PDA

View Full Version : Avatar


revefsreleets
12-18-2009, 06:42 PM
First off, this movie cost about $300 million to make. That's absurd (and I'm not complaining that it's a waste of money....every single penny will wind up in some workers pocket, one way or another before this is all over). My point is that without Titanic grossing 2 BILLION dollars when it was all said and done, this project gets budgeted MAYBE 1/5th that amount. James Cameron asks, James Cameron gets.

I'm going to see it. I expect to be amazed, and I doubt I'll be disappointed. The guy knows how to make movie magic. But he also is a very poor writer. His scripts always produce tin-eared dialogue that no REAL person would ever produce in the same situations if they could somehow analogously be duplicated in our World. He's also a hack when it comes to plot and story. Titanic was a 2nd rate, impossible for the time, love story set against a spectacular backdrop, which, in reality would have seen a dirty, poor, toothless Jack hiding in the bilge of the ship and one of the first to die when the end came.

But that's no fun!

Anyway, Titanic was a big hit because it was corny pop stuff (But visually spectacular corny pop stuff) and teenaged girls went to see it 15 times a piece.

So what about Avatar? Everything I've read, even from the most curmudgeonly of critics, suggests that the visuals, especially in 3D (which is how I'll see it) FAR outweigh any of the usual shortcomings of a Cameron movie. And the suggested shortcomings of THIS Cameron movie are myriad. That it's simply a fancy Sci-Fi version of "Dances with Wolves" with much worse dialogue is the most prominent. OK...whatever.

He does have one strong and consistent theme throughout his movies that IS somewhat original....he ALWAYS has really strong women protagonists. That's pretty cool.

The guy is kind of a one trick wonder, but he seems to always really make that one trick REALLY spectacular. I can't see how this film will make 2 BILLION dollars. I'm pretty sure that it will at least recoup it's 300 million. But, either way, it sounds like it's a whole lot of fun to watch even if the main plot line is about mining for the mineral "Unobtanium"(get it? Un-obtain-ium?)

SteelCityMom
12-18-2009, 06:58 PM
I've never seen Titanic...it's on my banned list for a number of reasons, and is the only James Cameron movie I've ever boycotted.

He's hardly a one trick wonder though. He wrote and directed Terminator, The Abyss, Aliens, True Lies. While most of the stuff he does is very much dumbed down for normal audiences, they are very entertaining movies and he does have a history of churning out money makers. That's the one reason I think Avatar will do as well if not better than Titanic.

I'm going to try to go see it, but it's not a priority. I won't slit my wrists if I end up waiting until it comes out on video lol.

devilsdancefloor
12-18-2009, 10:29 PM
Planning on going to Imax tomorrow to see it and yes i never seen titanic either. it seems like a blah kind of movie and i already know what happens the ship SINKS :P.

Borski
12-18-2009, 11:29 PM
I think I am the only person that thinks this is gonna be a horrible movie. IDK what it is about it but to me it looks like its gonna be a major flop and I have been thinking that ever since I saw the first preview for it several months ago. Recently after seeing a couple interviews with actors sounds like it might not be as bad as I origianlly thought, but still doesn't perk my interest. that said, if I hear good things about it from my friends, I might end up going to see it. I do love sci-fi so it is kinda odd that feel like its gonna be a flop, but oh well.

Nadroj 20
12-18-2009, 11:45 PM
Just based on the trailor im kinda clueless on what exactly the movie is about....

xfl2001fan
12-19-2009, 07:59 AM
I'm semi-interested in seeing it...but (as another stated before me) I can wait til it comes out on Video (or even TV for that matter).

KeiselPower99
12-19-2009, 08:22 AM
I was in 9th grade when Titanic came out and the girl I was seeing wanted to go see it. Worst time Ive ever spent in a movie theater besides watching The Villiage. I really dont know it I wanna watch Avatar or not

GoSlash27
12-19-2009, 08:33 AM
I've seen the previews for it. Definitely not interested.

RunWillieRun
12-19-2009, 08:56 AM
While the visual effects look amazing...the plot line is so cliched.

The evil human industrial complex goes to another world to harvest their resources without any regard for the native inhabitants. A human integrates with the natives and helps them fight back against the evil human invaders.

I haven't even seen the movie and I'm sure this is how it is going to progress.

Give me an effing break.

SteelerEmpire
12-19-2009, 09:44 AM
This one is suppose to be different than other movies with high-caliber visuals. Not only is it "supposed " to have a very good story-line / plot, but its in 3-D at the movies... so the kids should love that part...

fordfan485
12-19-2009, 12:54 PM
The plot was alright , kind of cliche but certainly could have been worse. I went into this movie very skeptical and honestly the previews made me not really want to see it but my fiancee did so I had little choice in the matter.

We saw it in 3d and for this being the first 3d movie outside of Disney world that I have seen I was BLOWN AWAY. The effects and cinematography were incredible. The movie being in 3d you actually think you are in the middle of the forest with the characters. :popcorn: Go see just for the effects you will be impressed.

revefsreleets
12-20-2009, 03:07 PM
The plot was alright , kind of cliche but certainly could have been worse. I went into this movie very skeptical and honestly the previews made me not really want to see it but my fiancee did so I had little choice in the matter.

We saw it in 3d and for this being the first 3d movie outside of Disney world that I have seen I was BLOWN AWAY. The effects and cinematography were incredible. The movie being in 3d you actually think you are in the middle of the forest with the characters. :popcorn: Go see just for the effects you will be impressed.
That's about what I figured would make this movies money back....forget the jokey dialogue, skip past all the plot holes that don't track, and just watch the movie and be amazed because you are, once again, watching James Cameron do something that has never been done before.

Now that I think about it, that last paragraph pretty much said the exact same thing my whole OP did just MUCH more succinctly.

The Patriot
12-20-2009, 11:18 PM
They kind of look funny. I don't think I could sit in a theater for 3 hours listening to these things talk. I had enough trouble with Lord of the Rings.

http://static.reelmovienews.com/images/gallery/avatar-blue-aliens-1.jpg

Preacher
12-20-2009, 11:23 PM
Second I saw the previews I said No way.

It was going to be a preachy american military is bad holywood movie.

From what my friends have said after coming back from seeing it, that is just about exactly what it was.

"Fight terror with terror" "Show em shock and awe"

No thanks.

devilsdancefloor
12-21-2009, 12:34 AM
i liked it great special effects. It at times had the feel of anti military/tree hugging but all in all a good movie.

