Slashdot Mirror


First Review of Avatar Special Edition

brumgrunt writes "Den Of Geek has the first review of James Cameron's extended cut of Avatar. Its thoughts? 'As opposed to, say, the extended cuts of Aliens, Terminator 2 or The Abyss, the new scenes add little of particular note to everything we've already seen.'"

387 comments

  1. I doubt it... by ZeRu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I doubt it features humans coming back to Pandora with 100x more firepower :o

    --
    If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
    1. Re:I doubt it... by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Funny

      In reality....

      They nuked them from orbit when they left...... Just to be sure....

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXraSkgssFk

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:I doubt it... by yuriyg · · Score: 1

      If I recall correctly (and I'm not a big fan), it wasn't something like United Federation of Planets, who tried to colonize Pandora. It was a private company, whose assets were probably destroyed during the last part of the movie. So "humans" would have a tough time coming back with 100x more firepower.

    3. Re:I doubt it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why it would be the perfect chance for a large rival corp to buy low, wipe them out and sell high!

    4. Re:I doubt it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could, that's what government bailouts (military or financial) are for. Remember the Gulf War.

    5. Re:I doubt it... by Suki+I · · Score: 1

      I doubt it features humans coming back to Pandora with 100x more firepower :o

      I am going to see it anyway, just to prove you wrong!

    6. Re:I doubt it... by stiggle · · Score: 1

      The company would appeal to the marines to 'protect their interests' just like what happened in Hawaii.

    7. Re:I doubt it... by RaymondKurzweil · · Score: 1

      This movie was set in the future, most likely post-singularity. While humanity may never find a cure for baldness, why do you assume there isn't a cure for bankruptcy?

      A more banal analysis would simply be that the private company had a diversified portfolio and can recover most of their losses from the video game release utilizing much more effective future DRM.

    8. Re:I doubt it... by roc97007 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nuke them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    9. Re:I doubt it... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Mass drivers as shown in Babylon 5 would actually be cheaper & just as effective. Just grab a couple asteroids from the local solar system, then send them towards the planet to wipe-out the large-sized smurfs.

      Plus you wouldn't have any nasty radiation to clean up.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    10. Re:I doubt it... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      But what if the company was the biggest by a long shot, the GM of energy companies? They're taking a risky trip to another solar system (you need a monopoly or to be a member of a strong cartel to raise that kind of cash) and they never talk about any competition, so it seems like a likely scenario. Nobody would be able to buy them out. It would be a bailout or bankruptcy. The movie suggests that Earth's economy is in bad shape, on the brink of collapse, so a bailout seems unlikely.

      Maybe the real looming disaster that was conveniently omitted from the end of the movie is what was about to happen back on Earth.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    11. Re:I doubt it... by spazdor · · Score: 1

      Dammit Ray, not this shit again.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    12. Re:I doubt it... by chode · · Score: 1

      No, they replaced the guns with walkie talkies and the Na'vi fired first, those were the changes.

    13. Re:I doubt it... by suutar · · Score: 1

      Might be hard to pull the unobtanium out of the resulting slagpile, though.

    14. Re:I doubt it... by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      the big problem is the matter of AIR
      all it would take is for the Navi to breach every compartment in the base to atmosphere and the base becomes useless to any human (not currently inside a sealed ship/mech ect). Then "just for fun" have the huge crawler critters shred the landing field and that base is DONE for humans.

      Don't forget that basically the ENTIRE FRACKING PLANET got in on the war so they would have to fight like everything just to rebuild the base far enough to allow landings (of enough force to not get trampled in the first 20 minutes).

      If it was up to me the return to Pandora would begin by finding which polar region has the smallest amount of life and then setting up a base there (im assuming that the floaty rocks are all over).

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    15. Re:I doubt it... by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      not really since

      1 it would all float to the top
      2 it most likely would have a nice easy to detect radiation signature
      3 you would need to melt it anyway to refine it

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  2. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, adding to an already long, mostly pointless movie... doesn't add anything? SHOCKER.

    1. Re:Really? by JLennox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mod the parent up. I walked out 45 minutes in at the theaters and it took 5 sittings to get through on DVD. Am I missing something?

    2. Re:Really? by TheViciousOverWind · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mod the parent up. I walked out 45 minutes in at the theaters and it took 5 sittings to get through on DVD. Am I missing something?

      I'm interested in hearing what movies you actually think are any good?

      There's really a trend in going all "That movie sucks!" against every popular movie, and I'm getting tired of it.
      It might not be original, and maybe people can say "Oh pocahontas did it first!" but that doesn't change that it was a suspenseful, well-made film with some good points that people could think about.

      --
      My <1000 UID is with a hot chick
    3. Re:Really? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      A sense of when to let something go...?

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You didn't like it when specifically going to a cinema to see it, yet tried to watch it FIVE times?
      Why would you do that to yourself?

    5. Re:Really? by boneclinkz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's really a trend in going all "That movie sucks!" against every popular movie, and I'm getting tired of it. It might not be original, and maybe people can say "Oh pocahontas did it first!" but that doesn't change that it was a suspenseful, well-made film with some good points that people could think about.

      I would compare it to Star Wars, really. It was an ambitious movie with a cliche plot, passable acting, and very impressive special effects. I enjoyed it in the theaters and now own it on blu-ray. It's not The Usual Suspects, by a long shot, but it is a satisfying movie in its own way.

    6. Re:Really? by plumby · · Score: 1

      Presumably you're missing something better to do with your time, if you bothered going back 5 times to watch the rest of the film.

      If I hadn't been there with my nephew, who loved it, I would have walked out as well. The 3D was quite impressive, but by an hour into the film I'd seen more than enough of that. And I can't believe anyone would bother sitting through the whole thing in 2D.

    7. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      There's really a trend in going all "That movie sucks!" against every popular movie, and I'm getting tired of it.

      It might not be original, and maybe people can say "Oh pocahontas did it first!" but that doesn't change that it was a suspenseful, well-made film with some good points that people could think about.

      I'm sorry to say but Avatar as a film was crap. Not saying it wasn't nice to see once, but it really wasn't good except for the art/effects. I was also bored after an hour or so and was quite happy that it was finally over after 500 years (or something close to that ;)). The storyline was so, so, so, apparent that there was no surprise or plot twists or anything and there definitely was no suspense (go watch Psycho or something, then come back about suspense). It was a nice showcase of 3d, but that's it.
      Mind you, that is just my opinion, but it is an opinion which is shared by quite a few people that I spoke to.

    8. Re:Really? by Reilaos · · Score: 1

      It's more or less a technological spectacle. Like the matrix proving we could do slow-motion AND rotating pan shots at the same time, we got magical overlay cameras which let us get 'natural' movements that apply mo-cap to the cameraman as well as the actors and their facial expressions. All that was half-rendered live to give a preview through the pseudo-cameras.

    9. Re:Really? by kestasjk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There was a great movie released in France by an independent movie a couple years ago about a heroin addict's fight to save his sister from cancer..

      It didn't have a happy ending or great production values, but .. you haven't seen it and I have so I can act as savvy and cultured as I like and look down my nose, and isn't that what seeing movies is all about?

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    10. Re:Really? by Psychophrenes · · Score: 1

      Suspenseful? As in "has the same structure as any other Hollywood movie" suspenseful?
      I admit that the design and visual effects are great, but I'm sorry to say that's the only reason the film is worth watching.

    11. Re:Really? by JLennox · · Score: 1

      If you want to argue on the internet about movie opinions then you're lacking as much as the movie.

    12. Re:Really? by Theoboley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That may be your opinion, but as the old adage goes, "Opinions are like assholes. We've all got one, and they all stink."

      --
      Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
    13. Re:Really? by xtracto · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, I have get into this "movie sucks" bandwagon because I also thought that as a movie Avatar sucked.

      See, I saw the movie first in 2D and *then* in 3D, both in the theater. When I first saw it in 2D I though it sucked; it reminded me of Final Fantasy movie... just a bunch of computer animation with a *veeeeery* thin storyline which is a rehash of Dance with Wolves (I like the name someone gave "Dance with Thundercats").

      Then I saw it in 3D and I thought the 3D effects made the movie OK, just OK for the nice effects you could see...

      So yes, I believe the reason of this "movie sucks" bandwagon you see is because nowadays most movies suck...

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    14. Re:Really? by longhairedgnome · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen that movie, but for a really killer movie, check out Martyrs

      --
      GENERATION O98346: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and remove a random number from the generation. T
    15. Re:Really? by xtracto · · Score: 4, Informative

      BTW, to answer your question of "which movies I think are good" I can mention you one 3D movie which I think has both i) A good story and ii) Nice use of 3D effects, and that is Coraline.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    16. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *yawn* Let me guess. It was too deep for him and that's why he didn't "get it", right?

    17. Re:Really? by Junta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It may have been an entertaining sort of flick, but I wouldn't give it suspenseful. Nor would I give it particularly any credit for being particularly thought provoking.

      To be suspenseful, it would have required that the story was not 99.9% predictable. In a single viewing of a 90 second trailer, the entire plot is already known, all plot twists are pretty well trivially guessed because we've seen this same basic film countless times already. You simply can't build suspense in that sort of flick.

      To be thought provoking, it would have to be subtle or somehow distinct from the general sentiment beaten into the minds of the general populace over and over and over again by simply looking at TV or internet for about 15 seconds.

      It was about as suspenseful and thought provoking as a fireworks show. Sure, it can be fairly called good by some standard, it's shiny and nice to look at and has 'oohs' and 'aahs', but it doesn't have any particular depth that warrants points in the suspense/thoughtfulness aspect of evaluating a movie.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    18. Re:Really? by dbet · · Score: 1

      It's the first movie that has ever had visuals like that. Why would you walk out? It's like walking out on the first "talkie" because the story was boring.

    19. Re:Really? by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Funny

      There's really a trend in going all "That movie sucks!" against every popular movie, and I'm getting tired of it.

      That's pretty much anything popular ever, at least on the internet.

      For example, just tossing this out there

      I like the following

      -Rap music
      -Halo 3
      -Team fortress 2
      -Sex
      -The Matrix
      -Inception
      -Beer

      Anyone care to comment on... hang on, just got a text that TF2 is extremely overrated and blah blah blah.. and oh, I've just been tapped on the shoulder and someone is telling me that sex is overrated. My wife.

    20. Re:Really? by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      Martyrs is mainstream trash compared to Le Voisier, quit being such a drone and take in some culture..

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    21. Re:Really? by AvitarX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Probably has something to do with the fact that at this point Cameron can put whatever he wants in the original cut, as he should be. With him I've never felt like I was watching hours and hours of OMG, this guy needs an editor.

      I think he showed the world his ability to make a long movie people would watch with Titanic (not my cup of tea, but it was a whole lot of peoples). I would imagine that any issues you had with Avatar are more with the pointless part, than the length, an even chopped to 90 minutes you would simple feel "adding to an already pointless movie ... doesn't add anything..."

      I enjoyed Avatar, and felt it was a good throw away visual movie, and the length did not remove my enjoyment. This actually surprises me, as if someone said, "do you want to see an epic throw away movie?" I would think, "oh, God no, keep it to 90 minutes please.", but somehow the sentiment was avoided. I guess there is a reason he makes highest grossing films ever, without relying on it being a squeal/prequel even (I'm looking at you Lucas). I mean, Avatar unseated his other long movie as the number one box office gross. The guy is good at something, and I don't think it's just marketing, as I really thought Avatar would be barfingly unwatchable until I saw it.

      I heard rumors of alien sex though, is that not in it now?

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    22. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Someone that worked at sony apologised for the final fantasy movie. I can't remember if it was head of square or sony itself. Square made another final fantasy movie, advent children, to make up for it. Its really good (i like it anyhow) , and features the characters from final fantasy 7. Good music too.

    23. Re:Really? by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Well, when everyone was talking about how talkies are the cat's pajamas and the bee's knees the only way to keep your cred up with the flapper crowd would be to not like it, and to make a show of not liking it.

    24. Re:Really? by pete_norm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's the first movie that has ever had visuals like that. Why would you walk out? It's like walking out on the first "talkie" because the story was boring.

      Usually the goal of a movie is to entertain you, not to be a technology showcase. If he was not entertained, it's pretty normal he walked out. A movie that is all technology and no story doesn't seem really appealing to me.

    25. Re:Really? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Machete, that's a GREAT movie.

      Go see that one, it's grungy, edge of your seat and true to the roots of the director instead of the wishy washy hollywood crap.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    26. Re:Really? by hal2814 · · Score: 1

      I thought Avatar was crap and there were quite a few films I liked in 2009. Up, Watchmen, Moon, Taken, Zombieland, and Sherlock Holmes were all movies I thought were at least good. Moon is the only one in that list I wouldn't categorize as popular. Most of those films are rehashes of old plots, but none of them are white messiah films. And none of them bludgeon me over the head with their moral message because I REALLY hate that sort of thing. So as far as I'm concerned, Avatar sucks. And it's not because the movie is popular. It's primarily because they took a plot that I already don't like and cranked it up to 11.

    27. Re:Really? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I just wanna say, your last sentence is one of the fufunniest things I've read on the Internet in a while.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    28. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      says the guy who just claimed a movie sucked on the internet and then asked said internet if he was missing something.

    29. Re:Really? by mikael_j · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The storyline was so, so, so, apparent that there was no surprise or plot twists or anything and there definitely was no suspense (go watch Psycho or something, then come back about suspense).

      Well, considering how poorly executed most plot twists and moments of suspense are in roughly 99% of all movies out there I actually found it rather relieving that Avatar didn't have a bunch of "gotcha!" moments that anyone with an IQ above room temperature could spot thirty minutes in advance. Really, if you feel the need to put a plot twist in your movie at least make it clever and new, if it's the same plot twist that's been used oh so many times before then it'll just annoy the audience (or at least those of us who actually pay attention to the plot).

      And that's not to say the plot of Avatar was good, just that they at least seemed to resist their urges to add pointless gotchas and plot twists.

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    30. Re:Really? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      http://worldfilm.about.com/od/independentfilm/fr/wristcutters.htm are you talking about that one? It was actually a very good movie I enjoyed as well! or a older American one.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_Don't_Cry_(film)

      Absolutely fantastic movie to watch. Not like this no soul drivel we get from Hollywood.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    31. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you kidding? Not only was it unoriginal, not only was it *not* suspenseful (I don't know how you got that -- it was totally predictable), but the plot didn't make sense either. The next step would have been for humans to turn that place into a glass parking lot, then resume mining.

      Sum total of good things about the movie: it was pretty. That's it.

      I certainly hope this isn't the future of film.

      Compare to "Aliens", with that nice twist at the end when you think everything is ok, then the alien queen shows up on board the Sulaco (the "Get away from her, you bitch!" moment). That movie was well-written and implemented. It's weird that it's the same guy involved.

    32. Re:Really? by whisper_jeff · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To be suspenseful, it would have required that the story was not 99.9% predictable.

      I didn't think it was predictable at all. I mean, who could have predicted that the natives, following the lead of a trained soldier, would mount a cavalry charge, head on, against a vastly superior force that possessed dramatically more firepower rather than utilize their superior knowledge of the terrain and abilities to blend in to attack from stealth...

      Or, to put it more bluntly, who could have predicted that this movie would manage to make Ewoks look like strategic geniuses?...

      But, yeah - the plot was obvious from the get-go. I just felt the need to vent a bit about a painfully stupid moment in the movie. :)

    33. Re:Really? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mod the parent up. I walked out 45 minutes in at the theaters and it took 5 sittings to get through on DVD. Am I missing something?

      You may be missing your ADD meds. No offense, but people like you must have a hell of a lot of money to blow if you would budget 3.5 hours of your time to go see a movie (travel+film) only to walk out and then have to figure something else to do with your remaining ~3 hours.

      I just can't imagine someone having such a low tolerance that they would walk out of a movie like Avatar. It's not Citizen Kane, but it's not Manos: The Hands of Fate either.

      Besides, what the hell did you expect? You are obviously someone who has very particular taste, how could you not know what you were walking into?

      At $13/ticket (don't know what 3d costs around you) I could probably find something in even some of the most boring movies. Hell, mocking the movie with my friends is easily worth that amount.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    34. Re:Really? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      It was totally a cliche plot. It wasnt a bad movie overall, but what unfolded throughout the movie didnt suprise me.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    35. Re:Really? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      French movies suck anyway.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    36. Re:Really? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      Most of those films are rehashes of old plots, but none of them are white messiah films

      When it comes to invading (hostile) aliens, you are going to need at least one of them to switch sides and lead you if you hope to stand a chance.

      Higher in the gravity well = you win.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    37. Re:Really? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Check out 9, I thought it was pretty good.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    38. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Plot summary: "smurfs with penises on their heads use gay beastiality to mind-control animals into helping them defeat the evil white man"

    39. Re:Really? by fnj · · Score: 1

      The only thing you're missing is the discrimination to know it was crap without having to sit through it in the first place.

    40. Re:Really? by Triv · · Score: 1

      I see it like this:

      If a movie is so horribly unoriginal, or cliche, or badly acted, or badly written, that it keeps me from suspending my disbelief or drops me back to reality over and over, then it's a bad movie.

      It doesn't have to be thought-provoking or artsy or complicated, but if I keep remembering that I'm watching a movie while I'm in the theater then there's something wrong with it.

      There was something wrong with Avatar.

    41. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may be missing your ADD meds.

      Says the person who is defending a movie that was nothing but a series of "OOOH SHINY!!!" moments.

    42. Re:Really? by AndrewNeo · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately(?) Avatar Special Edition isn't to Avatar what Advent Children is to Spirits Within.

    43. Re:Really? by insnprsn · · Score: 1

      I'm with this guy, completely.
      And I'll add, saying "That movie sucks!" and not adding why you think so means one of two things as far as I'm concerned you either;
      A. Disagree with anything just to start a flame
      B. Are a sheeple and follow the group with the loudest voice

      In reality I'm sure its a bit of both in most cases.

      To the point of the topic, I was not interested in seeing Avatar in the beginning. "Oh boy, another story of forced relocation, and this time of blue monkeys that yip and hoot like Native Americans"
      In the end, a friend took me to Avatar 3D for my birthday. It was my first modern 3D movie and it was 3 hours of awesome affects, awesome 3D, and a story uniquely spun, and original enough to be enjoyable at least.
      To hear that the special edition does not add much is kind of sad in my opinion.

    44. Re:Really? by AndrewNeo · · Score: 1

      Oh, come on, you like TF2, but Halo over Half-Life? :(

      (For the record I like all three)

    45. Re:Really? by Amouth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Advent children was awesome and the sound track is great..

      I don't knock the original FF movie because of a couple of things.. First it was way ahead of it's time in terms of render and animation quality - as far as i'm concerned it put toy story to shame (especially when you look at the time lines for when rendering started) It's only major flaw was being called FF.. people expected something like Advent Children and not what they got.. if they had given a better name it don't think people would bash it as much.. but then again not nearly as many people would have watched it.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    46. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      and oh, I've just been tapped on the shoulder and someone is telling me that sex is overrated. My wife.

