Slashdot Mirror
James Cameron Commissions Submarine To Visit Challenger Deep
frank249 writes "In January, on the fiftieth anniversary of the Trieste descent, the X Prize Foundation announced a $10 million prize for the first privately funded craft to make two manned descents to the bottom of Challenger Deep, the deepest surveyed point in the oceans. Now, James Cameron has announced he has commissioned a submarine capable of surviving the tremendous pressures at a depth of seven miles, from which he will not only try for the X prize but also shoot 3D footage that may be incorporated in Avatar's sequel."
Oh no.
Smurfs underwater?
*Ducks*
Now I know the sequel is going to take place underwater. You fuckers ruined it for me!
But if James Cameron is on board, Adrian Grenier better be too.
Doesn't the fact that you called it "Dances with Thundercats" imply that it has a story, and that the story is similar to Dances with Wolves?
I thought it sucked too, but just sayin...
Titanatar 2
"God Himself could not sink this tree!"
To clarify: I find it a bit sad that humanity just isn't capable of building on pre-existing accomplishments, solutions and ideas. The Trieste has already achieved this goal 50 years ago, as the summary states, so why would this be such a difficult challenge? We had the technology half a century ago, and it worked perfectly well.
Sort of like the Apollo program - almost half a century after, we are not capable to go to the moon - we simply and stupidly "forgot" how to do it. The great designers and engineers left and/or died off, and we, as humankind, went on with out collective dicks in our collective hands.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
I'm afraid that's what happen to anything transparent.
also shoot 3D footage that may be incorporated in Avatar's sequel.
I think that it would be better to film for a sequel to Das Boot. We could watch the nervous faces of the crew look around as the metal hull of the submarine makes sickening groans under the increasing pressure. Every so often, a pipe would spring a leak and a burly guy in a tank top would have to tighten it with a huge monkey wrench. Then more guys would have to use sledge hammers jam wooden timbers into bulging bulkheads. Finally there would be life-and-death drama when the ballast fails to release at the bottom of the trench. That would make for a riveting thriller.
No, you bring some properly-powered lights to illuminate the area around you so you can film it, like you do any dark place. Very much like, y'know, filming at night.
Seven miles of depth doesn't impart some magical light-blocking properties to water. It's just dark. So you bring lights. Cameron's a filmmaker, I think he's got the whole "proper illumination" thing figured out.
PS: We've already got photos and video from Challenger Deep, the X-Prize is to send a MANNED mission there.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Doesn't the fact that you called it "Dances with Thundercats" imply that it has a story, and that the story is similar to Dances with Wolves?
I thought it sucked too, but just sayin...
Uhhhh, the movie, or the dance? </Troy McClure>
Oh, this guy just wants to have an adventure and take the cost of it out of his taxes. I doubt he'll get any usable footage, but the expedition will qualify nonetheless.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
i have to say, yeah, this is a spectacular piece of news for cameron and a great promo for his next film. "i want to shoot for the stars" is a great thrill, but the fact of the matter is, a submarine capable of withstanding 8TPI of seawater pressure is not the same as say, commissioning a rolls royce with a custom paint job. That is, just because you say it needs to happen, and you might throw "lots" of money at it, does not mean it will even get off the drawing board. The Soviet military once built a submarine called Komsomolets capable of a 1000 meter dive, but thats still roughly 8000 meters short of the target depth our television director wants.
Good people go to bed earlier.
"We're gonna re-re-re-re-remake Avatar right there (pointing at globe). No, not in the ocean, inside the ocean, in the heaviest, deepest, most brutal part - the MARIANA TREEEEENNCH! We're gonna call the sequal Avatar 2: BLOOOOD OCEAN!"
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
PS: We've already got photos and video from Challenger Deep, the X-Prize is to send a MANNED mission there.
Are you questioning the manhood of Captain Piccard?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096754/ is the kind of movie requiring some real submarine footage. The other one's Smurfahontas in CGI (quite an accomplishment nonetheless - that should be spared the sad sequel fate of Highlander) - so why would anyone risk their life (and/or sub) for what they could so convincingly render in 3D anyway?