Preacher
12-21-2009, 01:15 AM
i liked it great special effects. It at times had the feel of anti military/tree hugging but all in all a good movie.

I don't mind the underdog against the bad guys idea, but it just kills me that they have to waste SO MUCH TIME preaching about it.

stlrtruck
12-21-2009, 12:08 PM
They kind of look funny. I don't think I could sit in a theater for 3 hours listening to these things talk. I had enough trouble with Lord of the Rings.

http://static.reelmovienews.com/images/gallery/avatar-blue-aliens-1.jpg

You mean like the people throughout NE speak? :flap:

The Patriot
12-21-2009, 08:32 PM
You mean like the people throughout NE speak? :flap:

Yeah, me and my buddies can't wait to see Avatah.

TheWarDen86
12-21-2009, 08:37 PM
Yeah, me and my buddies can't wait to see Avatah.

lol.

Movies today rely too much on special effects. I watch the 1938 version of A Christmas Carol and I was blown away. It hit me that if anything, acting has declined since then. All we have is color and special effects and in too many cases it really doesn't make up for an otherwise crap movie.

It would seem to me that the most celebrated movies have less special effects in them. Not zero, but they don't rely on them.

Therefore, F**K Avatar. :chuckle:

Preacher
12-21-2009, 08:49 PM
Anyone watch Independence day with Will Smith about a decade and a half ago?

That has a whole bunch of special affects in it. However, Bill Pullman, Will Smith, etc. are the ones that carried the story. the spec. affects simply highlighted what they were doing.

TheWarDen86
12-21-2009, 09:06 PM
Anyone watch Independence day with Will Smith about a decade and a half ago?

That has a whole bunch of special affects in it. However, Bill Pullman, Will Smith, etc. are the ones that carried the story. the spec. affects simply highlighted what they were doing.

Agreed.

Indiana Jones in the day; Star Wars (The original three), Poltergeist....

Are those all Steven Spielberg films? lol

Preacher
12-21-2009, 09:30 PM
Agreed.

Indiana Jones in the day; Star Wars (The original three), Poltergeist....

Are those all Steven Spielberg films? lol

Exactly.

The story itself was the biggest thing.


If you want to see a great story told... Go back and watch the black and white, "Run Silent, Run Deep".

Now THAT is a great movie/story.

TheWarDen86
12-21-2009, 09:34 PM
Exactly.

The story itself was the biggest thing.


If you want to see a great story told... Go back and watch the black and white, "Run Silent, Run Deep".

Now THAT is a great movie/story.


Hmmm. Sounds familiar.

WWII Sub Movie?

I always loved The Longest Day...although the acting in that one wasn't exactly epic. lol.

Seriously Preach, the 1938 version of A Christmas Carol in on Christmas Morning at 9am (I forget which channel). You have Directv though right? I highly recommend you check it out.

T.Richardson
12-21-2009, 09:43 PM
Saw the movie.. I really liked it. The avatars remind me of the Native Americans..

Preacher
12-21-2009, 09:54 PM
Hmmm. Sounds familiar.

WWII Sub Movie?

I always loved The Longest Day...although the acting in that one wasn't exactly epic. lol.

Seriously Preach, the 1938 version of A Christmas Carol in on Christmas Morning at 9am (I forget which channel). You have Directv though right? I highly recommend you check it out.

Yep. Also a song by iron Maiden based on the movie :chuckle:

tony hipchest
12-21-2009, 10:04 PM
Second I saw the previews I said No way.

It was going to be a preachy american military is bad holywood movie.

From what my friends have said after coming back from seeing it, that is just about exactly what it was.

"Fight terror with terror" "Show em shock and awe"

No thanks.

I don't mind the underdog against the bad guys idea, but it just kills me that they have to waste SO MUCH TIME preaching about it.sometimes a movie is just a movie. :hunch:

i doubt dinosaurs will be recreated like in jurrasic park, and i doubt that mans 1st encounter with the third kind will be with a kid as depicted in ET. but all in all, they are just a movie.

i wonder how many athiests will refuse to walk into the sistine chapel to view michaelangelos marvelous frescos, based on what it preaches?

call it apples to oranges, if you wish. but in reality, its the exact same principal.

Preacher
12-21-2009, 10:12 PM
sometimes a movie is just a movie. :hunch:

i doubt dinosaurs will be recreated like in jurrasic park, and i doubt that mans 1st encounter with the third kind will be with a kid as depicted in ET. but all in all, they are just a movie.

i wonder how many athiests will refuse to walk into the sistine chapel to view michaelangelos marvelous frescos, based on what it preaches?

call it apples to oranges, if you wish. but in reality, its the exact same principal.

No Tony, its not.

When they CHOOSE to INJECT a movie with politically loaded speech, it changes it.

There are plenty of ways to do it differently.

Once again, I go back to Independence Day, which came out just after Clinton's screwups in Africa. yet that movie, a place RIPE for political statements, made none.

There are a numaber of movies that have played politics. Fortunately, most of them have bombed lately.

tony hipchest
12-21-2009, 10:27 PM
No Tony, its not.

When they CHOOSE to INJECT a movie with politically loaded speech, it changes it.

There are plenty of ways to do it differently.

Once again, I go back to Independence Day, which came out just after Clinton's screwups in Africa. yet that movie, a place RIPE for political statements, made none.

There are a numaber of movies that have played politics. Fortunately, most of them have bombed lately.yes Preacher, it is.

michealangelo purposely injected religion AND politics into his art. however, many who are neither roman catholic, or even religious at all can simply walk in, ignore the message, and totally be in awe of the artistic nature of the creation itself.

im with revs that this movie is probably a piece that can stand on its creative value alone.

The Patriot
12-21-2009, 10:31 PM
No Tony, its not.


yes Preacher, it is.


It's amazing how every locker room thread seems to devolve into this.

[edit] :chuckle:

Preacher
12-21-2009, 10:59 PM
yes Preacher, it is.

michealangelo purposely injected religion AND politics into his art. however, many who are neither roman catholic, or even religious at all can simply walk in, ignore the message, and totally be in awe of the artistic nature of the creation itself.

im with revs that this movie is probably a piece that can stand on its creative value alone.

ROTFL. Ok. Have you ever heard of Patrons?

Michealangelo's patron for the first two years was the ruler of Florence (a political position). Thus, his paintings were political by nature simply because HIS PATRONS were political by nature. Then, his next patron from the Aldovrandi family had him paint two Saints and an angel for a shrine (So his patron COMMISSIONED him to paint a RELIGIOUS painting).

