Jim Cameron’s ‘Avatar’ Is a Big, Dull, America-Hating, PC Revenge Fantasy
Sound of Trumpet
REVIEW: Jim Cameron’s ‘Avatar’ Is a Big, Dull, America-Hating, PC
Revenge Fantasy
(SPOILER WARNNG)
Big Hollywood ^ | 12/13/2009 | John Nolte
Posted on 13 December 2009 23:22:55 by SeekAndFind
Absent from the big screen for over a decade now, Oscar-winning
director James Cameron returns armed with a reported half-billion
dollars, a story he’s been desperate to tell for 15 years, and the
very latest in cutting-edge visual technology. The result is “Avatar,”
a sanctimonious thud of a movie so infested with one-dimensional
characters and PC clichés that not a single plot turn – small or large
– surprises. I call it the “liberal tell,” where the early and obvious
politics of the film gives away the entire story before the second act
begins, and “Avatar” might be the sorriest example of this yet. For
all the time and money and technology that went into its making, the
thing that matters most – character and story – are strictly
Afterschool Special.
What a crushing disappointment from one of our most original and
imaginative filmmakers.
Avatar
Set in 2154, “Avatar” is a thinly disguised, heavy-handed and
simplistic sci-fi fantasy/allegory critical of America from our
founding straight through to the Iraq War. Sam Worthington is Jake
Sully, a paraplegic Marine Corporal sent to the planet Pandora after
the untimely death of his brother. In a plot-thread built up to
promise much that never pays off, Sully has none of the training his
brother benefitted by: years of schooling in the Avatar Program to
prepare him to infiltrate the indigenous species of Pandora called the
Na’vi, who are the only things between Earth’s RDA (Resources
Development Administration) and a precious energy resource
“ironically” called Unobtainium.
Because the air on Pandora is toxic to humans, the RDA developed the
Avatar Program to create clone-like avatars from both Na’vi and human
DNA (which is why they need the untrained Sully) that allow for a
human to transfer their consciousness into the 10-foot native blue
beings and safely explore the planet. The scientists want to use the
program to study Pandora, the military wants to conquer it, and the
RDA wants to strip mine it. At first Sully’s unconcerned with these
dueling tensions and agendas. Once a marine always a marine, and when
his commanding officer, the beefed up genocide-happy Col. Quaritch
(Stephen Lang), asks him to infiltrate the Na’vi and do recon for a
probable attack, Jake is more than ready. Hoo-rah.
But before you can say I’ve seen this movie a thousand times before,
Jake enters his Na’vi avatar and in a tired action scene straight out
of the “Jurassic Park” trilogy, gets lost in the dangerous Pandoran
forest only to be rescued by something else he’d like to enter, the
beautiful (if you go for ten-foot tall gaudy blue females) Neytiri
(Zoe Saldana) – a walking cliché of the tough, earthy, compassionate,
oh-so wise love interest who can somehow speak English … but in that
halting way that’s so gosh darned endearing.
And so begins the real Cliché-A-Thon…
***SPOILERS COMING***
Does Neytiri just happen to be the Chief’s daughter? Check! At first,
does the tribe not trust Sully and want to kill him on the spot before
Neytiri intervenes with wise explanations as to why it’s their tribal
custom to take in strangers as one of their own? Chuh-eck! Is Sully
then immersed in the native culture and put through a series of tests
to prove his worthiness beginning with the sort of clumsiness that
brings hoots of derisive laughter from the male warriors but endears
him to Neytiri? Double check! Does Sully eventually become one of
their strongest warriors and on the day he’s to be initiated as a full
member of the tribe—GOD this movie’s tedious.
AVATAR
There’s nothing wrong with a simple, boilerplate plot. They’re
boilerplate for a reason. But within that well worn template
complicated characters involved in complicated and surprising
relationships are an absolute necessity, and this is where “Avatar”
fails miserably.
Within 15 minutes, the “liberal tell” spoils every story beat of
Sully’s character arc. He’s as dull a protagonist as you’ll ever see.
Sigourney Weaver plays a gruff-talking, cigarette smoking scientist
with … wait for it, wait for it … a heart of gold. Giovanni Ribisi’s
sweaty weasel of a corporate executive never moves beyond that and
Col. Quaritch is all ‘roid rage, no humanity and his Big Speech about
the necessity of “a pre-emptive attack to fight terror with terror”
was as surprising as Cameron‘s use of a military “shock and awe”
campaign to level the Na’Vi’s precious “Home Tree” as a tacky metaphor
for the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center.
