Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Okay guys (especially Taksraven, who makes a habit out of quoting every picture on every thread), stop quoting the stupid Charizard pic. You're wasting a lot of bandwidth by forcing others to scroll down further.

But it's Charmander!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay guys (especially Taksraven, who makes a habit out of quoting every picture on every thread), stop quoting the stupid Charizard pic. You're wasting a lot of bandwidth by forcing others to scroll down further.

Oh come on and chillax A7. I prefer to see it as "laziness" rather than a "habit" of quoting pics.

And the Charmander pic was cool anyway.

Taksraven

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
  • 3 years later...

hehe...

poc2.jpg

That's uncanny... :lol:

I still stand by the assertion that Avatar is closer to a direct rip off of Ferngully than anything else.

Deffinetely Ferngully, with Dances with Wolves and, thanks to reddsun1 pointing it out, Disney's Pocahontas, and others too I'm sure, thrown in as well in copious doses. ;)

Let's face it. Avatar was grossly derivative, but still a good movie that's easy to enjoy (aside from originality, what more can you ask of any film?) that, despite it's environmentalist message, was nowhere near as preachy as Elysium was. And it is a feast for the eyes.

Edited by mechaninac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has flaws - but Cameron's stuff just has 'IT' - whatever IT is.

After watching Ender's Game and Pacific Rim recently, I tried to figure out why Aliens and T-2 and a few others are SO GOOD in comparison - and pull you in - and these (and many others) do not.

Its not the effects. It's - well - script and casting - and then IT.

Why is Iron Man uber cool and Green Lantern un-watchable?

IT!

Cameron's Avatar did not have huge doses of IT like Aliens. It had just enough IT . . .

( ps - just proofed this post and I make no sense whatsoever . . . )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Avatar is what you get when you recycle every plot available and mix in stunning camera and FX work. It and Gravity are the only reason 3D should exist. Avatar was a great ride the first time and due to the FX and camera work it holds up reasonably well on repeated viewings (even without 3d) but the plot and characters are as cliche as cliche can be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Do you think he realizes no one has watched or talked about his movie since it came out? They're producing a trilogy of movies for a property that has no cultural presence during a time when there is a growing backlash against CGI-fests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cameron is going to do what Cameron wants to do. Whether it be going to the bottom of the ocean on his own dime, or making three more movies that I and many others don't care about. He is going to do it because he can and he wants to. The movies will make money, but I don't think he cares about that one way or the other. He marches to the beat of his own drum these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with the crowd that thinks he ought to let Avatar be and carry on with Battle Angel (Gunnm). I'd far sooner watch a cyborg chick kicking ass in a dystopian future than tall blue people cavorting in the woods. I'd be really impressed if he had the balls to cast mostly Asian actors and set it in a future Japan, unlike a certain other popular anime getting the live action treatment with whitewashing all over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

Four? :blink:

I enjoyed Avatar for what it was, a groundbreaking visual feature with an afternoon matinee story. I could see MAYBE 1 more sequel just because, but 4...not so much.

-b.

He can do four because it's all green screen and mocap work. He can film all four together with no location shooting and no traveling. By-in-large they're animated films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Worldwide take of over 2.5 billion. Of course he's going to go back to that particular well as often as he can.

I myself found "Avatar" to be quite boring, actually. "Dances With Wolves" did it better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He can do four because it's all green screen and mocap work. He can film all four together with no location shooting and no traveling. By-in-large they're animated films.

Yeah...but I'm not talking about the ability or logistics of creating the film, but rather how much story (not talking about how good a person things said story is) is there to tell?

I'm not as hard on the movie's story as others have been, and are being right now, and by and large their criticism has merit, I just don't see how he plans to stretch this thing out.

-b.

*edit, even the guys below me agree with how crazy 4 more movies sound - they just said it more eloquently :lol:

Edited by Kanedas Bike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...