      I'm devastated. I thought she was enjoying it.

    47. Re:Really? by LoverOfJoy · · Score: 1

      So the question to ask the guy who saw the special edition: Does Colonel Miles Quaritch still shoot first?

    48. Re:Really? by HAKdragon · · Score: 1

      While I've yet to see it, the book was a good, if short read. Not that I'm surprised - Neil Gaiman is a fantastic author.

      --
      "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs. We have a protractor."
    49. Re:Really? by Animaether · · Score: 1

      Up, Watchmen, Moon, Taken, Zombieland, and Sherlock Holmes were all movies I thought were at least good. [...] And none of them bludgeon me over the head with their moral message because I REALLY hate that sort of thing.

      Wait.. what? What other movie called Taken was released in 2009? That thing was full of moral messages being thrown at you - maybe Liam Neeson kicking ass distracted you enough from that? :)

    50. Re:Really? by XMode · · Score: 1

      I pretty much agree with the parent. The plot sucked, the dialog was sloppy and the characters were not that deep.. I haven't seen the movie in 3D and I suspect that is what most people were gushing over. The special effects were pretty good, but in the days of computer animated everything, its not really that surprising.

      I did however enjoy the movie and i guess that's the point. I don't love the movie like everyone else seemed to, but I don't hate it either.

    51. Re:Really? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      Says the person who is defending a movie that was nothing but a series of "OOOH SHINY!!!" moments.

      You mean: Says the person who wouldn't walk away from a fireworks display, advertised as '4th of July small town Fireworks show', because I for somehow confused it for an olympic-level Poi demonstration.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    52. Re:Really? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It had the same moral as much British colonial fiction:

      Blue people make good soldiers, when led by white officers.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    53. Re:Really? by Pennidren · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Plot summary: "smurfs with penises on their heads use gay beastiality to mind-control animals into helping them defeat the evil white man"

      Terrible summary. They were cat-smurfs.

    54. Re:Really? by MadKeithV · · Score: 1

      Suspenseful as in "is it going to start getting better now? Okay no. What about now? No. Now? No.".
      For hours and hours and hours.

    55. Re:Really? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      but that doesn't change that it was a suspenseful, well-made film with some good points that people could think about.

      Avatar is a movie that, after you let it sink in and you've thought about it for a while, brings you to the harsh realization that it pretty much sucked.

      It might not be original, and maybe people can say "Oh pocahontas did it first!"

      I don't mind borrowing themes from other movies (Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves) because every movie can be traced back to a previous movie's use of a classic theme.

      All its 3-D grandness turned out to be one giant, calculated distraction of how bad the movie really is. Piranha 3-D doesn't use 3-D to distract from the awfulness, rather they use bikinis. I'd watch Piranha 3-D twice, but I doubt I could sit through that James Cameron self-orgy again.

      I'm interested in hearing what movies you actually think are any good?

      There's really a trend in going all "That movie sucks!" against every popular movie, and I'm getting tired of it.

      I'm not. I'm tired of bad movies being popular and good movies not being able to be produced because they won't be popular enough to justify their costs. It's all part of the continuing political climate in this country of glorifying anti-intellectualism. There are good sci-fi movies, that after you've had a while to let them sink in, don't suck, like District 9.

    56. Re:Really? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      I thought this discussion was about Avatar, or am I missing something?

    57. Re:Really? by MadKeithV · · Score: 1

      No offense, but people like you must have a hell of a lot of money to blow if you would budget 3.5 hours of your time to go see a movie (travel+film) only to walk out and then have to figure something else to do with your remaining ~3 hours.

      No offense, but you must have no idea about the economic theory of Sunk Costs.
      It doesn't matter how much it cost to see the movie - you are not going to get that money back, and if you find out it's not worth your time you are economically better off leaving and doing something you do enjoy.

    58. Re:Really? by Fibe-Piper · · Score: 1

      I would compare it to Star Wars, really. It was an ambitious movie with a cliche plot, passable acting, and very impressive special effects. I enjoyed it in the theaters and now own it on blu-ray. It's not The Usual Suspects, by a long shot, but it is a satisfying movie in its own way.

      Sad thing is that the hype of this movie has overshadowed the fact it wasn't that great. A movie like the Usual Suspects is a classic but the comparison is unfair. Its like comparing the recent War of the Worlds to Blue Velvet.

      --
      I went to battle M.C. Escher, but drew a blank.
    59. Re:Really? by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I did however enjoy the movie and i guess that's the point. I don't love the movie like everyone else seemed to, but I don't hate it either.

      Yeah I'm kind of surprised at how many people here are ragging on it so hard.

      The movie isn't the second coming of Citizen Kane, but if you've seen the trailer or commercials for it, you pretty much know what you're getting into if you go see it. If you like that kind of movie, it's at least watchable in the theatre. I put people who went to see Avatar and now have to talk about how it was a giant stinking pile in about the same category as my friend who keeps dating strippers and then complains that his girlfriends are always crazy, materialistic, and cheat on him.

      Maybe the problem is that kids these days are spoiled and didn't live through the relative drought of good sci-fi movies that we did. (And don't even get me started on fantasy.) Back in the day we had to walk through snow and razor blades uphill both ways to see even terrible sci-fi movies because that might be all you got in a given year. Also, somebody should get off my lawn.

    60. Re:Really? by aesiamun · · Score: 1

      Wow, you're a douche bag. Do you like indie bands until they get popular and then claim they suck? Do you like art house films until they hit big theaters then claim they sold out?

    61. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When it comes to invading (hostile) aliens, you are going to need at least one of them to switch sides and lead you if you hope to stand a chance.

      Unless they catch colds and die.

      Oh wait... been done already.

    62. Re:Really? by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      Some people feel they are movie connoisseurs, anything "the masses" enjoy they will find fault with. Had they paid any attention they would have known what to expect from Avatar..

      I enjoyed watching the movie and would watch it again in a theatre with 3D... but I also think the story was a bit lame. Apparently everyone, except the scientists with Avatars, is blood thirsty and 100% willing to commit genocide. That portion was way too over the top for my liking.

      As for the graphics, I really couldn't distinguish between "real" and cgi, the transitions and blending were wonderful.

      I was glad I got to see it in the theatre, and I'm not a mainstream movie kind of guy... maybe I go see 1 movie a year.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    63. Re:Really? by aesiamun · · Score: 1

      9 just felt too long. I saw the original short online and the full release seemed like the same story...just more filler.

      Still, I enjoyed 9 a lot more than Avatar :)

    64. Re:Really? by aesiamun · · Score: 1

      Avatar made me feel guilty for being a white man...it was as subtle as getting hit by a semi of obviousness.

    65. Re:Really? by Ecuador · · Score: 1

      Risking Star Wars fan-boy lynching, your comment is spot on!
      Although I will wait for a 3D blu-ray edition before adding it to my collection, as I thought the 3D in this particular film was a big part of the experience. I try to avoid buying the same movie multiple times although I can't avoid it some times (e.g. most of my hd-dvds/blu-rays were in my dvd collection...)

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    66. Re:Really? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      No offense, but you must have no idea about the economic theory of Sunk Costs.
      It doesn't matter how much it cost to see the movie - you are not going to get that money back, and if you find out it's not worth your time you are economically better off leaving and doing something you do enjoy.

      To continue the management jargon that is employed to excuse poor planning: It is what it is.

      No offense, but someone with so much background in economic theory should probably spend the infinitesimal amount of time required to figure out if they would like a movie before sinking those costs. Especially to a Slashdot reader when the site was filled with commentary highlighting the exact issues for which most people found the movie to be so poor.

      But on a more amicable note: It could be that I'm just easily entertained. And to be honest, I HAVE walked out of a movie before, but that was only on a free ticket at a multiplex and we just happened to be right there so there was no cost in 'evaluating' the film. We just walked over to the next theater and sat down for another movie. (I do miss having my friend be the manager of the theater)

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    67. Re:Really? by aesiamun · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, I find it rude to mock movies while in the theater. There are other people there and they might be trying to enjoy the steaming pile that is projecting on the screen.

    68. Re:Really? by RevRagnarok · · Score: 1

      Sorry, out of mod points.

      --
      I should put something clever here. Maybe someday.
    69. Re:Really? by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      I prefer to call it Blue Pocahontas: Dances with flying lizards.

    70. Re:Really? by MadKeithV · · Score: 1

      On an even more amicable note: I LOVE Avatar, if only for the regular fun bashing-sessions to be had ;-)

    71. Re:Really? by lgw · · Score: 1

      There is a lot of objective criticism for film, though. He's right - Avatar's plot was predictable and without suspense. Its characters were shallow, especially the villian of the piece who was as unmotivated as the villian in a Shakespeare comedy - pure "he'd the bad guy because the film needed one". There was more character development than, say, Predator, but the character growth was frankly cliche.

      More subjectively, the fight scenes were fairly dull (beyond the cool effects), with no real sense of interaction between opponents in most of the combat. Of course, fight choreography in animation is hard, so that sort of comes with being (mostly) an animated film.

      Of course, the Red Letter Media guy has a far more learned and entertaining review. "Avatar tells the story of Dances with Wolves in space, in order to further a director's already vast ego and advance movie technology further in the wrong direction." By his standards it's not a particularly harsh review, but his analysis is always insightful.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    72. Re:Really? by daffmeister · · Score: 1

      Mod the parent up. I walked out 45 minutes in at the theaters and it took 5 sittings to get through on DVD.

      Am I missing something?

      Apparently anything better to do in your life other than repeatedly try to watch a film you don't like.

    73. Re:Really? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      Well, I find it rude to mock movies while in the theater. There are other people there and they might be trying to enjoy the steaming pile that is projecting on the screen.

      Fair. I do it in a whisper and only when I'm not next to someone not involved.

      And with the current ear-splitting volume they play movies at these days? I could probably bust out a trombone and play the Price is Right 'fail' theme and someone 2 seats over probably wouldn't notice.

      However, I did once get asked to stop talking by an usher during a showing of the movie 'Dick'. It did seem odd to me since my two friends and I were literally the only people in the entire auditorium. (I think they DID want us to walk out so they could just shut down)

      But I would never talk at a level or near enough to someone where I'd distract them. I don't even like 'slurping' on a straw when the cup is empty.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    74. Re:Really? by longhairedgnome · · Score: 1

      oof feelings hurt

      --
      GENERATION O98346: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and remove a random number from the generation. T
    75. Re:Really? by aesiamun · · Score: 1

      A lot of people lack that respect for others. When I saw Avatar in the local IMAX, it was packed...

      We saw The Dark Knight when during a blizzard and we were the only two in the theater. That was fun :)

    76. Re:Really? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      On an even more amicable note: I LOVE Avatar, if only for the regular fun bashing-sessions to be had ;-)

      That's why I wonder why someone would walk out. There is SO much there that is fodder for some good bashing. Maybe that is my problem and why I don't walk out, I LOVE to hate movies.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    77. Re:Really? by avhell · · Score: 1

      I always thought it was "Opinions are like assholes. We've all got one, and everyone thinks everyone elses stinks."

    78. Re:Really? by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      I was kidding to make a point, I made up the French movie and haven't seen Martyrs

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    79. Re:Really? by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      No it wasn't either of those.. (Both of those films were predictable drivel by the way, I've no idea how you got anything out of them..)

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    80. Re:Really? by hal2814 · · Score: 1

      The virgin angle was a little irritating but other than that I didn't feel the morality shoved down my throat. The rest of it played out like a typical kidnapping film. There are some better films in the genre (Frantic) and some worse (Breakdown) but I still thought Taken qualifies as good.

    81. Re:Really? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Of course, fight choreography in animation is hard, so that sort of comes with being (mostly) an animated film.

      They were using motion-capture for everything though (well, except for the fights with non-bipedal creatures, I guess). I don't see why the fight choreography should have been harder than in, say, The Matrix (or some other heavily computer-enhanced movie).

      "...advance movie technology further in the wrong direction."

      There's nothing wrong with advancing movie technology towards better CG; the only thing wrong is using it without discretion. Using Auto Tune as an analogy, Avatar is the CG equivalent of T-Pain.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    82. Re:Really? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      It didn't have a happy ending or great production values, but .. you haven't seen it and I have so I can act as savvy and cultured as I like and look down my nose, and isn't that what seeing movies is all about?

      If your movie tastes run in that direction, I recommend Hunger by Steve McQueen (no, not that one).

      Definitely not light and fluffy, but a movie I couldn't look away from (even though at times I really wanted to). YMMV of course, but it's a movie with the among most minimal sound-track and dialog I've ever seen.

      Anyway, random suggestion. Take it for what you will. :-P

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    83. Re:Really? by longhairedgnome · · Score: 1
      Your first post is a bit funnier now, but I was being serious and you're still an asshole.

      A young woman's quest for revenge against the people who kidnapped and tormented her as a child leads her and a friend, who is also a victim of child abuse, on a terrifying journey into a living hell of depravity.

      --
      GENERATION O98346: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and remove a random number from the generation. T
    84. Re:Really? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      There's really a trend in going all "That movie sucks!" against every popular movie,

      Inception was popular and well thought of. So was Toy Story 3. Both had something in common: Interesting characters and decently worked out stories. Good story telling is actually ingrained in the culture over at Pixar.

      Avatar took every single character from the Cliche Toolbox plugin for the Hollywood Script Generator. The fact that the scenery was CGI didn't prevent the actors from chewing it.

      But overall there's a real lack of quality storytelling and character development in Hollywood these days, and the same crap screenwriters and actors are foisted on us over and over again. But people gobble it up, and anyone wanting a little quality is labeled "pretentious". Probably the same folks who label anyone who knows any math and science as "elitist" for all that goldanged fancy book learnin'!

      and I'm getting tired of it.

      Tough shit. Deal with it.

    85. Re:Really? by mark72005 · · Score: 1

      I didn't walk out, as I enjoyed the visuals. But I did wish I had my iPod with me about halfway through.

      Other than the 3D, it was more like a big, dumb Bruckheimer movie

    86. Re:Really? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      ...if I keep remembering that I'm watching a movie while I'm in the theater then there's something wrong with it.

      Did you watch it in 3D? It's supposed to be more immersive, but sometime it backfires (especially when movies do something blatant like shoot something straight at the audience).

      Obviously it could have been the content by itself too, but I think the 3D had some contribution.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    87. Re:Really? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      who could have predicted that the natives, following the lead of a trained soldier, would mount a cavalry charge, head on, ... rather than utilize their superior knowledge of the terrain and abilities to blend in to attack from stealth

      Me. The movie was already 2.7 hours long. A stealth response would have easily added another hour to the film. Furthermore, BIG battles and explosions are easier for youngsters and popcorn eaters to follow :-)

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    88. Re:Really? by colmore · · Score: 1

      Nah. It blows.

      Star wars might have only passable acting, but it has great characters that you actually care about. The only remotely charismatic character in Avatar is the evil army guy.

      And the special effects might have been impressive in a technical sense, they look like the box art on graphics cards.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    89. Re:Really? by Zenaku · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm pretty sure "The Second Coming of Citizen Kane" would be a terrible movie that would be universally reviled. Would Kane be an undead revenant trying to find his sled or something? Or would it turn out he faked his death? In any case, it would be a poorly written opportunistic sequel rushed out by Hollywood to capitalize on the popularity of the original.

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    90. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The movie isn't the second coming of Citizen Kane

      but the $300MM they spent on adverts would have you believe that. So don't blame me, when they hype the shit out of the movie and then it turns out to be "Dances with Smurfs", and I point that fact out. But then again what would you expect from someone who's best name for the rare mineral was "Unobtainium". Ugh. Yes I know it's origin, use in the real world, etc, but it's still a shitty name/word.

    91. Re:Really? by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      A fan boy says:

      "There's really a trend in going all "That movie sucks!" against every popular movie, and I'm getting tired of it."

      Just because a film is popular doesn't mean its good. A predictable story line surely means the film's producers are void of any original thought and are simply after your money by exploiting your fan-boy nature. Humans sucking up a planet's resources and generally being the villains is tired, old, and not very interesting anymore. I'm glad you dismissed the original story argument; but I'd make a comparison that much closer than Pocahotass- an animated film from 1992 titled "Ferngully". Avatar == Ferngully, but with special effects for the fan-boys. The difference here is that Ferngully was absolutely terrible whereas Pocahotass was a little more interesting. But then again, Ferngully was for the kiddies, while Pocahotass was for the older kiddies.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    92. Re:Really? by interval1066 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Uh, subject to opinion of course, but The Usual Suspects wasn't that good either. Try Goodfellas for a truly awesome film.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    93. Re:Really? by CrashandDie · · Score: 1

      Also, somebody should get off my lawn.

      Woops, my bad. Won't happen again.

    94. Re:Really? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Avatar is a movie that, after you let it sink in and you've thought about it for a while, brings you to the harsh realization that it pretty much sucked.

      I had that sort of reaction more to the new Star Trek than to Avatar. I think it's because with Avatar, I didn't have any expectation of deep meaning to begin with. (Plus, I thought the telepathy aspect was interesting.)

      In contrast, with Star Trek I went in with some hope (not much, since I'd seen the trailers, but some) that I'd get some social commentary or a cautionary tale or something other than plot holes, sex & violence, and gratuitous random Corvette destruction.

      There are good sci-fi movies, that after you've had a while to let them sink in, don't suck, like District 9.

      District 9 was excellent sci-fi, but could have been a much better movie if they'd toned down the gore and gross-out scenes. So the guy's mutating into an alien and it's a gritty, messy biological process -- fine. But I don't need to watch him pulling off his fingernails!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    95. Re:Really? by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      "Really, if you feel the need to put a plot twist in your movie at least make it clever and new, if it's the same plot twist that's been used oh so many times before then it'll just annoy the audience..."

      Umm, by definition, if its clever and new, its not "the same plot twist that been used oh so many times before". I'm glad your so willing to give Hollywood a pass. I prefer that they ear my money, and frankly, its been a while since they've been able to do that. "Inception" does. First film in some time.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    96. Re:Really? by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the lack of suspense, and lack of surprise should so something about our society, such as the destruction of an entire culture and alien race for pure profit doesn't surprise us at all. Perhaps we should reconsider this.

      IMO, this is what they were aiming for.

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
    97. Re:Really? by WML+MUNSON · · Score: 1

      There's really a trend in going all "That movie sucks!" against every popular movie, and I'm getting tired of it. It might not be original, and maybe people can say "Oh pocahontas did it first!" but that doesn't change that it was a suspenseful, well-made film with some good points that people could think about.

      I would compare it to Star Wars, really. It was an ambitious movie with a cliche plot, passable acting, and very impressive special effects. I enjoyed it in the theaters and now own it on blu-ray. It's not The Usual Suspects, by a long shot, but it is a satisfying movie in its own way.

      On a side note, the "Star Wars wasn't really /that/ good" trend is a load of shit, too. 4,5, and 6 are /not/ cult classics or mere nostalgia, they're widely regarded as some of the best movies /ever/ made.

    98. Re:Really? by Josh04 · · Score: 1

      Toy Story, 1995 Toy Story?