Oh yeah, he went there…
In supporting roles, Michelle Rodriguez and Joel Moore bring a whole
lot more to their underwritten roles than the film deserves — you’d
like to spend more time with them — but it’s always back to the film’s
dullest characters: the one-dimensional Na’vi. You would think that
with 15 years and a half-billion dollars, Cameron could come up an
alien species that doesn’t drip with every Indian and African sacred-
cow cliché imaginable. These are creatures who worship the Great
Mother Eywa, have a sacred relationship with the earth, shoot bow and
arrows, ride horse-like animals, whoop it up in battle, and talk like
this: “It has only happened five times since the time of the first
songs of our ancestors.”
The Na’vi also apologize to animals after killing but before
butchering them. So I guess that’s okay. Maybe if Quaritch had gotten
on the loudspeaker and spoken a little mumbo-jumbo before dropping a
daisy cutter on Home Tree all would be forgiven.
On top of that, the Na’vi are an awfully stupid species. After years
of dealing with the “Sky People,” for some reason they still haven’t
figured out that arrows are useless against giant military aircraft.
And is it okay to mention how hard it is to keep track of who’s who,
because the Na’vi, uhm … all look alike? Twice I was sure Sully’s
avatar had been killed. Twice I was disappointed.
Cameron’s brainchild tribe is boringly perfect and insufferably noble
… I wanted to wipe them out.
AVATAR
Visually “Avatar” doesn’t break any new ground. It looks like a big-
budget animated film with a garish color palette right off a hippie’s
tie dye shirt. Never for a moment did I believe the Na’vi or the world
of Pandora was something organic or real. The fairly pointless use of
3-D certainly doesn’t help, but Steven Spielberg’s sixteen year-old
dinosaurs are light years ahead of “Avatar” in the reality department.
The one thing Cameron has always done well is to create busy,
energetic, brilliantly choreographed action scenes that allow the
audience to follow what’s going on. That’s not a small thing because
it’s becoming a lost art in Hollywood as more and more filmmakers
lazily trade coherence for the artless shaky-cam and hyper edits. And
while none of Cameron’s big battle set-pieces is ever able to overcome
the “liberal tells” pre-ordained outcome and create a sense of
suspense or peril, at least you don’t get lost in the precious wonder
of it all.
Think of “Avatar” as “Death Wish 5” for leftists. A simplistic,
revisionist revenge fantasy where if you freakin’ hate the bad guys
(America), you’re able to forgive the by-the-numbers predictability of
it all and still get off watching them get what they got coming.
And if Cameron is able to make a profit spending a half-billion
dollars on a little liberal bloodlust, more power to him.
tomcervo
wrote:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2406793/posts
I guess the bar is a lot lower in the right wing press. I can remember
when people like Allan Tate and John Simon did reviews for the NR. Now
it's hacks who can't write a decent sentence, but who make sure they
salt it with the right talking points.
Budikka666
more flatulent and pompous than some jackass you don't even know
dictating what entertainment you should enjoy based on nothing more
than them having a couple of semesters of "Cinema as a Gut Form" in
college?
Budikka
James A. Donald
<soundof...@dcemail.com> wrote:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2406793/posts
>
>
> REVIEW: Jim Cameron’s ‘Avatar’ Is a Big, Dull, America-Hating, PC
> Revenge Fantasy
Yes it is, but on the other hand, it is a technological break through.
They have passed through uncanny valley and come out the other side,
which is where we have never been before, which is mighty cool.
> Set in 2154, “Avatar” is a thinly disguised, heavy-handed and
> simplistic sci-fi fantasy/allegory critical of America from our
> founding straight through to the Iraq War.
True, but only the American technology that the movie despises (it
gets beaten by virtuous primitives using bows and arrows) could have
created this movie.
> And so begins the real Cliché-A-Thon…
Yes, but all these cliches appear new when you see them on the other
side of uncanny valley.
