^ win
it's true, but I still liked the plot. Was it original? No, but 90% of movies since 1990 have not had "original" plots. The Green Mile? Try "The Bible"!.burnzz wrote:
^ win
Doing something like that is really flawed though. Some of that stuff is generic, like he got hurt by "name". No way, a hero got hurt by a bad guy!?Poseidon wrote:
it's true, but I still liked the plot. Was it original? No, but 90% of movies since 1990 have not had "original" plots. The Green Mile? Try "The Bible"!.burnzz wrote:
^ win
...that's the idea buzz killington. You could make Avatar seem like LOST if you really wanted to.Winston_Churchill wrote:
Doing something like that is really flawed though. Some of that stuff is generic, like he got hurt by "name". No way, a hero got hurt by a bad guy!?Poseidon wrote:
it's true, but I still liked the plot. Was it original? No, but 90% of movies since 1990 have not had "original" plots. The Green Mile? Try "The Bible"!.burnzz wrote:
^ win
If you're seeing Avatar for the plot, urdoinitrong.
Something tells me your wrong. I can't say I've liked any of his movies.... usually I detest generic-bang-bang-explosion-tit flash action films. But I still found the CGI in Avatar awesome. I can't even think of a single "action" film i would rate in my top 20 (unless you count LOTR)NooBesT wrote:
Something tells me that you think Michael Bay is a good director.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
True, but I can still appreciate the film for its excellent visuals. I knew I wasn't in for the narrative of the century, I was there for the eye-sex Some films are based around an excellent story, some are made for the spectacle.
Killing an overplayed, not funny joke? I feel terriblePoseidon wrote:
...that's the idea buzz killington. You could make Avatar seem like LOST if you really wanted to.Winston_Churchill wrote:
Doing something like that is really flawed though. Some of that stuff is generic, like he got hurt by "name". No way, a hero got hurt by a bad guy!?Poseidon wrote:
it's true, but I still liked the plot. Was it original? No, but 90% of movies since 1990 have not had "original" plots. The Green Mile? Try "The Bible"!.
like the people who took Transformers for anything more than a CGI-festmtb0minime wrote:
If you're seeing Avatar for the plot, urdoinitrong.
and Avatar's CGI >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Transformers
If they had a good plot people would have been focusing on that more than the visualsmtb0minime wrote:
If you're seeing Avatar for the plot, urdoinitrong.
By making a simple plot, that's somewhat predictable and still leaves room for a twist they let people relax and focus on the details of the movie and just enjoy something thats epic as fuck
That's a good point, if it had an advanced plot you would be focusing too much on that instead of the amazing visuals.GodFather wrote:
If they had a good plot people would have been focusing on that more than the visualsmtb0minime wrote:
If you're seeing Avatar for the plot, urdoinitrong.
By making a simple plot, that's somewhat predictable and still leaves room for a twist they let people relax and focus on the details of the movie and just enjoy something thats epic as fuck
yes Yes YES!!!Poseidon wrote:
like the people who took Transformers for anything more than a CGI-festmtb0minime wrote:
If you're seeing Avatar for the plot, urdoinitrong.
and Avatar's CGI >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Transformers
Avatar did 3-d right. It was like you were in the room with them, and it was subtle and simply there. None of this 'whoa shit a fucking claw in your fucking face holy shit!!!! it's in your face!!! IN YOUR FACE!!!!!!!!!!' crap.
I saw it in 3D and I didn't really find it particularly impressive. The visuals couldn't make up for the boredom of the plot.
Speed Racer did good looking visuals better.
Speed Racer did good looking visuals better.
Miggle can't possibly try harder and yet he still fails to incite even the smallest non-sarcastic rise.
well you've responded to every post I've made today, isn't that worth something?N00bkilla55404 wrote:
Miggle can't possibly try harder and yet he still fails to incite even the smallest non-sarcastic rise.
going to see it tomorrow.. i saw it is 2.5 hours long - not good for ADD... lol
it's a long 2.5 hours.Kimmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:
going to see it tomorrow.. i saw it is 2.5 hours long - not good for ADD... lol
Is the movie not technically in 4-d?
LoL, it's not that long . . .
Saw it again, in 3D this time.
Neat but gimmicky, didn't think 3D added anything - it was a distraction more than anything.
Neat but gimmicky, didn't think 3D added anything - it was a distraction more than anything.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
I wanna watch Rear Window 3D and Laurence of Arabia 3D.
am i the only one who doesnt really care to see this?
Nopewhaaaaaaaaaat wrote:
am i the only one who doesnt really care to see this?
Just saw it. I'll have to sleep on my opinion of it. It shouldn't win any script writing or screenplay awards anyway. Formulaic morality fable.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2010-01-06 16:08:41)
saw it yesterday ( in 3D). Although the story wasnt groundbreaking, the graphics were like nothing I have seen before. Artistically it was possibly the best movie I have seen. Although it was a bit over whelming ( so much pretty stufff going on).