I could go on, but suffice it to say, his patrons were POLITICAL or RELIGIOUS patrons commissioning him to paint for POLITICAL or RELIGIOUS overtones.

That has nothing to do with a movie studio that is simply trying to make a movie.

So no, its not the same. Not even close. When you look at a MichaelAngelo painting, you EXPECT a political/religious painting because that is the core of his work (patrons).

That is NOT what one expects when going to a theater. Well, Not until the last few years.

devilsdancefloor
12-21-2009, 11:27 PM
i gotta agree with tony it is just a movie. great special effects and there is a great story to it. If you havent seen it go watch it. Who says that "the patrons" of this movie are not treehuggers (cause there are a few parts where ya go huh but very few). You need to see the movie i think you will be surprised.

Preacher
12-21-2009, 11:45 PM
i gotta agree with tony it is just a movie. great special effects and there is a great story to it. If you havent seen it go watch it. Who says that "the patrons" of this movie are not treehuggers (cause there are a few parts where ya go huh but very few). You need to see the movie i think you will be surprised.


The previews were enough to turn me off.

I may watch it someday, when I can rent it without giving those who actually made this movie any money (which is about a year to a year and a half after it comes out on video).

tony hipchest
12-21-2009, 11:56 PM
ROTFL. Ok. Have you ever heard of Patrons?



sure. i did a few shots of patron (gold) just last weekend. its a bit better than the silver. :drink:

as far as michaelangelos patrons, i will assume you are talking about lorenzo de'medici, who "adopted' him from ghirlandaio's studio when he was about 14.

the religious leader of the time , savanorola, pretty much ran the medicis out of town.

after that, i guess you could say pope julius II was michaelangelos "patron" (a lifetime commitment that practically haunted him til the day he died). :noidea:

michaelangelo injected a TON of his personal belief into his work. much was done subtly to avoid persecution.

i could go on, but michaelangelo was a sculptor and not a painter. he pretty much has the chapel, 2 major frescos including the crucifixion of st peter, a small madonna and child, and leda and the swan.

a major "paint off" between him and davinci was unfortunately ruined due to poor fresco plaster.

Preacher
12-22-2009, 01:08 AM
Yes, but my point is, when you go to see his painting...sculptures etc, you are going specifically to see something that is religious or political in nature.

You would be closer to equate their work with Fahrenheit 9-11, Limbaugh's "See, I told you So" or other such work... because you are getting exactly what you are paying to get.

But using the media... even a venue like the movies to push political views when that was NOT what was paid for.. is a crock IMO.

Remember when the Veggietales moves came out? Many were complaining that there would be a "religious theme". Why? Same reason. (though it was a little funny in that case, cause if you are interested in Veggie tales, you know EXACTLY what it is about).

Preacher
12-22-2009, 01:09 AM
The previews were enough to turn me off.

I may watch it someday, when I can rent it without giving those who actually made this movie any money (which is about a year to a year and a half after it comes out on video).


TONY...

LOL. I'm not too worried about the entire list of his work.
:wink02:

tony hipchest
12-22-2009, 01:16 AM
Yes, but my point is, when you go to see his painting...sculptures etc, you are going specifically to see something that is religious or political in nature.

You would be closer to equate their work with Fahrenheit 9-11, Limbaugh's "See, I told you So" or other such work... because you are getting exactly what you are paying to get.

But using the media... even a venue like the movies to push political views when that was NOT what was paid for.. is a crock IMO.

Remember when the Veggietales moves came out? Many were complaining that there would be a "religious theme". Why? Same reason. (though it was a little funny in that case, cause if you are interested in Veggie tales, you know EXACTLY what it is about).
great point, but ...

yeah, but no.

most people who go to see michaelangelos artwork go to see it for the artwork itself.

do you really think people go to see the pyramids of giza because they are interested in the in the religion and philosophy behind them?

once again, you may claim "apples and oranges" but i only use this point as a simple illustration and analogy.

FWIW, i liked Titanic only because ever since i was a kid, i always imagined what it would be like, sinking on that ship. do i really think some old assed lady would chuck that huge piece of ice into the ocean? hell no!

but it makes for a good story.

Preacher
12-22-2009, 01:48 AM
great point, but ...

yeah, but no.

most people who go to see michaelangelos artwork go to see it for the artwork itself.

do you really think people go to see the pyramids of giza because they are interested in the in the religion and philosophy behind them?

once again, you may claim "apples and oranges" but i only use this point as a simple illustration and analogy.

FWIW, i liked Titanic only because ever since i was a kid, i always imagined what it would be like, sinking on that ship. do i really think some old assed lady would chuck that huge piece of ice into the ocean? hell no!

but it makes for a good story.

And how would you feel if it was remade, and she states, "well, this isn't as much a waste as Obama's presidency"?

Would it sour the movie for you just a bit? Is it a necessary bit of commentary?

Personally, I choose not to give people money who think they need to commentate on things like that. You don't have a problem with that... fine.

I do. Oh well.

revefsreleets
12-22-2009, 07:46 AM
Anyway, I'm still going to go see it...

tony hipchest
05-22-2010, 08:56 PM
i bought this when it came out an finally got around to watching it last night.

i must say that i was truly disappointed i did not go see this in the theaters. i almost feel like i robbed myself of an amazing experience.

i thought The Abyss was spectacular. this is- X100


When they CHOOSE to INJECT a movie with politically loaded speech, it changes it.


But using the media... even a venue like the movies to push political views when that was NOT what was paid for.. is a crock IMO.


im not sure if you have seen this yet Preacher, and no offense to your lifes calling (cause i know you are excellent at it) but i saw more preaching in this thread, than i did in the movie itself.

it was a movie.

the agenda painted out above simply wasnt there unless someone is extremely bored and desperate to reach for something to complain about. (not you per se, but all the anit-military, pro-leftist, hollywood hubbub that what created about it).

ET had just as much of "the govt is the bad guy" feel. :hunch:

ricardisimo
05-23-2010, 05:00 PM
Here was the write-up from a writer I truly enjoy:

The Holocaust We Will Not See
Posted January 11, 2010

Avatar half-tells a story we would all prefer to forget

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 11th January 2010

Avatar, James Cameron’s blockbusting 3-D film, is both profoundly silly and profound. It’s profound because, like most films about aliens, it is a metaphor for contact between different human cultures. But in this case the metaphor is conscious and precise: this is the story of European engagement with the native peoples of the Americas. It’s profoundly silly because engineering a happy ending demands a plot so stupid and predictable that it rips the heart out of the film. The fate of the native Americans is much closer to the story told in another new film, The Road, in which a remnant population flees in terror as it is hunted to extinction.