> There’s nothing wrong with a simple, boilerplate plot. They’re
> boilerplate for a reason. But within that well worn template
> complicated characters involved in complicated and surprising
> relationships are an absolute necessity, and this is where “Avatar”
> fails miserably.\
That would be a relevant criticism if this was a novel. It is an
action movie taking place on the other side of uncanny valley, for
which formula characters of boilerplate and cardboard are exactly
right.
> dullest characters: the one-dimensional Na’vi. You would think that
> with 15 years and a half-billion dollars, Cameron could come up an
> alien species that doesn’t drip with every Indian and African sacred-
> cow cliché imaginable.
Well, yeah. What we need is this CGI technology applied to Starship
Troopers. Evil loathsome enemy bugs, kill them all. That would be
even more fun.
> Think of “Avatar” as “Death Wish 5” for leftists. A simplistic,
> revisionist revenge fantasy where if you freakin’ hate the bad guys
> (America), you’re able to forgive the by-the-numbers predictability of
> it all and still get off watching them get what they got coming.
Quite so. But it all happens on the other side of uncanny valley,
which is where we have never been before.
DouhetSukd
Did ya see the movie? Or is regurgitation, much before digestion, the
order of the day?
Howard Brazee
Some critics seem to have my tastes. Some have tastes contrary to
mine. Either way, I can narrow down my search for a movie I want to
see.
Same thing with books. We can't see/read everything, and don't
want to.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
nick
And make sure to get in their masturbatory whack-off violence fetish:
"Cameron’s brainchild tribe is boringly perfect and insufferably
noble
… I wanted to wipe them out."
Where would the modern right wing be without these moments of "I'm not
a wimp, no, not really" bloodlust?
Sanity's Little Helper
posteth:
> REVIEW: Jim CameronοΏ½s οΏ½AvatarοΏ½ Is a Big, Dull, America-Hating, PC
> Revenge Fantasy
sounds good. I wasn't going to bother seeing it....
--
David Silverman
aa #2208
Defender of Civilisation
"Christian" (n). A person who views insulting non-Christians as a sacred
duity, and any response as persecution
Not authentic without this signature.
nick
> It is an ancient Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com>, and he
> posteth:
>
> > REVIEW: Jim Cameron s Avatar Is a Big, Dull, America-Hating, PC
> > Revenge Fantasy
>
> sounds good. I wasn't going to bother seeing it....
>
Revenge Fantasy but I had a fun three hours watching it.
Quadibloc
> "Christian" (n). A person who views insulting non-Christians as a sacred
> duity, and any response as persecution
"Muslim" (n). A person who views oppressing non-Muslims as a sacred
duty, and any response as persecution.
Less PC, but closer to the truth.
Despite, of course, not being the truth. A lot of Muslims in majority-
Muslim countries _do_ correspond to that definition, but then when
Christian countries had similar levels of wealth and education, we did
behave about as badly.
The review had one clear inaccuracy; the amount of money James Cameron
used was closer to a quarter billion dollars than a half billion.
A sentimental plot about innocent natives issuperior to one of
transparent jingoism... but if Cameron had avoided heavy-handed
identification of his bad guys with America today or under Bush, it
would have helped. Frankly, I think Hollywood ought to be, at the
present time, showing the same level of... responsibility... as it did
during World War II. The terrorists are not warm and cuddly, and
neither the American people nor the Israeli people are under any moral
obligation to tolerate being the targets of terrorism.
John Savard
JRStern
<soundof...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2406793/posts
>
>
>REVIEW: Jim Cameron�s �Avatar� Is a Big, Dull, America-Hating, PC
>Revenge Fantasy
Is Yoda in it? Or just Jar-Jar Binks?
J.
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
> Revenge Fantasy
> (SPOILER WARNNG)
>
Must be a great movie. Strumpet and the Freepers hate it.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
http://azhotops.blogspot.com
A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
BAAWA Knight Sir Karl of the Solaris Media
____________________________________________________________________
Ray Fischer
>
>
>REVIEW: Jim Cameron�s �Avatar� Is a Big, Dull, America-Hating, PC
>Revenge Fantasy
As soon as I saw the movie I knoew that there would be wingnuts
outraged at the notion that nature and people isn't to be brutally
exploited.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
erilar
Sanity's Little Helper <elv...@noshpam.org> wrote:
> It is an ancient Sound of Trumpet <soundof...@dcemail.com>, and he
> posteth:
>
> > REVIEW: Jim Cameron�s �Avatar� Is a Big, Dull, America-Hating, PC
> > Revenge Fantasy
>
> sounds good. I wasn't going to bother seeing it....