Whether it counts as "sci-fi" is of course another question, but then again, who cares?
nerd
Why, thank you. And they said the Internet had killed civility and manners.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Sorry, buddy, but I have not seen James Cameraschlock's Space Smurf Pocahantas and I never will. There are plenty of us who actually, really and truly do not like crap Science Fiction, will not see it, will not buy the Blue-Ray and won't mention it until some idiot tries to defend it or imply that, actually, I really really like it but I'm too much of a snob to admit it.
Um, not to disagree or anything, but how do you know it's crap if you haven't bothered to watch it?
Sounds like a kid who doesn't want to eat anything other than his tried and true mac-n-cheese.
meaning: the guy is not a hollywood idiot
i mean shape memory alloy turned into a villain in t2? or superconducting islands of rock in the air? the man is a true science geek in the vein of anyone else writing here on slashdot
so if anyone is going to get this thing built, with the money cameron has, he's going to do it, because he most certainly understands all of the objections you raised in your post. he is also diving fanatic, he got cameras to the titanic site, his technical and science acumen is outstanding
a science geek and an extremely successful movie director. frankly, cameron makes me completely jealous
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
There are other foods? ... besides mac and cheese and grilled cheese sandwiches?
Oh, and I'm no little kid! Don't make me get my dad to beat you up.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
trashing the career of one of the most successful directors in hollywood
(rolls eyes)
frankly, your post is nothing more than jealousy. you stand on a soap box of imagined authority to pass judgment on the man based on nothing but empty spite
you're just sour grapes. maybe it makes you feel better about your own failure to trash successful people, but the idea of losers pulling down others to their level is a social phenomenon as old as loser teenagers being angry at their peers who try to better themselves
you're just pathetic
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I lost my left eye in a mugging. 3d does nothing for me, so that's no plus. And I already got dragged to see Dances with Wolves, do I really need to see the remake just because it has awesome graphics and special effects? I don't go to movies for awesome graphics and special effects. I understand that many people do enjoy pretty pictures, but when I want pretty pictures I go to an art gallery.
I'm honestly not trying to be a condescending snob and claim my tastes are more refined than other people's. And I'm certainly not saying that people who appreciate anything James Cameron has ever done are infantile subhumans who probably consider smearing their feces on a wall high art. And James Cameron is a wealthy and popular director of major motion pictures, far be it from me to call the man the worst director since Ed Wood. But I don't want to feel left out when everyone is sharing their opinions about a popular phenomenon, and I don't want to lie.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I am glad to hear that you do not care to watch the movie. I myself have watched it and enjoyed it immensely, but always, at the back of my mind, there was a nagging thought: "What does uid 1352 think about the movie?" I have been wondering about it for many a month with no answer in sight. Now, thankfully, my mind can rest. Not only do you not care to see the movie at all, but you are kind enough to share your thoughts about the movie, although you have not seen it, with all of us at Slashdot.
Actually, in retrospect, I should have seen it coming. If reading TFA or even the summery is too much to ask from someone before he starts commenting about a headline, surely it is too much to ask from someone (esp. with such a short uid) to see a 3h movie before commenting on its merits (or lack of).
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
Is it safe to assume James Cameron and the crew will be placed on the infamous dead pool? I'll put $1000 bucks on it.
