what makes me hate the movie avatar (i guess its kinda a spoiler)

[spooky]

Originally Posted by CuriousKlepto

I know, but mammals all pretty much have four limbs except for the extream cases. For the Na'vi there is no logical reason they would have lost limbs.(I'm assuming they lost and the others didn't gain) All the creatures you mention had obvious reasons for the mutations.

Maybe this movie isn't for you, if you can't suspend even a little disbelief.

BTW, something as simple as sexual preference is enough to drastically change evolution and make something lose or gain extra appendages.

Frankly, I'm surprised you aren't picking apart the technology, it's the one thing humans wholly understand and have a complete record of(unlike the fossil record, which is more gaps than not). Or how about how fast the gas giant was rotating? Those winds must have been blowing 20,000 miles an hour! And a binary star system, with a forest moon in orbit around a gas giant, why would there even be diurnal creatures?!?!!???! And if it was a low gravity planet, honestly, would the water from the waterfalls fall and turn to mist that late, that far down? Don't even get me started on the selective omission of altostratus and altocumulus cloud types, I mean, COME ON!!!!

Suspend your disbelief, I really think people are searching awfully hard for some minutia to dislike this film for. If McNally made Avatar, can you imagine the shitstorm of hate anyone would be getting who dared say something critical? Where are all the sheep with their "If you aren't an expert, you have no right to have an opinion" whinging?

[Ansur]

People like to think they are special when they lash out at popular things they haven't tried. It's like the goth kids and wiggers in the suburbs. Yeah, you guys are awesome because you refuse to see a fictional movie because of the science. You're unique and special, just like everyone else. You're not at all sheep as you google to find quotes of other people nitpicking it and post it here as you bleet in triumph.

I went and saw it because it looked fun. I also went and saw Zombieland when it came out because it looked fun. Neither one was realistic, but I still enjoyed them. I feel sorry for the people who can't just go do things for fun and instead have to attack something because other people might think it's cool. I also own 3 different Britney Spears CDs because I like them. I don't give a shit what is cool, I just like what I like.

[spooky]

Originally Posted by Station

I don't mind mindless fun at all, but if this movie is going to be touted as the game changer it supposedly is, then it should change the game. James Cameron didn't invent 3-d, nor did he invent cg, he just spent a lot of money on it. At the very least, change up the story a bit, don't just re-hash the exact same thing.

in other words, don't piss on my head and tell me its raining.

To be honest, this movie didn't appeal to me whatsoever from the day I found out about it.

Well, actually, he did invent the technology. And he did have all sorts of new CG software made, not to mention the epic scale to which it was taken. The motion capture work finally solved the dead eyes problem that was, I believe, the last major hurdle in portraying convincing emotion in CG people. Oh, and lets not forget who is responsible for 3D being brought to so many theaters, Mr James Cameron, who spent a decade developing the technology, handing it out to other directors, lobbying the big theater association(I forget their name, google it) to get it into most theaters. He's the father of 3D cinema, if ever there was one.

He didn't take a huge risk in the story. He played it safe there.

But I get it, you hated Dances with Wolves, Pocahontas, etc. You do not need it told again. I get it, you have two eyes, you see 3D every time you open them.

I can accept that.

[Mainiac]

Originally Posted by Station

I don't mind mindless fun at all, but if this movie is going to be touted as the game changer it supposedly is, then it should change the game. James Cameron didn't invent 3-d, nor did he invent cg, he just spent a lot of money on it. At the very least, change up the story a bit, don't just re-hash the exact same thing. In other words, don't piss on my head and tell me its raining.

To be honest, this movie didn't appeal to me whatsoever from the day I found out about it.

Maybe you should see it before passing judgement.

[CuriousKlepto]

Originally Posted by spooky

Maybe this movie isn't for you, if you can't suspend even a little disbelief.

BTW, something as simple as sexual preference is enough to drastically change evolution and make something lose or gain extra appendages.

Frankly, I'm surprised you aren't picking apart the technology, it's the one thing humans wholly understand and have a complete record of(unlike the fossil record, which is more gaps than not). Or how about how fast the gas giant was rotating? Those winds must have been blowing 20,000 miles an hour! And a binary star system, with a forest moon in orbit around a gas giant, why would there even be diurnal creatures?!?!!???! And if it was a low gravity planet, honestly, would the water from the waterfalls fall and turn to mist that late, that far down? Don't even get me started on the selective omission of altostratus and altocumulus cloud types, I mean, COME ON!!!!

Suspend your disbelief, I really think people are searching awfully hard for some minutia to dislike this film for. If McNally made Avatar, can you imagine the shitstorm of hate anyone would be getting who dared say something critical? Where are all the sheep with their "If you aren't an expert, you have no right to have an opinion" whinging?

I did suspend my belief, I accepted the space technology, the transfer of one mind into a different body, floating mountains, and all that. This is really one of the only thing that stood out as implausable for being set within the universe Cameron put forth.

[fallingwindows]

Originally Posted by Bucho

Your old man is right about 300, motherfuckers look like a bunch of sissy dancers not warriors.

Fucking sissy dancers who can get me wet just by eating an apple.

As for Avatar, there was a lot I had to ignore. It sucked that I noticed every plot device and the clear set up to every situation; but the forest was pretty and the blue people were sexy. I loved how the women maintained perfect breasts without the use of bras for their entire lives. The indigenous anthropology aspects were terribly intriguing as well. The line about being unable to teach people whose cups are already full really resonated with me.

[Junkenstein]

Originally Posted by fallingwindows

Fucking sissy dancers who can get me wet just by eating an apple.

What's with you girls and giant hunks that have no hint of masculinity in them?

I understand liking men in shape but Spartan warriors who wax?

Get your priorities straight ladies, you're embarassing yourselves. they dont want your stuff. They like cock. Get over it.

(tee hee)

[Badger]

In related news, super-super-right-wingnut Adam Baldwin (of Firefly and Chuck) highlights some of the subversive messages within Avatar and it's implicit hatred of America and the US military...

Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » ‘Avatar,’ MSNBC, and Shuster’s Shame Culture

But at least he enjoyed it.

[Tour_Guide_Sarah]

What's with you girls and giant hunks that have no hint of masculinity in them?

Did you not see my earlier comment? They're not just warriors, they're blue warriors.

It's great that Baldwin has watched the film before going on about the 'bad' parts.

Reviewing a film after watching it? What a novel concept.

[Junkenstein]

My comment was about the 300 guys (which lily was talking about). But if someone always dreamed about humping a smurf, i guess the Avatar people are uber-hot (yet everyone was so snobby about Dr manhattan blue dick in Watchmen. I dont understand your priorities, people).

If critics worlk the way i remember when i did it, they never watch, listen, rewad the whole product. Simple process: get a few minutes of the reviewed item to catch the jist of it, do a quick internet search, then write your review, being as generic as possib le. Use big words to cover what you actually d o not know. Negative reviews work better cause as long as you're shitting on someone's parade, they're not going to mind the details. I reviewed concerts without actually watching the band play more than 5 minutes.