|
Avatar looks badass. (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Schadenfreude |
| woooooooooosh |
|
|
| Schadenfreude |
| woooooooooosh |
|
|
| mdamon7278 |
| We heard you the first time :D |
|
|
| ziptnf |
| quote: | Originally posted by mdamon7278
Godzilla? |
 |
|
|
| jonSun |
| True Lies had a great story line, great acting & special effects that were excellent even by today's standards. Just as True Lies was in 94, I feel Avatar will be movie of the year. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by ziptnf
Yeah, it was unrealistic, you can't really genetically engineer dinosaurs out of mosquitoes covered in amber. But you know what? Alien and Aliens are unrealistic. And Terminator. All those movies kick ass, but I don't see why a movie where a T-Rex eats a bastard lawyer and velociraptors rip up is so horrible. |
Please show me where I mentioned realism as an issue, or you have to shut the up for using such useless strawman arguments.
| quote: | Originally posted by Schadenfreude
i thought true lies sucked too...it just isn't my type of movie. Action that is too over the top just loses me. The scene with the fighter jet at the end was just epic cheese. |
To be honest, I haven't seen it since I was a kid, but I remember it being funny and quite tongue-in-cheek. Neither it nor Titanic were sci-fi films though, so they were essentially experiments to Cameron. And honestly, both were much better than 90% of blockbusters. |
|
|
| ziptnf |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Please show me where I mentioned realism as an issue, or you have to shut the up for using such useless strawman arguments. |
Well what's the issue? Poor acting? Bad CGI? Bad plot? You just said "it sucked" and didn't really cite your reason. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by ziptnf
Well what's the issue? Poor acting? Bad CGI? Bad plot? You just said "it sucked" and didn't really cite your reason. |
Technically it's a very good movie. Acting, directing and special effects are all fine. But the plot, the characterisation and the subtexts are all terrible.
There's a very long essay/review here, which you probably won't read because you're an obvious fanboy of the movie who will just say "Can't you just stop thinking so much and enjoy it?" like some IMDBtard. It covers the whole film in depth, including a whole lot about the bad science you can probably dismiss, and everything else which you can't. http://www.aycyas.com/jurassicpark.htm |
|
|
| Schadenfreude |
the only thing remotely interesting about J park was the cgi...and that is because it was the first blockbuster movie to base itself so heavily on it. It had been used before, but never on this scale.
The company that did the cgi for jurassic park was based here in Montreal, so we never stopped hearing about it. Everyone went, and even i was wowed by some of it because it was so "new".
When i re-watched the movie a few years later, it was very meh. The cgi didn't wow me anymore because it was everywhere, and the acting, plot, everything could not make up for that.
cgi has its place when tastefully done and toned down (see: Forest Gump)...when the whole movie relies on it heavily it is just a way to cover up a generally ty idea/inability to not use it.
The Superman movie is a great example of this.
The Christopher Reeves era Superman movies were far superior to the new one, because the director had to find a way to make you believe...not just manipulate pixels on a screen.
see also: star wars. |
|
|
| ziptnf |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
There's a very long essay/review here, which you probably won't read because you're an obvious fanboy of the movie who will just say "Can't you just stop thinking so much and enjoy it?" like some IMDBtard. |
I mean, come on, I can't imagine you seeing a great movie when you're 6 years old then changing your mind just because someone else thought it sucked.
I skimmed through the article, I will read the whole thing later, but he's got some good points. Obviously, Michael Crichton and Steven Spielberg weren't very accurate with the dinosaurs, but in a science fiction thriller, being dead-accurate with some of the more boring dinosaurs doesn't really do what it's supposed to. The viewer of a big action flick shouldn't be watching a documentary. Could it have been a little more accurate and still been action-packed? Probably.
The genetics and biology aspect of the movie was also a bit questionable, he's right. All my argument was supposed to be initially was that the CGI helped make it a great movie. It may not have been scientifically accurate or even plausible, but it made for a great thriller that set the standard for computer generated imagery in film making. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by ziptnf
I mean, come on, I can't imagine you seeing a great movie when you're 6 years old then changing your mind just because someone else thought it sucked. |
No, but I watch films now that I loved at 6 and I realise they were and I was just too young to know any better. I don't have the exact same standards as 15 years ago, otherwise I'd get in from work and bust out the Lego.
Although I can't say I ever liked Jurassic Park very much. We had it on VHS but I almost never pulled it out to watch. Even as a kid I intuitively knew it wasn't on the same level as Indiana Jones or Jaws.
| quote: | | It may not have been scientifically accurate or even plausible, but it made for a great thriller that set the standard for computer generated imagery in film making. |
Again, you're just assuming I care about scientific accuracy. The film's plot is riddled with holes, the internal logic is broken, the characterisation is paper thin at best and the subtexts are just pathetic and manipulative. It just sucks in all the departments that make a good film. It's just a tech demo of a movie.
And the article is written by a woman. |
|
|
| ziptnf |
Alright dude, you made your point, let's agree to disagree. Despite the flawed logic and loosely coupled plot elements, I still thought the film did its job in creating a great CGI action thriller.
Edit: Lego owns. |
|
|
|
|