ghosts of the abyss, aliens of the deep... now avatar ii
frankly, james cameron is a deep sea diving enthusiast who made the mistake of having a career as a successful movie maker
its almost like he chooses his movies just so he can play with deep sea diving equipment. and the whole "making massive amounts of money with extremely successful pop movies" is an afterthought to his real passion in life. bizarre
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I don't need to see trash to know that it sucks, I can smell that shit. Please, are you really claiming anything Cameron has done is art? You know, I sometimes enjoy bad things, too. I occasionally eat at McDonalds, for instance. But I don't go around telling people it's a fucking fillet mignon.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Wrong, sounds like a kid who won't eat mac and cheese, but rather, wants a nicoise salad, a fillet mignon, and some truffle stuffed lobster. Except that I actually like mac and cheese, too, I just don't call it haute cuisine or the best food ever cooked by anyone, anywhere, for ever and ever amen. I mean, some people actually cried over how awesome the movie was, how pathetic is that?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
But as soon as you reach any depth considered the Challenger Deep, it would already be pitch black, right? Would they use infrared? And they plan on doing 3D? Maybe they will just use regular light. If nothing else they will see new creatures.
When I want pretty pictures I go a cliff side and view the petroglyphs and then I blow it up so no one else can appreciate it like I did. Out snob that. I'm not trying to be a snob, I just don't want to be left out of all the snobbery.
I read reviews, what do you think? Unless the reviewers I read suddenly started lying through their teeth, it's the most puerile tripe I've ever read about. Why would I watch shit like that? I mean, was this the first James Cameron film you've been too? Did you not know what a crap director he is? You were never forced to see Titanic by a girlfriend?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Wasn't what made the magic of Avatar that it isn't there, nor actually anywhere?
I don't have to see it. All the reviews I read, from reviewer's whose opinion's I trust, said it was a crappy film. As if "Directed by James Cameron" wasn't enough of a clue. Seriously, are you actually denying it is Pocahantas in space? Cameron makes focus group tested, mass produced schlock designed for the "mass market," i.e. your average idiot with no taste.
I'm glad you liked it though.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
As I wrote in another post, most of today's films have a plot that can be traced back to other films/stories/myths/legends. Does that make them all necessarily bad? I think not. Most of them are, but some are pretty good, although you can figure out the basic gist of the plot after 10 minutes. Sometimes it is the way things are told, rather than only what is told, that makes the difference.
As an a example, think about cover versions of songs. Most are a waste of pressure waves, but some (e.g. Nothing compares 2 U - Sinead O'connor; Take me to the river - Talking Heads) can become classics in their own right.
I don't know what you will think about Avatar. Maybe you will hate it, but writing a "review" such as yours, without seeing the movie, is akin to commenting w/o reading TFA (yes, yes, I'm new here).
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
because while i was editting it, i watched it, and it sucked. no one else saw it except me. i am my own worst critic. maybe if i let other people watch it, they might say its not all that bad. but i'm not ready for that. someday. maybe you can be the first to see it. i'm sure you will give it the care and fair appraisal you are obviously so full of (rolls eyes)
i am not bitter about the experience. i tried to make a movie. it didn't go very well. oh well. all you can ask out of life is to try: it is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. how about yourself? have you ever tried to do something with your life? or are you afraid and scared in your basement, and find solace for doing nothing at all by picking apart people who actually do do something with their lives... the career of one of the most successful people in hollywood history, for example. pfffft
"I'm just saying, being a failed artist is probably why you hate critics."
there's nothing wrong with criticism. for example: i think the basis on which you judge cameron is baseless and lame. see? that's called criticism. can you handle it?
"People like you, on the other hand, just want the kind of blind adoration you will never, ever get."
projecting much? you wear your psychology on your sleeve friend. i do not need or want blind adoration. but ultranegative criticism of others, especially successful people, speaks of narcissism. you are not a critic. you are mindlessly negative narcissistic nobody. your criticism of one of the most successful men in hollywood offends me because it is completely without merit. you are completely without merit, and you think you have merit, merely because you criticize. no, this merely means you don't know how to do anything else except egotize your relationship with the world: "this man's successful offends me, because i am not successful. so i must tear him down"
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Box office $$ doesn't mean quality, it means successful. The two are not the same.
A quality movie for me has a good story that is well told. Period. Avatar has great graphics, but the story sucked. So for me, it wasn't a good movie, no room for discussion. Others define quality differently, perhaps with an emphasis entirely on graphics, and for them it was not just a great movie, but a brilliant movie.