Seeing the groups the cries of rage are posted to(I delete them), I KNOW
I have to go see this movie 8-)
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Jacey Bedford
<dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> writes
>In article <674nku1xxc3b.r...@40tude.net>,
> Sanity's Little Helper <elv...@noshpam.org> wrote:
>
>> It is an ancient Sound of Trumpet <soundof...@dcemail.com>, and he
>> posteth:
>>
>> > REVIEW: Jim Cameron�s �Avatar� Is a Big, Dull, America-Hating, PC
>> > Revenge Fantasy
>>
>> sounds good. I wasn't going to bother seeing it....
>
>Seeing the groups the cries of rage are posted to(I delete them), I KNOW
>I have to go see this movie 8-)
>
Jacey
--
Jacey Bedford
Budikka666
The critics love it and it's earned 27 million US on its opening day.
The game looks exactly like the movie for good reason. Cameron waited
ten years to make this move for "technology to catch up" to his ideas
for it. It's worth going to see purely to see what he's done. I
understand that both Spielberg and Lucas visited him on set to see
what he was up to. Both of them are enthusiastic about it, and Lucas
has apparently suggested it might even outdo Star Wars:
http://snarkerati.com/movie-news/lucas-spielberg-talk-avatar/
I personally doubt that, but let's wait and see. Besides it's a space
adventure with Sigourney Weaver. What's not to like?!
Budikka
Quadibloc
> As soon as I saw the movie I knoew that there would be wingnuts
> outraged at the notion that nature and people isn't to be brutally
> exploited.
Oh, no. I'm happy to see movies that are opposed to the brutal
exploitation of people. For example, Star Trek: Insurrection.
If there is a subtext in the movie that the "bad guys" who are
brutally exploiting nature and people are similar to someone on Earth,
all they have to do is make sure that this subtext points to some
country hostile to the United States rather than some country friendly
to the United States.
So if he had made a movie about a Chinese spaceship coming to this
planet that had two tribes of blue-skinned aliens, say Arab blue-
skinned aliens and Jewish blue-skinned aliens, and the bad Arab aliens
were bullying the Jewish aliens, and the Chinese spacemen were going
to make a deal with the bad Arab aliens to get their unobtainium, why,
even if it was still cliched and kitschy and sentimental, just like
the real movie, at least I could praise it for helping to energize the
American people patriotically during a difficult time.
The time for a movie like Avatar as it is would be after America has
achieved total victory in the War on Terror, so as to re-orient the
psychology of Americans as they get on with the work of rebuilding
these lands along democratic lines.
John Savard
rochrist
You're a laugh riot.
Uncle Vic
Exactly. These guys get major attention when they pan a movie, and what
a movie to pan! I've come to the understanding that when a picture gets
bad reviews, it's going to be worth watching. Hell, the hype that's been
building for months should at least bring in the money to pay for the
production costs, which were considerably less than half a billion. 300
Mil was the figure I heard.
And about 15,000 of it went into my bank account, not including the
soundtrack re-use. And many years worth of Secondary Markets Funds
(residuals) to follow. I worked on the picture - music prep. It was a
dream gig. All the scores were prepared in Finale, the leading edge
music publishing program. We XMLd the files and extracted the parts in
Sibelius. I'd have preferred just extracting them in Finale, but my boss
(82 years old) insisted on Sibelius. He claims to be too old to learn
Finale, and he's probably right - the learning curve on that program is
through the roof. Whatever... it pays to know both programs well. On
busy days, we copyists were making over a grand a day. Nice work if you
can get it...
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Christians are like Slinkys. They're boring, but they'll put a smile on
your face when you push them down the stairs.
Uncle Vic
wrote:
> It is an ancient Sound of Trumpet <soundof...@dcemail.com>, and he
> posteth:
>
>> REVIEW: Jim Cameron�s �Avatar� Is a Big, Dull, America-Hating, PC
>> Revenge Fantasy
>
> sounds good. I wasn't going to bother seeing it....
>
Aww hell. Get good and stoned first. I think you'll like it.