But this is a story no one wants to hear, because of the challenge it presents to the way we choose to see ourselves. Europe was massively enriched by the genocides in the Americas; the American nations were founded on them. This is a history we cannot accept.

In his book American Holocaust, the US scholar David Stannard documents the greatest acts of genocide the world has ever experienced(1). In 1492, some 100m native peoples lived in the Americas. By the end of the 19th Century almost all of them had been exterminated. Many died as a result of disease. But the mass extinction was also engineered.

When the Spanish arrived in the Americas, they described a world which could scarcely have been more different from their own. Europe was ravaged by war, oppression, slavery, fanaticism, disease and starvation. The populations they encountered were healthy, well-nourished and mostly (with exceptions like the Aztecs and Incas) peacable, democratic and egalitarian. Throughout the Americas the earliest explorers, including Columbus, remarked on the natives’ extraordinary hospitality. The conquistadores marvelled at the amazing roads, canals, buildings and art they found, which in some cases outstripped anything they had seen at home. None of this stopped them from destroying everything and everyone they encountered.

The butchery began with Columbus. He slaughtered the native people of Hispaniola (now Haiti and the Dominican Republic) by unimaginably brutal means. His soldiers tore babies from their mothers and dashed their heads against rocks. They fed their dogs on living children. On one occasion they hung 13 Indians in honour of Christ and the 12 disciples, on a gibbet just low enough for their toes to touch the ground, then disembowelled them and burnt them alive. Columbus ordered all the native people to deliver a certain amount of gold every three months; anyone who failed had his hands cut off. By 1535 the native population of Hispaniola had fallen from 8m to zero: partly as a result of disease, partly as a result of murder, overwork and starvation.

The conquistadores spread this civilising mission across central and south America. When they failed to reveal where their mythical treasures were hidden, the indigenous people were flogged, hanged, drowned, dismembered, ripped apart by dogs, buried alive or burnt. The soldiers cut off women’s breasts, sent people back to their villages with their severed hands and noses hung round their necks and hunted Indians with their dogs for sport. But most were killed by enslavement and disease. The Spanish discovered that it was cheaper to work Indians to death and replace them than to keep them alive: the life expectancy in their mines and plantations was three to four months. Within a century of their arrival, around 95% of the population of South and Central America had been destroyed.

In California during the 18th Century the Spanish systematised this extermination. A Franciscan missionary called Junipero Serra set up a series of “missions”: in reality concentration camps using slave labour. The native people were herded in under force of arms and made to work in the fields on one fifth of the calories fed to African-American slaves in the 19th century. They died from overwork, starvation and disease at astonishing rates, and were continually replaced, wiping out the indigenous populations. Junipero Serra, the Eichmann of California, was beatified by the Vatican in 1988. He now requires one more miracle to be pronounced a saint(2).

While the Spanish were mostly driven by the lust for gold, the British who colonised North America wanted land. In New England they surrounded the villages of the native Americans and murdered them as they slept. As genocide spread westwards, it was endorsed at the highest levels. George Washington ordered the total destruction of the homes and land of the Iroquois. Thomas Jefferson declared that his nation’s wars with the Indians should be pursued until each tribe “is exterminated or is driven beyond the Mississippi”. During the Sand Creek Massacre of 1864, troops in Colorado slaughtered unarmed people gathered under a flag of peace, killing children and babies, mutilating all the corpses and keeping their victims’ genitals to use as tobacco pouches or to wear on their hats. Theodore Roosevelt called this event “as rightful and beneficial a deed as ever took place on the frontier.”

The butchery hasn’t yet ended: last month the Guardian reported that Brazilian ranchers in the western Amazon, having slaughtered all the rest, tried to kill the last surviving member of a forest tribe(3). Yet the greatest acts of genocide in history scarcely ruffle our collective conscience. Perhaps this is what would have happened had the Nazis won the second world war: the Holocaust would have been denied, excused or minimised in the same way, even as it continued. The people of the nations responsible – Spain, Britain, the US and others – will tolerate no comparisons, but the final solutions pursued in the Americas were far more successful. Those who commissioned or endorsed them remain national or religious heroes. Those who seek to prompt our memories are ignored or condemned.

This is why the right hates Avatar. In the neocon Weekly Standard, John Podhoretz complains that the film resembles a “revisionist western” in which “the Indians became the good guys and the Americans the bad guys.”(4) He says it asks the audience “to root for the defeat of American soldiers at the hands of an insurgency.” Insurgency is an interesting word for an attempt to resist invasion: insurgent, like savage, is what you call someone who has something you want. L’Osservatore Romano, the official newspaper of the Vatican, condemned the film as “just … an anti-imperialistic, anti-militaristic parable”(5).

But at least the right knows what it is attacking. In the New York Times the liberal critic Adam Cohen praises Avatar for championing the need to see clearly(6). It reveals, he says, “a well-known principle of totalitarianism and genocide - that it is easiest to oppress those we cannot see”. But in a marvellous unconscious irony, he bypasses the crashingly obvious metaphor and talks instead about the light it casts on Nazi and Soviet atrocities. We have all become skilled in the art of not seeing.

I agree with its rightwing critics that Avatar is crass, mawkish and cliched. But it speaks of a truth more important - and more dangerous - than those contained in a thousand arthouse movies.

www.monbiot.com

References:

1. David E Stannard, 1992. American Holocaust. Oxford University Press. Unless stated otherwise, all the historical events mentioned in this column are sourced to the same book.

2. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-miracle28-2009aug28,0,2804203.story

3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/09/amazon-man-in-hole-attacked

4. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/350fozta.asp

5. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2802155/Vatican-hits-out-at-3D-Avatar.html

6. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/opinion/26sat4.html

Psyychoward86
05-23-2010, 05:17 PM
Avatar= Way overhyped

tony hipchest
05-23-2010, 05:34 PM
nice read rico, but i already know what your post will be met with...

either scoffing at your links or complete denial that the events in the article even took place.

i was able to distance myself from any supposed agenda or deep message this film was alleged to brainwash us with. like i said earlier, sometimes a movie is just a movie, meant to awe, entertain, and take us away from our reality for 2-3 hours.

i thought avitar was a success on several different levels. for one, the plot and concept was a simple enough fantasy, that even my 6 year old daughter could understand and enjoy the film.

i laugh at those who will boycot this film due to a supposed anti-military sentiment just like i do those who think the Star wars saga is preaching about religion.

i definitely saw the similarities to Dances With Wolves, and Pochahontas. but i also saw similarities to the Emerald Forest and Return of the Jedi (where han, luke, and lea sought out the assistance of the ewoks who revered the golden C3PO as a god).

as for the anti-US military sentiment, the movie was more about a giant corporation that was more interested in harvesting unobtainium to kees shareholders quarterly divedends up than it was american conquest of a new land through force. :hunch:

Psyychoward86
05-23-2010, 07:11 PM
i laugh at those who will boycot this film due to a supposed anti-military sentiment just like i do those who think the Star wars saga is preaching about religion.



haha, never heard that one. Explain

Fire Haley
05-23-2010, 07:28 PM
Totally tripping movie.

It's called suspension of disbelief for a reason.

Quit whining and go watch it.

If you can't enjoy a movie, your life is meaningless anyway - jump off a bridge.

ricardisimo
05-23-2010, 07:55 PM
Avatar= Way overhyped

It was an OK movie, nice production value, definitely overhyped, though. The story arc couldn't have been more predictable, though.

ricardisimo
05-23-2010, 08:33 PM
as for the anti-US military sentiment, the movie was more about a giant corporation that was more interested in harvesting unobtainium to kees shareholders quarterly divedends up than it was american conquest of a new land through force. :hunch:

The evil megacorp is always a welcome theme, even in bad films. Robocop is still tops in that regard, I think.

And for the record, it was Upsidaisium they were after in Avatar. Who isn't after Upsidaisium?
http://www.thecontrarianmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/boris_and_natasha_1.jpg

fansince'76
05-23-2010, 09:01 PM
Avatar= Way overhyped

Kinda what I figured, which is mainly why I still haven't seen it.

stillers4me
05-23-2010, 09:49 PM
I liked it. Just enjoy the fantasy.

Fire Haley
05-23-2010, 09:59 PM
It's not fantasy - It's hard core science fiction.

Off-world mining operations running into local fauna is an old theme that's been done 1000's of times.

It's the CGI that is spectacular.

Aussie_steeler
05-24-2010, 03:59 AM
It's the CGI that is spectacular.

I agree totally. It was a stunning visual spectacle.

I happily got lost in the visual treat that it was. Awesome experience in 3D :thumbsup:

Dino 6 Rings
05-24-2010, 12:00 PM
Ok, here is my take on Avatar. I've sat through it twice now.

First, I'm going to take out the "politics" of the movie. yeah, we all get it, bunch of humans destroy species of aliens for resources. Ok, I get it. Pocahantus meets Fern Gulley meets Dances with Wolves. Fine, I get that. Here are my problems with the movie, from a Movie Fan point of view and a Sci Fi point of view.

First off, what is wrong with the air that humans need masks to breath it? I still don't understand that and I've sat through it twice now. Next up, how do those mountains float exactly? Or at least, hint to me an explaination. Please. Ok, they float, that's cool, that looks "cool" but how do they float? Are they filled with some type of gas? Easy just mention it.

Next, cursing, really? Do we need cursing? Do I need to hear Shiiit 10 or more times in a movie that is targetting kids? really? PG 13 fine, does that now mean the only words you cant use are Skunt and Fudck? Really? On top of that, character development was super weak. Yeah, the Bad Guy Mercenary General is the most patheticly steriotypical bad guy general I've ever seen. I mean, down to the point he's drinking effing coffee when they are bombing the "disney" Tree of Life? Really? I mean really? He's that big of an a-hole huh?

Unobtainium? really, the resource is called UN OBTAINIUM? How effing lame is that? Not Obtainable? Really? That's so effing weak sauce its like an 8 year old wrote some of this stuff.

Visually, Stunning, except, not realistic, and what I mean by that isn't that its Sci Fi, what I mean is, when the Marine (from the tribe Jar Head) is running form the Cat/Dog monster and its digging after him, the dog monster doesn't get a single cut on its body. Sure the CG is good, but come on, hasn't anyone ever seen a documentary that has any animal digging for grubs or food? They get cuts on their arms or snout. This thing, nothing, perfectly CG'd right up to the part where it bows down to the gal (pocahantus) and lets her ride it. Seriously...if you're going to be a 300 million dollar movie, make an effort.

And flying monkies things get one moment on screen then nothing. At least the Hammerhead Rhino's get a second appearance. Which for the record, when the Mother Earth comes to the Aid of the Blue People, I get this sudden urge to turn on Lord of the Rings Return of the King and watch the ride of the Rohirrim since its basically the same thing. Ready for the set up? (Good guys have no hope, all is lost, then suddenly HOPE!) Yeah, never seen that before.

But beyond that. The Sci Fi is pretty weak because nothing is explained other than the Trees talk to each other with electronic signals (fern gulley) and the oppressed natives rise up (battle of little big horn) and kick out the invaders killing their General (Custer) and winning in the end.

Now, for some reference. Here are Movies I truly enjoy with good stories and what not.

Usual Suspects
Jaws
Exorcist
Princess Bride
Arsenic and Old Lace
LOTR
Star Wars
Citizen Kane (actually took me a long time to come around to seeing it because of how often I was told it was a great film, sat through it finally and enjoyed the heck out of it.)
Patton
Alien (first one only)
The Good the Bad the Ugly
The Departed
Last of the Mohicans
Dances with Wolves
No Country for Old Men
Oh Brother Where are Thou
Indiana Jones I and III

On and On and On, I could name 500 movies that are Better than Avatar, as stories and just flat out better enjoyment. If not for the bells and whistles of 3D, Avatar would be considered like the Abyss. (which is under rated in my opinion but no one wants to believe that because they ran out of money during production and the end scene is horrible.)

Bng_Hevn
05-24-2010, 12:07 PM
No Tony, its not.

When they CHOOSE to INJECT a movie with politically loaded speech, it changes it.

There are plenty of ways to do it differently.

Once again, I go back to Independence Day, which came out just after Clinton's screwups in Africa. yet that movie, a place RIPE for political statements, made none.

There are a numaber of movies that have played politics. Fortunately, most of them have bombed lately.

Are you thinking of Black Hawk Down?

Fire Haley
05-24-2010, 12:10 PM
On and On and On,

Smoke another bowl and have some popcorn, it's just a movie.

revefsreleets
05-24-2010, 12:23 PM
Two things: The floating mountains were stolen from Roger Dean, famous for trippy "yes" album covers. The explanation for why they float is that they are rich in Unobtainium, and the magnetic field created repels them from the surface.