The various twilight movies were also very successful at the box office -- does that mean they were quality movies? Or were they tripe made entirely to market towards teenaged girls?
How about various film-festival movies? Those often are held in high esteem by those that value the "art" of movies, but very very few of them would be successful in a nationwide theatre release. Does that mean they're bad?
12 Angry Men is a great movie, and a complete box office disappointment. Details with links at wikipedia
I'm not even slightly jealous about James Cameron's success -- I'm happy for him that it's allowing him to pursue his love of the deep sea, but I don't think he's a particularly good director, because he doesn't seem to be able to tell stories well.
I'm imagining a 5 year old at the dinner table, making faces and sticking out his tongue
I hate broccoli!
How do you know if you haven't tried it?
Broccoli is yucky!
How do you know its yucky if you haven't tried it.
I'm not going to try it because its broccoli and broccoli is yucky!
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
cameron, because he is a science geek, injects the genuinely science-minded idea of shape memory alloy prominently into the plot of a wildly successful piece of pop movie making. no one but a genuine science geek would do this
but this is not good enough for you. he also has to abide by the rigid rules of physics
which is why you are not fit to judge cameron. nor ST:TOS. nor any piece of entertainment. because the point is to ENTERTAIN, not accurately describe how you turn a shape memory alloy into an evil robot!
and ST:TOS is about sexy green alien chicks you can flirt with and seduce and a guy who can grab your shoulder and make you fall down. its obviously complete bs. at the same time, its wildly entertaining. so if you are going to sit there and pick apart why it isn't real or physically plausible, you're merely undertaking a giant exercise in pointing out the fucking obvious that everyone already understands. you honestly believe a lack rigid adherence to scientific and technical accuracies is some sort of revelation of yours? you honeslty believe pointing out that science fiction on movies and tv is not possible? what part of "fucking obvious" do you not understand?
"Cameron's not a science geek, he's a science fanboy."
no: cameron is a science geek and an entertaining film maker. you are a science geek who doesn't even know what entertainment means
"he can't or won't apply the necessary rigor to apply them sanely"
NO ONE is going to do that, or has ever done that, EVER. because to do that, you are making a sleep-inducing technical training film, not a piece of entertainment
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Avatar is cowboys and indians on a different planet.
They updated the weapons and animals for the new planet but same idea.
I read reviews that said this is not broccoli, it's dog shit with green food coloring. Therefore, unless you have some proof it is actual broccoli, I am not eating this shit.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Oh no, someone on the Internet doesn't like something you like! Why, that must mean that your whole life is a lie unless you can convince everyone that that person is an arrogant asshole.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
... it gets dark pretty quick down there. Even at 100ft/30m you've lost a lot of the color spectrum. So they'll take a lot of lights with them. Okay, fine. Don't expect any sweeping vistas -- the background's going to be black.
What are they going to film for Avatar 2 that they can't film a few thousand feet shallower? Neat rock outcroppings? The only thing I can think of are bizarre critters, which will be done in CGI anyway.
I'm all for exploring the depths, but whoever said the Avatar 2 angle is a tax write-off was dead on.
I'd bet Spun also doesn't like broccoli. When the Broccoloid Menace invades, he won't be doing his part to save Townsville, that's for sure.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I won't see it, so I guess we'll never know. I also do not intend to consume dog shit, or watch high powered lasers with my remaining good eye. It is not the fact that this is merely a remake of Pocahantas that offends me, it is the actual message of the film. Poor benighted natives can not even worship their own deity correctly without the help of the noble white man. Yeah, that's an enlightening premise.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Well, to tell the truth, I somehow understand how you feel. I had a similar reaction to the Harry Potter books. I refused to read them, although for me the reason was because I heard people comparing 'Harry Potter' to 'Lord of the Rings'. After a sacrilegious comparison such as that, I could not bring myself to read those books. I do, however refrain from commenting about the quality of the series.
