THE PACK Message Boards

WOW!

http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/avatar/

Looks impressive.

yes it looks very well done

http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story ... avens-Gate

Funny that you happen to mention it the day before THAT was posted.

Set wrote:http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story ... avens-Gate

Funny that you happen to mention it the day before THAT was posted.

I never go by what critics say. I judge for myself if the film is good or not. I don't care what kind of elements are in that film. If it looks interesting, then I don't mind watching it.

Incredible.

And here I thought that this was the "Avatar" movie based on the Nickelodeon TV series.

Gevaudan wrote:Wow.

And here I thought that this was the "Avatar" movie based on the Nickelodeon TV series.

same and Nickelodeon TV series one was very good too

this one also looks very good

I'm pretty disappointed. The story is cliche from what I understand, and the special effects aren't very impressive at all. Some of those effects remind me of a video game.

Yes, I know this is Dances with Wolves in Space and I shouldn't be expecting too much (even though it is James Cameron.) But blue elfs? Really? Those are the aliens I get after years of anticipation? Those are the most uninteresting creations I can think of. You can't hype up the special effects of a movie and call it the "next generation of filmmaking" and then slap a mundane plot onto late-90s effects.

I feel like this is just a slicked up version of Star Gate.

Having never heard a single thing about this movie until watching that trailer right now, Im highly impressed and will definitely see it.

I think it looks amazing Its very beautiful looking. I also love the alien designs. (I'm a fan of X-Men's Nightcrawler so I'm sure that helps a lot )

Oooo, new 20th Century Fox logo.

...That was probably the most useless post ever.

Oh Christ, it's like Battle for Terra but set on a bioluminescent Australia Planet.

Just nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Bloodyredbaron wrote:Oh Christ, it's like Battle for Terra but set on a bioluminescent Australia Planet.

Just nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Yep, this is exactly what I thought when I saw the trailer. Battle for Terra with $200,000,000 tagged on. Too bad some of the CGI looks just as bad. I'm getting bad "Time Machine" vibes from this movie.

I'm confident that every plot point, every action sequence, and every scene of dialogue in this entire movie can be directly inferred just from the trailer.

Berserker wrote:

Bloodyredbaron wrote:Oh Christ, it's like Battle for Terra but set on a bioluminescent Australia Planet.

Just nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Yep, this is exactly what I thought when I saw the trailer. Battle for Terra with $200,000,000 tagged on. Too bad some of the CGI looks just as bad. I'm getting bad "Time Machine" vibes from this movie.

I'm confident that every plot point, every action sequence, and every scene of dialogue in this entire movie can be directly inferred just from the trailer.

And why are we engaging the nine foot cat savages in ground battles? If these guys have FTL and God Damn ten foot tall battle mechs, why aren't they just bombing the entire planet from orbit?

EDIT:

I feel the need to share.

http://io9.com/5343458/would-you-have-s ... lue-aliens

Another James Cameron film = another big spectacle.

I'm pretty sure Avatar wil be good, but I'm more psyched for Battle Angel. It's a re-imagining of Battle Angel Alita, gonna be epic

Why do they reveal so much of the plot in the trailers/commercials nowadays? seems kinda pointless when I already know half the plot before going in....

Sebiale wrote:Why do they reveal so much of the plot in the trailers/commercials nowadays? seems kinda pointless when I already know half the plot before going in....

This is a special effects movie. The plot isn't that important.

Berserker wrote:Yes, I know this is Dances with Wolves in Space and I shouldn't be expecting too much (even though it is James Cameron.) But blue elfs? Really? Those are the aliens I get after years of anticipation? Those are the most uninteresting creations I can think of. You can't hype up the special effects of a movie and call it the "next generation of filmmaking" and then slap a mundane plot onto late-90s effects.

My best guess is that they went with the "blue elf" look to make it easier for the human audience to identify with them. . . But yeah, I think I gotta' agree here. This does have some of the earmarks of an upcoming disaster.

