CarlieGotfingered Posted:

1) Fair Enough, but people are more likely to have paid attention to the story of pocahontas and not fall asleep.

2) Thus proving that the movie has no right to exist

Edit: lol, “Dances with Smurfs”

How about “The Last Samurai?”

That one’s even closer to the same storyline.

Also, I completely agree with the notion of going to movies for the effects being very special and immature. You go to fireworks shows to see effects and to ooh and aah, not to a movie. That’s because fireworks are merely flashing lights and movies aren’t.

There’s a place for each kind of entertainment, and a movie based around effects is pure drivel, especially when the entire motive behind the movie was to espouse ill-informed political crap and shove it down people’s throats in the form of blue mostly-naked people. Oh, and to make gobs of money.

I literally laughed out loud when I saw the trailer for that movie, because it was practically like Cameron was trolling everyone. And just for some extra lulz, he conned a ton of them out of double-ticket price, just for slapping some 3D in there. You can put a pile of **** in a sequin dress, but it’s still a pile of ****.

= Avatar

Cameron is more about exploiting than the Marines in his movie were.

scully Posted:

I can’t help but wonder, cool technology aside, do we honestly want to merge with our entertainment?

Up some undefined point the experience is enhanced methinks, but if the purpose of most entertainment is escapism – from a mundane life to a fantastical one – or at least in a theoretical sense – then when does it become a crutch instead of an imagination kick-starter?

Holodeck addiction

It could happen to you

Afterthotz Posted:

Up some undefined point the experience is enhanced methinks, but if the purpose of most entertainment is escapism – from a mundane life to a fantastical one – or at least in a theoretical sense – then when does it become a crutch instead of an imagination kick-starter?

Holodeck addiction

It could happen to you

There were several news articles about people having serious depression that they couldn’t live in Pandora, after seeing Avatar, because it was so real and paradise-y. Go look some up, it’s really kind of freaky.

Sneaky27 Posted:

Right, because you’re the grand arbiter of enjoyment in the cinema? There’s more than one reason to see a movie, and more than one way to enjoy that movie. You clearly require complex and deep plot points to enjoy a movie. That’s fine, just try to keep from saying that people are very special for thinking any other part of a movie can be enjoyable.

Your viewpoint is not the only one. Learn some tolerance, Mr. Furry.

Oh, and movies, they are flashing lights. Do you not understand how the picture gets to the screen, or the mechanics of the illusion of movement?

Right, because you’re the grand arbiter of enjoyment in books? There’s more than one reason to read a book, and more than one way to enjoy that book. You clearly require complex and deep plot points to enjoy a book. That’s fine, just try to keep from saying that people are very special for thinking any other part of a book can be enjoyable.

Your viewpoint is not the only one. Learn some tolerance, Mr. Furry.

Oh, and books, they are paper. Do you not understand how the text gets to the book, or the mechanics of printing?

Hopefully you understand that a Novel is not a Pop-Up book, and the two are never compared, for obvious reasons. Someone who enjoys Shakespere is unlikely to enjoy Pat the Bunny in the same respect, however, while someone who enjoys Pat the Bunny isn’t wrong for doing so, they most certainly are wrong for trying to say that Pat the Bunny is better than Shakespere because it’s “funnerer” and “gots that soft fuzzy bit”. The two are simply not the same thing.

Avatar is not legitimate theatre, i’ll get back to this in a second.

Someone who likes Hot Tub Time Machine might not enjoy Precious, not because they can’t understand the complex story, but simply because they don’t get the same “escape” from it. However both movies are legitimate movies. While one may be simple, and one complex, they both tell a story built around characters and build everything up around that.

Avatar on the other hand takes a mediocre cookie cutter story told a million and a half times, and puts a fresh coat of paint on it. The story could never stand on it’s own, it’s thin, unoriginal, and while well acted the characters are boring as all ****. In addition to just sucking hard, people like this **** because Cameron is someone who has done good in the past. He can get away with this ****. Had it been a brand new director, but the same movie, it would not gross as much, nor receive the same fanfare.

Avatar is all about the visuals, not the story, the story really is an after thought. They followed every rule in the book of Disney in how to design the Na’vi. They use bright vibrant colors for the good guys and boring drab colors for the bad guys, this is fine in general, but not fine if the only thing you have going for you is visuals.

One could say Sin City is like this, but that would be a mistake, Sin City uses the visual style to enhance the story, not to replace it. The movie could have been made without the intense graphical style and still have stood. The same can not be said for avatar.