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
i won't be one either
to me it seems that confusing popularity with quality is less problematic than confusing your own opinion or the opinion of your clique with quality (THAT is sophistry). and yes, i will agree with you that $ from a film is not a completely accurate translation for what quality is. it is however, the most OBJECTIVE translation we have. box office success is therefore the only valid way we have to measure quality, as imperfect as it is
what i am saying is that for all the problems you can point out with simple box office returns=quality, every other method for judging quality is worse. and so box office returns is not perfect, but its the most valid of all the ways you can try to judge quality
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Your five year old friends probably told you broccoli was yucky, too.
Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
I'm with you man. I haven't tried it in 20 years.. last time I did my throat vapor locked.. It went out through the in door. gaghhh..
Inane Comments are Generously Disregarded
To clarify: I find it a bit sad that humanity just isn't capable of building on pre-existing accomplishments, solutions and ideas..
What the hell are you talking about? What do you think fuels our continuing huge advancements in science, and well, everything from manufacturing technologies to medicine? Building on pre-existing accomplishments, solutions and ideas, that's what.
Sort of like the Apollo program - almost half a century after, we are not capable to go to the Moon - we simply and stupidly "forgot" how to do it. The great designers and engineers left and/or died off, and we, as humankind, went on with out collective dicks in our collective hands.
When you hear stories talking about how we lost the technology to rebuild the Saturn V rockets that were used last time, it's absurdly shortsighted to interpret that as meaning that humanity can't go to the Moon. We are sending unmanned missions there all the time; the only thing keeping manned mission from returning are other budget priorities.
Yes, we would probably have to relearn some of the manufacturing steps involved if we wanted to recreate the original rocket designs exactly, but why the hell would we want to do that? It's 50 year old technology that we no longer care about. We also can't build giant stone pyramids as well as we used to be able to, but does that stop us from building modern cities?
Take your hands out of your pants and go get an education.
And as you tread the halls of sanity, You feel so glad to be, Unable to go beyond. I have a message, From another time..
You should read the book "The Case for Mars". It does a really good job about laying out all of the issues and technologies related to establishing a manned presence on Mars.
To summarize one of the points; there is no reason to go to the Moon first as a staging ground for Mars. Quoting from the Wikipedia article:
"In the same chapter, Zubrin decisively denounces and rejects suggestions that the Moon should be used as waypoint to Mars or as a training area. It is ultimately much easier to journey to Mars from low Earth orbit than from the moon and using the latter as a staging point is a pointless diversion of resources. While the Moon may superficially appear a good place to perfect Mars exploration and habitation techniques, the two bodies are radically different. The moon has no atmosphere, no analogous geology and a much greater temperature range and rotational period. Antarctica or desert areas of Earth provide much better training grounds at lesser cost."
And as you tread the halls of sanity, You feel so glad to be, Unable to go beyond. I have a message, From another time..
Dude, grow up. The storyline's certainly got major flaws. It made horrible caricatures of military leaders and business men and in my humble opinion is quite obviously drenched with white liberal guilt. But it is without a doubt the most spectacular visual experience I've had at a movie theater. Ever. If you're a CGI or Sci-fi fan, you truly missed out because your stubborn world view prevented you from seeing it and building an informed first hand opinion.
You do reallylize that's even worse, right?
You have nothing to judge it by, yet you still judge it. Well done. You hate it because it was a huge success.
You may not like it, but it was a good movie.
There is a difference.
The graphics? awesome.
the motion physics? awesome.
The dialog? really well done,
The filming? exquisite
the plot? old. It's far closer to fern-gully then Pocahontas. In fact, its NOTHING LIKE THE STORY OF Pocahontas.
The science fiction? extremely interesting. A naturally occurring organic system that communicate and allows natives to interface with it. I don't know when the last time I saw a Science fiction concept more interesting.
Don't like it? fine. But don't try to pretend you have a reason for not liking something you have never seen.
I am so tired of haters hating for no reason, or worse, made up reasons.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
This post, and your next 3 post, should be modded +1 funny for that.