It also can't help that we recently saw a damn near epic movie that had much better special effects, much better looking aliens, and most crucial of all, a much smaller budget earlier this year. I speak, of course, of District 9.

There were a lot of movies with shallow scripts and bloated budgets this year, and I was really hoping at least one of them would be a box office bomb to suffice as a wake-up call to the rest of Hollywood. Avatar, however, was not the one I was hoping would bomb. Avatar looks like there could be more to it than the trailers are letting on -- they at least have the illusion of plot and writing, so of all the big bloated bastions of bullshit (booyah for alliteration) that came out this year, this is the absolute last one I wanted to see crash and burn.

I'm not understanding all the hate.
I honestly think this will go well.

Berserker wrote:I'm pretty disappointed. The story is cliche from what I understand, and the special effects aren't very impressive at all. Some of those effects remind me of a video game.

All stories are cliche if you get down to their basics. It's the twists that are there to help make them interesting.
Video game effects say nothing but good things to me

Berserker wrote: Yes, I know this is Dances with Wolves in Space and I shouldn't be expecting too much (even though it is James Cameron.) But blue elfs? Really? Those are the aliens I get after years of anticipation? Those are the most uninteresting creations I can think of.

10-foot tall blue elfs that can slap around a a 15 foot mech like it's made of tin foil.
"Honestly, werewolves, is that what we waited for in Freeborn all these years, more bipedal werwolves!?" A-duh. The aesthetic of the aliens is one of the least important things I can think of when judging the movies quality, especially in a werewolf forum. Just about every werewolf out there has the same basic features, claws, snout, teeth, grey/black/white fur. Why aren't you bored of those yet, hmmmmmm?

Berserker wrote: You can't hype up the special effects of a movie and call it the "next generation of filmmaking" and then slap a mundane plot onto late-90s effects.

Yeah he can, because that's when he wrote the plot.

Berserker wrote:I feel like this is just a slicked up version of Star Gate.

Yes, because Star Gate involves so much strip-mining of planets and transferrence into an alien body...>.>

Berserker wrote: This is a special effects movie. The plot isn't that important.

The idea that special effects pre-empt a bad movie is just the influence of Robert Zemeckis and Michael Bay, they are nothing.
James Cameron decided that the technology of the past years was not sufficient to pull off this, so he waited for it to be.

Bloodyredbaron wrote:Oh Christ, it's like Battle for Terra but set on a bioluminescent Australia Planet.

Just nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

They're not bombing the planet from orbit because they need to harvest the mineral from the ground, hard to do that if it's a molten wasteland. Also, they've been told to find a diplomatic solution if possible.

http://io9.com/5343458/would-you-have-s ... lue-aliens
I don't see how this helps your case, the majority of people who voted, were in favor of having sex with the aliens...not that it's hard to get a male human to screw something

Berserker wrote: Yep, this is exactly what I thought when I saw the trailer. Battle for Terra with $200,000,000 tagged on. Too bad some of the CGI looks just as bad. I'm getting bad "Time Machine" vibes from this movie.

I'm confident that every plot point, every action sequence, and every scene of dialogue in this entire movie can be directly inferred just from the trailer.

Wow, you have been ruined, like Chase from House M.D. you no longer have any regard for the sanctity of James Cameron productions...no I'm just kidding. But seriously, I don't see what evidence you have it will be bad, you almost seem to be wishing it will be bad.

Terastas wrote:It also can't help that we recently saw a damn near epic movie that had much better special effects, much better looking aliens, and most crucial of all, a much smaller budget earlier this year. I speak, of course, of District 9.

Has someone somewhere stated that you cannot possibly achieve two great sci-fi movies in one year?

Terastas wrote: There were a lot of movies with shallow scripts and bloated budgets this year, and I was really hoping at least one of them would be a box office bomb to suffice as a wake-up call to the rest of Hollywood. Avatar, however, was not the one I was hoping would bomb. Avatar looks like there could be more to it than the trailers are letting on -- they at least have the illusion of plot and writing, so of all the big bloated bastions of bullshit (booyah for alliteration) that came out this year, this is the absolute last one I wanted to see crash and burn.