Secondly, yes, it was just an average movie...but the 3D effects pushed the whole industry forward and I think the recognition is more for pioneering technology then for plot and story.

Dino 6 Rings
05-24-2010, 12:25 PM
Two things: The floating mountains were stolen from Roger Dean, famous for trippy "yes" album covers. The explanation for why they float is that they are rich in Unobtainium, and the magnetic field created repels them from the surface.

Secondly, yes, it was just an average movie...but the 3D effects pushed the whole industry forward and I think the recognition is more for pioneering technology then for plot and story.

thanks for the explaination on the mountains

As for the 3D effects, I say, is about time someone "stole" the same technology that Disney has been using in house for at least 15 years. Started with "honey I shrunk the audience" and they use it all the time now down there in their theme parks. So I guess I found that part less impressive since I've seen it before and figured it was just about time it made it main stream.

Dino 6 Rings
05-24-2010, 12:26 PM
Smoke another bowl and have some popcorn, it's just a movie.

Yeah, I get that its just a movie, and that's kind of my point, it was just "another movie" nothing spectacular other than the 3D stuff they are using now.

That's it. Sure it now pushes others to compete in the 3D aspect of film making but I also like a good story and if its sci fi, at least some basis for things I see.

Oh, and the natives vs mechanized army...Pretty sure Lucas already did that, only his aliens were small and fury and had some help from the rebels while fighting off the empire on endor's moon.

revefsreleets
05-24-2010, 12:27 PM
Actually, it's a new technology...I don't understand all the tech, but Cameron did develop the technology just for Avatar.

Dino 6 Rings
05-24-2010, 12:36 PM
Actually, it's a new technology...I don't understand all the tech, but Cameron did develop the technology just for Avatar.

Oh, he can call it "original" but its the same stuff Disney was using, maybe he tweeked it a little, but basically, its not the Blue Red lense crap anymore, so bonus to the industry for finally moving past that. My point was its been that way down in Orlando for years. Only, they make it interactive because each "movie" show is only like 8 - 10 minuts long and they rig the theatre to get you wet, or push smoke into your face, or have things run under your butt and make you scream when the bugs get out...stuff like that.

So its great that a dying industry is getting a push (I mean theatres, not movies) however I guess that's why I wasn't too impressed with the 3D aspect. Sure its "new" for him, but really, its been done before, just not at the mass audience level for 2-1/2 hour films.

Next up, 3D TV, 3D Xbox, 3D Playstation.

Fire Haley
05-24-2010, 01:06 PM
Two things: The floating mountains were stolen from Roger Dean, famous for trippy "yes" album covers. The explanation for why they float is that they are rich in Unobtainium, and the magnetic field created repels them from the surface.

Secondly, yes, it was just an average movie...but the 3D effects pushed the whole industry forward and I think the recognition is more for pioneering technology then for plot and story.

Rev makes so much sense when he's sober


I've read the "gaia" world-is-a-living organism plot a lot too.

Especially the "everything down there will kill you" scenario.

Filthy aliens.
Kill them all and let the elder gods sort them out, I say.


Ripley would agree.

SteelCityMom
05-24-2010, 02:17 PM
James Cameron has become lazy in plot details over the years. He's in it for the money only.

Terminator, Aliens (almost better than the original) and The Abyss are great movies...plot wise and visuals. I've refused to see anything of his post True Lies. That includes Titanic and Avatar. Visuals may be great, but without a good storyline I could care less. After a couple months of deliberating I've decided this should be one of the movies on my banned list. I just don't think it's a movie I could get into and I doubt I'm missing much.

revefsreleets
05-24-2010, 03:33 PM
Tech explained (to some degree at least).

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/digital/visual-effects/4339455?page=1

Also, it's dismissive to say Cameron is only after money. Any of these HUGE projects could flop on their face...he takes big risks, and there have, so far, been big rewards, precisely because he can overcome less-than-stellar writing with humongous "WOW" factors.

You should see the movie, in 3-D, simply for that....

Fire Haley
05-24-2010, 03:45 PM
Let the Luddites cower in their caves - I want to see the sequel.


James Cameron: The 'Avatar' sequel will dive into the oceans of Pandora

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2010/04/james-cameron-talks-the-enironment-the-avatar-sequel-and-more.html

Dino 6 Rings
05-24-2010, 03:52 PM
The scene where the marine runs from the cat/dog monster and jumps into the river, I yelled, "get out of the effing water!" I figured he had no idea what was in the river.

Hopefully, the oceanic aspect gets into more of deeper plot with explainations and isn't just "take the resources!" type of movie.

Abyss was really a good film, just the ending bit the dust.

revefsreleets
05-24-2010, 03:55 PM
I don't know why he has a hard-on for filming underwater. You HAVE to use some real water, and it's notorious for cost overruns and technical problems....it's a difficult medium to work in.

Fire Haley
05-24-2010, 04:20 PM
whatever

I still like Flash Gordon too

no matter what the film critic snobs say

devilsdancefloor
05-24-2010, 04:34 PM
whatever

I still like Flash Gordon too

no matter what the film critic snobs say

the only problem i have with flash gordon is this:

"Flash Gordon. Quarterback. New York Jets." :wink02:
but i still like it as well

Dino 6 Rings
05-24-2010, 04:40 PM
whatever

I still like Flash Gordon too

no matter what the film critic snobs say

Seriously..one of the best movies ever!

I can watch that movie without ever changing the channel. Plus, Ming's Daughter is HOT!

And Ming is a pretty good bad guy, and the HawkMen rule!

"Dive!"

"Flying blind on a hawk cycle?" Great line!

Fire Haley
05-24-2010, 04:49 PM
Maybe the next one can have some alien tentacle sex scenes, to spice it up for the old folks

Dino 6 Rings
05-24-2010, 04:52 PM
Maybe the next one can have some alien tentacle sex scenes, to spice it up for the old folks

See, now that's just a little too risky for even Cameron. Althought the phalic like hair melding with the animal connection was a little iffy.

Godzilla 2012, counting down the days!

SteelCityMom
05-24-2010, 04:54 PM
Tech explained (to some degree at least).

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/digital/visual-effects/4339455?page=1

Also, it's dismissive to say Cameron is only after money. Any of these HUGE projects could flop on their face...he takes big risks, and there have, so far, been big rewards, precisely because he can overcome less-than-stellar writing with humongous "WOW" factors.