The city..is SAVED!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Cameron although he started as a physicist, he never completed it. I dont fault the sentiment though (i certainly root for the guy in his quest,) but there are some fundamentally insurmountable challenges he has yet to address or even expound upon for that matter. Alas, dreamers dream is my point i think.
Good people go to bed earlier.
You too should read "The Case for Mars". There are many reasons for colonizing Mars, not the least of which is as an offsite backup for humanity.
Other reasons range from the practical; with Mars as source of rare elements not available in sufficient quantities on Earth, to the esoteric, with the new Mars frontier providing the challenge that humanity needs to hone its pioneering edge.
And as you tread the halls of sanity, You feel so glad to be, Unable to go beyond. I have a message, From another time..
I think the problem that a lot of people have with Avatar is that it follows a well-known theme (or meme) that has been pretty much completely explored. There isn't a lot of new traction you can get with this sort of story.
Except, moving it to an alien environment you can get some really slick graphics.
Yes, the story is familiar. Most stories are going to be for people over 12 years old. If you cannot appreciate the way a familiar story is played out I guess Shakespear is an utter failure as well. Not that Avatar is comparable to Shakespear, but a familiar story line has been used by playwrites for centuries.
Avatar was also (hopelessly) mired in the idea of the soulless American corporation. Short term profits and a complete disregard for anything else. Considering this was supposed to be a couple hundred years in the future I would think things would have moved past that or we wouldn't be exploring planets around other stars.
A few preview clips and the description of the plot was enough thanks. The odd thing is it was being reviewed along with Jane Campion's "Bright Star" which actually had far better dialogue - give her the money, point her at the SF genre and it would have been a far far better movie - or even just get someone like her to write the dialogue instead of whatever clown did it in Avatar. The only reason Avatar succeeded in my opinion is that it was the biggest circus in town bringing the 3D gimmick back with more money spent on advertising than gets spent making most movies. Give someone like Ang Lee a similar SF project and budget and we'll be looking for Avatar discs in the discount bins instead of raving about it.
Video games have more plot these days.
you honestly believe this is some sort of insight? you honestly believe this is the merit on which you are able to criticize? really?
are you that daft and desperate to be seen as edgy that you lob that simpleminded a softball of criticism at that fat and easy of a target?
whoa dude: avatar is a derivation! no freakin' way! whoa! totally missed that! what a massive thunderbolt of criticism!
pffffffffft
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I was surprised (naive, I know) that the link in TFS was not to the X-Prize website, so I went looking for it.
It turns out that deep ocean exploration is only one of several contending future exploration X-Prizes.
Is this an attempt to stack the deck in Cameron's favor by forcing the competition choice through publicity as if it's a forgone conclusion, and meanwhile he has maybe a six month head start on the competition?
And as you tread the halls of sanity, You feel so glad to be, Unable to go beyond. I have a message, From another time..
Tomatometer: 83
Average Rating: 7.4/10
Critic Reviews: 268
Fresh: 222 | Rotten: 46
You have to be pretty damn selective to find a group of critics who didn't like Avatar... which I have no doubt you are. I'm sure you're attracted to like-minded critics. That's understandable, but realize that it is a flaw when you come to believe that's representative of actual critical acclaim. It's like reading nothing but Daily Kos, and thinking that's normal and representative political discussion.
the Triest got to 10,900 meters.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Please, are you really claiming anything Cameron has done is art?
Of course it is. Opinions may differ on whether it's GOOD art, but of course it's art. There isn't a threshold of quality that determines whether something is art. "Twilight" is art, just crappy art. So are my son's crayon drawings.
Fair enough, although having seen both, I don't think equating Dances with Wolves vs. Avatar makes a lot of sense. The plots are fairly similar, but so what? Rocky and Raging Bull could both be called boxing movies, does that make them similar? Compared to Dancing with Wolves, Avatar had a lot more fantasy and action, including plenty of Tom-Clancy-style technology fetishism (even though you were lead to root against the machines - but whoever designed and animated that machinery was clearly into it (and had clearly played Halo...)) I liked how Gaia was implemented on that planet. And, yes, the visuals were awesome, and yes, largely because it was in 3D (which isn't a draw in your case). Who's to say that grand spectacle is artistically invalid?