People who like Avatar, but refuse to admit it’s a glorified version of sesame street, are retards. The people who enjoy pretty colors _may_ be retards, but at least they understand that the movie is pretty much worthless otherwise.

People are entitled to an opinion, even if it’s wrong, but that doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t be corrected when they say that the story and message are great and that Avatar is more than a Polished turd.

And that is what Avatar is, an IMAX 3D Blue Polished Turd in Space.

Why are we arguing about whether or not Avatar is a ****ty movie in a thread that’s supposed to be debating the different methods of presenting 3D? There’s allready a thread about avatar and 90% of what you guys are saying has allready been said in it.

I honestly think that the main problem is that 3D continues to be treated as gimmick. Another issue I have with 3D is that I am unable to see any movies in it because I don’t live near a major urban centre. My local theatre is too outdated and I really don’t feel like driving 8 hours to see a movie. So I end up with ****ty looking movies that are trying to have **** jump out at me and crap. Also, I have astigmatism and require glbumes to see things properly. You ever try to watch a 3D movie with a pair of glbumes on? Not that good man, not that good.

So I guess my point is that the technology has not reached the point where I am capable of enjoying it. Whether this is something which can be readily changed is completely beyond me though and I have no urge to really find out. 3D just isn’t that important to me I guess.

duca Posted:

Why are we arguing about whether or not Avatar is a ****ty movie in a thread that’s supposed to be debating the different methods of presenting 3D? There’s allready a thread about avatar and 90% of what you guys are saying has allready been said in it.

I honestly think that the main problem is that 3D continues to be treated as gimmick. Another issue I have with 3D is that I am unable to see any movies in it because I don’t live near a major urban centre. My local theatre is too outdated and I really don’t feel like driving 8 hours to see a movie. So I end up with ****ty looking movies that are trying to have **** jump out at me and crap. Also, I have astigmatism and require glbumes to see things properly. You ever try to watch a 3D movie with a pair of glbumes on? Not that good man, not that good.

So I guess my point is that the technology has not reached the point where I am capable of enjoying it. Whether this is something which can be readily changed is completely beyond me though and I have no urge to really find out. 3D just isn’t that important to me I guess.

I think there are a few problems.

The technology is treated as a gimmick

The cost is too high and is pbumed down to the viewer who, seeing it as a gimmick, does not buy in

The technology, while mature, is not as immersive as it could be

3D isn’t going to reach it’s full potential until it’s advanced to a point where 1) it requires no glbumes and 2) it costs very little (comparatively).

I think the real thing to look for is advances in 3D hologram technology, it exists, and while in it’s infancy it’s got potential and when perfected will replace “3D”, since it will really have depth, as opposed to trick you into thinking it does.

I think Avatar is so tightly ingrained with this discussion is because it’s the best example of a successful 3D movie. It did well in 3D, and (for the most part) wasn’t the same without 3D. People were willing to pay the extra money for the glbumes, and to see it in 3D.

Avatar is a perfect example why 3D isn’t taken seriously as well, since it’s used to enhance movies in the totally wrong way.

I think 3D broadcast television will be more likely to be a game changer compared to Movies, since the glbumesless technology is there, and the entry cost isn’t significant when you concider that a television is a major purchase that should be calculated evenly over the cost of a long period of time.

To bring this full circle back to the original point:

Anaglyph Stereoscopy hasn’t held back the development of 3D cinema, it provided a jumping point for newer technologies, no first generation product is perfect, and when technology is in it’s infancy there is usually little development. The sheer lack of technological advancement in the field is to blame more than anything.

There have likely been more major advancements in film in the last two and a half decades than there has been in the time since “talkies”. I base that one no facts other than now that film _is_ digital, advancement is based on computer technology, not silver technology. We are just now getting around to the concept of 3D and how we can use our technology to improve it.

Oh, and that film _is_ digital comment: Yes i am the grand arbiter of silver nitride technology, and yes i understand the difference between film and digital, i don’t mean the fact that they are using some sort of digital film, but that films are being made entirely digital, as opposed to on film and then edited digitally.

lol, internet, serious business

Sneaky27 Posted:

That’s your strawman.

I wasn’t literally bumuming you don’t know the difference between a pop up book and a novel, i was turning your words against you to prove a point. Of course you know the difference between the two. I was merely backing up my argument that we needn’t compare Avatar to other movies, since it’s just flash.

I apologize if you thought that i was honestly accusing you of not knowing the difference between a novel and a book designed for infants. However i do think it’s a valid rebumal to your original post.

