Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

It's not that bad luxury. See it drunk.

$617.3m worldwide so far.

Wow if you thought avatar sucked and was JUST "eye candy" you have some MAJOR disorders (probably ADD or some form of mental retardation.)

And I am not even kidding. Many people have problems where they cannot make connections and cannot pay attention to things. Really, you cannot like any movie if Avatar sucked.

At 12/19/09 10:33 PM, Eclipse914 wrote: I saw the commercials too, and to me it looked really really shitty and corny. The general guy looked like he was on some sort of super-steroids, and there is no background to it. Its just a big 3D shootout.

It looked like shit from the trailers, I don't give a damn, I wouldn't see it anyway.

What is this shit? All you guys are saying the movies sucks and have not even seen it. LOOK, before I saw it I thought it would suck but honestly it is amazing.

I thought the movie was good.

I mean, the story was shit. Truly terrible. Had one of the worst screenplays I've seen in a film. It felt like it was written by a 13 year old who had seen Dances with Wolves or Pocahontas or something, and thought it would be better if it was in space.

It's littered with cliches. The dialogue is awkward. The characters are stereotypes (Jesus Christ, that Colonel is one of the most one-dimensional characters I've ever seen). The MacGuffin is called 'unobtanium' and they don't even explain why they need it (I guess it's a superconductor or something, maybe?). The language the Na'vi (Hey! Listen!) speak sounds like a made-up language. I didn't really care much about any of the one-dimensional eco-harmonious nature loving battle smurfs.

The conservationist message falls flat when you consider the fact that they only care about keeping the forest intact because otherwise the intelligent Na'vi will be fucked over (the human analogues). They don't give a shit about what happens to the actual alien animals (the Earth animal analogues). Considering James Cameron is all about saving the animals, the message really doesn't work. Nobody's really worried about how cutting down rainforests is going to displace humans (directly).

However, the action scenes were a lot of fun, and the CGI and 3D were very impressive. I was even able to get past the fact that the designs looked like a mix of Final Fantasy and Halo.

It's an effects movie. I liked it because the cool effects and great action were able to make me see past the film's obvious flaws (like, say, Terminator 2). James Cameron sure knows how to spend 300 million dollars.

It's about half an hour too long, though.

It's really just "Pocahontas 3000: 3-D."

It's easy to recognize the parts of Avatar that James Cameron had been waiting to mold into a movie: the discovery of an alien planet and race; the decline of Earth; the concept of telepathically controlling a sentient, lab-grown, humanoid being; etc.

These aspects honestly could have been paired with his experienced directing and lovingly crafted into a beautiful tale if the movie had been six hours long. But it wasn't, so Cameron had to cut corners here and there. He flattened every character personality (except the protagonist) and forced them to correspond to the cliched dichotemy of "Save the ____" or "Kill 'em / exploit the land." The dialogue is terrible and interactions between the characters just aren't organic; all social interaction in this movie creates a niggling little feeling in the back of your mind, telling you, "This has been done before."

And it morphed into a very thinly-veiled political message, especially in the latter half of the film...but the movie doesn't work without the culturally-friendly message it conveys, so you've gotta take it as a whole.

See it, really, but don't expect it to be memorable.

I've finally watched it, and I actually quite enjoyed it. I can understand why people see the movie as nothing but great special effects, though - it can be very distracting. Other than that, I think if you throw away all the hype that has been shared, it's a rather good film. Just my opinion there, so don't get all pissy if you hated Avatar...

At 12/18/09 07:20 AM, Zeekyboogydoog wrote:

At 12/18/09 07:18 AM, poxpower wrote: If I ever see it, I have extremely low expectations.
I'm sure it's going to be some Pocahontas-like piece of shit love story that's supposed to be REALLY about the earth or some cheesy crap.

NO THANKS.

I want the real Avatar movie about the cartoon... are they making that? That could be decent.

Yeah they're making that. It's called "The Last Airbender", set to come out sometime next year.

It's going to be made by M. Night shamamfjadflsda, however the hell you pronounce his name, I just hope it will take after the cartoon series more instead of doing what hollywood does and cut the good stuff out.

At 12/18/09 09:00 AM, BananaBreadMuffin wrote: I still stand by my guns, I really liked it.

Same here, great movie!