"Are you questioning the manhood of Captain Piccard?"
No, but he's a bit too fond of Vulcans, if you want my opinion.
The previous X Prize challenges have all been in areas with obvious practical benefits. For instance, private space flight will open up a lot of industrial applications. High fuel efficiency cars are clearly of great benefit.
Are there any known expected benefits to a private vehicle that can reach the Challenger Deep, or is any benefit purely speculative? Considering that this will be one of the more dangerous X Prize challenges, I'd hope they have some serious benefits in mind.
So he stole the story of Pocahontas for the first Avatar movie, and now he's clearly stealing the story if The Little Mermaid for the sequal to Avatar.
Well, in all honesty, I've never eaten shit, but I know I won't want to, and I won't like it; and no one's faulting me for being closed minded about eating shit. We don't always have to experience things first-hand to know things aren't pleasant.
And broccoli *is* yucky.
Seriously, this is Avatar. This movie has been so heavily hyped with so many cast interviews, media discussion, and clip displaying; I felt like I had already seen the movie before I actually had. Had you knocked "Little Odessa" without having seen it, or "My Beautiful Launderette", then I can understand the criticism. It's fucking Avatar. This summer I couldn't go twenty minutes without hearing someone tell me how James Cameron personally invented a special camera that does computer renderings on the fly.
said the random troll who's mindless negativity makes him an authority on something, somehow
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I wouldn't say that he's a crap director, just that he's not very ambitious. You aren't going to get any surprises from his movies, you see the trailer and you know what to expect.
But he does deliver on what you're expecting. From Avatar I expected pretty CGI, the noble primitive blue people to triumph over the greedy technologically advanced humans, and thats exactly what happened. Its not challenging, but it was well executed for what it was trying to do. Yeah it wasn't trying to do very much. But it didn't fail.
Hating on James Cameron movies is snobbery. No one's telling you its going to be Citizen Kane. Its entertainment, don't read too much into it. Complaining about a James Cameron movie being shallow and predictable is like complaining about poor acting in a porno. Is it really that important that you believe that the wife has an inattentive husband and the man is really a pizza delivery guy? Is it that important that the plot be original when the audience is there to see pretty 3-D animation?
Avatar is a spectacle movie. That means that things like a decent plot or intelligent dialogue is secondary next to dramatic camera sweeps through breathtaking scenery. The genre kind of died out ages ago - the concept of seeing exotic locations on the big screen just lost its novelty.
What Cameron did was to take this old genre and mix it with cutting-edge animation technology (which has recently become good enough to look almost photorealistic if you toss a few filters at the rest of the movie) and with competently-used 3D, which is the next big thing for some reason. 3D, that is, not competently used special effects.
To be honest, if he ever makes a second Avatar I expect it to bomb. 3D will lose its novelty soon and I doubt that the spectacle film genre will hold up without that novelty.
As for me, I haven't seen it either and don't feel particularly compelled to do so. A year ago it probably was pretty fun but, well, it's all about novelty and the novelty has worn off.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Broccoli is GREEN and it's a FLOWER. CASE CLOSED.
There are not a lot of covers that beat the original, for sure Jimi Hendrix - All Along the Watchtower, has to be at the top of the list. Johnny Cash - Hurt, Jeff Buckley - Hallelujah, Judas Priest - Diamonds and Rust. Unfortunately for every one of those are there are 10 that try but fail and another 100 that should never have been recorded ever. For try but fail see Pearl Jam - Last Kiss, Metallica - Astronomy, GNR - Live and Let Die. For should never have been recorded see Brittney - Satisfaction, Limp Bizkit - Behind Blue Eyes, Celine Dion - You Shook Me All Night Long (fucking hilarious or excruciating earache - you decide), and any hip hop cover that samples the first 2 lines of some seventies pop song and then lurches suddenly into somebody rapping something completely unrelated. Um....what were we talking about again?