    99. Re:Really? by Mathness · · Score: 0, Troll

      And that's not to say the plot of Avatar was good, just that they at least seemed to resist their urges to add pointless gotchas and plot twists.

      And why should they? They managed to resist the urges of telling a good story or develop any characters beyond the pointless plot and one dimensional characters needed to glue all the computer graphics into a cinema product.

      If you have ever played with a cat or dog and having it chasing after the dot from a laser pen, you would see that Avatar was much the same. It was simply something shiny that distracted you for a few hours, nothing more.

      Avatar is a great example of how lacking Hollywood and other medias is of any kind of substance, their drive is to find the lowest possible amount that will still get the masses to buy their drivel.

      --
      Carbon based humanoid in training.
    100. Re:Really? by Anomalyst · · Score: 3, Funny

      a terrifying journey into a living hell of depravity

      They are covertly inserted into the Obama administration by Steve Jobs with a mission to replace all the XP machines with iPads. Captured by Steve Ballmer, they have an "exit interview" in a room filled with thousands of "smart chairs" which have only 640K of memory and are constantly "squirting".

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    101. Re:Really? by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Apparently everyone, except the scientists with Avatars, is blood thirsty and 100% willing to commit genocide. That portion was way too over the top for my liking.

      Really? I found that aspect to be completely and easily believable -- the most so of any aspect of the movie. Not only has it happened many times in real life (both historically and currently), but the circumstances in the movie show the environment most conducive to it: the humans depicted weren't a cross-section of society; they were mostly ex-military (i.e., trained to perform distasteful or morally-iffy tasks without question) and working for a company devoted to exploiting the planet's resources. Once the natives started getting in the way of that, it's easy to see how they became pests to be exterminated in (most of) the humans' eyes.

      That's the important thing, by the way: the humans weren't really genocidal in the sense that they wanted to destroy the natives on purpose out of malice; they just lacked empathy and saw the natives as beasts rather than people. Except for the military villain guy: the natives (and the protagonist) pissed him off enough that they went from "obstacle" to "enemy" for him.

      The casual genocide depicted in Avatar is no different than has happened throughout history, from the Roman legions to the East India Company to Halliburton.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    102. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Really, if you feel the need to put a plot twist in your movie at least make it clever and new, if it's the same plot twist that's been used oh so many times before then it'll just annoy the audience..."

      Umm, by definition, if its clever and new, its not "the same plot twist that been used oh so many times before".

      Reading comprehension fail.

    103. Re:Really? by Lurker2288 · · Score: 1

      No, it wasn't a suspenseful film, though I'll give you it was well-made and had some impressive visuals. The characters were cariactures--you've got Brave Hero, Noble Savage (and friends), Cranky Scientist, and EVIL MILITARY OMG. Why should I give a rat's ass about a character with no depth? While I'm not gonna demand scientific accuracy from a sci-fi flick, come on, floating mountains? A forest where EVERYTHING glows in the dark? That's just stupid, and when something is so obviously wrong it's hard not to notice it. It was shit. If this is the best Cameron has for us these days, then maybe he should take another 10 years before he inflicts more stupidity on us.

    104. Re:Really? by dswensen · · Score: 1

      I walked out 45 minutes in at the theaters and it took 5 sittings to get through on DVD. Am I missing something?

      The ability to learn from negative experience?

    105. Re:Really? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      I walked out 45 minutes in at the theaters and it took 5 sittings to get through on DVD. Am I missing something?

      You might consider refilling your Ritalin prescription.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    106. Re:Really? by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Never really got what was so special about the First Coming of Citizen Kane myself...

    107. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod the parent up. I walked out 45 minutes in at the theaters and it took 5 sittings to get through on DVD. Am I missing something?

      I'm interested in hearing what movies you actually think are any good?

      There's really a trend in going all "That movie sucks!" against every popular movie, and I'm getting tired of it.

      It might not be original, and maybe people can say "Oh pocahontas did it first!" but that doesn't change that it was a suspenseful, well-made film with some good points that people could think about.

      I really don't understand how even Slashdotters can say with a straight face crap like "So what if it didn't have character depth/telegraphed it's plot from minute 1/a good script/etc. Did you really expect this movie you paid $8-30 for (2D up to buying on a disc) to have those things?"

      I find it extremely sad that the general audience of moviegoers these days finds that acceptable. "OH WELL, it was a popcorn movie, what did you expect?" I didn't expect the filmmaker to treat me like an 8 year old and trust that I would be entertained by how much fucking money he spent.

      The idea of paying $15 for a "popcorn movie" that lasts a few hours is repulsive to me. Hell, even if it was free I wouldn't watch Avatar in full. When a movie is written for the 80 IQ mainstream sheep, I'm sorry, but I am NOT ENTERTAINED, no matter how many explosions are crammed on the screen.

      The rest of the quoted comment is complete bullshit and not even worth a reply. I could fill in the blank with any movie ever made and it would make just as much sense.

    108. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a side note, the "Star Wars wasn't really /that/ good" trend is a load of shit, too. 4,5, and 6 are /not/ cult classics or mere nostalgia, they're widely regarded as some of the best movies /ever/ made.

      Maybe by you and the rest of your AD&D buddies, but not by anybody who knows shit about film.

    109. Re:Really? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      No offense, but someone with so much background in economic theory should probably spend the infinitesimal amount of time required to figure out if they would like a movie before sinking those costs.

      You know, when I've taken infinitesimal amounts of time to come to conclusions based on insufficient information, I've occasionally been wrong. I'm happy to know somebody is better at it than I am.

      I HAVE walked out of a movie before, but that was only on a free ticket at a multiplex and we just happened to be right there so there was no cost in 'evaluating' the film.

      The ticket and opportunity costs are relevant to the decision on whether to see the movie. They aren't to the decision to walk out. At that point, you have, say two hours to spend. Do you want to spend it continuing to watch the movie, or doing something else? That's the important part.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    110. Re:Really? by retchdog · · Score: 1

      When I look at District 9 and compare it to, say, Moon or Stalker, I feel the same way people do about Avatar.

      I'm really afraid of seeing Avatar.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    111. Re:Really? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I hadn't heard of either of those..I think I'll check out Moon this weekend if I can find it.

    112. Re:Really? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Wrong direction: CG instead of plot or character. Right direction: CG in service of plot and character. When CG makes for smaller budgets, it will make for better movies IMO.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    113. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just in case you can't find it: http://www.mediafire.com/?rc31cdpif96qz

    114. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI, it's not spelled that way.

    115. Re:Really? by verbalcontract · · Score: 1

      Avatar was released in 2009. There was a movie you may have heard of, released on year earlier, named Dark Knight.

      If you haven't seen either movie, there are spoilers ahead.

      Dark Knight is an example of a good movie. Dark Knight features a relatable but complex main character, and a frightening and unpredictable villain with very specific goals. The movie contains scenes in which the main character takes specific actions with the specific goal of thwarting the villain; it likewise contains scenes that play out those actions being thwarted, or the villain creating new challenges for the main character. The actions and reactions taken by the main character and villain are significantly different from the actions of other movie characters in previous. It is, if you understand my metaphor, like watching a brilliant chess game unfold.

      Avatar is not a good movie. It contains hokey dialogue, similar to that which has appeared in many other movies. It contains a journey of a main character through a race which is very similar to at least two other movies: Pocahontas and Dances With Wolves. It contains main characters -- the Na'vi -- who choose spectacularly ill-advised actions -- running their army of primitive warriors directly into a highly-advanced human force aided by machines. It also contains a very unlikely outcome of such a poor decision: The Na'vi win.

      I understand that Avatar isn't Citizen Kane, and that it's not critical that it achieve such a lofty goal. But after movies like The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Inception, Ocean's Eleven, or any other "good" Hollywood movie, you can't give Avatar a free pass for being "just another Hollywood movie." Sure, you as the audience can just not see the movie, but James Cameron -- as the person to whom we're trusting those two to three hours -- can just read a damn book about story.

    116. Re:Really? by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree with you that Dark Knight is a much better movie than Avatar, and generally we should try to encourage more of the former. (And understand, I am a big Nolan fan and I am not a big Cameron fan.)

      I'd still argue that if you saw trailers/previews for both, you'd pretty well know what you were getting into with Avatar. That is to say, you'd be expecting an effects-heavy movie with a relatively cliched story, and that's exactly what you'd get.

      With respect to this specific point:

      It contains main characters -- the Na'vi -- who choose spectacularly ill-advised actions -- running their army of primitive warriors directly into a highly-advanced human force aided by machines. It also contains a very unlikely outcome of such a poor decision: The Na'vi win.

      It's impossible to say for sure without a sequel, but seeing the movie, I always sort of got the impression that (unlike, say, the Ewoks vs. Stormtroopers), the Na'vi were actually the more technologically advanced race, or were at least the product of a more technologically advanced race. At least, I assumed the ubiquitous bio-USB ports on every damn animal were a result of someone's bioengineering and not evolution.

      If you don't come to that conclusion I'd agree the ending is kind of stupid.

    117. Re:Really? by nelsonal · · Score: 2, Informative

      A whole lot of the cinemetography and storytelling methods used in the film were new and developed for it, and have been used ever since by lots of other films. The most important were deep focus (keeping the whole scene in focus and effectively flattening the scene by removing depth cues), and the visual montages to indicate time passing. Finally it was a great thumb in the eye of a newsman who had vastly more power than Murdoch could hope to have, today.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    118. Re:Really? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I think you're onto something. In order to compensate for the snore-inducing boredom of the first, I suggest that Kane comes back as a ninja-zombie to rid the world (in slow motion) of the (explosive) demon hordes of evil lord Enak that want to enslave humanity and capture the Earth. They've captured Kane's sled and want to use its supernatural powers to open a portal to move Earth into their dimension!

      Can Kane slaughter all the minions of evil lord Enak and reclaim his sled in time, or will Earth be transported to the Hades dimension!?

      *insert shakycam action scenes with heavy metal soundtrack here*

      The Second Coming of Citizen Kane, directed by Michael Bay! Coming next summer!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    119. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Rosebrains

    120. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually found it rather relieving that Avatar didn't have a bunch of "gotcha!" moments that anyone with an IQ above room temperature could spot thirty minutes in advance.

      Sorry, got to call you out on that one! What about the following sequence (please excuse my inaccurate, but qualitatively sufficient, use of names/script/sequence/dialogue)

      blue girl: We put our tails in the blue dragons to fly better.
      fake blue guy: What's that thing over there?
      blue girl: That's the even bigger, more specialer scary red dragon.
      fake blue guy: can you fly that thing?
      blue girl: Only the chosen one! ...and who would have guessed it, 20 minutes later, fake blue guy flies the red dragon! Booo-ya!

    121. Re:Really? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I've seen 'em both, Coraline > 9 by far.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    122. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never heard of moon till netflix suggested it me, a great surprise. Incidentally I went to japan recently and all the movie stores had moon all over the place. It's probably "too boring" for an American audience, I mean it's a movie in space with no massive war and/or explosions or anything, just dialog.

    123. Re:Really? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Avatar at least kept you watching and had good special effects and action scenes. 9's storyline drags ass, special effects were nothing special, and it has a grand total of about 20 seconds of action.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    124. Re:Really? by spazdor · · Score: 1

      "...which for some reason they could only accomplish under the leadership of a white man saviour."

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    125. Re:Really? by spazdor · · Score: 1

      By an odd coincidence...

      http://achewood.com/

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    126. Re:Really? by unix1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It was about as suspenseful and thought provoking as a fireworks show. Sure, it can be fairly called good by some standard, it's shiny and nice to look at and has 'oohs' and 'aahs', but it doesn't have any particular depth that warrants points in the suspense/thoughtfulness aspect of evaluating a movie.

      You are underestimating how many people sit down in the movie theater or in front of a TV, let their minds go blank, and just let the show take them on a ride. It's like a roller-coaster (but a mental one) - if you look at it from outside you may know what to expect, but most people are not in it to analyze or evaluate it, they are just enjoying the ride. So, no, I bet most people didn't think of Pocahontas while they were watching Avatar and they let their minds fully absorb whatever suspense the show gave them.

    127. Re:Really? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Hey if it makes you feel any better there were humans of many races involved.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    128. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean, who could have predicted that the natives, following the lead of a trained soldier, would mount a cavalry charge, head on, against a vastly superior force that possessed dramatically more firepower rather than utilize their superior knowledge of the terrain and abilities to blend in to attack from stealth...

      I found it odd that there would be a ground battle to begin with, considering the military objective was to bomb the sacred tree. Why take all your ground forces along and drop them a considerable distance from the military objective rather than to use them to defend the compound should the aerial attack fail?

      who could have predicted that this movie would manage to make Ewoks look like strategic geniuses?

      I know you meant compared to the Navi, but I think they look that way compared to the humans as well.

    129. Re:Really? by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Some people prefer to spend their time doing things they enjoy, rather than doing things they can complain about later.

    130. Re:Really? by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      How the hell is that flamebait? Obvious mod abuse.

      --
      "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
    131. Re:Really? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      If someone asked me what genre Stalker belongs in, I wouldn't think of sci-fi. If it showed in theaters today nobody would be able to stay awake through it, and they'd call it the most boring movie of the decade. Call me a low-brow philistine but I wouldn't sit through Stalker again.

      I'll agree that Moon's a proper sci-fi movie.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    132. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be Kane as a child, before he became Kane.

      In Hollywood, if all else fails, reboot it.

    133. Re:Really? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I thought the opposite of Citizen Kane was Transformers 2.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    134. Re:Really? by retchdog · · Score: 1

      No, I won't deride you. I like and defend plenty of movies which most people consider retarded; I'm a big fan of Minority Report and Robocop for example. Stalker just really did it for me; I have a lot of the same doubts as the characters. Watching it was a real "get out of my head" moment and I was riveted through.

      There's an apocryphal story about how Tarkovski intentionally made his movies boring so as to get by Soviet censors. Maybe it's true.

      I don't know what other genre to put Stalker in. It fits the "high-brow" re-definition of science fiction in that it uses a fantastical device (the Zones) to reduce and explore human nature. (shrug)

      I agree that Moon is easier to classify as science fiction, but having accepted Moon it's not such a big step to Stalker imho.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    135. Re:Really? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I would have enjoyed Avatar more if I didn't know about furries. Some things you just can't un-learn :(

      Like how Gladiator, 300 and similar movies/series are like Girls Gone Wild for gay dudes. Once you know that the movie you're watching is borderline soft porn to some people, you can't look at it the same way...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    136. Re:Really? by retchdog · · Score: 1

      Also, the novel Stalker is based on is quite clearly science fiction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadside_Picnic

      The movie just happens to remove almost all explicit depiction of the technology in order to focus on the characters. ;-)

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    137. Re:Really? by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Finally it was a great thumb in the eye of a newsman who had vastly more power than Murdoch could hope to have, today.

      Are you sure? While Hearst might (or might not) have had slightly more direct influence in the US alone, Murdoch has business interests in very many countries around the world.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    138. Re:Really? by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      I've just been tapped on the shoulder and someone is telling me that sex is overrated. My wife.

      Sounds like a personal problem sir! Luckily there are supplements that may help you; consult your spam folder for more information.

    139. Re:Really? by aesiamun · · Score: 1

      Avatar was painful, sure it was beautiful but effects just don't captivate me anymore. The story was something out of an episode of Go, Diego, Go!

      9 at least was interesting..the short was incredible.

    140. Re:Really? by briareus · · Score: 1

      Oh come on -- it would be another reboot, of course.

    141. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "-Inception"

      The difference here is that while Inception was overhyped, it wasn't entirely lobotomized and remained a good movie. The only thing Avatar had going for it was its beauty, the plot and acting were horrid.

    142. Re:Really? by AnAdventurer · · Score: 1
      No, you are not missing anything. It was Dances with Wolves or Last of the Mohicans or 5th Element or B13 or King Solomon's Mines or Fern Gully or from real life the battle of Wounded Knee or the battle of Sterling or countless other movies or real life sagas. The difference is it had a higher budget that all that put together.

      It is totally ok (not that you need my validation) to not like a block buster movie that people are going mental over.

      I hated the Titanic, then people made a huge deal out of the Blair Witch project and how scary it was, I saw it in the theaters and people were freaking out. I grew up in the the rural forests (even lived in a tee-pee when I was 3 for a year) with native americans teaching me what to eat, how to hunt (I am not kidding). For the 2nd half of the movie I was laughing my ass off and I was ruining peoples' suspension of disbelief. I was taught to stand your ground in the woods, no matter if it's sprits, bears, escaped convicts or a raiding party.

      Live your life, don't worry if you are not moved by a shiny movie. I thought it was ok, but there were holes.

      --
      6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
    143. Re:Really? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      The secret to happiness...

      Ignore the damn hype! My expectations weren't unreasonable, so imagine that... I really enjoyed the movie!

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    144. Re:Really? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Er... I wasn't shouting at you, Fibe. Just venting frustration at the same thing you are.

      Figured I might want to say this as it wasn't obvious.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    145. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless they catch colds and die.

      Or their computers systems are compatible with Powerbooks and they've invested a disproportionate amount of energy into shield technology while completely ignoring anti-virus software on the systems that control those shields.

    146. Re:Really? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      It was about as suspenseful and thought provoking as a fireworks show.

      That's exactly what I expected when I went to see it, that's exactly what I got. It's nothing more than audio-visual spectacle, and that's OK.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    147. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Avatar didn't have a bunch of "gotcha!" moments that anyone with an IQ above room temperature could spot thirty minutes in advance

      You mean like "Inception"? I've confused plenty of people when they're all like "Best Movie Ev4r!" and I tell them that I was disappointed.

      In the first few minutes they tell you about how you're in a dream. At that point, it's more than clear that whatever happens in the end will end up not being real but "a dream". In other words, scapegoat suspect #1. Oh, but wait! "Inception" decided to not be clear on that point! Woah that's original. Leave 'em hanging so people will argue about it forever and completely miss the point that it didn't really matter if it was a dream or reality, the point was the character didn't care at the end. He accepted whatever reality he was in.

      At least until the sequel when they clarify it.

    148. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You aren't a registered Democrat by chance?

    149. Re:Really? by PaladinAlpha · · Score: 1

      It's hard to find a spot to chime in amidst all this, so I thought I'd toss this out here.

      How exactly can a film be "popular" and not "good"? You are presupposing an objective measure of "good", which is fine -- but I am curious as to what it is. Avatar was hugely popular and made boatloads of money, and I hear people panning it on here all the time. I'm genuinely curious to hear an explanation on how a movie can be both "tremendously successful" and "bad" simultaneously.

      I'm afraid what I'm going to get is elitism, but regardless, I'm listening.

    150. Re:Really? by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 1
      --
      Stop Global Warming!
      Just say no to irreversible processes!
    151. Re:Really? by vadim_t · · Score: 2, Informative

      Avatar is not a good movie. It contains hokey dialogue, similar to that which has appeared in many other movies. It contains a journey of a main character through a race which is very similar to at least two other movies: Pocahontas and Dances With Wolves. It contains main characters -- the Na'vi -- who choose spectacularly ill-advised actions -- running their army of primitive warriors directly into a highly-advanced human force aided by machines. It also contains a very unlikely outcome of such a poor decision: The Na'vi win.

