I saw Avatar last night at a regular theatre (no 3D). Was a entertaining flick. The special effects were really awesome, story was a bit predictable but I thought it was executed well. What I really enjoyed was that it wasn’t using the 3D as a crutch or gimmick. Watching it non 3D you would never know that it was supposed to be 3D which I thought was a lovely touch.

As for the whole effects/plot thing, you peeps are being a little silly I think. Different movies are made for different reasons with different audiences in mind. Not every movie can be perfect, but at the end of the day if you’re entertained is that not what matters? idk why we’re arguing about something so subjective. Just silly.

PS We need more large scale sci fi/fantasy battles on screen.

Acid Flux Posted:

I was replying specifically to the idea of going to see a movie simply for the special effects. Special effects should compliment the story, not overshadow it or be a substitution.

Complement, not compliment.

All I’m saying is that there’s a reason I’ve had to watch “Birth of a Nation” three times now, and it’s certainly not for the story. Seeing a movie for special effects alone is a perfectly cool thing to do, when you have an appreciation for the technical side of film-making.

And I can appreciate filmmaking as an, Cinematography, camera shots and angles are important, but filmmaking is thrown out the window when practically everything you do was made better with a computer. by editing the crap out of something you make it worthless. it becomes like britney spears. **** cant sing worth a ****, uses the same ****ty beat to every song, but she looks good so you buy her cd’s. **** off.

Wow, where the hell do I start with all of that?

If a film has a poor story but also has terrific music, then it shouldn’t be at fault for having terrific music. That is to say, that film’s music shouldn’t be poorly criticized BECAUSE it’s terrific. The same is true for all aspects of film-making – if a film has a poor story but excels in another area, than it still has merit for excelling in that other area.

lho Posted:

And I can appreciate filmmaking as an, Cinematography, camera shots and angles are important, but filmmaking is thrown out the window when practically everything you do was made better with a computer.

So film-makers should ignore the most powerful and versatile they have…why? I mean, I’ll take a CG shark over a giant, rubber prop any day.

What would you prefer in this case…actors walking around in blue rubber outfits, surrounded by plastic flowers?

lho Posted:

it becomes like britney spears. **** cant sing worth a ****, uses the same ****ty beat to every song, but she looks good so you buy her cd’s.

Sorry, but I refuse to jump on that particular cool-kid bandwagon…Spears is a talented singer. Her early career suffered from poor instrumentation, but there’s a world of difference between “Toxic” and “Oops, I Did it Again”.

ok.

Bill_Murray_Fan_7383 Posted:

Complement, not compliment.

All I’m saying is that there’s a reason I’ve had to watch “Birth of a Nation” three times now, and it’s certainly not for the story. Seeing a movie for special effects alone is a perfectly cool thing to do, when you have an appreciation for the technical side of film-making.

Congratulations, you found a spelling error. Here’s your gold star. Log in to see images!

As far as watching a movie just for special effects because it’s ‘art’, then why bother even trying to add a plot or story to such a movie? Sure, it’s a marvel of applied technology, but that’s essentially an entirely different genre. In this case, you happen to enjoy that type of genre. I usually prefer more substance in my movies. That doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate the value of special effects.

You might be one of the viewers that appreciates the artistry involved in those effects. However, that’s not true of the average moviegoer. In other words, you are enjoying the technical aptitude and artistry involved. The people sitting next to you are probably just ‘oohing & ahhing over pretty pictures’. And that was, essentially, one of my points; too many people are attracted to a movie only because it ‘looks kewl’, nothing more. You’re not one of them, so you have a more intelligent perspective.

1337xxxxxxxxxlolololololololololxxxxxxxxx1337 Posted:

Next up I review the newest modern clbumic: Sherlock Holmes, a bold and refreshing take on a pair of stuffy old fat men who sit in a room and “solve” mysteries in a time before CSI. Ugh! Let’s inject some Vitamin A, pure adrenaline. These sexy Steampunk heroes are gonna fight crime in a way Sir Doily never had the director’s vision to dream up: WITH THEIR FISTS.

saw this yesterday and i must whole heartedly agree.

I went to see it yesterday. It was visually spectacular but I was left wanting more.

Still, not a bad flick. There are far worse movies released these days.

iostiogic Posted:

Yeah, well you know, that’s just like, your opinion man.

When did he say that it was fact?

I saw it today and left the cinema disappointed.

If you put that much money into a movie – make it in fact the most expensive movie ever – you just can’t come up with a story as trivial as this. Change the setting and take away the special effects and you have a story that has been told a thousand times before. One-dimensional characters, predictable story, obligatory love-relation/scene, terrible oneliners (That’s gonna hurt; Bingo!) all combined in one film. What a wise decision to bring enough nachos.