TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Avatar
Pages (9): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 »


Posted by T_ALI on Dec-19-2009 20:54:

Kick ass movie!!!


Posted by FunkyCrew on Dec-19-2009 22:40:

quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Z
it's not the red/blue 3d glasses right?
:P


real D 3D? lol


Posted by c-mal on Dec-19-2009 22:43:

Yeah just bought tickets online for tonight.

How early should we show up? I'm thinkin an hour or so


Posted by FunkyCrew on Dec-20-2009 00:06:

quote:
Originally posted by c-mal
Yeah just bought tickets online for tonight.

How early should we show up? I'm thinkin an hour or so


you should be about half way through the line-up an hour before


Posted by Jem_hadar on Dec-20-2009 02:27:

quote:
Originally posted by Nobbie Q
This movie event of the millenium deserves it's own thread, away from the rest!


Havent seen it yet.. going tomorrow I hope (!!!!), but i def hafta agree!


Posted by c-mal on Dec-20-2009 07:18:

Fucking... phenomenal. Wow.

Saw it in 3D, and it was incredible.

Just... an incredible experience overall.


Managed to bypass like 100 people in line without actually budding too


Posted by Al on Dec-20-2009 09:09:

.


Posted by Al on Dec-20-2009 09:10:

alright, I went to see what the big fuss was about this movie and pretty much agree with the posters above me.

Yes, 3D is must, although it got my head fussy as fuck at the beginning I got used to it.

Graffics / special effects and great detail absolutely phenomenal. Scenery = pure win (floating mountains and that fantasy inspired jungle) Plot not so much but who gives a shit, I'm still amazed to see a movie that's not absolute utterly crap but the total opposite. If the plot was better, this would've been one of my top picks for many years.

and holy shit, some of those wild creatures were ugly as sin.

Yes do get there early, watching this on the 4th front row sucks massive balls.


Posted by SPANIARD on Dec-20-2009 15:24:

Went to see it in 3D in the Imax last night.

Graphics/Visuals= 10/10, unreal stuff.
Storyline=4/10, sorry.

Still worth the $16 to see it for the technology but in 3D is essential. Usually I'm the one who is 95% interested in the storyline and 5% effects, so if this can do it for me than I'm guessing most people will be impressed. I can't say how different the Imax experience is to the regular theater, but I don't know how you can possibly get better than Imax (was also my first Imax experience). I was sitting front row due to everything else being taken and this morning I have no pain in my neck, nor do my ears hurt.


Posted by WittyHandle on Dec-20-2009 16:12:

quote:
Originally posted by Al
Plot not so much but who gives a shit


Um, me?

Yes, it is visually amazing. The animals and vegetation were like an acid trip. What really impressed me personally was the facial expressions the CG was able to capture.

It's way too long though, and there are so many cliches that lost it points for me.


SPOILER


















It's basically Dances with Wolves. Guy spends time with natives, develops love interest, converts to their way, and defends against his own attacking people who don't understand the beauty of their way of life.

I understand they had to lower the common denominator to appeal to a lot of people in order to cover the incredibly high price tag, and that's a legitimate concern. But if you're going to spend 25 years on a movie like Cameron did, I'd expect something with more substance than this.

P.S. Was that a Celine Dion song playing during credits?


Posted by SPANIARD on Dec-20-2009 17:02:

Thumbs up

quote:
Originally posted by WittyHandle
It's basically Dances with Wolves. Guy spends time with natives, develops love interest, converts to their way, and defends against his own attacking people who don't understand the beauty of their way of life.

I understand they had to lower the common denominator to appeal to a lot of people in order to cover the incredibly high price tag, and that's a legitimate concern. But if you're going to spend 25 years on a movie like Cameron did, I'd expect something with more substance than this.

I never even thought of that but you're 100% on point.


Posted by acronym on Dec-20-2009 17:27:

quote:
Originally posted by WittyHandle
I understand they had to lower the common denominator to appeal to a lot of people in order to cover the incredibly high price tag, and that's a legitimate concern. But if you're going to spend 25 years on a movie like Cameron did, I'd expect something with more substance than this.


15 years, he wrote the script in 1994 (although that's still a long time).

It's by no means a deep or complex story, but I think they did it very well none the less. I didn't think any part of it was too long and found it very well paced.