D.F. Manno
<d578a11e-4c58-400a...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> The time for a movie like Avatar as it is would be after America has
> achieved total victory in the War on Terror
A final solution?
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
In a Life without Walls�, who needs Windows�?
William December Starr
Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> said:
What does that make anyone who pays attention to you?
(Other than to mock you, of course.)
-- wds
Quadibloc
> In article
> <d578a11e-4c58-400a-9918-abbcda439...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > The time for a movie like Avatar as it is would be after America has
> > achieved total victory in the War on Terror
>
> A final solution?
Don't be silly. This would be for after the terrorists are completely
crushed, but the Muslim world is very much alive, and so we need to be
re-oriented to be nice to them as we re-orient their nations towards
responsible world citizenship. Just as we re-oriented Germany, rather
than exterminating it.
Why would we need to be re-oriented to be nice to people when they're
all dead?
John Savard
Budikka666
> In article <ebf6023c-1c4a-4037-b07e-f08c823f4...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> said:
>
> > Anyone who pays attention to movie critics is a moron. What could
> > be more flatulent and pompous than some jackass you don't even
> > know dictating what entertainment you should enjoy based on
> > nothing more than them having a couple of semesters of "Cinema as
> > a Gut Form" in college?
>
> What does that make anyone who pays attention to you?
Well you did so why don't you tell us what you are? LoL!
Budikka
Budikka666
> One fine day in alt.atheism, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > Anyone who pays attention to movie critics is a moron. What could be
> > more flatulent and pompous than some jackass you don't even know
> > dictating what entertainment you should enjoy based on nothing more
> > than them having a couple of semesters of "Cinema as a Gut Form" in
> > college?
>
> > Budikka
>
> Exactly. These guys get major attention when they pan a movie, and what
> a movie to pan! I've come to the understanding that when a picture gets
> bad reviews, it's going to be worth watching. Hell, the hype that's been
> building for months should at least bring in the money to pay for the
> production costs, which were considerably less than half a billion. 300
> Mil was the figure I heard.
That sounds right in the ballpark I read. The only real movie critic
is the box office. That doesn't mean all good movies make money or
all bad ones lose money, but it does mean that movie critics seem
clueless to the fact that if movie stuidos don't make money they go
bankrupt and no more movies come from them, good, bad, or indifferent.
Movie critics seem to be utterly clueless when it comes to
understanding what movies are actually *for*. They seem to think
every movie should be some sort of morally-uplifting educational
event, and when someone makes a movie that is for nothing more than
pure entertainment, they can't grasp it's "purpose"!
If a move takes you out on an adventure for a couple of hours, it's
served its purpose. That's all there is to it. If some writers,
actors, directors want to make it more than that, fine, but don't
expect the audience to require that or to appreciate it. If I want to
experience existential angst or learn about the human condition, I'll
go read a book or watch a documentary, or just look at it all around
me. I don't need a movie to show me what I see every day. I want a
movie to be something other than than that - otherwise, what's the
point?
> And about 15,000 of it went into my bank account, not including the
> soundtrack re-use. And many years worth of Secondary Markets Funds
> (residuals) to follow. I worked on the picture - music prep. It was a
> dream gig. All the scores were prepared in Finale, the leading edge
> music publishing program. We XMLd the files and extracted the parts in
> Sibelius. I'd have preferred just extracting them in Finale, but my boss
> (82 years old) insisted on Sibelius. He claims to be too old to learn
> Finale, and he's probably right - the learning curve on that program is
> through the roof. Whatever... it pays to know both programs well. On
> busy days, we copyists were making over a grand a day. Nice work if you
> can get it...
That sounds like a cool life to be leading!
Budikka
MarkA
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2406793/posts
>
>
> REVIEW: Jim Cameron’s ‘Avatar’ Is a Big, Dull, America-Hating, PC
> Revenge Fantasy
> (SPOILER WARNNG)
>
FYI, Avatar has 94% positive reviews among top critics on Rotten Tomatoes.
If it's a good movie, AND it pisses off the "George W Bush was the
Greatest President EVER" crowd, what could be better?
--
MarkA
Keeper of the Butter Dish of Balshazar
Ray Fischer
> Sound of Trumpet wrote:
>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2406793/posts
>>
>>
>> REVIEW: Jim Cameron’s ‘Avatar’ Is a Big, Dull, America-Hating, PC
>> Revenge Fantasy
>> (SPOILER WARNNG)
>>
>
>FYI, Avatar has 94% positive reviews among top critics on Rotten Tomatoes.