      Actually I think the movie explains it pretty well. There are several reasons why the Na'vi can win against those odds:

      1. The Na'vi are on their home territory. They're very familiar with it, and it favours them.

      2. It costs an arm, a leg and both kidneys to ship something there. Even at a disadvantage, anything the Na'vi manage to destroy and anybody they kill hurt the humans a lot. Anything destoyed is very, very expensive and slow to replace, and see the next point.

      3. The humans aren't doing colonization. They're not waging a war. What came to that planet is a corporation, which wants to earn money. As such, they can't blow the budget and leave it for the next president to deal with. Money, resource usage and PR will be watched very closely, and if somebody screws up badly enough they'll want their head on a stake, and now.

      4. Back home, the corporation is being watched closely, and allowed to do what it's doing based on the understanding of that they'll try to reach a compromise with the natives, and not bomb them into submission. That the technological capability of nuking them all from orbit exists doesn't mean it's a viable option.

    152. Re:Really? by verbalcontract · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I realize that, given enough thinking, you can extrapolate any rationalization for a weak point in a movie. But the problem is, the filmmakers didn't clearly answer those questions during the movie.

      Consider for a second a theoretical movie: it consists of one shot of egg. 10 seconds into this shot, the egg disappears. The movie ends.

      Now, you could find some rationalization for why the egg disappeared; perhaps it was just a hologram. Your rationalization may even be halfway plausible. But the fact remains that the filmmaker didn't go that extra step to convey a coherent, credible, original story. That's the problem with Avatar.

      To address your points one by one:

      1. Home territory: I believe it, but they should have had a scene where the N'avi come up with an actual battle plan that exploits their opponent's weaknesses. Remember in Star Wars, when the rebels meet before the attack on the Death Star, and Ackbar says that the Empire doesn't believe in the threat of a small strike force? That's how you tell a story.

      2. The humans are vulnerable: This isn't supported by any of the shots or dialog in the movie. All we see the entire movie is an extremely well-equipped base.

      3. The humans go soft for PR reasons: Again, this isn't supported by either the shots or the dialog of the movie. Instead, we have many scenes with the militaristic commander saying stock bellicose action movie dialog. We have a few shots of the corporate manager second-guessing himself after he orders the attack, but he doesn't take action and tell the commander to pull back.

      4. The corporation is watched closely: Also not supported by any shots or dialog in the movie. There are no shots of the corporate managers talking to Earth, and Earth warning them about their actions. And most of the militaristic commander's dialog is to the effect of bombing them into submission.

      This is what I mean about filmmaking laziness. Any scenes filling in the story points you've referred to would have made this a better movie. But the scenes just aren't there.

    153. Re:Really? by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      "How exactly can a film be "popular" and not "good"?

      You've got to be kidding me. Just because something is popular doesn't necessarily mean its of good quality. You're funny.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    154. Re:Really? by vadim_t · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1. Point

      2. Yes, it's a good base. But it's still small and all surrounded by foreign potentially hostile land. Earth is 4.37 light years away, and supplies take 6.75 years to arrive, in very limited amounts. So if the humans send a message "Help! We need more bullets!", they can expect to get a shipment in 11 years the earliest. Even if a supply ship is already heading their way and happens to have the right stuff on it, it almost certainly isn't arriving next week.

      So that means waiting for supplies is out. They have to manufacture on-site. But for that they have to go out, and the Na'vi can take their time, and just snipe people with bows when they find an opportunity. They'll probably clear the base before Earth gets the message that help is needed.

      In my view, all that scary stuff they have there is mostly a deterrent. In a long term struggle it'd break down much faster than it could be replaced, and then they'd be screwed. Which is why they needed a way to land a crippling blow on the Na'vi.

      3. I think this is pretty obvious from that they have the whole avatar program and scientists in place. If just rolling over the Na'vi was an acceptable option none of that would really be needed.

      4. Given the distance they really can't have a meaningful conversation. But it was my understanding that what was sent to Pandora wasn't an annihilation force. Also, given the horrible expense of shipping stuff there, the shareholders most definitely won't want a war. It's their own money they're spending there, they're not a defense contractor that happily lives on tax money.

    155. Re:Really? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      To be fair, Renaissance tragedies is where the good characters are, not the comedies.

      wait what? Avatar wasn't a comedy? hmm, disregard that then. :)

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    156. Re:Really? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I don't know, Hamlet 2 had its good points.

    157. Re:Really? by PaladinAlpha · · Score: 1

      Ok. We're getting closer.

      What is "good quality", separate from what people select for in movies (making them "popular")? What is "unpopular quality"?

    158. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer "Opinions are like clits, every cunt's got one"

    159. Re:Really? by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      Murdoch hasn't come close to causing a war, yet. The Spanish-American war was pretty much all his doing. Remember that while Hearst only dominated newspapers, they were exceedingly important news sources at that time. He had much more sway in determining elections than Murdoch has, partly because people became much more jaded after Vietnam.

      I can see your point, and although I know he owns a lot of newspapers in Australia, and BskyB, but I'd put Hearst just below Burlusconi as far as political power from the media in a country.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    160. Re:Really? by retchdog · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Many friends of mine suggested it to me. I'm glad it's big in Japan, and I'm afraid your assessment of Americans is accurate. Sad.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    161. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe it was because when the humans first landed, they tried to have a nice peaceful conversation with the Na'vi. Who promptly burned down the human buildings they could reach, initiated unprovoked attacks against the humans they could find, and refused any and all meaningful discussions.

    162. Re:Really? by cavebison · · Score: 1

      The trend is easy to understand.

      The ONLY reason people are saying "it sucks" so much, is because it WAS hailed as the second coming. People are reacting against the constant unrealistic raising of expectations by the marketing machine, and I think that's a natural, healthy and necessary response. People are saying "fuck you" because movie marketing (or of any product really) treats them like idiots.

      If Avatar had come out with the expectation that it was cutting-edge effects (as opposed to "deep and meaningful sci-fi going where no-one has gone before) then I'm sure people would be hailing it all over the place as exactly what it was. Complete fluff, albeit with an outstanding female performance, and brilliant special effects.

      But people were led to expect more, so they're like, "fuck you don't play me like this." Sci-fi/fantasy is serious shit to a lot of people, me included. Movies like "Moon" come out quietly and become cult successes, where big money makes lots of noise and usually produces utter drivel and people who value substance are getting really tired of that.

    163. Re:Really? by DarkEmpath · · Score: 1

      It might not be original, and maybe people can say "Oh pocahontas did it first!" but that doesn't change that it was a suspenseful, well-made film with some good points that people could think about.

      How can it be suspenseful when you've seen it a dozen times before? I wasn't even thinking of Pocahontas, I was think of Dances with Wolves (the South Park guys agree - the mocked it with "Dances with Smurfs"). It's a very old and rehashed plot.

      This is Slashdot. Of course popular movies (with their comfortable, predictable, paint-by-numbers plot) are going to be panned. The movies that don't follow a formula are never mainstream-popular, and the ones I like might not be the ones you like, so there'll never be consensus there.

      Get over yourself. If you want to turn your brain off and follow the herd (hurd?) don't be surprised when thinkers look down on you.

    164. Re:Really? by wallsg · · Score: 1

      Would Kane be an undead revenant trying to find his sled or something?

      Oh, now you've spoiled the Rosebud mystery.

    165. Re:Really? by VShael · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "They were cat-smurfs."

      Or as we call them over here in Belgium, Thunder-Smurfs.

    166. Re:Really? by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      Ye gods, someone actually gets it.

      I actually enjoyed avatar. However, that may have been because:

      1. I brought a cute girl to watch it
      2. We had a nice dinner with some excellent wine beforehand
      3. We kicked back and allowed ourselves to be entertained without pretending to be movie critics
      4. We had a couple of drinks after-wards

      It's entertainment, not the frigging Second Coming.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    167. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think YOU must be lobotomized if you thought Inception was a good movie. It was woeful. Avatar wasn't clever but I don't regret the time or money I spent on it. I can't think about Inception without getting angry at what else I could have done with my time and cash. Even folding my 10 bucks into a paper aeroplane, throwing it into the river, and then smashing my head against a brick wall for the remaining 2 and a bit hours would have been more entertaining.

    168. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the things he seems to enjoy is complaining about things later. It can be fun.

    169. Re:Really? by aesiamun · · Score: 1

      Hah that's awesome!

    170. Re:Really? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Why did you bother sitting through it again if you hated it so much the first time? It's not like it's some timeless classic that might be worth a bit of hard work to fully appreciate.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    171. Re:Really? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      In any case, it would be a poorly written opportunistic sequel rushed out by Hollywood to capitalize on the popularity of the original.

      While you're right, I don't think that 70 years after the original would exactly be rushing...

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    172. Re:Really? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      In contrast, with Star Trek I went in with some hope

      Talk about the triumph of faith over experience.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  3. I gotta say by Pojut · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Avatar as a film is so-so...it's entertaining enough, but it's fairly brainless. That being said, I don't think there has ever been a better movie to show off your home theater. The Blu-Ray looks and sounds amazing on a good TV/sound system.

    The Fountain is also an amazing movie to show off your home theater.

    1. Re:I gotta say by helix2301 · · Score: 1

      I was not a big fan of this movie first time I watched it but the second and third time I got bored with it. The movie feels like Cowboys and Indians with a sci-fi twist. Plus the movie is way to long.

    2. Re:I gotta say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read a story last week about how movie studios were using 3D to justify exorbitant ticket prices as well as a substitute for actual good storytelling. That new 3D piranha movie was pointed to as an example. "You haven't seen 3D until you've seen piranhas flying at you in 3D! Did we mention that it's in 3D?"

    3. Re:I gotta say by servo335 · · Score: 1

      You insetive clod the indians get ot win this time and keep their land!

    4. Re:I gotta say by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Blasphemer!

    5. Re:I gotta say by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      Hard.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    6. Re:I gotta say by k-vuohi · · Score: 1

      Kudos for someone finally making a pretty tech demo that's long enough. Maybe people wouldn't hate it so much if it wasn't marketed as a feature film.

    7. Re:I gotta say by johnhp · · Score: 1

      Agreed. The Fountain may be my favorite movie.

    8. Re:I gotta say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      That's what so screwy with this flick.

      Catsmurf:
      Nooo, don't touch the sacred plant!!
      Ohhh, when we have to kill an animal we sing to it and call it brother!!
      When we ride an animal we connect to it's brain with our tails, which also is our genitalia btw.
      Peace is good, mmkay?

      Human:
      Look, if we gather all of the tribes, you can crush your enemies and be violent motherfuckers just like us!!

      Catsmurfs:
      Really? Yee haaa!!! lets kill some motherfuckers up in this biatch!!!

    9. Re:I gotta say by AndrewNeo · · Score: 1

      It would never have gotten the budget if it weren't.

    10. Re:I gotta say by jonwil · · Score: 1

      The real question is when they are going to release the 3D version on blu-ray for all those 3DTVs.
      If there is anything that will convince home theater geeks with money to burn that they need to replace their perfectly good 2D setup with an expensive 3D setup, it will be Avatar in 3D. (everyone I know who is serious about 3D has said that Avatar is the best 3D film to date)

    11. Re:I gotta say by Danathar · · Score: 1

      Yes, brainless and brutally subtle in it's racist overtones.

    12. Re:I gotta say by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      I was not a big fan of this movie first time I watched it but the second and third time I got bored with it.

      Same for me, except I didn't watch it a third time. Twice was more than enough.

      The movie feels like Cowboys and Indians with a sci-fi twist.

      Actually, I thought it started OK and looked initially like it might be a decent sci-fi movie. Then came the long downward spiral into New Age mumbo jumbo and superficiality. Coupled with a plot which went utterly awry and developed inexplicable holes after the first 15-20 minutes, it was a over-hyped disappointment. Fine as a logically weak fantasy with 3D effects, but barely even 1D as sci-fi.

      Plus the movie is way to long.

      I don't mind long movies - provided the plot is good enough to justify the length. In Avatar, it was not.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    13. Re:I gotta say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You guys sounds like children when you get all into the "too cool for the room" posture. Much cooler to hate it, than to like a big budget blockbuster, right?. Well, I thought it was great, saw it twice in the theater - not an original plot, hell everything is derivative at some level.

      Oh, and in their delicious campiness, I love Galaxy Quest and Armageddon too. I try to leave my pretentiousness at the theater door.

    14. Re:I gotta say by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I keep seeing the claim it looks good on Blu-ray. Every time I go into Best Buy, they have that thing playing and it looks like a really bad video game. I saw it an an IMAX, and don't remember it looking like a video game at all.

    15. Re:I gotta say by wvmarle · · Score: 2

      I watched it for the 3D effects, and the 3D effects only. It looks beautiful. Though the only reason this movie will be remembered for longer than the time it's in the cinemas is because it's the first mainstream feature in 3D. And that part was pretty well done. For the rest... meh. Can't be interesting to watch on a flat screen. In 3D it was boring enough.

    16. Re:I gotta say by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      (everyone I know who is serious about 3D has said that Avatar is the best 3D film to date)

      That probably says more about the poor quality of the others than about the quality of Avatar.

      In the current state of 3D movies you do not have to be good. Just less bad than the rest.

    17. Re:I gotta say by aesiamun · · Score: 1

      So you're saying it feels like Star Wars Episodes IV, V and VI?

    18. Re:I gotta say by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      The real question is when they are going to release the 3D version on blu-ray for all those 3DTVs.
      If there is anything that will convince home theater geeks with money to burn that they need to replace their perfectly good 2D setup with an expensive 3D setup, it will be Avatar in 3D. (everyone I know who is serious about 3D has said that Avatar is the best 3D film to date)

      I've heard it'll be around the DVD/Blu-Ray re-release in november. The re-release is to have extras and the like (Fox wanted more money otherwise they could've stuck them in another disc to not compromise the high-bitrate used - it's a good 45GB or so on a blu-ray).

      Of course, the reason it's good is the camera used. A 3D camera is more than just two cameras side by side - they actually need to be able to move relative to one another - sideways (inter-ocular distance - i.e., distance between lenses) and yaw (convergence - i.e., a ray projected from the cameras will intersect in the desired area). Without this (i.e. using fixed camers) can result in fatigue and vomit on your head from the guy behind you. And a less tiring experience as the your brain tries not to focus on the areas where depth-of-field is used ot blur areas (altering the convergence helps alleviate this).

      End result is it is very hard to actually make a 3D movie - it's not just "we'll just offset two cameras and shoot", but now it's how much offset, and where is the convergence. 3D camcorders will take home video to a new dimension of unwatchability...

    19. Re:I gotta say by cgenman · · Score: 1

      The Watchmen has an amazing DVD transfer, and is actually a movie worth watching.

      Personally, I'm waiting for the shortened cut of Avatar. I bet there is an extremely entertaining hour-nineteen somewhere in that film. Trust me: massive edits will make it better.

    20. Re:I gotta say by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

      For those who have seen Inception, I can guarantee that it will be the best way to test a new sound system in recent memory. The sound made that movie.

    21. Re:I gotta say by GoulMeister · · Score: 1

      Galaxy Quest is a good spoof of Star Trek, on the other hand Armageddon is just Bruce Willis in space and is utter rubbish.

    22. Re:I gotta say by huckamania · · Score: 1

      Watchmen literally put me to sleep. I couldn't be bothered to try to watch it again. Amazing, because I thought they had nailed the look of the comic, of which I'm a big fan. Now I think I understand how so many hated '300', a movie I like a lot but had never read the source.

      Avatar was a huge disappointment. The story was just lazy and cliched. The humans were all American, how's that for a politically correct faux pas. Star Trek TOS had a multinational crew and that was 40 years ago. No one in America noticed and international audiences didn't care because almost all of the 'Americans' were giant pricks. We manage to cross the immense distances of space, expending unknowable amounts of resources, but only because we want to plant our erect members in your big blue buns. I could go on and on, but what is the point. I didn't even pay to see it, it was a company event.

    23. Re:I gotta say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Avatar as a film is ... a better movie to show off your home theater. The Blu-Ray looks and sounds amazing on a good TV/sound system.

      The Fountain is also an amazing movie to show off your home theater.

      Add Dragon Hunters to your list.

    24. Re:I gotta say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, anyone who doesn't like the most popular thing in its genre only does so because they're a snob! Let's you and me grab some McDonald's and Budweiser, and head over to watch some NASCAR! I mean, you're not pretentious, are you?

    25. Re:I gotta say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course all the humans were Americans. Americans are the only ones whom it's politically correct to portray as such unrepentant assholes. All the other nationalities were, you know, living in peace back on Earth singing kumbaya and eating lentils.

    26. Re:I gotta say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If just watch Dreamscape, will it work the same?

    27. Re:I gotta say by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      in their delicious campiness, I love Galaxy Quest and Armageddon too.

      Galaxy Quest is deliberately over the top and camp (as well as being funny), whereas Armageddon is just really not very good at all.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  4. Special Edition? by crow_t_robot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Special edition or regular edition it will still never get anywhere near "Aliens." Sorry, Cameron, but the thirty years of experience you have gained and the extra production budget have actually made you worse. Go back to your roots.

    1. Re:Special Edition? by Cruciform · · Score: 1

      Go back to his roots? Is he going to be working on Piranha 3D?

    2. Re:Special Edition? by stewbacca · · Score: 2, Funny

      Special edition or regular edition it will still never get anywhere near "Aliens." Sorry, Lucas, but the thirty years of experience you have gained and the extra production budget have actually made you worse. Go back to your roots.

      See what I did there?

    3. Re:Special Edition? by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Interesting that you should mention Aliens, since I think the special edition is inferior to the theatrical release. The added scenes slow it down without adding anything. These scenes are generally edited out for a good reason. There are exceptions - Bladerunner being notable - but often the theatrical cut remains the most enjoyable viewing experience.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    4. Re:Special Edition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, actually, he's going to direct Piranha 2 3D!

    5. Re:Special Edition? by tibman · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. Most of the time the theater version is the best. I do enjoy the extended LOTR versions but i doubt i'm with the majority. I also enjoyed the extended Abyss.. it actually makes a lot more sense than the original.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    6. Re:Special Edition? by armyofone · · Score: 1

      Everyone concerned may be better off if he were to work on Piranha R2D2!

      --
      "A revolution without dancing is... a revolution not worth having"
    7. Re:Special Edition? by BobMcD · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Special edition or regular edition it will still never get anywhere near "Aliens." Sorry, Cameron, but the thirty years of experience you have gained and the extra production budget have actually made you worse. Go back to your roots.

      Check out his TED talk...

      1) Avatar was ALWAYS meant to be an eye candy spectacle. A proof of the capabilities of his company that he founded for the purpose of making 3D art.

      2) Titanic was just an excuse to dive the real wreck...

      3) He sought to make more films, but there wasn't any money in it, so he returned to make another Hollywood film.

      4) Avatar's subsequent release merely funds his true passion of science and exploration.

