were almost completely depleted.
I dont think they mentioned it had any anti-gravity properties. That tiny piece of onobtanium inside the control tower that was shown to be hovering was over some sort of platform which probably made it float.
I dont think they mentioned it had any anti-gravity properties. That tiny piece of onobtanium inside the control tower that was shown to be hovering was over some sort of platform which probably made it float.
Anyone commenting on the plotline of the movie completely missed the point.
Avatar is a film in which CGI is taken to a level not seen before in cinema. It is nothing more, and nothing less, than a tech demo. That doesn't make it any less enjoyable to watch. Make sure you see it in 3D for full effect; that's the future of cinema anyway.
Avatar is a film in which CGI is taken to a level not seen before in cinema. It is nothing more, and nothing less, than a tech demo. That doesn't make it any less enjoyable to watch. Make sure you see it in 3D for full effect; that's the future of cinema anyway.
Excellent point, ladron (I can't believe I just said that....), which is the frame of mind I intend to see it with. I would rather see a movie with a brilliant plot and believable characters and no budget at all than empty eye candy, but as long as I'm going expecting nothing more than eye candy then at least I won't be disappointed.
So an eleven year old boy would be ecstatic to watch it I guess. If nothing else, then for the mechwarrior things:) Off to the 3d screen with us
So an eleven year old boy would be ecstatic to watch it I guess.
Yes, Hortan, it's a good date movie for ya.
Yes, Hortan, it's a good date movie for ya.
I'm going to see it tomorrow. Even if it has a bad plot the movie looks enjoyable.
I won't watch it on 3D though. I wear glasses or contacts. With glasses on it gives me a headache in 5 mins. With contacts about 15 min. I know it will look awsome in 3D but i just can't take it :(
When they come out with a system that wont give people with glasses massive headaches i'll consider 3D
Jestatis Bess/Thurman
I won't watch it on 3D though. I wear glasses or contacts. With glasses on it gives me a headache in 5 mins. With contacts about 15 min. I know it will look awsome in 3D but i just can't take it :(
When they come out with a system that wont give people with glasses massive headaches i'll consider 3D
Jestatis Bess/Thurman
hmm, low even for you Dr. Lecter. I never date that old
Low (to the ground) is how you [TGFT] boys like 'em :D
Well, I do like that they are in contact with the ground. Real levitants are hard to find:)
:O
So you confess?
So you confess?
I do like that they are in contact with the ground
He needs the cushion fer the pushin'
He needs the cushion fer the pushin'
And a stool probably