DescentBB

Storyline: meh

Scenery: pretty...neat

3D: big meh...hasn't improved at all since the old 70s 3D movies

Overall...meh

lol

... they did this in the 70's???

never heard of it. Story looked kinda silly so it never interested me.

hmf. *shrug*

I'd say I sense sarcasm but we have a traditionally overly negative person on our hands here... >.<

No sarcasm...just a mediocre movie...pretty effects...and lackluster 3D.

Polarized projector with 3D \"glasses\" you have to wear to watch. Just causes eye strain and a headache.

The image is dimmed quite a bit since only 50% of the light projected reaches both of your eyes.

\"House of Wax\" was the last 3D movie I saw...back when I was a kid in the 70s... Vincent Price.

I saw the non-3D version. Was good.

ThunderBunny wrote:Overall...meh

What did you expect from the director who made "Titanic".. You need to lower your expectations accordingly

Grendel wrote:

ThunderBunny wrote:Overall...meh

What did you expect from the director who made "Titanic".. You need to lower your expectations accordingly

Agreed!

I saw it in digital 3D (not imax).
It was fantastic.
worth seeing (and paying for) again.

Saw it with my wife in 3D.

My all time favorite movie evAr.

Grendel wrote:

ThunderBunny wrote:Overall...meh

What did you expect from the director who made "Titanic".. You need to lower your expectations accordingly

but he also did Aliens, one of my all time favourites!

If you like strobe lights…

How about 'The Abyss'? I thought that was a pretty good movie, even though the reviewers panned it.

and the two good Terminators.

James Cameron can turn out a 3 hour epic about grass growing for all I care, because he made the 2 greatest movies to ever grace us mortals: Terminator 1 and Terminator 2.

But I'm about to see Avatar tonight, IMAX 3D

I really loved this movie. Had a couple of storyline cliches but overall I thought it was awesome. There's no other way to put this, but that I even fell in love with the characters too.

Makes me not like this world were living in...

my wife and I saw it yesterday in 3D, it had its moments but other than that the 3D was the story line was Dances with Wolves meets Starship Troopers. it was pure and simple a modern day native American Indian saga. the CGI was great tho. but it was purely a 1 timer. if it hadn't been for the fact that my kids bought us tickets for Christmas I would not have spent the $10.50 to see it. all in all I give it 2/12 stars

Uncomplicated story, doesn't mean it was bad, just that it wasn't deep. Visually the movie was excellent. The buzz on the Something Awful forums is that Avatar is the proving grounds for the technology that James Cameron wants to use in order to make a Battle Angel Alita movie (trilogy). Also Avatar (assuming it makes enough money) is going to be a trilogy.

I cried when the Home Tree fell.

woodchip wrote:I cried when the Home Tree fell.

I admire you

Just saw it yesterday (non 3d). Storyline was decent, not something I would go buy though. Graphics were amazing. If you put a costume and the renders side by side, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Animation was usually good - the horses didn't seem fluid when I first saw them running though. Later I didn't notice.

I loved it. Storyline was predictable, but the visuals and characters were believable. Human tech looked awesome. Saw it in 3D which looked amazing.


And if anyone's a stickler for physics yelling \"how are those darn mountains floating!?!?\" Well, remember when they first flew into them and their instruments went screwy because of the electromagnetic vortex? Here's the Wikipedia explaination from Hellbender which had the same exact thing going on.

-Asteroids and comets entering the planet's atmosphere were electromagnetically repelled by the planet's surface elements. Trapped within the atmosphere, they were crushed by Eyrie's (Pandora's) gravitational forces and reconfigured into \"floating\" mountains above the planet's surface. Dust not yet compressed into mountains forms a green-blue (whatever color the debris happens to be) mist that envelops the highest mountain peaks.

Why isn't the metal gunship shoved around by the field and gravity? Wrong charge in its atoms, most likely.


Yes, I pride myself in knowing that definition.

Is Pandora really a planet? It looked like a moon orbiting a gas giant. Which would help explain its microgravity...

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Pandora is a moon orbiting another planet. Too bad the movie didn't get into any of that detail of explanation.

Nice idea NUMBERZero. I just figured the \"unobtanium\" in the mountains was what interacted with the \"flux\" to make the mountains float. Seems like that planet/moon had a pretty strong magnetic field.

All in all I loved the movie. Yes this story was done before but I think it was done extremely well this time. Would have been nice to have more explanation of some of the science but that would have probably distracted people from the story and characters. I didn't expect to go into the theater to get a science lesson anyway, I wanted an exciting experience and got one.

I read an interview with Cameron about the whole floating mountains. He did get the idea, like what was mentioned, of them being suspended by magnetic forces, but he also said that scientists say the magnets would be so strong, they would rip the iron right out of your blood.

The humans must have had a no iron diet.

Yes, Pandora is a moon.

Those little attack craft reminded me of Raptors - except with wings.

I just saw it, and liked it.

It reminded me a lot of Fern Gully.

LOL!!

That's great Issac!

Isaac wrote:http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/3867/poca2u.jpg

lol, amusing. That almost works! Avatar did remind me of Pocahontas when I watched it.

Krom wrote:Also Avatar (assuming it makes enough money) is going to be a trilogy.

$1,000,000,000 and counting... I reckon they're drafting the next script right now...

Already a billion? Awesome! The next movie will probably have an original storyline. I think this movie was just to test with a storyline tried and true.

Krom wrote: Also Avatar (assuming it makes enough money) is going to be a trilogy.

Nooooo! Why does every successful movie have to be trilogized? Cant it just stand on its own as an original idea, and then move on to the next original idea?

Oh right this is Hollywood, nevermind.

Krom wrote:Uncomplicated story, doesn't mean it was bad, just that it wasn't deep. Visually the movie was excellent. The buzz on the Something Awful forums is that Avatar is the proving grounds for the technology that James Cameron wants to use in order to make a Battle Angel Alita movie (trilogy). Also Avatar (assuming it makes enough money) is going to be a trilogy.

Yup:
"So I feel like I have to make a second one now, but that'll only happen if we make some money with the first one. So we'll see... I have a story worked out for the second film, and the third film, but my lips are sealed." James Cameron

Top Wop wrote:Nooooo! Why does every successful movie have to be trilogized? Cant it just stand on its own as an original idea, and then move on to the next original idea?

Oh right this is Hollywood, nevermind.

Small thing to be grateful for: James Cameron's biggest hit didn't have a sequel.

But where would we be without the Aliens series.

Personally, I'm looking forward to a Avatar game.

woodchip wrote:But where would we be without the Aliens series.

Personally, I'm looking forward to a Avatar game.

I'm not sure why, but envisioning an Avatar game popped up images of Starcraft... Just think, if Avatar had a third, super-advanced race, it'd fit really nicely.

There already is one if I recall (a game based on the movie). No idea whether it's any good, but they usually aren't.

woodchip wrote: Personally, I'm looking forward to a Avatar game.

Then get it, it came out the same day as the movie. I watched　a review on it, one main draw back with the game is it's apparently no fun to play as a Navi because you only get bows and arrows as weapons. But as a human you get tons more and it's more fun. It isn't the movie's storyline so that's a plus though.

The game asumes that you have seen the movie, so you DON'T know the storyline if you haven't seen it. It does a bad job telling the story. They have so many objects on screen at one time that it sometimes chuggs....But don't take that from me. I heard that off of IGN. They only gave it about a 5/10.