Movies, Music, TV, Books, Pop Culture

by **motherscratcher** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:47 pm

They've been playing the trailer during the ballgame. First time I've seen it.

It looks kind of cool, but it has to be great, right?

I mean, James Cameron spent WAY too much money and time on this thing for it not to kick all sorts of ass, right?

by **e0y2e3** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:27 am

Looks like potentially the worst movie ever made.

I wanted to drown my eyes in acid and my brain in bleach after the first time I saw it before Inglorious.

by **Guest** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:06 am

But there's just something about Cameron.

I'll reserve judgment until I see it.

by **swerb** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:08 am

Cameron hasn't really done anything that's seriously disappointed me. I thought he had, went to his IMDB page, realized he hadn't.

With the Mitch Man here.

by **e0y2e3** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:10 am

No doubt and I trust Cameron usually.

I just know what I saw from the trailer.

And well, gross.

I'll be the first to admit if I am wrong here.

by **motherscratcher** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:16 am

Cameron gave us Terminator and Aliens. I feel like this HAS to be good. There's no way a guy like that puts in this amount of time and effort for something that turns out to be a mess.

I hope I'm right.

Then again, Spielberg and Lucas dropped Kingdom of the Crapfilled Skull on us not to long ago, so you never know.

by **HoodooMan** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:17 am

Have I dropped into the episode of The Twilight Zone in which Titanic didn't happen?

by **CTownYaga** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:35 am

I have to say it looks bad. It actually has an interesting story but from the trailers, the aliens just aren't convincing at all like they were in District 9. Also, the dialogue and delivery sounds ATROCIOUS.

All from the trailers, though. We'll see.

by **motherscratcher** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:52 am

HoodooMan wrote:Have I dropped into the episode of The Twilight Zone in which Titanic didn't happen?

You're writing off Cameron because of Titanic?

Billy Zane, man. What about Billy Zane?

by jb » Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:39 pm

feh. I knew how the Titantic ended before I saw it.

by **rebelwithoutaclue** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:29 pm

JB wrote:feh. I knew how the Titantic ended before I saw it.

Funny thing is, there's a movie about THAT Avatar (The Last Airbender) coming out soon as well.

I'm willing to give Cameron the benefit of the doubt on this one but the trailers almost made it look like a Disney movie.

by **TIMMAH** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:31 pm

Yea, all I heard about for months and years was, "JAMES CAMERONS AVATOR OMFG!!!!!!!!!111LOLOLOZLOZ!!!!11bbq" and then the trailer hits and everyone else is still like, "OMGF JAMESON CAMERONO AVATORO FTWLOLZBBQPANTS!!!!1" but I'm just all like, "that looked really really gay and terrible."

by **Guest** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:54 pm

Premiered in London last night.

And the early reviews were overwhelmingly positive.

I was leary of this (still am), but one should learn to never underestimate James Cameron.

by **aoxo1** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:10 pm

Not sure if anyone else read the article in the New Yorker about Cameron and Avatar a month or two ago, but James Cameron seems like one of the largest dicks in the world.

by **e0y2e3** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:16 pm

Mitch wrote:Premiered in London last night.

And the early reviews were overwhelmingly positive.

I was leary of this (still am), but one should learn to never underestimate James Cameron.

I'm going to see this when it premiers out of sheer curiosity.

I'm going to try to go in w/ an open mind (looking for a good movie, not an Oscar movie, but not being a h8ta).

I still think the trailer makes it look like a steaming pile of llama dung.

by **DarNoor** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:30 pm

I'm up in the air on this one. I love Cameron's flicks. But, i don't know what to make of this one. The movie i want to see is Clooney's new one. So, i think me and the little lady will be going to that over Christmas weekend.

by **motherscratcher** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:30 pm

I think it looks pretty good from the trailer. I'm not sure why you think it looks so bad e0y. The story looks fairly original. Then again, I'm easily distracted by bright shiny objects.