You should see the movie, in 3-D, simply for that....

No, IMO, Kubrik, Argento, Kurosawa, Hitchc.ock, Scorsese, Ridley Scott (and others)....they took risks.

Cameron (again IMO) takes the same kinds of risks that Michael Bay takes. Got a crappy plot line? Throw in some explosions and killer special effects to make up for it. Maybe twist a historic story and make it into a love fest for the girls (Pearl Harbor - Titanic anyone?).

His early stuff I dug, but when you really look at what all Cameron has done as a writer/director/producer...it's all been very safe. He doesn't take many risks.

Dino 6 Rings
05-24-2010, 05:03 PM
Let me throw this out there, King Kong, by Peter Jackson, great visually, but the entire movie was Ruined because of bad casting. Jack Black was horrible in the role as Denham. Put Kevin Spacey or Tom Hanks in that role and the movie is outstanding, even with the other weak cast members. It needed someone to carry the "villian" role, or at least corporate movie doucche to a higher level. Black failed. The Movie Failed for that reason.

And visually, it was freaking awesome.

revefsreleets
05-24-2010, 07:07 PM
No, IMO, Kubrik, Argento, Kurosawa, Hitchc.ock, Scorsese, Ridley Scott (and others)....they took risks.

Cameron (again IMO) takes the same kinds of risks that Michael Bay takes. Got a crappy plot line? Throw in some explosions and killer special effects to make up for it. Maybe twist a historic story and make it into a love fest for the girls (Pearl Harbor - Titanic anyone?).

His early stuff I dug, but when you really look at what all Cameron has done as a writer/director/producer...it's all been very safe. He doesn't take many risks.

Money risks.

Do you know how much Titanic cost to make? How long the schedule ran over? How over budget the flick was? The studios were shitting bricks!

I'm not going to argue....what's the point? But Cameron has taken HUGE risks that even the studios were sure would fail and cost them millions over and over again, and he's delivered BILLIONS.

But what do I know....

WH
05-25-2010, 04:23 AM
His money risks equate to buying 300 million dollars of ketchup so you can take it to the worlds largest hamburger convention. its a safe bet that you will see return.

revefsreleets
05-25-2010, 08:24 AM
His money risks equate to buying 300 million dollars of ketchup so you can take it to the worlds largest hamburger convention. its a safe bet that you will see return.

Not on Titanic...it cost 200 million to make. It's opening weekend was only 28 million. They projected it would need to earn 350 million worldwide to become a profitable movie, and the studios were in an absolute panic (I believe it took two studios to finance it, one handling the domestic gross, the other the international as a return) at that relatively modest opening...there was NOTHING safe about that movie.

WH
05-25-2010, 08:48 AM
Not on Titanic...it cost 200 million to make. It's opening weekend was only 28 million. They projected it would need to earn 350 million worldwide to become a profitable movie, and the studios were in an absolute panic (I believe it took two studios to finance it, one handling the domestic gross, the other the international as a return) at that relatively modest opening...there was NOTHING safe about that movie.

I thought you were talking about Avatar specifically. sorry, you're right about Titanic, it was a risk.

There was, however, a sure thing with that movie. That F"#¤ing Celine Dion song. Too many people are suckers for that vitrol.

Dino 6 Rings
05-25-2010, 11:22 AM
I thought you were talking about Avatar specifically. sorry, you're right about Titanic, it was a risk.

There was, however, a sure thing with that movie. That F"#¤ing Celine Dion song. Too many people are suckers for that vitrol.

Well it became like Ghost, a total Chick Flick and the women kept going back again and again to see the film.

Also it hurts the industry as a whole now that these movies go to DVD so fast.

I mean, Alice in Wonderland is coming out next week right? it was in the theatres like 3 weeks ago it seems.

It would be better for the industry to make it at least a 9 month wait before it goes to DVD. I'm one of the people that finds it hard to take a family of 4 to the movies at the cost it is these days.

12 bucks a ticket, 4 bucks each for popcorn, 3 bucks for soda...on and on...its so not worth it. Someone had better be rubbing my feet and licking my toes clean for that kind of money.

WH
05-25-2010, 11:56 AM
Well it became like Ghost, a total Chick Flick and the women kept going back again and again to see the film.

Also it hurts the industry as a whole now that these movies go to DVD so fast.

I mean, Alice in Wonderland is coming out next week right? it was in the theatres like 3 weeks ago it seems.

It would be better for the industry to make it at least a 9 month wait before it goes to DVD. I'm one of the people that finds it hard to take a family of 4 to the movies at the cost it is these days.

12 bucks a ticket, 4 bucks each for popcorn, 3 bucks for soda...on and on...its so not worth it. Someone had better be rubbing my feet and licking my toes clean for that kind of money.
Wait til it hits the cheap theatre, get 1 tub of popcorn, sneak in the drinks and 2 bags a swedish fish. Jackpot! I'm sure you can find some sorority sister drunk enough to lick your toes for free. :wink02:

The Patriot
05-25-2010, 04:32 PM
Did anybody else catch the American flag in the bad guy's lair? :rolleyes:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_iSwCsgcQqEM/SyYBSj_F50I/AAAAAAAAANc/efVGALjjwLI/s400/Screenshot-YouTube+-+Avatar+-+Not+In+Kansas+Anymore+Clip+%5BHD%5D+-+Mozilla+Firefox.png

WH
05-25-2010, 05:09 PM
Did anybody else catch the American flag in the bad guy's lair? :rolleyes:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_iSwCsgcQqEM/SyYBSj_F50I/AAAAAAAAANc/efVGALjjwLI/s400/Screenshot-YouTube+-+Avatar+-+Not+In+Kansas+Anymore+Clip+%5BHD%5D+-+Mozilla+Firefox.png

wow. no i didn't. that's ****in' lame.

tony hipchest
05-25-2010, 06:24 PM
Did anybody else catch the American flag in the bad guy's lair? :rolleyes:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_iSwCsgcQqEM/SyYBSj_F50I/AAAAAAAAANc/efVGALjjwLI/s400/Screenshot-YouTube+-+Avatar+-+Not+In+Kansas+Anymore+Clip+%5BHD%5D+-+Mozilla+Firefox.png

i didnt even catch it while watching the movie but saw the picture in the other thread. i thought it was pretty cool and even got the 13 stripes right.

personally im glad cameron included that little clue, cause i thought the earthlings were representatives of the british empire, until it was pointed out that they were american.

maybe more people woulda been more receptive to seeing this film if the invading "aliens" were chinese or russian, and it were their military members who died in the battles. :rolleyes:

jackie chan coulda been the avitar from the 'jar head' clan! :applaudit:

dolph lundgren coulda been the evil colnel! :thumbsup:

SteelCityMom
05-25-2010, 07:08 PM
Money risks.