Sneaky27 Posted:

Right, because you’re the grand arbiter of enjoyment in the cinema? There’s more than one reason to see a movie, and more than one way to enjoy that movie. You clearly require complex and deep plot points to enjoy a movie. That’s fine, just try to keep from saying that people are very special for thinking any other part of a movie can be enjoyable.

Your viewpoint is not the only one. Learn some tolerance, Mr. Furry.

Oh, and movies, they are flashing lights. Do you not understand how the picture gets to the screen, or the mechanics of the illusion of movement?

I don’t think anyone here (including Shii) is saying that people are stupid for enjoying fluff and good visuals, what I’m saying, and i take it Shii is saying is that Avatar is not a “legitimate” film in the respect that it lacks any redeeming quality other than it’s flashy visuals. This is not to discredit the fact that Visuals can be enjoyed by viewers, but to set thing straight in that a movie and a theme park ride are not one in the same. A movie is designed to be an escape by allowing you to experience a story that you relate to in some way. This is something that is different to each person, and is something that does not require a deep or complex story to be enjoyed.

I’m not simply arguing that Avatar’s lifted and tired story is why it’s not good, i’m arguing that Avatar puts that on the back burner to the Visuals and often goes out of it’s way to show you pretty things that have nothing to do with the story.

This all ties into the topic of 3D films because without the 3D you’re cheated into seeing a lackluster movie.

To give you a better example, let’s look at Nature Dogreat timesentaries. Most of them are boring, and typically visually uninspiring (though this depends on the person and the subject matter, mudskippers do not make for a pretty shot, peamale reproductive organs do). Above all else they value the information first, and the visuals second.

Now lets look at “Planet Earth”. While Planet Earth is a very educational series, it only scratches the surface, not just because of the subject they intend to cover (everything) but also because it would detract from the visuals. It is the only Nature Dogreat timesentary that i know of that uses a soundtrack during most periods of silence, any others i’ve seen just let you listen to nature. This is not a bad thing, but it’s not what everyone is looking for in a Nature Dogreat timesentary, does it make people who like the series wrong? Absolutely not, but only if they realize there is a major flaw to this. I’m not expecting a total reversal, just a simple admission that there is a huge sacrifice made at the cost of entertainment.

I understand there is a disconnect here, because movies are a form of entertainment. However if you take any clbumic movie, and play it in black and white, it should still be just as good as if it were in color. This holds true for many modern movies (the few that come to mind instantly are Fight Club, Boondock Saints, The two Ghostbusters movies, and Clerks, and i know those are in narrow genres that are oft paired, but it also goes for movies like Casablanca, it stands well despite the lack of color.)

I have no intention of swaying you to join my side of the argument, i could care less what you think of the movie, however i don’t appreciate being accused of dirty tricks. I have no problem with being corrected, if i factually make a mistake i should be corrected, that’s how science works, thats how everything should work, however i do not resort to dirty tricks outside of reason (i see no issue calling Avatar a Polished Turd, because that is what i believe, it’s not a baseless attack, i’m not saying something like “Avatar is a movie made for homosexuals” or “James Cameron is very special for unleashing this ****” While i do have issues with Cameron, such as how it appears that he did this just for the money and because George Lucas isn’t making any more Star Wars Films.

It would be easy to say that i’m taking Avatar too seriously, and that i should let it go, however i don’t really take this matter as serious as you might think, i, unlike some, can put mind to keyboard in a very short amount of time, and until i start writing 50 page dogreat timesents on why i don’t like the way they colored the eyes on the Na’vi i don’t think i’m taking this too far.

lol, internet, serious business

I liked Avatar and acknowledge that the story wasn’t a life changing or thought provoking one. It did however advance 3D technology (Getting on topic at least) since even if used for the wrong reasons, it made use of it in a financially successful way and apparently used special cameras made for the film and the like. The only other films I’ve seen in 3D in recent years are bad low budget horror movies which used it in far worse a setting than Avatar did, to make blood and axes fly at my face. There are also 3D IMAX dogreat timesentaries but Avatar is making it mainstream, so that even if it gets used as a cheap gimmick for a while because of it, mbum production will lead to cheaper methods and hopefully some advances in the technology.

CarlieGotfingered Posted:

I wasn’t literally bumuming you don’t know the difference between a pop up book and a novel, i was turning your words against you to prove a point. Of course you know the difference between the two. I was merely backing up my argument that we needn’t compare Avatar to other movies, since it’s just flash.

I apologize if you thought that i was honestly accusing you of not knowing the difference between a novel and a book designed for infants. However i do think it’s a valid rebumal to your original post.

I think you misunderstood what I was getting at when I called your argument a strawman. Here is what I was getting at.