The quality of the visuals also tie into the plot as far as I'm concerned. Considering the importance of nature to the plot it helps a lot to be immersed in it so completely on a visual level. I think that alone legitimately makes up for whatever the plot might have lacked.


Posted by FunkyCrew on Dec-20-2009 17:47:

quote:
Originally posted by WittyHandle


you mean 15 right? lol
and what exactly do you mean "more" substance? last thing we needed was an incredibly loaded story line with way too many things to follow

this worked beautifully, nuff said.


Posted by Jem_hadar on Dec-20-2009 17:49:

Seeing the 6:50 showing tonight in Collingwood! Very excited.


Posted by WittyHandle on Dec-20-2009 17:57:

quote:
Originally posted by FunkyCrew
and what exactly do you mean "more" substance? last thing we needed was an incredibly loaded story line with way too many things to follow


No one wants too many aspects of a plot to follow, but too little is just as bad.

For those that haven't seen it, definitely do so in 3D.

I just don't see why people are seemingly ok with taking style over substance so often.


Posted by FunkyCrew on Dec-20-2009 18:22:

quote:
Originally posted by WittyHandle
No one wants too many aspects of a plot to follow, but too little is just as bad.

For those that haven't seen it, definitely do so in 3D.

I just don't see why people are seemingly ok with taking style over substance so often.


as far as I'm concerned noone is taking style over substance here
I'm a big nerd when it comes to a proper story-line but like someone already pointed out - a lot of the story was in the visuals, almost like there was more to everything than met the eye

sometimes the most incredible things are damn simple - and how many movies leave you thinking over everything that you've seen for days?


Posted by c-mal on Dec-20-2009 19:36:

I don't think the story was bad, but just simple.
If it was too convoluted I think it would have affected the movie negatively.
You're so involved in the visuals that maybe making the story more complex would have taken away from them.

Either way, not once did I think "this is stupid" or cheesey or roll my eyes at the plot progression or at any dialogue for that matter.

I see Avatar as pretty much a perfect movie experience, but that's just me.


Posted by FunkyCrew on Dec-20-2009 19:38:

it is absolutely insane how he wrote this and just waited for technology to catch up (" development of 3D viewing and stereoscopic filmmaking with cameras that were specially designed for the film's production"), wow, what a vision the guy has!


Posted by Jem_hadar on Dec-20-2009 19:45:

quote:
Originally posted by FunkyCrew
it is absolutely insane how he wrote this and just waited for technology to catch up


That is fucking insane! WHOA... i didnt know that... thats fucking surreal actually.

Leave it to James Cameron!!


How long ago did he actually write this before dropping it to wait for the tech to catch up to make it a reality on the big screen?


Posted by FunkyCrew on Dec-20-2009 20:00:

quote:
Originally posted by Jem_hadar
That is fucking insane! WHOA... i didnt know that... thats fucking surreal actually.

Leave it to James Cameron!!


How long ago did he actually write this before dropping it to wait for the tech to catch up to make it a reality on the big screen?


I believe he was done properly writing this in 05 or 07
he had 2 projects in the works but he chose to go with Avatar first

and the crazy thing is I didn't even know he's Canadian, lol a fail on my part, but makes me very proud now!


Posted by Al on Dec-20-2009 20:03:

quote:
Originally posted by FunkyCrew
and the crazy thing is I didn't even know he's Canadian, lol a fail on my part, but makes me very proud now!


Google is a helluva thing

quote:
born in Kapuskasing, Ontario, Canada


source


Posted by FunkyCrew on Dec-20-2009 20:04:

quote:
Originally posted by Al
Google is a helluva thing



source


lol thanks Capt. Obvious
not like I woke up one day thinking "oh, I wonder where he's from"
I was just told recently


Posted by acronym on Dec-20-2009 20:21:

It was written in 1994, and originally planed to be released in 1999 but Cameron made the decision of waiting for the technology to be developed.


Posted by FunkyCrew on Dec-20-2009 20:25:

quote:
Originally posted by acronym
It was written in 1994, and originally planed to be released in 1999 but Cameron made the decision of waiting for the technology to be developed.


+ nothing was heard of it until 2005, with release pushed to 2009


Posted by Nobbie Q on Dec-20-2009 20:36:

I'm seeing this Wednesday on IMAX 3-D at Coliseum. Wanna see it sooner as I've been hyped up for this too long, but I'm coordinating this with 8 other people.


Pages (9): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 »

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.