Define, a 'deep script' ...please, tell me. Because if Avatar is shallow then the deep scripts must drown whole cities...
Hollywood is wide awake, it just doesn't care as long as it is making money.
There is no evidence to support the idea that the movie is going to be bad. Honestly, what would real plot and writing look like if this is an illusion of it?

Sebiale wrote:I'm not understanding all the hate.

Eh. . . Not hate, just a general foreboding pessimism, more accurately. This isn't like 2012, Transformers: ROTF or Twilight: NM -- I won't be pissed off if this film is a success. I sort of feel the same way about Avatar that I felt when Final Fantasy: TSW was coming out -- I really wanted it to be good and I really wanted it to be a huge success. . . But I only got the former.

Sebiale wrote:

Terastas wrote:It also can't help that we recently saw a damn near epic movie that had much better special effects, much better looking aliens, and most crucial of all, a much smaller budget earlier this year. I speak, of course, of District 9.

Has someone somewhere stated that you cannot possibly achieve two great sci-fi movies in one year?

No, no, I didn't say that. But District 9 was a true piece of cinematic genius, especially in terms of the special effects. So here's the thing: while District 9 had a budget of just $30 million, Avatar has a budget of at least $230 million. Think about that: for the price of one Avatar production, you could have filmed District 9 in full and had enough money leftover to fund six more productions.

So yes, you can have two great sci-fi movies in one year, but people are still going to be comparing the two movies to each other. And since Avatar had a budget seven times greater than that of District 9, if the consensus winds up being that District-9 was the superior movie, that won't bode well for any of James Cameron's future ventures.

Sebiale wrote:Define, a 'deep script' ...please, tell me. Because if Avatar is shallow then the deep scripts must drown whole cities...
Hollywood is wide awake, it just doesn't care as long as it is making money.
There is no evidence to support the idea that the movie is going to be bad. Honestly, what would real plot and writing look like if this is an illusion of it?

I never said the movie was going to bad. The premises presented in the trailers is pretty shallow, but with a running time of 156 minutes, I'm sure there's more to it than that. As I said, Avatar at least has an illusion of plot and writing -- it won't surprise me if they're giving off that impression because they actually really do have some.

Hell, that might actually be part of the problem. 2012, Transformers: ROTF and Twilight: NM made no effort to hide the fact that they were dumb as dirt. Avatar's trailers look like they're trying to attract people who, you know, think every now and then.

Again, I'm not knocking the movie. I don't know for a fact that this movie will be crap, and I never said that I wanted the movie to tank. Hell, if anything, now I really want this movie to succeed. Tim Burton's 9 and Where The Wild Things Are were supposed to be the movies that reintroduced the importance of storytelling back to Hollywood and. . . Well, the former made a modest recovery, and the other one is still twenty million shy of breaking even. If Avatar bombs too, Hollywood is going to start to think that real scripts are a bad thing and 2010 will suck more than any movie year ever before.

So I am hoping for the best and wish Avatar all the best. I'm just not very optimistic is all.

(edited to fix crucial typos)

Hmmmm, well hopefully we are getting closer to the critical point.
(Critical point: The time at which good cinematic appearances will be so easy to produce that producers will have no choice to but to generate plots that actually possess merit.) Something gamers have been praying for, for years now...

http://torrentfreak.com/drm-fiasco-ruin ... ew-091217/

Found this recently. Have to love the irony there.

I don't see the problem.

Well, the verdict is in: We have a Spill.com review (Warning: adult language and bad furry jokes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78q19GuWpMw

They said pretty much what I would have expected from this: a generic "Dances With Wolves" plot with poorly written dialogue, but otherwise a very fulfilling movie experience. . .

Unfortunately, I bruised my forehead by banging it on the desk as soon as they started cracking "furry" one-liners. I seriously hope and pray to Jesus-on-a-Buddha that it isn't some bizarre desire not to see any "furry movies" that inexplicably kills Avatar at the box office. That will be too stupid for words.