I usually wait for movies to appear in my mailbox in a red envelope to see them, but this is one that will probably be worth trying to catch on the big screen.

by **e0y2e3** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:36 pm

DarNoor wrote:I'm up in the air on this one. I love Cameron's flicks. But, i don't know what to make of this one. The movie i want to see is Clooney's new one. So, i think me and the little lady will be going to that over Christmas weekend.

Up in the Air is the shiz, as I have now said in four threads.

Yeah, I rock like that.

Beat my drum till it breaks and stuff.

And mother, it looks like angry fucking smurfs fighting those robots from that early 2000s computer game that people rode in. It looks bad bad bad.

That said, IFC had a nice take on it recently.

http://www.ifc.com/blogs/indie-eye/2009 ... mentpage=2

Made me realize that yeah, I am just a general Cameron non believer that is usually wrong (in terms of pure entertainment)

by **olecowboy** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:40 pm

there has to be a reason why you like it other than "because it rocks"

cannot you elucidate further, for those of us with no imaginations?

by **e0y2e3** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:44 pm

olecowboy wrote:there has to be a reason why you like it other than "because it rocks"

cannot you elucidate further, for those of us with no imaginations?

are you talking about Up in the Air, because I can answer in said thread if you really want to know (though I have my suspicions, when have you ever really wanted to know the opinion of or advice from someone not named "olecowboy" on the internet?).

Side note: I think only someone w/ OCesque prose could properly say what I think about the movie. Not all of us have that kind of literary prowess to compliment our philosophical contemplations

by **olecowboy** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:58 pm

not fair. . .

I ask all the time; people are so bound by their own imperatives that they cannot or will not answer.

the young oc, when a tender schoolboy at prestigious West Texas State Anodyne Agricultural and Vocational Junior College, used to ask the professors: "Why does this matter?"

those who taught as a vocation would sense a challenge to their knowledge base or authority, and predictably answer defensively.

however, those who taught because they themselves were true believers, those would sense the nature of the inquiry, and they could paint beautiful word-pictures about the epistemology of their field.

it's worth asking a thousand times for only the one answer...

by **e0y2e3** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:02 pm

Fair enough OC, I'll answer you once I again escape the grips of corporate America (aka later tonight).

by **rebelwithoutaclue** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:28 pm

Motherscratcher wrote:I think it looks pretty good from the trailer. I'm not sure why you think it looks so bad e0y. The story looks fairly original. Then again, I'm easily distracted by bright shiny objects.

I usually wait for movies to appear in my mailbox in a red envelope to see them, but this is one that will probably be worth trying to catch on the big screen.

According to South Park, it's a straight Dances with Wolves (Smurfs) ripoff with CGI. South Park is usually spot on with their satire and I can't really comment because I haven't seen the full Dances with Wolves movie.

by **Erie Warrior** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:23 pm

Trying to see this in the next few days, want to get to an IMAX to watch it.

by **Erie Warrior** » Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:31 pm

Great movie. The story line is cliche, but what an amazing thing to watch. Jim Cameron could be the best director ever.

by **Bill the Butcher** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:17 am

Phenomenal. Incredible. Marvelous. Emotional. Exciting.

James Cameron does it right. Michael Bay ain't got shit on this guy.

Twas my first time viewing a feature film in 3D. Amazing. The CGI is groundbreaking. The detail...oh, the detail. Cameron did a hell of a job introducing Pandora to the audience. I often found myself eyes wide and jaw dropped whenever scenes showed the world's environment and wildlife, much like how I would react if I were really there.

Character development; I heard from a review that it was lacking in the department, but it was fine.

Remember when I said "any movie that can show was pieces of shits we (humans) are is my kind of movie"?

BOOM.

by **e0y2e3** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 5:31 am

Wow, so the best director ever puts out pretty movies w/ cliche story lines that appeal to peeps (like Bill) that just want their college style hate for humanity shown on screen?!

I'll see this and will probably enjoy it (based on early reviews), but there is such a thing as perspective, intellect and reality peeps.

Christ.

What's next, The Dark Knight being the best movie of all time?

Edit: and Michael Bay doesn't have shit on Peeker as a filmmaker (Peeker being a random posters name I inserted here, feel free to use your own handle). Biggest. Joke. Director. Of. All. Time. Blowing shit up for a lot of money means nothing and even bringing his name up says a lot Bill. Guy should be shot, filmmaking would be 100x better off (if not for the fact that another Michael Bay would pop up in 30 second).

by **Erie Warrior** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 10:11 am

e0y2e3 wrote:Wow, so the best director ever puts out pretty movies w/ cliche story lines that appeal to peeps (like Bill) that just want their college style hate for humanity shown on screen?!

Really, what movie doesn't have a cliche ending at this point? They all end with "guy gets the girl" or "world is saved" or "bad guy dies", or the combination of all 3. SSDD. The story line is on par with every other movie you'll see this year. But truly amazing visually. Worth the trip to the theater.

by **Bill the Butcher** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 2:18 pm

I may often hate humanity (in college style too, whatever the fuck that means, I'll take it as a compliment), but I <3 you, e0y2e3. More than you'll ever know.

Erie Warrior wrote:Really, what movie doesn't have a cliche ending at this point?

Up in the Air, apparently.

by **e0y2e3** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 3:11 pm

Erie Warrior wrote:
e0y2e3 wrote:Wow, so the best director ever puts out pretty movies w/ cliche story lines that appeal to peeps (like Bill) that just want their college style hate for humanity shown on screen?!

Really, what movie doesn't have a cliche ending at this point? They all end with "guy gets the girl" or "world is saved" or "bad guy dies", or the combination of all 3. SSDD. The story line is on par with every other movie you'll see this year. But truly amazing visually. Worth the trip to the theater.

Seriously?

Who doesn't go straight up cliche is why Cameron is THE BEST DIRECTOR EVER?!

That is what I am taking issue w/, not you liking the movie. I'll probably like the movie myself, but the last time I was annoyed in here by one of these insane overreactions was when the Phist and Bill tried to tell the world that the Dark Knight was the best movie ever.

I mean best ever?!

And actually Erie most very good movies manage to avoid going cliche, guy gets girl world is saved, bad guy dies style.

by **motherscratcher** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 3:15 pm

Bill the Butcher wrote:I may often hate humanity (in college style too, whatever the fuck that means, I'll take it as a compliment), but I <3 you, e0y2e3. More than you'll ever know.

Erie Warrior wrote:Really, what movie doesn't have a cliche ending at this point?

Up in the Air, apparently.

<3 looks like a tea-bag. Does this mean you'd like to tea-bag e0y without his knowledge? Because that's funny.

by **Erie Warrior** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:41 pm

e0y2e3 wrote:
I mean best ever?!

And actually Erie most very good movies manage to avoid going cliche, guy gets girl world is saved, bad guy dies style.

Certainly debatable. Top 5. I would argue that character development and emotional by-in play a major part in a very good movie, even if it ends in one of the above mentioned ways. Avatar has both of those things, but adds an incredible visual element. Ground breaking stuff.

I hated Titanic, but the amount of research and development in that movie was jaw dropping. Down to recreating the exact dishes used on the real Titanic. Movies and music are a personal taste issue. Beatles or Stones or Jimi or Zep? Spielberg or Howard or Cameron or Scorcese?

by **HoodooMan** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 5:06 pm

Movies and music are a personal taste issue. Beatles or Stones or Jimi or Zep? Spielberg or Howard or Cameron or Scorcese?

Exactly.

Books are the same way.

William Shakespeare or Dan Brown?

Tomayto, tomahto.

by **e0y2e3** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 5:50 pm

^ Which is why outlandish "Best Ever" remarks should not be made.

I cannot even put my own top ten movies in any order (and the top ten changes daily), let alone declare a guy who does a great job making a visually stunning averagely written sci-fi epic w/ $400MM

by **cozmeesah** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 6:32 pm

e0y2e3 wrote:^ Which is why outlandish "Best Ever" remarks should not be made.

Why not? Nobody is declaring that everyone in the world should, from here on out, declare that *insert name here* is the Best *xxxxxx* Ever. It's simply THEIR OWN OPINION that whatever/whomever they are talking about is the "Best Ever." It's the "Best Ever" to THEM. If it's not the same to you, cool.

by **Guest** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 9:21 pm

Visually, this was the most incredible thing I've ever seen...and no hyperbole with that at all; it's a simple statement of fact.

Story wise? Eh...wasn't blown away with it...wasn't pissed off.

It reminds me of other movies of its ilk, such as Jaws or Raiders of the Lost Ark. Both of those told stories that we'd seen in one way or another hundreds of previous times, but with a unique slant.

At least the story didn't bore me, nor insult my intelligence (Yes, I'm talking about that hack Roland Emmerich again...still can't get over my hatred of 2012). But make no mistake about it; this movie is all about the technology and the visuals, and Cameron delivered.

(and saying you're a better director than Michael Bay is like saying you're a more accurate passer than Derek Anderson).

by **HoodooMan** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 9:53 pm

^ Which is why outlandish "Best Ever" remarks should not be made.

I cannot even put my own top ten movies in any order (and the top ten changes daily), let alone declare a guy who does a great job making a visually stunning averagely written sci-fi epic w/ $400MM

You'd have to be a pretty strange person to have a very rigid ranking. I rank shit like that because I'm a geek, but it's still a fluid ranking.

My point was just that you'd also have to be pretty ignorant to be completely relativist about the quality of directors and movies. In 100 years, there's managed to be some genuine artistic achievement there. Everyone isn't a populist hack like Cameron & Speilberg.

by **Bill the Butcher** » Sun Dec 20, 2009 2:13 am

For the record, I don't think I ever stated Avatar to be the "best movie ever". I simply gave it and Cameron mad props, which it most certainly deserves.

The Dark Knight... yea, possibly. :bag:

Like whoever said before, "best ____ ever" is most definitely just an opinion, which is fine... but then again, there is a line. IMO though, Avatar is one of the best in the decade. I honestly can't think of any other sci-fi flick this decade that really blew me away as much as Avatar did. Star Wars for sure ain't one of the them, LOTR I guess can be counted in there, but I'm talking like space travel/alien/epic sci-fi. Oh yea, Star Trek reboot was really good.

by **Erie Warrior** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 2:51 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/ ... index.html

I liked the movie too, but suicide? Depression because Pandora isn't real? No shit, it's a movie.

by **Bill the Butcher** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 3:34 pm

If we're hearing this about Avatar, a film that has only been out for a couple of months... shouldn't all the die hard Star Wars, Star Trek, and LOTR fans be dead by now too?

by **Guest** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 5:37 pm

I had suicidal thoughts after watching "2012".

I had homicidal thoughts after watching "The Happening"...and if I ever see M. Night Shyamalan walking down the street, I might still run the sumbitch down.

For the rest of this article? In the great words of William Shatner in a SNL skit addressing a bunch of Trekkies at a Sci-Fi convention...

"GET A LIFE!!!"*

*(this would also apply to people with an obsession over a comic book character who gets his power by charging his magic ring against a magic Coleman).

by **mrburns** » Thu Jan 14, 2010 1:30 pm

Saw it for the second time last night, and the theater was more full than the first time I saw it. This was a Wednesday night. This thing is still crushing the box office a month later.

Visually, I've never seen anything like it. I know people have criticized the super-simple story and sustainability message, but after some reflection I think the story needed to be simple. IMO, what makes Avatar so fun is the nearly-complete immersion into the world Cameron created, and lots of confusing sci-fi plot points would distract from that.

The visuals also overshadow some pretty strong performances, especially from Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana in the leads. If the acting was robotic, it could have really wrecked the movie, especially considering that we hadn't seen a whole movie done basically with motion capture. Pretty safe bet that Zoe Saldana gets exponentially more attention from fanboys after this and Star Trek. Worthington did a particularly nice job. Sigourney Weaver and Joel Moore were solid in support as the two scientists. My only complaint was that Stephen Lang was a little over the top with Colonel Quatrich, but then again, that made him very easy to hate.

Sequels have to be coming, but let's just hope they're closer to the original Star Wars than to Pirates of the Caribbean.

by **rebelwithoutaclue** » Thu Jan 14, 2010 4:03 pm

lots of confusing sci-fi plot points would distract from that.

Like how the humans couldn't breathe on Pandora yet there were explosions and fires everywhere? Whoops, I think that only distracted me.

by **mrburns** » Thu Jan 14, 2010 5:34 pm

rebelwithoutaclue wrote:
lots of confusing sci-fi plot points would distract from that.

Like how the humans couldn't breathe on Pandora yet there were explosions and fires everywhere? Whoops, I think that only distracted me.

Eh, I thought the deal was there was lower oxygen or something. C'mon though, you've gotta be able to suspend your disbelief for something small like that.

by **Guest** » Thu Jan 14, 2010 6:00 pm

Mr. Burns wrote:
rebelwithoutaclue wrote:
lots of confusing sci-fi plot points would distract from that.

Like how the humans couldn't breathe on Pandora yet there were explosions and fires everywhere? Whoops, I think that only distracted me.

Eh, I thought the deal was there was lower oxygen or something. C'mon though, you've gotta be able to suspend your disbelief for something small like that.

My impression was that oxygen was present (hence they don't die immediately), but there were other components to the atmosphere that was toxic to humans. Note that the masks didn't seem to be oxygen tanks...more like filters.

by **rebelwithoutaclue** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 11:40 am

Mitch wrote:
Mr. Burns wrote:
rebelwithoutaclue wrote:
lots of confusing sci-fi plot points would distract from that.

Like how the humans couldn't breathe on Pandora yet there were explosions and fires everywhere? Whoops, I think that only distracted me.

Eh, I thought the deal was there was lower oxygen or something. C'mon though, you've gotta be able to suspend your disbelief for something small like that.

My impression was that oxygen was present (hence they don't die immediately), but there were other components to the atmosphere that was toxic to humans. Note that the masks didn't seem to be oxygen tanks...more like filters.

You don't die immediately holding your breath underwater either. But you make a good point. The masks didn't have a tank or anything; probably just a filter.

by **Erie Warrior** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 9:32 pm

Saw it again today. Gotta say, it's the most memorable experience I've had at the movies. Just amazing. If you haven't seen it, go see it, this is not the film to wait to see on DVD. See it on the biggest screen you can.

by **Guest** » Tue Jan 19, 2010 12:52 am

Erie Warrior wrote:Saw it again today. Gotta say, it's the most memorable experience I've had at the movies. Just amazing. If you haven't seen it, go see it, this is not the film to wait to see on DVD. See it on the biggest screen you can.

I've got to get out and see it again...but I think this time I'll catch it in 2D just to see if it's still as awesome.

Not sure yet about that Golden Globe award yet.

On one hand, I don't think this is as good of a movie as "Up In the Air", which was just an incredible story with amazing characters and acting.

But Avatar is An Event...one that will still be talked about in 20 years...something I can't say about Up In the Air. No matter how good UITA is...in 20 years it will be dated. Avatar will still be talked about like we still to this day talk about Star Wars.

So in that context...it might be worthy of the Best Picture Oscar.

Gives us something to talk about for the next 8 weeks, anyway.

by **e0y2e3** » Tue Jan 19, 2010 1:11 am

Of course shit like Avatar will win the Oscar.

This is the stupid society the revers shit like Star Wars.

War pretty lights and $400MM films.... :hey:

(and if it wasn't UiTA I would be fine as long as the winner the winner was at least a film and not a big budget rip off of WoW)

by **olecowboy** » Tue Jan 19, 2010 2:12 am

no one will remember up in the air 12 months from now, don't kid yourself. . .

Movies, Music, TV, Books, Pop Culture

Who is online

Who is online