Well, you've got to think with an open mind about sci-fi movies such as this. Take Star Wars for instance: The sci-fi movie revolution that is so outlandish its almost ridiculous, yet people love it because its so epic and awesome. Now Avatar, the floating mountains could be made of some sort of Pandorian dirt that is as light as air but is still adhesive to other particles of the same kind around it, thus making floating mountains. And all the mountains are linked one way or another by the net-work of vines around it (The vines which you see when they're taking Jake to the place where the banshees are). So the mountains can still be a part of the rest of the planet.
That's the **** sitting under hometree...that's why the humans did what they did. Why would they have gone after the tree when they could just go to the floating mountains? But according to your source, you're correct. Hmmm.
Because otherwise there wouldn't have been an epic, CG-ridden battle, much less any story. Sorry, couldn't resist.
Well of course. But making the floating mountains out of the same substance? Doesn't add up to for me.
Perhaps there were only trace amounts in it... which wouldn't make any sense because I'd imagine it would take a hell of a lot of it to keep those buggers floating.
Besides the story line, Unobtanium was the only cliche that really annoyed me. Just the name. It's too obvious and just screams, "CLICHE STORYLINE". Otherwise I loved it if not for just the mind-numbing graphics and entertainment. Because that's really what it was that kept me immersed in it.
Or maybe there was only trace amounts under the sacred tree..and it was strong enough to effect any human instruments in the vicinity of the floating mountains.
As I recall, the Big Bad CEO was saying that the home tree (I think that was the name) was sitting on the biggest deposit of Unobtanium. Yet they could still create detailed scans of the entire area around it. If they're going to use phlebotinum, it at least has to be consistent.
Yeah, but according to Grif's source, the floating mountains are made of the same stuff that's under hometree...?
AViTRiD? You have got to be ****ing kidding me. You know there will be more movies with equivalent graphical quality, ones that actually bother to write a somewhat original plot that is not Liberal Pocahontas. So other than the graphics, will someone put the pros of the movie in bullet point form so as to pull it out of a paragraph of bullshit?
1. CGI Improvement 2. 3D Improvement /rage enabled 3. Ok like it or not (although I have no idea why you wouldn't like it) we live on this planet and we might as well start treating it with some god damned respect. I don't give a **** if you think global warming exists or not, this is our ****ing home and we've been treating it like ****. So the next time you a choice between buying a truck or a car think about what the **** you are about to do. Scared of nuclear power? Look into the facts, don't live on **** assumptions. And I'm bloody tired of people denouncing stuff because it pushes for a greener planet. Being green doesn't necessarily mean reverting back to a natural lifestyle, it also means living cleaner. So to sum it up: learn to give a **** about what we do to Earth. Life will continue on, but if we want the human race to continue we need to do our ****ing part to keep ourselves alive. /rage 4. Set the stage for possibly good sequels in a cool universe. 5. Sigourney Weaver in a major roll again. There's a couple. And yes that's right AViTRiD, because I like it. If you've got a problem you can go shove it.
1+2. I said ignoring the graphics... 3. Scared of nuclear power? Right, and I plan to be a nuclear engineer. The scare behind nuclear power is putting the materials in the hands of the untrustworthy. Keep our race alive? Climate change is not an apocalypse, its a natural alteration of the climate that will in time cause the next ice age, which will not be "the day after tommorow" and can be survived by the human race. But this is general chat, not debates. 4. I hope that sequel bothers hiring a scriptwriter. 5. She has been in many recent films... Wall-E, Vantage Point, Eli-Stone... You've changed your name enough already. Have you added up how much of your, or is it your parents, money that you have wasted? What was wrong with Tallow 1? Your points did not show me the point of the Golden Globe. Oh and yes. We are like live on this planet.
Not everything is intended for you Marshall, there are some ignorant cretins who are afraid of it. I see what you did there with IMDB, but if you've actually seen those movies you would know that not all of the things you listed of were actually movies and that she was not playing major rolls. Here is what rolls she was in: Wall-E - ship computer voice; Vantage Point - inside the tv studio (not important roll); and Eli-Stone - therapist for one episode. The point about environmentalism is that we are polluting Earth, global warming or not we will eventually reach a point in which we can no longer survive if we continue like we do. Maybe not in our lifetime, but I'd rather not be another generation passing on this problem to the next generation. And no, no one with a sound mind thinks that the Day After Tomorrow was an accurate portrayal of global warming. Sorry I didn't see the thing about ignore the graphics... I have no idea where the gold globe was brought in to this discussion. I've spent my own money on my name changes, besides what does it matter to you?
Some points I want to make on the movie: -None of this technology is particularly new. Gollum in Lord of the Rings used the same exact person to character stuff. -However, on that last point, you might say "it's never been filmed in 3D!". That because nobody wanted to film in 3D, it was a novelty and a good way to loose money. -HOWEVER, Avatar is the future of 3D clearly. He uses it throughout the whole movie, not as a novelty but to improve the depth and to have better and new camera possibilities. In that way, Avatar is groundbreaking. -The CGI is nothing new. I always lol when I've come out of a theater and hear people talking about how great the effects are. They can compute WHATEVER THEY WANT. CGI effects are never particularly impressive to me, the way they use them are. In that sense, the CGI effects are for the most part not overdone and fairly tasteful. But people should realize that they have supercomputers that simply CGI the stuff. There's nothing super special to it, except what you choose to do. The movie itself was weak in story, plot, and world. However, it is the future of 3D, and I expect it to become much more mainstream and actually helpful to movies instead of throwing random stuff inches in front of your face over and over. It was also definitely a movie experience, and fun to watch.
A lot of problems I normally have with CGI is that you don't really feel like it is a person (I'm looking at you Beowulf), but they seemed real in Avatar and in several other movies. My view is that if someone gets it right its a step in the right direction for other movies.
That's just called bad direction. There's nothing new in the CGI that I haven't seen at least twice before.