      I bring this up because you seem to be taking Cameron as some sort of artist who'd be interested in your critique. In reality, he's met all of his goals, and now has further funding for his true passion - exploration.

      Rather interesting, don't you think?

    8. Re:Special Edition? by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      3) He sought to make more *science* films

    9. Re:Special Edition? by Weirsbaski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Check out his TED talk...

      1) Avatar was ALWAYS meant to be an eye candy spectacle. A proof of the capabilities of his company that he founded for the purpose of making 3D art.

      2) Titanic was just an excuse to dive the real wreck...

      3) He sought to make more films, but there wasn't any money in it, so he returned to make another Hollywood film.

      4) Avatar's subsequent release merely funds his true passion of science and exploration.

      Were those his goals before Avatar (and Titanic) were made, or is this the director's version of tripping on your shoelaces then exclaiming "I meant to do it!"?

      --

      I am not a sig.
    10. Re:Special Edition? by briareus · · Score: 1

      So he should have made Piranha 3D instead?

    11. Re:Special Edition? by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Were those his goals before Avatar (and Titanic) were made, or is this the director's version of tripping on your shoelaces then exclaiming "I meant to do it!"?

      Well, in the absence of someone (who would know) presenting contrary information, I assume you'd have to base that sort of thing on some observations.

      Got any?

    12. Re:Special Edition? by SoTerrified · · Score: 1

      Ample evidence exists that deep-water exploration and filming are his current loves. Pretty much given that it was his primary focus from 2002-2009. So if he says he made Avatar to fund the work he was doing from 2002-2009 and is lying, he wasted 7 years of his life just to fool you. Seven years of his life just so he can trip over his shoelaces and exclaiming he meant to do it? Somehow I don't think so.

    13. Re:Special Edition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were those his goals before Avatar (and Titanic) were made, or is this the director's version of tripping on your shoelaces then exclaiming "I meant to do it!"?

      If by tripping you mean "made two of the highest grossing films of all time" - then that is one hell of an amazing trip, don't you think?

    14. Re:Special Edition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would he run over budget on a film several times just to scope out a ship that crashed in 1912?

      If you were going to spend the hundred million, why not for a wreck from the Greek or Roman empires?

      Maybe sniff around in China for one of their wrecks from one of the many naval battles they've had.

    15. Re:Special Edition? by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      He had to tie a movie to it to get Hollywood to fund it. (Watching the video usually helps when rebutting the points within it...)

  5. no, really? by Triv · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Blockbuster movie producers attempt to convince fans to buy a special edition that has little to no added value."

    Whoa. Shocking.

    Seriously, what were we expecting?

    1. Re:no, really? by ZaphDingbat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And who the hell thinks the extended cut of "Terminator 2" was any good?

  6. Abada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd rather wait for Abada - http://abadachameleon.ytmnd.com/

  7. A fun review of Avatar by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Interesting
    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:A fun review of Avatar by jbarr · · Score: 1

      Abso-frekin-lutely amazing!

      Thanks!

      --
      My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
    2. Re:A fun review of Avatar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was as entertaining as the movie itself. And shorter.

  8. I wasn't impressed with it at the theatre by Rooked_One · · Score: 0

    In fact, when I walked out with my friend, I asked one of the girls working there (probably no older than 20) if I was the only one who thought the movie wasn't that good - her eyes got as wide as saucers and said "Thats the first time anyone hasn't liked it!!!"

    That makes me a sad, sad panda.

    However, the MOVIE (note I didn't say film because it wasn't) was watchable only because of the 3D effects. If it weren't for that, I would have become very easily bored by the linear and predictable storyline. And of course this makes me wonder if we will ever have some great film directors pop out of the woodwork like the types of tarantino, kubrick (yah, I know not everyone likes him), scorsasee (sp), and so forth. To me, the storyline could have been done in 30 minutes - not 2.5 hours. That being said - i'm sure this version will be +3 hours and do nothing but ruin the movie further - or is this a ploy to start getting people over to the expensive 3d world of home entertainment? The movie was pretty brainless, so I could see the "sheep" out in the world with a lot of money thinking this is right next to sliced bread.

    Umm... End rant? No - did we really expect to see anything added to the movie with a directors cut? Well.. they made the movie ridiculously long, so I can't imagine what else they could put in there to make it worse than it was.

    1. Re:I wasn't impressed with it at the theatre by __aaelyr464 · · Score: 1

      I absolutely agree. I enjoyed the movie when I saw it in IMAX 3D. After trying to watch it on my laptop, I realized the draw I had to the movie was the incredible visual effects. I have to give Cameron serious props: he raised the bar for everyone in terms of "3D done right" and the power of CG. I still find it hard to believe the movie was completely CG.

      Once the shock and awe of the stunning visuals and beautiful soundtrack and effects wore off, I realized it wasn't that great of a movie. Fairly basic in plot, and completely predictable. Enjoyable merely because I saw it on an enormous screen, in 3D, with a very loud (and expensive) sound system.

    2. Re:I wasn't impressed with it at the theatre by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      It's actually only eight minutes longer. Over the whole running time, it strikes me as not a great reason to go back.

      I know plenty of people who dislike the movie. People aren't "sheep", and brainlessness is as much as a turn-off as running time for many of them.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    3. Re:I wasn't impressed with it at the theatre by gman003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, the main thing is that it was a "spectacle film". That's an almost unheard-of genre, especially nowadays. The whole point of that genre is an archetypal storyline and a huge focus on scenery and special effects.

      Probably the only other well-known example would be "The Ten Commandments", which was one of the last. Huge production costs, big-name people, and what the 1950s considered top-of-the-line special effects. You can see elements of the genre elsewhere ("2001" is a well-known partial example), but there are very, very few pure examples dated after WW2.

      People don't watch a spectacle film for the interesting, innovative story. They watch it because of the scenery and special effects and the sheer spectacle of it all. The early ones were basically "look how much I spent making this movie", back when "making this movie" was enough to get viewers.

      If you came into it expecting a good sci-fi movie, of course it won't meet those standards. That's like judging a Bond movie by sci-fi standards: it doesn't compare well because it isn't supposed to be compared at all.

      On a more personal note, I watched it months after release, on a rented DVD, headphones, and laptop. It was still an interesting movie, better than much of the stuff Hollywood puts out. Not an "instant classic" or anything, but it wasn't horrible, in my opinion.

    4. Re:I wasn't impressed with it at the theatre by wisnoskij · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I never really understood peoples problem with it. It seemed to me to at least have a better plot then many many other movies, not that that is saying all that much.
      So maybe it did not have a above average script, but did anyone really think that it would have one? Personally I thought Titanic was pretty stupid, and its main gimmick was also having the top graphics technology of the time, far surpassing all other films.

      Personally I really enjoyed Avatar and thought it should of been longer, but then I was more interested in learning more about Pandora the world then the story.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    5. Re:I wasn't impressed with it at the theatre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, why can't movies have a branching storyline, for hell's sake?

    6. Re:I wasn't impressed with it at the theatre by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 1

      did we really expect to see anything added to the movie with a directors cut?

      I thought that the director's cuts of the LOTR movies added something good, but in general I agree with you, longer isn't always better and is frequently worse.

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    7. Re:I wasn't impressed with it at the theatre by houghi · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, the main thing is that it was a "spectacle film". That's an almost unheard-of genre, especially nowadays.

      I have mod points, but I already commented. Otherwise I would have modded as funny as sarcastic is not an option.

      In case you where serious:
      I would say almost every movie you see now is about an archetypal storyline and a huge focus on scenery and special effects.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    8. Re:I wasn't impressed with it at the theatre by colmore · · Score: 1

      Oh, I get it, it was supposed to suck.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    9. Re:I wasn't impressed with it at the theatre by lymond01 · · Score: 1

      I see the original poster's point. Look at the Ten Commandments, Ben Hur ... you could argue Star Wars (the first one), and probably a bunch of others I'm not thinking of. They have well-known plots, archetypal characters, and big effects. You can't toss Transformers in there because there's quality control to meet this genre. Aliens doesn't fit either -- that's just a really great action film. You might mention Serenity but that has stronger characters than the other films mentioned.

      Dances with Wolves, about the same plot as Avatar, fits this category as well. Different but same.

    10. Re:I wasn't impressed with it at the theatre by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      the director's cuts of the LOTR movies added something good

      I haven't seen them, but I suspect that the added stuff was good because it was in the books to begin with. In other words, it wasn't added after the fact, but rather was there from the beginning and just cut from the theatrical release.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    11. Re:I wasn't impressed with it at the theatre by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Well, the main thing is that it was a "spectacle film". That's an almost unheard-of genre, especially nowadays. The whole point of that genre is an archetypal storyline and a huge focus on scenery and special effects.

      Uh, what? Aren't almost all Hollywood movies special effects bonanzas with archetypal (cliched) plots?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    12. Re:I wasn't impressed with it at the theatre by gman003 · · Score: 1

      I suppose I worded it rather poorly. By "archetypal" I meant "story and characters we are already familiar with, even if they are new".

      Another major feature of spectacle films is that the scene and effects dictate the story, not vice versa. Avatar was as much about the planet as it was about the characters. I wouldn't be surprised if Cameron designed the locations first, then wrote a story that would visit all of them.

      Probably the biggest difference between a spectacle film and regular Hollywood shovelware, though, is the amount. A spectacle film is a movie cranked up to eleven. It's bigger, louder, shinier, and above all more expensive than other films.

      I'd also dispute your conflation of "archetypal" and "clichéd". Lord of the Rings was built on archetypes, but I doubt most would consider it cliché, at least at the time. The main difference is that archetypal characters fill a well-defined role, while clichéd characters have no depth beyond their specific role.

    13. Re:I wasn't impressed with it at the theatre by DarkEmpath · · Score: 1

      It seemed to me to at least have a better plot then many many other movies, not that that is saying all that much.

      My farts smell better than many other peoples farts. Doesn't mean you want a lung full.

      Personally I really enjoyed Avatar and thought it should of been longer, but then I was more interested in learning more about Pandora the world then the story.

      Good luck. Gargamel has been trying to get info on that place for decades, but keeps getting foiled at the last minute. Azriel has had no luck, either.

    14. Re:I wasn't impressed with it at the theatre by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I was more interested in learning more about Pandora the world then the story.

      Sorry to be the big kid who told you that Santa Claus didn't exist when you were at school, but Pandora is an entirely fictional world which exists only in the confines of the film Avatar.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  9. Cowboys and Indians with a sci-fi twist by Zocalo · · Score: 1

    There might be a reason for that...

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    1. Re:Cowboys and Indians with a sci-fi twist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh thank you, I needed that!

  10. Hopefully, by zero0ne · · Score: 1

    it's the last review.

  11. Why? by MrTripps · · Score: 1

    I'm curious about the timing here. The movie came out, had a long run, came out on BR, and now back in theaters just when kids (and some adults) are going back to school. Too soon. If they had waited a year or so I might be tempted to see it again on the big screen. As it is, I'm kind of tired of the movie. The cynic in me says they just threw it out now so the new BR could be out in time for Xmas shopping season.

    --
    "I'm not a quack, I'm a mad scientist! There's a difference." - Dr. Cockroach
    1. Re:Why? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      The cynic in me says they just threw it out now so the new BR could be out in time for Xmas shopping season.

      No shit? You thought they were doing this for anything other than to get more people to give them fists full of cash?

  12. Any culture that sings like the Lion King... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...deserves genocide.

  13. Avatar was already too long by DrXym · · Score: 1

    The special effects were superb, the writing... not so much. I don't think I would be interested in enduring an extended edition unless James Cameron actually rewrote and reshot (for the better) some of the hokier dialogue and contrivances.

    1. Re:Avatar was already too long by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      I saw the movie only in 2D... and I have to say, the movie DID suck. it was bad, very bad. 3d probably made it good, but I can't compare really.

      As a normal movie, avatar was just plain bad.

    2. Re:Avatar was already too long by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      One of the things I noticed watching it in 2D was that the depth cueing was wrong in a lot of places. This was probably done to make the stereoscopic version work better, but it made it quite jarring to watch in a few places.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  14. Review Sucks by WED+Fan · · Score: 4, Funny

    With a few minor exceptions, this review was a rehash of prior reviews.

    --
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
    1. Re:Review Sucks by rainmouse · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What bothers me most about this review is that the reviewer walked into the cinema having already seen and hated the film and full knowing he will hate it again. Why should we value what this guy has to say? A large part of the re-release was the fact that places like IMAX was fully booked out the entire time Avatar was showing right up until the moment IMAX was contractually obliged to change to the next feature of waterfalls or dolphins or whatever it is they show these days. The release is for people who wanted to see the film in such environments but couldn't last time around and adding some deleted scenes is just further enticement.

      My biggest worry about the review is that this reviewer, Ryan Lambie might actually be getting paid for his jaded opinions.

    2. Re:Review Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever stop to think about that, with a few minor exceptions, this "special edition" is a rehas of the previos garbage of a movie?

    3. Re:Review Sucks by WED+Fan · · Score: 1

      Boom.........Whooosh. The sound of the a supersonic one going over your head.

      --
      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
  15. Avatar, um... sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd enjoyed everything Cameron had done in the past (even including Titanic and his documentaries), but I utterly do not get Avatar. It's a horribly-written bore, and don't start with me on the effects. It's like watching somebody else play a video game. I couldn't have cared less about any of the characters, and I nearly fell asleep several times while trying to watch it.

    Another eight minutes? No thanks--the ones I had to endure the first time were quite long enough.

  16. The 10-year-rule by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Every director has about 10 years of peek creativity, give or take a few years. And Cameron is well past his creative prime (basically from about 1983 to 1992).

    There are some notable exceptions to the 10-year-rule, BTW. I would argue that Stanley Kubrick and John Sayles are two of the VERY rare exceptions. Many would include Scorsese as well.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:The 10-year-rule by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      And while they probably weren't able to get support for numerous projects during their prime, after 10 years have past they can make any film they want.

    2. Re:The 10-year-rule by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't get why people expect the high end of the creative spectrum to remain there for life, anymore than someone would expect an olympic level running to still be getting the gold at age 60. The mind comes from the brain, and the brain is an aging and dying piece of meat the same as the heart or any other part of the body.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    3. Re:The 10-year-rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kubricks record was flawless until Eyes Wide Shut. John Sayles though... that was a joke wasn't it?

      Cameron made The Terminator (a silly but entertaining little genre B) and Aliens (one of the greatest '80s action movies). The abyss was abysmal, Terminator 2 was even more silly than the first, True Lies... ugh and Titanic -- in Camerons own words "a $60 million chick-flick". If you're applying the 10 year rule to Cameron, you have to include all the production design and directorial work he did for Corman (Battle Beyond the Stars, Mutant, Piranha 2). In just about every possible way, these films are more accomplished than anything he worked on post Aliens.

    4. Re:The 10-year-rule by Pennidren · · Score: 1

      And maybe that's the key. Too much freedom ruins you.

    5. Re:The 10-year-rule by ed1park · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not that I believe in such a silly rule, but what about Clint Eastwood? :)

      If Avatar wasn't at least technically and artistically creative, then you have a very narrow definition you're working with.

    6. Re:The 10-year-rule by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Cameron is well past his creative prime (basically from about 1983 to 1992).

      I've just finished watching Dark Angel on DVD (I only saw occasional episodes when it was new, so I missed much of the plot). That was Cameron in 2000-2002, and I'd say he was still being pretty creative then.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:The 10-year-rule by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I don't know if I'm counter-counter culture or what, but I loved both Avatar and Eyes-wide-shut. Certainly way better movies than A Clockwork Orange.

    8. Re:The 10-year-rule by houghi · · Score: 1

      Concerning Stanley Kubrick: I hope you include only things when he was alive, because Eyes Wide Shut is about the only movie wanted to leave the theater. It could have been great if he would have been around to finish it.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    9. Re:The 10-year-rule by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      I actually liked true lies. Its a silly little action flick with a bit of comedy on the side. Its pretty good if you don't take it seriously.

    10. Re:The 10-year-rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Define "better". A Clockwork Orange wasn't supposed to be pop-corn entertainment, that's why, at Kubriks request, the film was withdrawn from the UK. In terms of life experience, the majority would agree that Clockwork Orange was a better film.

      You can clearly see on IMDB that Avatar (118/250) is on it's way to obscurity. Eyes Wide Shut isn't there but every other major Kubrik film is. It therefore appears that your views run counter only to popular culture. The suggestion you could have a double negative take on culture is absurd ;)

    11. Re:The 10-year-rule by aztektum · · Score: 1

      I'd have to say Spielberg should be noted for being beyond the 10-year span. Sure maybe his last 10 have not been that notable (as far as being a director), but Jaws to Private Ryan was 22-years filled with great films (minus Hook anyway).

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    12. Re:The 10-year-rule by lymond01 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't know if I'm counter-counter culture or what

      You are.

      But that's okay -- I liked Avatar both times I saw it. It's simple in its story, characters, plotlines and cliche in those areas as well. But it chose a good story to base itself on and told it in a very entertaining way. Any movie that actually gets me emotional (like the army vs tree scene) gets a boost in my rating. Consider that the next time you watch a movie -- did it move you in any way: angry, sad, happy, excited, scared? Most movies don't.

      But don't dis the ultra-violence.

    13. Re:The 10-year-rule by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

      I'd trade the crazy orgy scene for ultra-violence any day of the week. :)

    14. Re:The 10-year-rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Because every so often /. will run a story about aging tech workers not getting the same considerations as younger workers and everyone will cry foul.

    15. Re:The 10-year-rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a minute - you're actually saying that Battle Beyond the Stars is a better movie than Avatar? Terminator or the Abyss even, maybe, but Battle Beyond the Stars?

    16. Re:The 10-year-rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the person I was replying to mentioned John Sayles. I asked if it was a joke and then pointed out that Camerons vfx work on Battle Beyond the Stars was more impressive than his work on Avatar. This is entirely within the scope of discussion on the 10 year rule.

      While neither film is great, Camerons big budget Star Wars prequel could have been made by pretty much any director commanding that budget. People capable of duplicating the VFX work on BBTS for the equivalent of what Cameron had to work with simply do not exist -- even allowing for the cost advantages of digital over optical printing.

    17. Re:The 10-year-rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hitchcock?

    18. Re:The 10-year-rule by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Some would include Eastwood. I wouldn't, though. I think Eastwood's directing work peaked in the 70's. While he's made good movies since, they're mostly good on the basis of the writing and acting. Eastwood's directing style is pretty pedestrian. He does deserve credit for assembling good casts and using good screenwriters and scripts, but that's not a particularly creative effort. I don't think he's made a visually striking film since The Outlaw Josey Whales, and probably peaked creatively with High Plains Drifter.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    19. Re:The 10-year-rule by S.O.B. · · Score: 1

      And for some it's much shorter. As a director Lucas' peek was 1973-77.

