Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

387 comments

I doubt it... (4, Insightful)

ZeRu (1486391) | more than 3 years ago | (#33367672)

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

Review Sucks (4, Funny)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368056)

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

Re:I doubt it... (2, Funny)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368106)

In reality....

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

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

Re:I doubt it... (1)

yuriyg (926419) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368222)

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.

Re:I doubt it... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33368260)

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

Re:I doubt it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33368334)

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

Re:I doubt it... (1)

stiggle (649614) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368592)

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

Re:I doubt it... (1)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368524)

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!

Really? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33367680)

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

Re:Really? (2, Insightful)

JLennox (942693) | more than 3 years ago | (#33367724)

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?

Re:Really? (3, Insightful)

TheViciousOverWind (649139) | more than 3 years ago | (#33367758)

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.

Re:Really? (5, Insightful)

boneclinkz (1284458) | more than 3 years ago | (#33367810)

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.

Re:Really? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33368392)

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

Re:Really? (1)

LoverOfJoy (820058) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368540)

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

Re:Really? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33367860)

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.

Re:Really? (2, Insightful)

Theoboley (1226542) | more than 3 years ago | (#33367908)

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

Re:Really? (4, Interesting)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368168)

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.

Re:Really? (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368286)

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

Re:Really? (3, Insightful)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 3 years ago | (#33367876)

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?

Re:Really? (1)

longhairedgnome (610579) | more than 3 years ago | (#33367928)

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

Re:Really? (1)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368046)

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

Re:Really? (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368300)

French movies suck anyway.

Re:Really? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368178)

http://worldfilm.about.com/od/independentfilm/fr/wristcutters.htm [about.com] 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) [wikipedia.org]

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

Re:Really? (1)

Psychophrenes (1600027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33367898)

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.

Re:Really? (1)

JLennox (942693) | more than 3 years ago | (#33367902)

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

Re:Really? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33368164)

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

Re:Really? (2, Interesting)

xtracto (837672) | more than 3 years ago | (#33367910)

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...

Re:Really? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33368084)

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.

Re:Really? (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368428)

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

Re:Really? (3, Interesting)

Amouth (879122) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368490)

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.

Re:Really? (4, Informative)

xtracto (837672) | more than 3 years ago | (#33367934)

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.

Re:Really? (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368322)

Check out 9, I thought it was pretty good.

Re:Really? (1)

HAKdragon (193605) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368640)

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.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33367948)

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

Re:Really? (4, Insightful)

Junta (36770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33367950)

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.

Re:Really? (2, Insightful)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368236)

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. :)

Re:Really? (5, Funny)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368040)

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.

Re:Really? (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368154)

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

Re:Really? (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368448)

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

(For the record I like all three)

Re:Really? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33368512)

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.

Re:Really? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368124)

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.

Re:Really? (1)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368144)

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.

Re:Really? (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368318)

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.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33368200)

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.

Re:Really? (1)

Triv (181010) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368418)

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.

Re:Really? (1)

insnprsn (1202137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368444)

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.

Re:Really? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#33367780)

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

Re:Really? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33367804)

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?

Re:Really? (1)

plumby (179557) | more than 3 years ago | (#33367828)

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.

Re:Really? (1)

Reilaos (1544173) | more than 3 years ago | (#33367870)

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.

Re:Really? (1)

dbet (1607261) | more than 3 years ago | (#33367962)

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.

Re:Really? (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368090)

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.

Re:Really? (4, Insightful)

pete_norm (150498) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368092)

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.

Re:Really? (3, Insightful)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368268)

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.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33368420)

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.

Re:Really? (1)

fnj (64210) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368394)

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

Re:Really? (2, Insightful)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368052)

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?

I gotta say (2, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33367744)

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.

Re:I gotta say (1)

helix2301 (1105613) | more than 3 years ago | (#33367778)

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.

Re:I gotta say (1)

servo335 (853111) | more than 3 years ago | (#33367906)

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

Re:I gotta say (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33368332)

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!!!

Cowboys and Indians with a sci-fi twist (1)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 3 years ago | (#33367956)

There might be a reason [uproxx.com] for that...

Re:I gotta say (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368630)

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.

Re:I gotta say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33367816)

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?"

Re:I gotta say (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33368034)

Yeah but The Fountain sucked

Re:I gotta say (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368042)

Blasphemer!

Re:I gotta say (1)

johnhp (1807490) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368196)

Agreed. The Fountain may be my favorite movie.

Re:I gotta say (1)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368048)

Hard.

Re:I gotta say (1)

k-vuohi (973009) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368100)

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.

Re:I gotta say (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368480)

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

Re:I gotta say (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368552)

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)

Re:I gotta say (1)

Danathar (267989) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368566)

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

Special Edition? (5, Insightful)

crow_t_robot (528562) | more than 3 years ago | (#33367752)

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.

Re:Special Edition? (1)

Cruciform (42896) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368220)

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

The 10-year-rule (4, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368340)

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.

Re:The 10-year-rule (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368494)

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.

Re:The 10-year-rule (2, Insightful)

Joe Tie. (567096) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368620)

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.

no, really? (2, Insightful)

Triv (181010) | more than 3 years ago | (#33367792)

"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?

Abada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33367874)

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

I wasn't impressed with it at the theatre (0)

Rooked_One (591287) | more than 3 years ago | (#33367926)

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.

Re:I wasn't impressed with it at the theatre (1)

mahiskali (1410019) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368018)

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.

Re:I wasn't impressed with it at the theatre (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368020)

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.

Re:I wasn't impressed with it at the theatre (4, Insightful)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368184)

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.

Re:I wasn't impressed with it at the theatre (4, Insightful)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368228)

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.

Re:I wasn't impressed with it at the theatre (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33368282)

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

Hopefully, (1)

zero0ne (1309517) | more than 3 years ago | (#33367958)

it's the last review.

Why? (1)

MrTripps (1306469) | more than 3 years ago | (#33367978)

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.

Re:Why? (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368558)

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?

Any culture that sings like the Lion King... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33368002)

...deserves genocide.

Avatar was already too long (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368022)

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.

Re:Avatar was already too long (1)

Ironhandx (1762146) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368408)

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.

www.spoow.com (-1, Offtopic)

Spoow (1886318) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368120)

Why would you settle for a regular iPad when you can buy a 24K gold iPad for a less expensive price than the one sold in stores? SP00W! is the hottest online auction site, featuring discounted speed bidding on custom and exclusive items in real time. FREE REGISTRATION and 5 FREE BIDS !!! http://www.spoow.com/getfreebids [spoow.com] also you can join us on Facebook and gain additional free bids!!! http://www.facebook.com/pages/Spoow-Speed-Bid-Auctions/142522825781258?ref=ts [facebook.com]

Re:www.spoow.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33368562)

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.

Avatar, um... sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33368190)

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.

Big science plot hole (2, Insightful)

wowbagger (69688) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368442)

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?

Re:Big science plot hole (4, Insightful)

space_jake (687452) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368554)

Same reason Bond villians never just put a bullet in Bond's head.

Re:Big science plot hole (2, Informative)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368600)

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.

Re:Big science plot hole (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#33368602)

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

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...