Retro_Link Posted January 30, 2010 Posted January 30, 2010 the message was very heavy handed, and it seems ironic that a film that champions nature and environment over technology was one of the most tecnologicaly advanced films ever made.Yeah, why not just paint two organic carrots blue.
Chris the great Posted January 30, 2010 Posted January 30, 2010 Yeah, why not just paint two organic carrots blue. obviously i realise that for the vision to work it needed the tech, im just saying, dont make a film that preaches about how we need to use less techknology then spend bilions of pounds on the tec to make it. its like me making a range of clothes promoting fair trade, then having them made in a sweat shop.
ReZourceman Posted January 30, 2010 Posted January 30, 2010 I don't think that was one of the messages of the film at all.
Retro_Link Posted January 30, 2010 Posted January 30, 2010 I think you're reading to much into it tbh. Just enjoy it, or don't, whatever!
Chris the great Posted January 30, 2010 Posted January 30, 2010 I don't think that was one of the messages of the film at all. seemed like that to me and my mate, but we may well have missed the point, and it certain ly wasnt my main issue with the film. cringe worthy dialouge and the gimmaky 3D were the main criticisms i have.
Retro_Link Posted January 30, 2010 Posted January 30, 2010 (edited) It wasn't about the importance of saving the environment/not destroying it, but about them not wanting their home to be destroyed, and with it all the 'lifeforce', knowledge, and memories of generations passed. The foundations of their civilisation. So more to do with humanities lack of understanding/appreciation. Edited January 30, 2010 by Retro_Link
Fierce_LiNk Posted January 30, 2010 Posted January 30, 2010 I thought the film was more about Spirituality. About being in-tune with nature and feeling that connection. Also, I thought the most beautiful parts of the movie were the parts in the forest, especially at night. It probably still looked impressive in 2D, but the 3Dness made it seem otherworldly, imo.
ReZourceman Posted January 30, 2010 Posted January 30, 2010 seemed like that to me and my mate, but we may well have missed the point, and it certain ly wasnt my main issue with the film. cringe worthy dialouge and the gimmaky 3D were the main criticisms i have. Bar the arrow at the end (which was definitely awful lol) I don't think there was any 3D gimmicks either.
Retro_Link Posted January 30, 2010 Posted January 30, 2010 Also, I thought the most beautiful parts of the movie were the parts in the forest, especially at night. It probably still looked impressive in 2D, but the 3Dness made it seem otherworldly, imo.Definately, I tried looking for movie stills on the internet after getting back from seeing it. I'd love some artwork of the forest at night with all the luminescent planting, but couldn't find anything.
Chris the great Posted January 30, 2010 Posted January 30, 2010 (edited) It wasn't about the importance of saving the environment/not destroying it, but about them not wanting their home to be destroyed, and with it all the 'lifeforce', knowledge, and memories of generations passed. meh, it still felt like an environmentalist anti corperative film to me. but like i say, that WASNT my main issue. the film was a big step forward in the field of placing cupboard doors in your periferal vison, but as for groundbreaking special effects? naaaaaah. Bar the arrow at the end (which was definitely awful lol) I don't think there was any 3D gimmicks either. see my problem was that for the most part, the 3D added nothing, it was focused around the edge of the screen. seeing cupboard doors, the backs of peoiples heads and the odd branch move out wasnt worth the money it cost to make for me. Edited January 30, 2010 by Chris the great
Retro_Link Posted January 30, 2010 Posted January 30, 2010 I haven't seen the film in 2D so I can't compare, but I thought the sheer clarity and the way they handled depth of field was spectacular... I assumed that was brought about by the 3D technology?
Coolness Bears Posted January 30, 2010 Posted January 30, 2010 I thought it was the new 3Dness but we are not in that age yet.
Chris the great Posted January 30, 2010 Posted January 30, 2010 I haven't seen the film in 2D so I can't compare, but I thought the sheer clarity and the way they handled depth of field was spectacular... I assumed that was brought about by the 3D technology? it did add a sense of depth, at some points. the odd scene did seem enhanced by the 3D, but that just seemed to make it jar with outher scenes. id be interested to compair how the film looked in 2D, but as an advert for 3D, i wasnt sold.
dwarf Posted January 31, 2010 Posted January 31, 2010 Bruno Quite funny 7/10 A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Really funny and high budget stuff. Boggles the mind almost, really random, which I guess it takes after the book. Martin Freeman is awesome. 8.5/10
Oxigen_Waste Posted January 31, 2010 Posted January 31, 2010 I think you're reading to much into it tbh. Just enjoy it, or don't, whatever! Even if he is wrong (which he is), that statement is ridiculous. As for what the film was about, it wasn't about anything, it was about making money. Much like any remake.
Molly Posted January 31, 2010 Posted January 31, 2010 The Hurt Locker Overrated/10 Howcome? I've not seen it, but I've heard good things.
Retro_Link Posted January 31, 2010 Posted January 31, 2010 As for what the film was about, it wasn't about anything, it was about making money. Much like any remake.Funny, I don't remember the original Avatar.
Wesley Posted January 31, 2010 Posted January 31, 2010 Howcome? I've not seen it, but I've heard good things. It was still very good, and I would suggest anyone to watch. I've just heard so many good things about it and was expecting something a little more... It was a great film, the characters were all amazingly wrote and acted and it had some really amazing and tense scenes. I was just hoping it would affect me in a larger way than it did.
Beast Posted January 31, 2010 Posted January 31, 2010 see my problem was that for the most part, the 3D added nothing, it was focused around the edge of the screen. seeing cupboard doors, the backs of peoiples heads and the odd branch move out wasnt worth the money it cost to make for me. It added everything for me. Most of the movie worked in 3D for me, it was 95% 3D and it's the fact they didn't use gimmicks bar one that I loved about it. There were many scenes that were fantastic in 3D, such as the night scenes and the last half an hour was glorious.
Wesley Posted January 31, 2010 Posted January 31, 2010 *sigh* I kind of want to see it just so I can actually join in in the conversations... But I don't want to pay the high ticket price to see what looks like the most uninspired and overrated trash of the last decade.
Nolan Posted January 31, 2010 Posted January 31, 2010 Still not a remake. It's more like a re-imagining.
Recommended Posts