I'm not the OP, but that person might just be an arrogant asshole if their entire argument is trashing a movie that they haven't personally seen.
I haven't personally used Red Hat Linux, but I have heard from some reviewers that it is rubbish, so I'm just going to go with that as my opinion. No need to actually experience it for myself to confirm it, eh?
I *have* seen Avatar, and while it is pretty much Pocahontas with a bigger budget, it was no worse than any other action film - it was light years better than Transformers (both of them).
"Twilight" is art, just crappy art. So are my son's crayon drawings.
Hey! You're not supposed to think that!
Yes, it absolutely is art. As far as movies go, "art" doesn't have to mean "plot". It just means something that's beautiful to watch, for one reason or another (picture, concept, plot, actor play, and just about any combination of those).
Sounds like a kid who doesn't want to eat anything other than his tried and true broc-n-cheese.
FTFY
--
Still waiting for Star Wars -- Rise of the Force.
...crappy art. So are my son's crayon drawings.
I hope you don't tell him that! :P
Damn you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yp4sjNdhaU
Now I know why they say that curiosity killed the cat.
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
People seem to forget that most historical art was commissioned, not born from some great artistic vision.
People who can only enjoy beauty in "high culture", don't enjoy beauty at all; they enjoy being part of the "high culture" crowd.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
It's the only way to be sure.
If Cameron dies at the bottom of the ocean, by definition, it will be BEFORE he makes avatar II. Just saying is all.
He means not just to pay for the effort. James Cameron intends to go down into the deep with this thing, himself personally.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I lost my left eye in a mugging
Sorry to hear that. For what it is worth Avatar has some of the best SF futurism since Silent Running. Some bits are done to show off the pretty FX, but overall I thought it was well done.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Similar as I knew it was crap before I had to watch it:
People with similar taste that I trust told me.
I know dog shit tastes like crap (literally) even though I do not plan to actually verify the knowledge.
Both the Trieste and the Apollos were high-risk operations with insane costs to prove something could be done.
Today, it is proven. This radically changes the cost/benefit calculations. Should we go back there? Yes. Should we push as hard as back then? No.
I'd like to point out that box office returns are not a measure of how much the people liked the story after they have watched the film. In my part of the world, people generally pay before they get to watch the film. The decision to pay, and therefore increment the box office return value, hangs upon factors such as word of mouth, critic reviews, marketing, exposure, curiosity about new technology, graphics fidelity (as seen in marketing materials), admission price and affinity for popcorn. The story is just a sub-factor of word of mouth and critic reviews.
May the source be with you.
No that is porno and blow off a hookers ass your thinking about
Reviews said Man on Fire sucked too.
Yeah but unlike broccoli there isn't a good portion of the population saying shit is yummy, shit is nutritious, shit is a good part of a balanced diet.
Lol waiting 10+ years and helping to create the camera system to be used to make the movie seems pretty ambitious to me.
Grown Asian men cried and passed out and Micheal Jackson concerts and someone died watching the Passion of the Christ. And how many ultra nerds do you think cried watching the remastered Star Wars films?
You can't use what it made in the box office to say whether of not the story sucked. I mean didn't Sex in the City do good in the box office? And Milk didn't do that good at all. And of course there is Borat...
Aquatar!
Hehehe, touché. Let's just agree then that the true potential of broccoli is not realized without the heavy application of creamy cheddar cheese, and perhaps a well toasted bread bowl.
Yes I concur. The yumminess of broccoli is equal to or less than the amount of cheddar. And a good cheddar and broccoli soup served in a bread bowl is twice as good. So just think of Avatar as the broccoli and the special effects as the cheddar that would make the 3D the bread bowl and make spun a kid with a grain allergy and wet diaper.
But I'm positive that beast never swam in terrestrial waters until a week ago.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC