|
Avatar
Dec 19, 2009 23:09:03 GMT -5
Post by pixczar on Dec 19, 2009 23:09:03 GMT -5
I saw Avatar in 3D. The graphics are INCREDIBLE. I think that this film is a land mark in cinema.
|
|
|
Avatar
Dec 20, 2009 16:08:54 GMT -5
Post by drivebyluna on Dec 20, 2009 16:08:54 GMT -5
It truly was amazing. I feel like the graphics needed a little bit of texture, as everything looked like salamander skin. Also the music director needed to lay off the fife a little.
Other than that, amazing movie!
|
|
|
Avatar
Dec 20, 2009 22:36:59 GMT -5
Post by inkfink on Dec 20, 2009 22:36:59 GMT -5
Groundbreaking. It's not perfect but the bar has been set higher. I was hoping this would set up another franchise that would rival Star Trek and Star Wars but I don't see that happening.
|
|
|
Avatar
Jan 8, 2010 16:49:17 GMT -5
Post by Gilberto on Jan 8, 2010 16:49:17 GMT -5
I don't see this as a franchise, but I was impressed with it. It's pretty heavy-handed and predictable storywise, but it's got everything a good movie needs. The commercials don't do the FX justice; they really are awesome. Plus it's got a lot of good action.
|
|
|
Avatar
Jan 11, 2010 13:32:38 GMT -5
Post by broox on Jan 11, 2010 13:32:38 GMT -5
I actually thought the 3d parts featuring the "real people" were much cooler than the pandora 3d parts. In particular some of the opening shots of the spaceship and the cryo and all of that, really cool. The story was a little too simplified I think, the all-good vs all-bad. No gray area, and is anybody really as evil as that soldier guy? I hope not. Cameron really hates corporations, or at least he seems to!
|
|
|
Avatar
Jan 11, 2010 13:59:51 GMT -5
Post by broox on Jan 11, 2010 13:59:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Avatar
Jan 11, 2010 18:19:35 GMT -5
Post by Gilberto on Jan 11, 2010 18:19:35 GMT -5
I agree about the 3D. The live action stuff definitely worked better. In 2D the pandora stuff was pretty awesome, though. I don't think I like 3D. It makes movies gimmicky and difficult to focus. It takes you out of the movie instead of putting you into it.
|
|
|
Avatar
Jan 11, 2010 18:59:10 GMT -5
Post by lynn on Jan 11, 2010 18:59:10 GMT -5
Wow, that depression thing is odd. That is what I think is going to be the biggest problem when they make virtual reality. People would never come out of the holodeck, really.
|
|
|
Avatar
Jan 11, 2010 20:53:05 GMT -5
Post by drivebyluna on Jan 11, 2010 20:53:05 GMT -5
I always wondered about the holodeck and loss and feelings of grief. I remember there's one episode of TNG where Deanna is counseling a woman who lost her husband in some sort of engineering explosion or something. Really, what's preventing that woman from just designing a computer program that includes her husband and just living in there when she's off duty? Yeah it wouldn' t be the real thing but it'd probably be easier than dealing with her grief.
|
|
|
Avatar
Jan 11, 2010 21:19:16 GMT -5
Post by lynn on Jan 11, 2010 21:19:16 GMT -5
Then there's always some counsellor who is telling you to deal with reality. What need for reality if virtual reality is better?
|
|
|
Avatar
Jan 11, 2010 22:35:23 GMT -5
Post by drivebyluna on Jan 11, 2010 22:35:23 GMT -5
Honestly, if my fiance was suddenly killed I'd probably be in that holodeck every single minute.
|
|
|
Avatar
Jan 12, 2010 17:21:54 GMT -5
Post by Gilberto on Jan 12, 2010 17:21:54 GMT -5
I like the episode where the dude just makes virtual versions of all the Enterprise ladies and spends every waking hour in elaborate virtual sex fantasies. That's what I think would really happen.
|
|
|
Avatar
Jan 12, 2010 20:40:24 GMT -5
Post by lynn on Jan 12, 2010 20:40:24 GMT -5
And it's not cheating if you're only having cyber-sex, right?
|
|
|
Avatar
Jan 12, 2010 22:43:28 GMT -5
Post by drivebyluna on Jan 12, 2010 22:43:28 GMT -5
No it's still cheating. I think it's more the intent than the actual behavior.
|
|
|
Avatar
Jan 13, 2010 17:37:19 GMT -5
Post by lynn on Jan 13, 2010 17:37:19 GMT -5
oh man, does that mean fantacising about someone is cheating now? I'm a total whore!
|
|