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    20. Re:The 10-year-rule by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      I've never been much into Hitch (he was way before my time and I just never got into him, though I did like "Vertigo"). So I'm unqualified to judge whether he should qualify too.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    21. Re:The 10-year-rule by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Every director has about 10 years of peek creativity

      In addition to the exceptions you listed, how about Fellini, John Ford, Sam Peckinpah, Robert Altman, Kurosawa, Tarkovsky, Bergman...

      I think it is the flashy Hollywood-blockbuster type of director who actually has a short creative lifespan, e.g. M. InTheNightGarden Shyamalan, the bloke who "directed" Transformers 2 and Tony Scott.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    22. Re:The 10-year-rule by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I don't get why people expect the high end of the creative spectrum to remain there for life, anymore than someone would expect an olympic level running to still be getting the gold at age 60. The mind comes from the brain, and the brain is an aging and dying piece of meat the same as the heart or any other part of the body.

      What the aging brain loses in terms of the literal amount of grey matter can be more than outweighed by the increase in complexity of thought resulting from digested memory and experience.

      Now get off my lawn.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    23. Re:The 10-year-rule by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I've never been much into Hitch (he was way before my time

      An advantage of films over, say, live theatre, is that even if you miss the original performance, you can see it later and miss nothing. I'm quite surprised you haven't ever noticed this.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  17. Big science plot hole by wowbagger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Everybody has been creaming themselves over how well the "science" holds up - as if this were really a hard science movie.

    I don't understand this, as there was a plot hole so glaring to me that even as I marveled over the storytelling and the effects it continued to eat away at my Circle of Suspension of Disbelief.

    OK, so Pandora is supposed to be in another star system - as I understand Proxima Centari. Let's take a distance of 4.3 lightyears for discussion. Now, at a minimum there had to be 2 trips from Earth to Pandora, and possibly as many as 4:
    1) We had to identify that there was unobtanium there: if that required a probe to be sent that is 1 trip there, plus one communication back. If there is some way to detect it by observation then no trip is needed, so let's assume that to be nice.
    2) We had to send a probe there to get the Na'vi DNA, and somehow communicate that back to Earth. That is at least one trip there + one communication back (the reason for the distinction will become clear shortly).
    3) We had to send people + Avatars from Earth to Pandora.

      There are three possible assumptions:
    1) Humans have faster than light travel. Thus a "trip" and a "communication" are the same, and take some time less than 4.3 years as viewed from Earth. However, I would assert if we know enough to do FTL, we aren't going to be using chemical projectile weapons in a fight. (it also seems likely we would be able to synthesize a room-temp superconductor, but I digress).
    2) Humans have relativistic flight (.5c to .9c) - trips take about 8 years, communications 4 years. Minimum time is thus 8+8+4 = 20 years, plus another 8 years before unobtanium would be flowing back to Earth. That's a long time to wait. Moreover, if you can do .5c ships, you are able to manipulate energies much higher than we can now, so again, no chemical projectile weapons.
    3) Humans have non-relativistic flight (.1c or less) - trips take 400 years, communications 4 years. Again, that's just too long to wait.

    "What if you cannot use energy weapons on Pandora because of energy fields?" OK, but that still doesn't prevent a ship in orbit from slamming a large mass into the One Tree at great speed, with a much more efficient and devastating effect on Na'vi morale. Again, tell me why they used massed rockets rather than a small rock?

    1. Re:Big science plot hole by space_jake · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Same reason Bond villians never just put a bullet in Bond's head.

    2. Re:Big science plot hole by oodaloop · · Score: 2, Informative

      Non-chemical weapons could be possible, but that doesn't mean they're suited for combat. We have caseless ammo, lasers, rail guns, etc now, but the military doesn't use them for a variety of reasons, ranging from cost, weight, durability in the field, ease of field maintenance, etc etc. Combat weapons have to be cheap and effective, not necessarily the most technologically advanced.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    3. Re:Big science plot hole by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Assuming that anyone with FTL will have practical energy weapons is probably a big fail. There's still no evidence that it is actually physically possible to deliver more energy with one than with a kinetic kill weapon. Keep in mind that all matter is energy at a different frequency (or spin or something) anyway... The best energy-based weapon is a slug-thrower.

      Beam weapons will have their uses. But missiles and projectiles are likely to continue to be some of the most effective options for some time to come, and possibly will continue to be so forever... or until we move to another level of existence :p

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Big science plot hole by JackDW · · Score: 1, Redundant

      I think it's quite reasonable that the Unobtainium mining project might have been running for a century or more. A huge amount of effort had been put into it.

      What's really surprising is that the Na'vi learned English, but never bothered to try to understand what the humans wanted in all the time they'd been there. If the Na'vi had just bothered to figure this out, then some sort of arrangement could surely have been reached. The humans made every effort to communicate with the Na'vi, even dressing up as them with the avatars, but it was all for nothing, as the Na'vi refused to believe that humans would ever attack them.

      That's something that really didn't sit right with me. The Na'vi understood about hunting; the idea that a predator kills to survive. Could they not recognise the humans as predators, the Unobtanium as prey, and themselves as "in the way"? Could they not respond in one of the obvious ways - compromise, negotiation?

      As it is, the Na'vi actions basically condemned them to future attacks from the humans, ones that would be much more lethal than mining explosives and light gunships.

      --
      You're an immobile computer, remember?
    5. Re:Big science plot hole by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      IIRC, the trip length was specified in the movie as they came out of sleep/stasis.

      The "transported to a new world" I can generally forgive - it's just a setup to get you to the fantasy. I was bothered more by the local plot problems and (aside from unobtanium, which grates like Kevin Costner's botched accent in Robin Hood) the fact that every human remaining on the planet who "won" ended up with a death sentence by being completely stuck on a world without breathable air, and no ability to repair anything that breaks down over their lifetime.

      I like watching the first hour for the cool effects, then I shut it off before I have to try and follow the fucked up storyline.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    6. Re:Big science plot hole by Drakantus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      First off, I thought Avatar was a great entertaining movie. It wasn't incredibly realistic and the story was a rehash of the same story we have heard so many times, yet still entertaining. That said, while the movie has a few realism problems I find your argument a bit silly.

      You missed a few important details and possibilities.

      - The humans came to Pandora not with the goal of wiping out the Na'vi, but with just digging some rocks out of the ground. Some military was sent along to encourage the locals to cooperate, but the original mission was not anything like "destroy worldtree".

      - As you have shown, it's a very long round-trip. After deciding to attack the Na'vi, it's not like the humans can run back to earth and grab the big guns, they had to use what was available.

      - Your basic premise "well if we have fast spaceships we must have amazing laser guns too" isn't really a valid argument. look at the past 50 years, computers and technology have made amazing leaps and bounds, but we still put on pants one leg at a time. Great advancements in spaceflight doesn't automatically mean we would also have equal advancements in weapons.

      - The natives used bows and arrows, which couldn't even pierce the armor on the human aircraft without additional velocity. Projectile weapons are plenty enough to kill them and energy weapons could have been considered crazy overkill.

      - The humans on Pandora were from a corporation with some hired ex-military mercenaries. Even if earth has developed stronger energy weapons, it's very possible such "WMDs" are limited to the government military, I don't see GM and Ford running around with nuclear bombs so I don't see why a corporation of the future would have free access to the latest and greatest weapons we have developed.

      - Long trip, limited energy. Maybe energy weapons just aren't feasible given that the majority of energy collected needs to be used to power the vehicles, mining equipment, life support, and ships.

      --
      I love going down to the elementary school, watching all the kids jump and shout, but they dont know I'm using blanks.
    7. Re:Big science plot hole by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      "3) We had to send people + Avatars from Earth to Pandora."

      My understanding was that they had sent a large armed party after an initial scout, and the Avatar technology/DNA sequencing/unobtanium discovery was made on or in orbit just above Pandora.

      That would mean that there is a 20-30 year backstory that isn't told since it's largely irrelevant to the plot We already know there is some backstory with the Avatar project and the scientists that were well acquainted with the natives.

      "Moreover, if you can do .5c ships, you are able to manipulate energies much higher than we can now, so again, no chemical projectile weapons."

      Not necessarily true. Ion drives are well within our current technology if we ever decided to make a long-distance trip, and they can theoretically push us up to .9+c given enough time and fuel.

      "Again, tell me why they used massed rockets rather than a small rock?"

      Maybe dropping an asteroid on the tree would ruin the mining prospects of the unobtanium under the tree. Remember, they weren't going to just piss off the Na'vi, they were going to the tree to mine.

      "(it also seems likely we would be able to synthesize a room-temp superconductor, but I digress)."

      From the Avatar Wiki:

      "Furthermore, unlike the fragile crystals of human-created superconducting compounds, the substance found on Pandora was a stable quasi-crystal with its atoms arranged in a never-repeating but orderly pattern with fivefold symmetry. This structure was not only structurally rugged but also has microscopic voids in the quasicrystalline structure that contain the magnetic flux lines (see [1])."

      So we were able to synthesize something, but it just wasn't useful.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    8. Re:Big science plot hole by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      They mention a few things about the Na'vi that in my mind makes it somewhat difficult to fully sympathize with them. They were the ones who closed the school because they decided that their culture was superior to our's and we had nothing to give them, and they were angry at us for not listening to them.

    9. Re:Big science plot hole by careysub · · Score: 1

      ... I would assert if we know enough to do FTL, we aren't going to be using chemical projectile weapons in a fight. ...

      "Chemical projectile weapons" is a technology that is really, really tough to beat as way of killing in a planetary atmosphere. First off - guns are very efficient at converting stored energy. The efficiency by which the chemical energy in the propellant is converted to kinetic energy in the projectile can reach 80%, a remarkably efficient heat engine. Second - projectiles not only transfer energy, they transfer momentum as well - which turns out to be an very effective way to inflict damage on a target. Third - that little packet of energy plus momentum travels through atmospheres far better than any type of energy beam. Atmospheres are transparent only to visible light - anything else gets rapidly absorbed - and then only when aerosols (clouds) are not blocking the path; bullets are unaffected by clouds and while they do lose energy they can remain effective at ranges of a kilometer or more.

      Besides do we know for sure the guns use chemical propellants? Electrothermal guns are already under development, which can generate plasmas as propellant gases.

      In the year 2500, if starship troopers fighting in an atmosphere have only a choice between projectile and energy weapons (and not, say a "probability inverter field" or other fantasy technology), they will be using projectiles.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    10. Re:Big science plot hole by Chas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      FTL or relativistic travel vs no energy weapons.

      Doing this on a large scale, where you can apply brute-force methods (solar sails, high capacitance batteries jammed into 90% of the ship's hull, etc) is a vastly different proposition from creating a small hand-carried (or even mech carried) laser weapon that's suitable for extended environmental combat use. Plus, something that works fine in terrestrial atmospheric conditions may not work properly in the Pandoran environment (which has other things in the atmosphere that make it poisonous to humans). The effects these things have on things like beam collimation, range, and beam diffusion are big unknowns. While differences in gravity and atmosphere can affect projectile weapons too, it's usually easier to overcome problems with ballistic weaponry than it is with exotic energy weaponry.

      As for slamming an orbital impactor into the tree. Sure. Lots of heat, light, and radiation. Adverse weather effects. Etc.

      1: If the ships in question have the equipment to latch on to such an object.
      2: If the ships in question have enough power and control to actually capture the object once they attach. Remember, pushing to relativistic speeds doesn't necessarily require vast amounts of power for instant acceleration and maneuvering. You build up to it over time so you don't turn your crew into salsa inside.
      3: If the ships can capture a large enough object to survive atmospheric entry to the ground.
      4: If they can plot an atmospheric path to the tree that isn't blocked by the floating mountains.
      5: Ask NASA how hard it is to hit a specific point (within say 1000 yards) with a projectile from space. Especially a "dumb fire" projectile like a meteor with no guidance or course correction after release.

      Realistically, about the only ship capable of latching onto a large enough impactor would be the interstellar transport ship itself. Trying to use your only ride home (in case of disaster) on a risky object-capture mission that it likely was NOT designed for is, for lack of a better term, and trying to stay diplomatic COMPLETELY BAT-SHIT STUPID!

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    11. Re:Big science plot hole by not+already+in+use · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should just stop watching fiction.

      --
      Similes are like metaphors
    12. Re:Big science plot hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, we are talking about a faceless, soulless corporation here. They'd be quite happy "relocating the natives for their own good" or "defending themselves from terroristic aggressors" but all out bald faced genocide would be bad publicity. In the modern world oil companies cause all sorts of problems for native peoples, but there's no way they'd get away with simply carpetbombing them out of e

    13. Re:Big science plot hole by doconnor · · Score: 1

      1) We had to identify that there was unobtanium there: if that required a probe to be sent that is 1 trip there, plus one communication back. If there is some way to detect it by observation then no trip is needed, so let's assume that to be nice.
      2) We had to send a probe there to get the Na'vi DNA, and somehow communicate that back to Earth. That is at least one trip there + one communication back (the reason for the distinction will become clear shortly).

      If a probe was sent to a planetary system where life was detached, or even suspected, it would have had a wide array of capabilities, including identifying minerals and returning DNA analysis.

    14. Re:Big science plot hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not to be nitpicking, but if there is something history has shown us is that no matter where an advancement takes place, it always end up being taken advance of in weaponry.

    15. Re:Big science plot hole by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 1

      Your basic premise "well if we have fast spaceships we must have amazing laser guns too" isn't really a valid argument.

      As I recall on some of the websites, there was some discussion of the science. Using the unobtainium, they'd built relativistic spaceships.

      Larry Niven, in his "Known Space" stories, made a good point about this. One of the alien races, the Kzinti, attempt to conquer the (at the time peaceable and weaponless) humans, and fail. They still speak of the "Human Lesson" - 'A reaction drive is a weapon in direct proportion to its efficiency as a reaction drive.'

      If you can drive a sizeable spaceship at anything vaguely approaching the speed of light for several years, then your reaction drives can harness a truly ridiculous amount of energy. Applying this as a weapon is a very small matter of engineering.

      And if nothing else, if you can put a (several) big spaceship(s) in orbit around a moon of a gas giant in another star system, then you can drop a non-metallic rock on a precise spot on that moon.

      --
      PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    16. Re:Big science plot hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we have ships that can do better then .5c already... look it up on the net, their based on thermonuclear detonation. They've been designed for a long time, since the 70's. it would cost maybe a few billion without any red tape or even less to make one now. an unmanned one would be easy. the hard part is doing that with enough food/water/air/fuel to last the trip. i guess my whole point is you can have very fast or near FTL travel without having better weapon designs...

      We have better then chemical projectile designs now, but we won't use them until the price of gunpowder goes up or until its not cost effective to equip lots of humans with crappy weapons (for example we need to make what few humans we have left as effective as possible vs... we need to have all our humans equally effective but not to expensive to maintain) anyway don't make assumptions bro

    17. Re:Big science plot hole by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Everybody has been creaming themselves over how well the "science" holds up - as if this were really a hard science movie.

      I don't understand this, as there was a plot hole so glaring to me that even as I marveled over the storytelling and the effects it continued to eat away at my Circle of Suspension of Disbelief.

      OK, so Pandora is supposed to be in another star system - as I understand Proxima Centari. Let's take a distance of 4.3 lightyears for discussion. Now, at a minimum there had to be 2 trips from Earth to Pandora, and possibly as many as 4: 1) We had to identify that there was unobtanium there: if that required a probe to be sent that is 1 trip there, plus one communication back. If there is some way to detect it by observation then no trip is needed, so let's assume that to be nice. 2) We had to send a probe there to get the Na'vi DNA, and somehow communicate that back to Earth. That is at least one trip there + one communication back (the reason for the distinction will become clear shortly). 3) We had to send people + Avatars from Earth to Pandora.

      There are three possible assumptions: 1) Humans have faster than light travel. Thus a "trip" and a "communication" are the same, and take some time less than 4.3 years as viewed from Earth. However, I would assert if we know enough to do FTL, we aren't going to be using chemical projectile weapons in a fight. (it also seems likely we would be able to synthesize a room-temp superconductor, but I digress). 2) Humans have relativistic flight (.5c to .9c) - trips take about 8 years, communications 4 years. Minimum time is thus 8+8+4 = 20 years, plus another 8 years before unobtanium would be flowing back to Earth. That's a long time to wait. Moreover, if you can do .5c ships, you are able to manipulate energies much higher than we can now, so again, no chemical projectile weapons. 3) Humans have non-relativistic flight (.1c or less) - trips take 400 years, communications 4 years. Again, that's just too long to wait.

      "What if you cannot use energy weapons on Pandora because of energy fields?" OK, but that still doesn't prevent a ship in orbit from slamming a large mass into the One Tree at great speed, with a much more efficient and devastating effect on Na'vi morale. Again, tell me why they used massed rockets rather than a small rock?

      Forget all that, why are there huge floating rocks all over the place?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    18. Re:Big science plot hole by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      What's really surprising is that the Na'vi learned English, but never bothered to try to understand what the humans wanted in all the time they'd been there.

      How could that possibly surprise anyone? Every real native culture in history -- Africans, Indians, Native Americans, Australian Aborigines -- reacted to their European colonial conquerors in exactly the same way!

      That's something that really didn't sit right with me. The Na'vi understood about hunting; the idea that a predator kills to survive. Could they not recognise the humans as predators, the Unobtanium as prey, and themselves as "in the way"? Could they not respond in one of the obvious ways - compromise, negotiation?

      Well, consider that the big Unobtanium deposit had the Tree of Souls growing on top of it. Since the Tree of Souls is basically the Na'vis' god, telling a Na'vi you want to mine the Unobtanium is kind of like telling a human you want to bulldoze Heaven -- not only does the idea not make (spiritual) sense, but even if it did it would be unthinkable blasphemy.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    19. Re:Big science plot hole by udoschuermann · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Native Americans really didn't think that White European settlers would engage in total warfare against them, either. War between Native American tribes could probably be described more as a violent slug fest after which everybody would make up and go home, variously hurt, grumpy, or satisfied, but not crushed under foot, looted into poverty, and forced from their homes in humiliating defeat; The "burn you to a crisp" warfare was totally new to them and by the time they figured that out, it was way too late to get up and fight back effectively.

      No, it doesn't surprise me at all that the Na'vi would be equally innocent in their outlook as to what's coming at them.

      --
      --Udo.
    20. Re:Big science plot hole by gknoy · · Score: 1

      - Your basic premise "well if we have fast spaceships we must have amazing laser guns too" isn't really a valid argument. look at the past 50 years, computers and technology have made amazing leaps and bounds, but we still put on pants one leg at a time. Great advancements in spaceflight doesn't automatically mean we would also have equal advancements in weapons.

      I completely agree.

      Chemically-propelled kinetic weapons (bullets) are remarkably effective and efficient, when they hit. Wound cavities, tissue damage, and fluid shocks should be fairly effective versus most organic life forms that we might encounter. Large chunks of destroyed flesh might be more detrimental to someone's operation than a cauterized air-hole, depending on where you shot them.

      They also have the benefit of being low-tech, relatively easily maintained, and so forth. I'd hate to have to recalibrate or realign (or even clean) the mirrors in a laser weapon, and I'd hate to see someone's plasmacaster's energy pack malfunction and explode. Now, the mass budget for TRANSPORTING them across space is probably absurd, but it's possible that the safety precautions and charging equipment for some sci-fi maser tech would be pretty expensive too.

      Mainly, though, it's that this was a relatively hard sci-fi movie, as far as the humans' tech goes. Travel involved cryosleep, guns were basically guns, flying vehicles were basically helicopters, and other things were beefed-up VTOLs. The "magic" material (room temperature superconductor) which was being mined didn't really have an effect on the technology developed for the humans, because it was much too valuable not to just send home. Instead, everyone there got expedition grade stuff. This means that it was intended to be rugged, resilient to damage or environmental stresses, and usable (and maintainable) by replaceable grunts if necessary. So, their walkers are giant inelegant exoskeletons, their guns are recognizeable as such, and so on. The only real "science fiction" aspect of it was in the Avatar systems themselves, and the vat-grown chimaeras.

    21. Re:Big science plot hole by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      - The humans on Pandora were from a corporation with some hired ex-military mercenaries. Even if earth has developed stronger energy weapons, it's very possible such "WMDs" are limited to the government military, I don't see GM and Ford running around with nuclear bombs so I don't see why a corporation of the future would have free access to the latest and greatest weapons we have developed.

      I tend to equate the corporation in the movie more with the likes of Halliburton, De Beers, or the [Dutch|Britsh|whatever] East India Company.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    22. Re:Big science plot hole by udoschuermann · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you're saying that the stupid natives just didn't seem to understand how much more superior our ways are, so it's all their own damn fault.

      Me, I think they were just looking at our culture and saying, these people blew themselves up, had to leave their polluted home and roam for decades in search of a new one, and now we're supposed to learn their ways?!

      --
      --Udo.
    23. Re:Big science plot hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the booklet that came with the more expensive version:

      The IVS Venture Star, which you see in the beginning of the movie, travels at 70% light speed, and is one of ten ships like it. They are based on matter-antimatter engines.

      Communication is however instantaneous, through the use of quantum entanglement. But the effective speed of these devices is three bits per hour, so no torrents for you.

    24. Re:Big science plot hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "- As you have shown, it's a very long round-trip. After deciding to attack the Na'vi, it's not like the humans can run back to earth and grab the big guns, they had to use what was available."

      As he already pointed out, mass in orbit has potential energy that is very useful as a weapon if you can move it a little to where you want. They had a ship in ORBIT, including a second drop ship. Once you've off-loaded the drop ship (or left as much dead weight on it as might be useful), you set it on auto-pilot and de-orbit that sucker into the world-tree or whatever other site you wanted to turn into a large crater. If you didn't want to sacrifice your drop ship, you go to a nearby rail-car-size asteroid and perturb the orbit so that it will impact where you want (if it takes 4 years to eventually impact Pandora -- fine, there's time). One that size is comparable to the largest atomic bombs. Leave the system and bring backup next time in case there's anything left that might be a problem by the time you get back. If there is, you remember to bring the right equipment and deorbit rocks on it til it's done. If there isn't any opposition left, you land and go back to mining. Bonus points for cratering a site and digging up unobtainium at the same time.

      The *only* plausible way to make any of this make sense is, as you suggest, that perhaps they were severely energy-limited by the trip and the resources brought with them, which does make some sense until you watch how much they're squandering the whole time as if equipment and fuel were just a short trip back to the corner store.

      What made even less sense was that there would be any material worth traveling so far and using so much resources to obtain it and bring it back at light-years distance, regardless of the level of native opposition. It would have to be matter that could be converted directly into energy to be worth it. And what is it? A room temperature superconductor. Yawn. How much liquid helium could you afford to buy for "20 million a kilogram"? How much energy and effort could you invest to make it artificially? Heck, how much time and effort could you invest in geologists, chemists, and physicists to figure out how it forms naturally on Pandora so you don't have to keep mining it at such ridiculous distances from home? I mean, if you're going to use a MacGuffin, why not at least make it pass basic scrutiny? It's a shame, given that the interstellar ship looks like they gave it a lot of attention to make sure it was scientifically plausible.

      Granted, the whole thing was no more contrived and unrealistic than plenty of other science fiction films that are otherwise decent, but some of it was quite bad in Avatar's case, and the plot was blandly predictable, so what's left to like other than the pretty visuals? It's like they tried to come up with something scientifically plausible but couldn't quite achieve it, and, heck, background didn't matter all that much to the hokey and unoriginal plot anyway, so why bother with those details?

      The whole thing is weird -- fantastic attention to detail in the ecology of Pandora and the interstellar ship, then pathetic for the "unobtainium" and the whole return-on-investment thing.

    25. Re:Big science plot hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was impressed by the scientific detail of the movie within the first few minutes, when we had a three-second establishing shot of the starship, and I noticed several sensible design features:

        * Radiators. If you're using a lot of power in space, you need radiators to get rid of the waste heat. Incidentally, Arthur C Clarke recommended including these on the spaceship in 2001, but they were left out because the audience would probably mistake them for wings.
        * Big reactor/engine bit at one end, and a long shaft separating it from the livable bits at the other end. Distance weighs less than radiation shielding.
        * Rocket nozzles turned back along the length of the shaft, so it's pulling rather than pushing the rest of the spacecraft. This means that the shaft only needs to hold up under tension, rather than compression, so it can be lighter.

      That said, there's really no good reason why the humans couldn't have just dropped a rock on the sacred site from orbit at the end of the movie.

    26. Re:Big science plot hole by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Larry Niven, in his "Known Space" stories, made a good point about this. One of the alien races, the Kzinti, attempt to conquer the (at the time peaceable and weaponless) humans, and fail. They still speak of the "Human Lesson" - 'A reaction drive is a weapon in direct proportion to its efficiency as a reaction drive.'

      If you can drive a sizeable spaceship at anything vaguely approaching the speed of light for several years, then your reaction drives can harness a truly ridiculous amount of energy. Applying this as a weapon is a very small matter of engineering.

      It's not necessarily easy to convert a space-ship engine into a weapon. It is entirely possible that we could produce large versions to power space-ships, but miniaturization of the technology is impractical.

      Also see other people's comments about sticking to what works when you're a long way from the service centre.

    27. Re:Big science plot hole by xerx · · Score: 1

      As for Chemical Weapons...

      Sending ships from Earth to another star system would be very expensive and even with the best technology it is likely a better idea to manufacture as much as possible there than to bring it all with you.

      Robotic ships first arriving, processing raw materials into simple modular facilities, creating vehicles and weapons which use the abundant chemicals and materials present on the planet.

      Years later humans eventually arrive and begin to destroy the rest of the planet.

    28. Re:Big science plot hole by srmalloy · · Score: 1

      Large chunks of destroyed flesh might be more detrimental to someone's operation than a cauterized air-hole, depending on where you shot them.

      This is a misconception that seems to persist across the years in defiance of physics. If you have a laser or other directed-energy weapon that delivers a pulse of energy onto a target with sufficient energy density to 'burn a hole in the target', you're not going to get neat, cauterized holes in bodies; you're going to get nasty shredded wound cavities. Why? Two words -- 'steam explosion'. One mole of water -- 18 grams (about a fluid ounce, 1/12 of the contents of a soda can) converted from liquid to gas (which you'd have to do to 'burn a hole' in the target) occupies, at one atmosphere of pressure, 22.4 liters of volume. That volume of water, when it is converted to steam and before it has a chance to expand will be at more than 1200 atmospheres of pressure; the expansion act just like an explosive charge going off at the point of contact.

    29. Re:Big science plot hole by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Option 2, manned, strongly independent and building local bases. Not waiting for probes, sending a scientific crew with a full, well-equipped base at once. And scientists have initiative of their own, not waiting 4 years for an order of Na'vi DNA sample, just sending it back away as soon as the analysis is done.

      20 years till the scientific phase ends and commercial begins isn't all that much. Note the 8 years is constant (comfortable) acceleration/deceleration at 1g, that's not all that strong.

      A well-equipped Pandora base can build most equipment, machinery etc locally (from ores, Pandora is very rich). DNA data can be transmitted by radio (The whole genome is a puny 2GB gzipped, for Eywa's sake!)

      Heavy unmanned transport doesn't have to care for 1g limit, and likely only one (unmanned) trip with heavy factory machinery from Earth was needed to establish the production base. First commercial grade bulk unobtainium transport could reach Earth 10-12 years after commercial operations was greenlighted (and starting continuous flow), and that could be 15 years after the scientific operation start.

      Then troubles mount and next 10 years later the militarization of the operation enters full phase.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    30. Re:Big science plot hole by JackDW · · Score: 1

      How could that possibly surprise anyone? Every real native culture in history -- Africans, Indians, Native Americans, Australian Aborigines -- reacted to their European colonial conquerors in exactly the same way!

      I thought someone might mention that. And indeed I have thought about it too. But then I think about Sigourney Weaver's character (don't know the character's name) and ask why her knowledge of history didn't motivate her to find a peaceful solution. If you were in her shoes, you'd do that, right? Because you'd know that the Na'vi couldn't beat the humans. Maybe they could drive away the mining colony, who clearly weren't equipped to fight a war, but since the Unobtainium was crucial to human survival, the humans would return with whatever it took to defeat the Na'vi. Knowing all that, she never tried to explain it. She was there for years and taught them English, but never taught any human history, and never gave any explanation of the importance of the Unobtainium or the purpose of the mining colony. Why not? Did she try to explain? Did they refuse to listen?

      I think the answer is covered by "space_jake" when he says "Same reason Bond villians never just put a bullet in Bond's head." If the film were a shades-of-grey historical account, you'd have the Na'vi's refusal to understand the humans, coupled with Weaver's inability to communicate, plus the desperation of the humans, struggling to survive but trying to remain human and not simply take things without asking. All of these things would come together to create the situation shown in the film. That would be more interesting and more realistic, but I suppose it wouldn't be as much fun as a clear divide between good guys and bad guys.

      --
      You're an immobile computer, remember?
    31. Re:Big science plot hole by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      That's a really good argument they should have been able to destroy the planet. But unrelated to the question of destroying a single person on a planet. Unless they were to destroy the planet and mine the debris (easier of the unobtanium is evenly distributed, harder if the unobtanium is primarily in the crust), space ship based weapons would be of limited use.

    32. Re:Big science plot hole by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 1

      It's not necessarily easy to convert a space-ship engine into a weapon. It is entirely possible that we could produce large versions to power space-ships, but miniaturization of the technology is impractical.

      A handheld version, quite possibly not. There's even precedent... there's a lower limit on how massive a nuclear bomb can be, for example. However, a ship-mounted or orbital weapon? No problem. According to wikipedia, the spaceship's powered by antimatter - talk about a substance ripe for weaponization!

      And - to reiterate - any spacefaring race has the ability to drop rocks. The humans knew where the tree was. They had aerial reconnaisance.

      --
      PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    33. Re:Big science plot hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at the past 50 years, computers and technology have made amazing leaps and bounds, but we still put on pants one leg at a time.

      The only difference is, once my pants are on, I make gold records.

    34. Re:Big science plot hole by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 1

      But unrelated to the question of destroying a single person on a planet.

      They weren't trying to destroy "a single person on a planet". They were trying to destroy the "Tree of Souls", a tree rooted to the ground. In a specific, known place on that planet.

      --
      PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    35. Re:Big science plot hole by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      No, they weren't trying to destroy the Tree of Souls. They were trying to mine the material under it, not radiate the area such that they couldn't mine it for a thousand years or whatever. And they wanted to eliminate the insurgents so that they would have increased security. Unless you are arguing that they should have wiped the surface of the planet clean to eliminate danger, it goes back to the limited strikes which ship based weapons wouldn't be well suited for.

    36. Re:Big science plot hole by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 1

      No, they weren't trying to destroy the Tree of Souls.

      Wrong. That is precisely the target of the big massed assault the humans engage in at the end.

      You are probably confusing it with the "Home Tree" of one Na'vi tribe that was destroyed by conventional weaponry.

      --
      PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    37. Re:Big science plot hole by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Really? I hadn't even thought about that. Pretty cool.

    38. Re:Big science plot hole by mog007 · · Score: 1

      I would argue that during the Napoleonic Wars, the muskets Napoleon's troops used were vastly inferior to a simple bow and arrow. Hell, inferior even to a crossbow. The bows could be loaded faster, and would be much more accurate. Bows are also lighter than muskets, and much cheaper. The only one of your criteria that a musket would have over a bow, is durability.

    39. Re:Big science plot hole by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, I had the wrong one. If the explosives could survive a drop of a few hundred feet from a shuttle, I have no idea why they couldn't drop them from 5 miles up, above where the enemy could fly. But then, they used the whole "sensors don't work" excuse to prevent anything like that. Though they didn't have trouble with that at hometree which would have had a similar or greater level of unobtanium. Or would the Tree of Souls have had more, since the instruments were more messed up there than home tree?

    40. Re:Big science plot hole by gullevek · · Score: 1

      And more accuracy and easier to target as a crossbow or a bow. Plus the ammunition is much smaller compared to an arrow. So you can carry more of it.

      --
      "Freiheit ist immer auch die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden" - Rosa Luxemburg, 1871 - 1919
    41. Re:Big science plot hole by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      Another advantage of the musket is less training. To be fast and accurate with a bow requires years of practice. To be proficient enough with a musket to stand in a line and fire, perhaps a few weeks at minimum; in 2 or 3 months you'd be pretty damn good. This would be another hindrance to fielding extremely technologically advanced weapons.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    42. Re:Big science plot hole by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 1

      But then, they used the whole "sensors don't work" excuse to prevent anything like that. Though they didn't have trouble with that at hometree which would have had a similar or greater level of unobtanium.

      Allegedly, some areas laced with unobtainium had huge magnetic fields, and some didn't. I distinctly recall an aerial photo of the Tree Of Souls, though, that the humans were looking over at some point. Sensors or no, that meant they knew to a high degree of precision where it was. A rock dropped from orbit would take it out with minimal-to-no fallout. It'd have to be non-metallic so the magnetic fields wouldn't put it off-course, but that's no big deal. You can tailor the yield pretty precisely, too, that way.

      As you note, even if you ignore the orbital bombardment scenario, a higher airdrop would make more sense. There were some rock prominences over the tree, but that would just make a couple passes necessary, that's all.

      --
      PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    43. Re:Big science plot hole by mog007 · · Score: 1

      Presumably, energy weapons would be easier to use, not more difficult. So they would require less training than a firearm. There would be no recoil, you wouldn't have to change your ammo based on what kind of target you were up against, that sort of thing.

    44. Re:Big science plot hole by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking maintenance, function check, cleaning, repairing, trouble-shooting, etc. There's an awful lot more to know about the operation of a laser rifle so that when something goes wrong, and it will, you can fix it in the field. When an M-16 fails to fire, you just tap the magazine to make sure it's seated, rack the charging handle, and fire again. Solves most problems. Taking it apart and cleaning is a cinch. Can you imagine a 19yo soldier field-stripping a laser rifle in the field to determine why it didn't fire?

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  18. Re:www.spoow.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I tell you what, I'd rather buy a Spew-brand gold plated piece of iShit than sit through Avatar again. Least of all because there's another whole eight minutes of story! Thank you, James Cameron, you magnificent waste of oxygen.

  19. Avatar vs. Aliens by TheHook25 · · Score: 3, Funny

    http://theoatmeal.com/comics/aliens_avatar Pretty much sums up Avatar pretty well.

    --
    Life was once calm, now the waves are coming.
  20. hibernating for six years by peter303 · · Score: 1

    In the movie the passengers said they were in hibernation for six years. So I assumed it was near light-speed travel. You accelerate at one gee for about half year, travel for five years, then decelerate.

  21. "The Usual Suspects" sucked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It had to be said.

  22. I happened to like "Glenn or Glenda" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It Conquered the World" wasn't too bad.

  23. Get Chris Nolan to write Avatar 2 by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    So maybe it did not have a above average script, but did anyone really think that it would have one?

    Some of us would like movies with nine digit budgets to, you know, toss a few bucks into the script. Why can't a big action flick have a decent script? Why must I be told continually to "shut off my brain" when walking into a theater?

    1. Re:Get Chris Nolan to write Avatar 2 by wisnoskij · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But the big action flicks are made for the masses who would not like them to have complicated plots that they have never seen before.

      The only way they would ever make the money back to pay for the film is to pander to the lowest common denominator.

      Big Budget will never do unique plots.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    2. Re:Get Chris Nolan to write Avatar 2 by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Why can't a big action flick have a decent script?

      If you think that no actual big action movies have decent scripts, then the reason is probably that the number of people that share your subjective taste in scripts that also would be willing to watch a big action movie in any case, regardless of script quality, don't represent a big enough demographic to support such films in the market.

    3. Re:Get Chris Nolan to write Avatar 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two movies with good stories and writing this year:

      Toy Story 3 currently at $403,800,000 box off and #1 film of the year so far.
      Inception currently at $262,000,000 box office.

    4. Re:Get Chris Nolan to write Avatar 2 by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      If you think that no actual big action movies have decent scripts,

      I didn't make an absolute statement like that. I consider Inception to be an action film for the most part, and I felt it was one of the best screenplays I've seen in years. Then again I've been a fan of Nolan's since Memento.

      I even felt Iron Man 2 was a little underrated. I'm nowhere near some art house geek who only goes to see black and white indie films about underage prostitutes. ;-)

      I did like The Fountain, though, so maybe I'm just nuts.

    5. Re:Get Chris Nolan to write Avatar 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Memento was great. I can't fathom how you'd rate Inception as one of the best screenplays in years though. It was wooden, patronising, illogical and unengaging. I can't remember caring about any fictional characters less than that film; the characterisation was either risible transparently manipulative cliche (Leo has sun-dappled, soft-focus kiddies, oh he must be a great guy!) or completely non-existent. I was so apathetic to the fate of the zero-dimensional nonentities running around I had nothing else to do but sit there and count the inconsistencies and idiocies of the dream mumbo-jumbo. Which had a distinctly "worst of both worlds" aspect to it, in that it was fundamentally as stupid as (for example) a straight-to-video Van Damme movie, but acted like it was all clever and deep.

      Avatar was much better, frankly. It may have been cliche and stereotype/archetype from start to finish, but it made no pretenses otherwise, and gave you a constant stream of decent visuals to look at while the plot ticked along its obvious path. Inception didn't even do that, inasmuch as while there were a couple of decent FX shots, they'd been heavily featured in the trailer already. The rest of it was just bland. Oh great, here's another 15 seconds of a van in slow motion, just in case I'm so utterly fucking retarded I've somehow forgotten all the rest of it is happening while the van drops, since the last 8 times you emphasised this to me.

    6. Re:Get Chris Nolan to write Avatar 2 by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      I know intellectually that reactions to films are 98% subjective, but Avatar > Inception?

      Child, you is teh crazy! :-P

      Maybe if you meant Avatar: The Last Airbender TV series (there was no live action film in my personal, augmented reality). ;-)

      gave you a constant stream of decent visuals to look at while the plot ticked along its obvious path

      I might as well play a video game, then. At least I'm an active participant then. Mass Effect > Avatar

  24. Hmm... by neowolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So the only review (so far) is from someone who didn't particularly like the movie to begin with, and they didn't like the new release very much either- because 9 minutes didn't add enough to overcome their previous feelings...

    One thing that does amaze me about this movie is the fact there there doesn't seem to be any real middle-ground. People either love it to the point of excess (which I'll admit- I do), or they hate it and call it self-indulgent garbage that ripped-off other movies.

    At least it wasn't yet-another re-make of a '70s or '80s TV show or movie, or the 6th sequel to a series that should have died after the 2nd.

    I really can't blame Cameron or the studio for wanting to re-release it, and I appreciate the fact that they added content that many super-fans wanted to see. They got screwed over by some awful 3D releases that took over the screens from them this last Spring. A lot of people also regretted not seeing it in theaters, in 3D, after they saw it for the first time on Blu-Ray or DVD. Now they have a chance, although for a slightly different version. Beats the hell out of crappy 3D fish movies shot with '60s 3D movie values...

    1. Re:Hmm... by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      At least it wasn't yet-another re-make of a '70s or '80s TV show or movie, or the 6th sequel to a series that should have died after the 2nd.

      Correct. It pulled all of it's themes from 90s movies to rehash with "oooh shiny" SFX.

    2. Re:Hmm... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One thing that does amaze me about this movie is the fact there there doesn't seem to be any real middle-ground.

      I neither love or hate the movie but sit somewhere in the middle.

      I'm pleased I went to see it on iMax but ultimately it was just a 3D screensaver of eye-candy set pieces. As a sci-fi fan, I enjoyed Moon & District 9 far more, as two movies that were released during the same year.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    3. Re:Hmm... by proxima · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One thing that does amaze me about this movie is the fact there there doesn't seem to be any real middle-ground. People either love it to the point of excess (which I'll admit- I do), or they hate it and call it self-indulgent garbage that ripped-off other movies.

      I disagree. I think a lot of people (myself included) enjoyed watching the movie once in the theatre. Sure, the story was highly familiar from any number of places and even more predictable. It was pretty with nice special effects and a worthwhile imax/3D experience (though a little pricey compared to what I'm used to paying). I have no interest in paying much to see it again; I certainly won't buy the blu-ray disc, but somewhere down the line I may get it via Netflix.

      A casual survey of people I know who watched the movie suggests that many are of my view; we aren't talking about the fanatical response where people went to see Titanic 5x in the theatre. It was an enjoyable action flick with really well done special effects that we'll see much more of in the next 10 years.

      You want a truly love-or-hate movie? Try Lost in Translation, or Napoleon Dynamite.

      --
      "The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
    4. Re:Hmm... by Dynotrick · · Score: 1

      At least it wasn't yet-another re-make of a '70s or '80s TV show or movie,

      It was. You may remember a film called Fern Gully: The Last Rainforest. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104254/ Ok early 90's, but still....

    5. Re:Hmm... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      And I thought District 9 was complete crap. But for that, the main character was a complete jackass, and I didn't ever stop wishing harm to him. If he weren't so evil (not just torching the eggs, but excited to be killing babies) then maybe I wouldn't have been so indifferent to him. Instead, the movie just didn't work for me. I know others that disagree, but that's how it was for me.

      And all the magic of the alien tech wasn't sci-fi, it was fantasy. And the government was deliberately stupid. When they determined he could use stuff, rather than even sedating him and monitoring the transition, taking tissue samples and such to see if it could be recreated or what they could do to make the things work, they just wanted to kill him and cut him up. Again, evil for evil's sake, and unrelated to what I would think they'd actually do in such a situation.

      And I never figured out why every single person came down from the ship, without anyone at all left up there. If even a single person were left up there, they could have done what the one did on the ground, collecting the goo to power the shuttle. But no, when they came, they completely and totally evacuated the ship, leaving it to hover above them indefinitely. There are so many things they could have done with it rather than that, and it had to have a massive power output (or a passive anti-gravity system so valuable that every country on the planet would be attempting to infiltrate it). It wasn't in orbit, it was hovering in the atmosphere. If it could do that for a year, it could easily have the energy to leave orbit, possibly go all the way back home.

      It came across as some non-sci fi writers trying to make a sci fi movie about apartheid. It didn't work as a sci fi movie for me. Adding magical tech to a story doesn't make it sci fi. And the story there is no more original than Avatar's was.

  25. This may sound snobby but... by Assmasher · · Score: 1

    ...I am still astonished that the movie was shot in 16:9 and the original BluRay was released in 16:9. In a big home theater a 2.35:1 Avatar would be AMAZING (it still looks great in 16:9 but my subconscious keeps noticing the empty space to the left and right of the image that could hold movie...) Apparently Cameron had framed all the shots in the movie for 2.35:1 even though the camera used was natively 16:9, but later changed his mind. If the new BluRay is 2.35:1, I'll be lining up to get it of course. Otherwise, no thanks, there'll be another "Special Edition, Director's ORIGINAL original cut" out in a few more months.

    --
    Loading...
    1. Re:This may sound snobby but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, it sounds snobby.

    2. Re:This may sound snobby but... by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Why? Since it wasn't shot at 2.35:1 to one, all you would get is a matted version of the 16:9. What exactly do you gain by that other than less picture and lower resolution?

    3. Re:This may sound snobby but... by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      Because a bigger image on the screen is a more enjoyable experience to me. Zooming a 16:9 isn't the same thing. It was framed for 2.35:1 - it was intended, when shot, to be shown in 2.35:1. Like I stated, it may seem snobby, but it isn't, if I can get a bigger image I would prefer that. I have the 16:9 version and I enjoy it, and it looks great, but it feels much more (to me) like you've got a real theater when the aspect is 2.35:1 or 2.4:1.

      I remember when I first setup my home theater and testing it out using my XBox360 and the 16:9 image was great, but then I popped in my very first BluRay movie, Heat, and turned up the sound system, turned off the lights and watched the film take up the entire 138" CineGray 2.35:1 screen and said "Wow... I'm so glad I did this..." I'm usually a bit of a cynic regarding stuff like this but I am totally happy with my home theater. I have no more toys to buy!

      --
      Loading...
    4. Re:This may sound snobby but... by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Because a bigger image on the screen is a more enjoyable experience to me. Zooming a 16:9 isn't the same thing. It was framed for 2.35:1 - it was intended, when shot, to be shown in 2.35:1. Like I stated, it may seem snobby, but it isn't, if I can get a bigger image I would prefer that. I have the 16:9 version and I enjoy it, and it looks great, but it feels much more (to me) like you've got a real theater when the aspect is 2.35:1 or 2.4:1.

      But you're not getting a bigger picture. All you would get is less picture and less resolution due to the matting.

    5. Re:This may sound snobby but... by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      You are getting a bigger picture, but you do lose parts of the scene; however, because the movie was shot intended for 2.35:1 usage, cropping to 2.35:1 during the transfer (as was done for theatrical release outside of IMAX theaters) gives you a better image quality (BluRay uses a lossy format) and you see exactly what the directory intended.

      I'm sure there are people out there who would rather not lose the cropped parts of the scene, I personally would rather have a larger 2.35:1 image with no loss in sharpness due to zoom.

      --
      Loading...
    6. Re:This may sound snobby but... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      It was framed for 2.35:1 - it was intended, when shot, to be shown in 2.35:1. Like I stated, it may seem snobby, but it isn't, if I can get a bigger image I would prefer that. I have the 16:9 version and I enjoy it, and it looks great, but it feels much more (to me) like you've got a real theater when the aspect is 2.35:1 or 2.4:1.

      I hope some overhyped director makes a fucking movie intended for five 1:1 screens in a + arrangement.

      If you don't fucking watch it in that configuration, as it was intended, you're a pathetic plebe, and I'll look down my nose at you.

    7. Re:This may sound snobby but... by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      I guess you would be happy watching the 4:3 fullscreen version of your favorite movie on a 9" Sony b/w monitor then? It's not like I'm saying "Oh, I can't bear to watch it unless it's in 2.35:1" - I have the 16:9 version and I enjoy it, I simply hope the cinemascope version comes out, so I can watch it like it is shown in the theater.

      --
      Loading...
    8. Re:This may sound snobby but... by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      You are getting a bigger picture, but you do lose parts of the scene;

      How can it be a "bigger" picture with part of the picture matted out?

      because the movie was shot intended for 2.35:1 usage, cropping to 2.35:1 during the transfer (as was done for theatrical release outside of IMAX theaters) gives you a better image quality (BluRay uses a lossy format) and you see exactly what the directory intended.

      No it doesn't. You get less picture and do to the black bars that have to be added to pad the image to 16:9 you get less resolution as well.

      I'm sure there are people out there who would rather not lose the cropped parts of the scene, I personally would rather have a larger 2.35:1 image with no loss in sharpness due to zoom.

      Except you do get a loss of sharpness due to the fact that you've lost about 30% of the horizontal resolution due to the way the 2.35:1 picture is stored in a 16:9 frame.

    9. Re:This may sound snobby but... by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      It is bigger because I can play it over the entire 138" screen without a loss in picture resolution when using an anamorphic lens setting. My screen is 138" diagonally with a 2.35:1 ratio of the width to the height. Playing a 16:9 movie on it results in a smaller image than playing a 2.35:1 movie because you can't use the full width of the screen without the top and bottom projecting off the screen onto the wall (and you lose resolution if your receiver or projector mattes the film for you instead of the film actually being 2.35:1.) If the film is encoded to the BluRay in 2.35:1, you gain resolution in the film areas of the picture that isn't spent in the matte and you can zoom to fill the 2.35:1 screen without loss of resolution (compared to the 16:9 version.)

      My point about Cameron having shot the movie framing it for 2.35:1 means that the elements in the scene are apportioned and located appropriately for a 2.35:1 transfer. If you've ever blown up the 16:9 version to 2.35:1 and had your system matte the film for you (as I have done once to see what it would be like - this often doesn't work very well) you would note that the 16:9 transfer from the film is slightly manipulated from the film version because there are a lot of "forehead clipping" scenes showing that the 16:9 transfer was slightly off from center. You sort of do/don't get less resolution. Technically you are still zooming in on pixels of a finite amount; however, because the format is lossy, you're not encoding data in the matted areas so all of that compression space is given to color reproduction in the actual image so you gain color resolution. It's an easy comparison to make. Find a DVD that's 16:9 and another edition of the DVD in 2.35:1, play them both on the a 2.35:1 screen zoomed to fit horizontally and you'll see the difference. This is why the 'horizontally pinched' 2.35:1 image looks obviously superior to the 16:9 image.

      --
      Loading...
    10. Re:This may sound snobby but... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      The film was shot in 16:9.
      A wider version is going to simply result in less actual image.

      Director's are not magical, they do not poop rainbows, and their artistic "intent" doesn't mean something is better in 47:20 than it is in 16:9.

      I'll say it again.
      The film was shot in 16:9.

    11. Re:This may sound snobby but... by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      Well, thanks for stating what I stated in my original post in case we all missed it. Yes, it was filmed in 16:9, but Cameron himself stated that it was framed for 2.35:1, but that after shooting he 'fell in love' (yes, he's an egregious overhyped windbag sometimes but he makes entertaining movies) with the 16:9 version - why? Who knows... The IMAX version is cropped from this and the normal theater release is cropped from this as well. A wide version will not result in "less image", if you mean a lesser view of the scene due to cropping, well, duh... Thankfully, as I have pointed out several times, it was framed by the director for 2.35:1 so you're not missing anything of value (at least to the director.)

      I'll say it again.
      The film was shot in 16:9.

      --
      Loading...
    12. Re:This may sound snobby but... by Golddess · · Score: 1

      It was framed for 2.35:1 - it was intended, when shot, to be shown in 2.35:1

      This would appear to say otherwise.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    13. Re:This may sound snobby but... by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      You mean a page referencing another page with no quotes from Cameron means that the other articles stating that Cameron "composed the film for 2.35:1" are wrong? Funny, considering how he was quoted directly stating that he liked 1.85:1 for 3D theaters but he still preferred "scope" for flat projection, and that because of this he had to frame it for 35mm like his previous movies. Man... The power of hearsay. After the movie was released Cameron admitted that his personal preference now is to view it in 1.85:1. That doesn't change that the movie was framed for 2.35:1 according Cameron.

      There are several links that are easily Googled that back this up; however, they're all mostly hearsay like your link is. The articles I read about the movie were in Home Theater magazines back when Avatar was about 8 months from being released in the theaters.

      I think it may also be interesting to note that because of the strictures of the hardware he had to use to film the movie (to get the lenses to operate in the fashion he wanted they couldn't use film cameras since the capture device(s) would have to be detached from the lenses) he was stuck with filming it digitally, which means 16:9. He didn't seem to have a choice. Now, I haven't seen it in an IMAX in 3D (hopefully with the re-release I will) but 16:9 is supposed to be better for the flying shots.

      --
      Loading...
    14. Re:This may sound snobby but... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You have a specialist system that's very unusual. For the vast majority of the setups, the 16:9 will have more displayed pixels than the 2.35:1 version. Additionally, for the same size screen and pixel density, a 2.35:1 will have lower resolution than 16:9. And, given that the official 3D release was 16:9, there's probably little to be gained in including the extra scenery to the sides that was deemed inconsequential to the story. You may like that it lights up more of your screen than the other size, but it was very explicitly designed to work in either, so you aren't "losing" anything.

    15. Re:This may sound snobby but... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      And the director says that the 16:9 version is the one he wants to show people.

    16. Re:This may sound snobby but... by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      I agree that nothing is being lost, and you actually lose top and bottom if they release the theatrical 2.35:1 version (this is what most people saw), but like I was saying - I really enjoy the theater feeling of 2.35:1. As for losing resolution, you lose pixels, but you gain color resolution because MPEG-4 Part 10 is a lossy format. How much I'm not sure and obviously depends upon the movie, but like I posted earlier, if you put up a 16:9 BluRay against a 2.35:1 BluRay and blow them both up to fit a 2.35:1 screen. The film transferred to 2.35:1 looks quite obviously better than the one matted by your receiver/projector (or not matted at all.) I was surprised by this personally, but there it is.

      --
      Loading...
  26. TFA: You can see it in theaters one more time... by BobMcD · · Score: 1

    So, adding to an already long, mostly pointless movie... doesn't add anything? SHOCKER.

    Read the articles from time to time, you might be pleasantly surprised. In fact, in this one it says:

    Avatar, on the other hand, is still comparatively fresh in its audiences' minds, and those returning to their local multiplex expecting to see a startling new side to Pandora are almost certain to be disappointed.

    Instead, what we've been given is a second chance to see Avatar on the big screen, with the added bonus of a few more minutes of flora and fanciful creatures.

    The 'extras' are just a handy excuse to get your wife to agree to the ticket price...

  27. Color coding? by StikyPad · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Much of the tubing is interchangeable, and with nurses connecting and disconnecting dozens each day, mix-ups happen -- sometimes with deadly consequences.

    They don't even need to do that really; just color code the tubes, or even just the connectors. Red for IV drips, blue for air/O2, purple for CSF, yellow for urethral catheters, brown for colostomy bags, green for drainage, and a happy rainbow for food.

    Hmm, that reminds me of something, but I can't quite... Oh right, the Lucky Charms I had for breakfast. :x

  28. Titanic by BigBadBus · · Score: 1

    He should have thought about fixing some of the massive goofs in Titanic first!

  29. For all the Avatar == Fern Gully people by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    The "civilized man goes native" motif isn't anything new, even to Fern Gully. I just watched Thunder Heart this weekend which was the same plot as Avatar, except with real Native Americans and a uranium mine instead of unobtanium.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:For all the Avatar == Fern Gully people by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      The "civilized man goes native" motif isn't anything new

      For an interesting diversion (as usual with that site) there's a large list of examples at tvtropes.

  30. FTL in speculative fiction by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    People sometimes forget just how wacked the idea of FTL is, and that if FTL is possible, then it means we have drawn the wrong conclusions from all our observations of the universe up until now. But just which of those conclusions was wrong?

    What I'm getting at, is that FTL is magic.

    For all you know, FTL is accomplished by space men praying to Apollo, "My Lord, deliver me unto that star, and I promise that I will solely use Your holy weapons [gunpowder] and deliver any messages by hand [no FTL comm w/out also travel]." All your nit-picking about energy and other common sense, is wrong because you ignored the will of the gods.

    FTL fiction isn't akin to works a hundred years ago that predict men some day building rockets that can travel to the moon; FLT fiction is much more akin to works which say Gandalf can kill goblins by means of casting a spell that makes a pine cone explode. We like to pretend otherwise, but that's really how it is.

    If you're going to argue about Pandora travel time, then I'm going to argue that Aragorn should have defeated Sauron by transmitting a computer worm over the inter-Palantir telecommunications network. You might end up sounding saner but in reality we're on equal footing.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  31. You could say the same things about Aliens... by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

    ...and nobody puts Aliens in a corner!

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
  32. I'll summarize the review for you: by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

    "meh."

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
  33. Yes Please!! by Imazalil · · Score: 1

    I'd see these in an instant.

    option a) Zombie Kane goes on a rampage to kill those that destroyed his precious. Somehow the original movers/people that were hired to clean out the estate all had kids who turn out to be super hot chicks that happen to all go to the same college. roosseeebudd.... roooseeebudd.... braiiinnnsss brainnsss... Kane burn and smash like you smash and burn rosebud...

    option b) Kane fakes his own death to become a fighter of crime, and volunteer at orphanages around the world. Next years 'surprise' 'indie' hit. A kind of Batman written by Chris Ware. Starring Philip Seymour Hoffman or Paul Giamatti in the title role.

    These are freebies!

  34. A tree huger, surely. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I doubt it features humans coming back to Pandora with 100x more firepower :o

    Just 100x more? You must be a tree huger. Had it been der führer Shrub, he would've nuked the entire planet from orbit.

  35. So he's finally able to realize his vision? by sharkey · · Score: 1

    How much Jar-Jar is in this edition?

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  36. Re:Big science plot hole.. or not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) I would assert if we know enough to do FTL, we aren't going to be using chemical projectile weapons in a fight

    Wrong.
    1. Fast moving mass will always be VERY effective against squishies (or the squishies' planet if you are hitting it with mass moving at ~c) . A future with lasers and phasers and undefined blasters looks good in the movies but doesn't change this. Fast moving mass works well and always will unless Scotty finally figures out how to change the laws of physics. Electrothermal guns and rail guns will still use fast moving mass. Fast moving mass is here to stay.
    When you think of huge space battles, lasers and other fast as light weapons become lousy when dealing with space type distances between ships. Fast moving smart mass? You bet that is the way to fight that fight (If you have FTL technology, mass is now your fast way to deliver energy). Lasers/other fast as light beams will only be good for close range work.
    2. When dealing with primitive screwheads, a boomstick can make an impression that in invisible laser cannot. if you need a citation for this, go consult Prof Ash.

    And here I was thinking that the plot hole you were talking about was that the unobtanium floats in the air... You know, just like those big mountains that the humans fail to care about..