Do you know how much Titanic cost to make? How long the schedule ran over? How over budget the flick was? The studios were shitting bricks!

I'm not going to argue....what's the point? But Cameron has taken HUGE risks that even the studios were sure would fail and cost them millions over and over again, and he's delivered BILLIONS.

But what do I know....

I'm not saying you don't know anything...It's just when I think of directors/producers/writers that take risks, he's about the last one I think of. Typically if a director has NEVER had a movie truly fail in his career you can usually surmise that he's rarely ever taken a giant leap. Hell, to find his biggest flop you'd have to go back to his first full length film that he directed (Pirahna 2 - 1981)...but even that was kind of safe since the first one was something of a hit in its time. That's about it. Some might say that means he's just very good at his job, I think he just plays it very, very safe. He's had equally short lists of films he's written/directed/produced and all but one have been big moneymakers. A director who takes risks (for 25+years) has a longer list than 8 movie released films.

If I had to pick one movie though where I felt he took a big risk it would be Terminator. Only semi-big name in that movie was Arnold, and that was still pretty early in his career. A sci-fi flick with no big names on a large budget (for the time) that turned out to be one of the biggest money making movie machines is a job well done.

Titanic had Leo and Kate Blanchett with a song by Celine that had already reached number one before the movie came out. Plus it was smeared all over the TV for months. Sure, maybe he had some issues with getting it done on time, but James Cameron knows people and has never been short on investors. The people who gave him money for that movie KNEW they would be getting it back ten-fold. Same with Avatar. Safe movie.

ricardisimo
05-25-2010, 07:25 PM
I'm with SCM on just about all points... except the Blanchett part. :wink02:

He's a decent director within the Hollywood movie machine model. He's not what I would call an artist. If I had to pick one film to say "Hey, good job" it would be Aliens, not so much Terminator.

The Patriot
05-25-2010, 07:26 PM
i didnt even catch it while watching the movie but saw the picture in the other thread. i thought it was pretty cool and even got the 13 stripes right.

personally im glad cameron included that little clue, cause i thought the earthlings were representatives of the british empire, until it was pointed out that they were american.

maybe more people woulda been more receptive to seeing this film if the invading "aliens" were chinese or russian, and it were their military members who died in the battles. :rolleyes:

jackie chan coulda been the avitar from the 'jar head' clan! :applaudit:

dolph lundgren coulda been the evil colnel! :thumbsup:

That's why they made Indiana Jones 4.

But that's a good point though. It's not like we care about the Russian soldiers in Red Dawn.

SteelCityMom
05-25-2010, 07:59 PM
I'm with SCM on just about all points... except the Blanchett part. :wink02:

He's a decent director within the Hollywood movie machine model. He's not what I would call an artist. If I had to pick one film to say "Hey, good job" it would be Aliens, not so much Terminator.

My bad, Kate Winslet. I still haven't seen that movie...and plan on keeping it that way.

revefsreleets
05-26-2010, 07:36 AM
The budget for the first Terminator movie was 6.5 million, a low budget flick by any standard, even in '84 dollars. In fact, it was a true "indie" flick.

Again, and this was covered, but it bears repeating, Titanic was anything but a sure bet. Leo wasn't anything near a star, and Cate Winslett was almost unknown. There was so much risk it took two studios to finance. In fact, Titanic is probably the apotheosis of Hollywood risk. The studios were in a panic and they were pretty sure after a soft opening they would lose 100 million easy.

This is all irrelevant anyway. Avatar is stunning visually and anyone who denies seeing it for some vague notion of protest against the director is simply robbing themselves of a treat for their eyes.

SteelCityMom
05-26-2010, 11:13 AM
I don't hate James Cameron...I just don't want to sit through a 2 and a half hour crap plotline for great visuals. That's why I never saw Titanic either...I already knew how it ended. I don't see films for stunning visuals alone, let alone pay money for it.

And I never stated that Leo and Kate were huge stars like Brad and Angelina or anything...but both were far from unknowns. Kate had just done Hamlet and Sense and Sensibility (and a few other movies) and Leo had just been in the mega-chick flick Romeo and Juliet (though I preferred him in The Basketball Diaries).

I know what you mean when you bring up the budget and time constraints...movie studios don't like that kind of pressure, but I still don't think anybody really thought that movie would flop.

As far as Titanic having a soft opening, it ranked number 1 after opening weekend....and stayed at number 1 for 15 weeks in the US and Canada. I know 28 million in a weekend might sound soft now, but if you account for ticket inflation, today Titanic would have made 45 million on its opening weekend. Avatar made more, but that's to be expected I suppose...since it cost more and took longer to make.

I still don't think he's a director that takes risks. Did the movie studios take a chance on him? Sure, I guess. But both Paramount and 20th Century were funding him...not like he was taking some sort of huge risk on some smaller, hardly known movie studio.

Dino 6 Rings
05-26-2010, 04:32 PM
i didnt even catch it while watching the movie but saw the picture in the other thread. i thought it was pretty cool and even got the 13 stripes right.

personally im glad cameron included that little clue, cause i thought the earthlings were representatives of the british empire, until it was pointed out that they were american.

maybe more people woulda been more receptive to seeing this film if the invading "aliens" were chinese or russian, and it were their military members who died in the battles. :rolleyes:

jackie chan coulda been the avitar from the 'jar head' clan! :applaudit:

dolph lundgren coulda been the evil colnel! :thumbsup:

wasnt the Empire in Star wars the Brits and the "rebels" the American revolutionaries? pretty sure that's been tied together.

Dino 6 Rings
05-26-2010, 04:36 PM
but ya know, one, just one Merc with an accent other than standard English, or a non white playing a lead as one of the bad guys, like an Asian as the Corp Exec, or the black dude from the Old Spice Commercials (BUILDING KICK!) as one of the head Marines, or something, would have made it not so much anti-American feeling and more anti-human, which I can deal with. Put them in Blue uniforms, make them UN-esc. Like a united planetary of suckholes vs an alien species, not just Americans being jackholes.

Ya know what I mean? Want to say all humans suck, I'm on board, want to say only white americans suck, I get a little insulted.