I liked the film.

My opinion, not yours.

I never plan on watching that movie, I have already settled for District 9 as sci-fi movie of the year also.

At 12/20/09 09:39 PM, Obvious-M wrote: Jake was all talk no walk.

Seriously though, that was the best sci-fi film I've ever seen nothing can compare, it's so immersive everything looks so real, did you also see Jake's legs? I thought he was a disabled actor. :o

I wish I was Na'Vi so bad right now. :(

Is he actually in a wheelchair? I saw his legs, and they were so skinny, I assumed he was. Anyway, I loved the movie.

Hey, Hey........ Dances With Wolves.

$800 million so far.

At 12/18/09 07:20 AM, Zeekyboogydoog wrote: Yeah they're making that. It's called "The Last Airbender", set to come out sometime next year.

They're making this but not a Bioshock movie?

Whyy?!

At 1/1/10 04:17 PM, HazeStigma wrote:

At 12/18/09 07:20 AM, Zeekyboogydoog wrote: Yeah they're making that. It's called "The Last Airbender", set to come out sometime next year.

They're making this but not a Bioshock movie?

Whyy?!

avatar: the last airbender is by far better than bioshock

thats why

At 12/23/09 03:40 PM, Helicopterz wrote: Frank's just mad because he has a new blue fetish now.

So do i :P

Just saw the movie and I gotta say...

Fuck year.

Now, onto the quest to find Rule 34 of this amazing film.

Heres how they make movies now.

Producer: Lol hay guys! i gotz this great idea for a movie its got the best graphics money can buy, and the advertiseing has it so hyped up that everyone will see it!

Director: Hows the plot?

Producer: The what?

I liked it.

Though the main bad guy (Who was awesome) had the most clichéd death I have ever seen

It looks like it's going to be the kind of movie I only pay attention to during an explosion.

Just another movie like Waterworld. An over hyped overbudgeted piece of shit with gimmicky "groundbreaking" effects.

At 1/1/10 08:24 PM, nerdking wrote: Heres how they make movies now.

Producer: Lol hay guys! i gotz this great idea for a movie its got the best graphics money can buy, and the advertiseing has it so hyped up that everyone will see it!

Director: Hows the plot?

Producer: The what?

What are you talking about it had a concrete plot.

At 1/1/10 09:38 PM, Obvious-M wrote:

What are you talking about it had a concrete plot.

Maybe, but it wasn't original. I'll say it again, Dances With Wolves

I will admit i liked the movie but they ripped off so much crap that it just seemed like the director ran out of ideas

P.S. districk 9 was a better movie anyway

Just watched it last night, and I thought it was pretty good. Sure, lots of explosions, but I found it had a pretty good plot to it.

Absolutely breathtaking in 3D. Couldn't give a shit about the lack of plot when shit looks that good.

At 12/18/09 07:05 AM, Frank wrote: I just couldn't get into it. It was just way too conventional and cheesy.
So I'm asking you guys, was anyone else disappointed?

THANK YOU GOD!
FINALLY someone speaks the truth! I hated that movie with a passion, although I still worship the special affects supervisor. But, the director should go die in a fire. Way too cheesy.

At 1/1/10 09:44 PM, TheSporkLord wrote:

At 1/1/10 09:38 PM, Obvious-M wrote:

What are you talking about it had a concrete plot.

Maybe, but it wasn't original. I'll say it again, Dances With Wolves

It had a pretty similar concept to Dances With Wolves.

The same can be said for other films, there are bound to be similarities between films, Cameron took the concept and adapted it. I'm not going to dislike the film any less because a while back someone made a film similar.

At 12/18/09 08:47 AM, Lost-Wisdom wrote:

At 12/18/09 07:08 AM, HighWayStar365 wrote: All it was is just 3d eye candy. No real plot, just explosions and shit.

I thought the main victim of that would be the movie 2012.

Don't even get me started on that movie.

At 1/1/10 08:24 PM, nerdking wrote: Heres how they make movies now.

Producer: Lol hay guys! i gotz this great idea for a movie its got the best graphics money can buy, and the advertiseing has it so hyped up that everyone will see it!

Director: Hows the plot?

Producer: The what?

yeah except cameron was the producer and director and screenwriter and you don't know how the industry works.