>If it's a good movie, AND it pisses off the "George W Bush was the
>Greatest President EVER" crowd, what could be better?
Free jujubes?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Quadibloc
> the "George W Bush was the
> Greatest President EVER" crowd,
That would be just plain silly. Obviously, George W. Bush, great
President though he was, did not surpass the accomplishments of Ronald
Reagan.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> Movie critics seem to be utterly clueless when it comes to
> understanding what movies are actually *for*. They seem to think
> every movie should be some sort of morally-uplifting educational
> event, and when someone makes a movie that is for nothing more than
> pure entertainment, they can't grasp it's "purpose"!
Yes, I enjoyed Star Wars when it first came out.
However, in order to entertain, a movie does have to have quality,
even if movie critics seem to only know how to look for superficial
things sometimes associated with quality. A movie should be judged on
the quality it actually has, not on its pretensions.
John Savard
Tom
Yeah, nobility... what a disturbing virtue to practice.
If only more of these right-tard douche bags would act nobly...
Tom
James A. Donald
> > > The time for a movie like Avatar as it is would be after America has
> > > achieved total victory in the War on Terror
> > A final solution?
Quadibloc
> Don't be silly. This would be for after the terrorists are completely
> crushed, but the Muslim world is very much alive, and so we need to be
> re-oriented to be nice to them as we re-orient their nations towards
> responsible world citizenship. Just as we re-oriented Germany, rather
> than exterminating it.
But before the Germans were persuaded to go along with re-orientation,
it was necessary to make a good start on extermination.
Budikka
There are morons like Sound of Trash out there who are amongst the
biggest cowards on Usenet, who post the words of others, blindly knee-
jerking a message about something they've never seen, and which they
wouldn't understand even if they had seen it, but the fact is that
unless you've seen it yourself, you can't comment intelligently on it.
Contrary to LIARS like Sound of Trash, the movie isn't boring - at
least not according to the box office, which is the third highest ever
for a December release behind "LotR: The Return of the King" and "I Am
Legend". I wanted to turn right around and go see it again as soon as
I came out of the first viewing.
Contrary to the LIES told by Sound of Trash and his ilk, the movie
isn't at all about Liberals trashing the USA. It's about the brutal
exploitation of indigenous peoples by the powers that be - something
which isn't fiction at all, but which we've seen as a result of the
historical of exploration of our own planet.
Cameron's vision comes to the screen after more than a decade of
planning and waiting for technology to be equal to what he saw, and he
didn't waste a minute of that time. The fictional planet Pandora is
realized in stunning detail and with amazing imagination.
The 3-D effect is unnerving in its realism. The indigenous people are
drawn with startling realism. Everything about this movie is
breathtaking, including the soundtrack.
Yes, you can pick fault with it if that's what you're into, but I
don't go to a movie to pick fault. I go to relax and be taken away
from reality for a couple of hours and enjoy a damned good time.
Sometimes I make a bad choice and I'm disappointed, other times I'm
thrilled. Sometimes I go with high expectations only to be let down
by those expectations; other times I go with low expectations only to
be pleasantly surprised.
This time I went in there neutrally, expecting at the very least to be
able check out this new 3-D technology, which is ground-breaking
regardless of the first vehicle that exposes it to the light of day,
and I wasn't even remotely disappointed this time.
Avatar was spectacular. That's my two cents.
Budikka
Wexford
> Anyone who pays attention to movie critics is a moron. What could be
> more flatulent and pompous than some jackass you don't even know
> dictating what entertainment you should enjoy based on nothing more
> than them having a couple of semesters of "Cinema as a Gut Form" in
> college?
>
> Budikka
You've got a point. I admit I'm not crazy about Cameron's work.
"Titanic" was pathetically stupid, a story constructed on two spoiled
airheads whose dialogue was a collection of catch phrases and cliches.
I doubt Avatar is any better, and as for special effects, I prefer
actors to cartoons. On the other hand, I've seen movies then read
reviews of them that were so far off the mark, so weird and smug that
it was hard to believe the reviewer actually saw the same movie I
saw.
Lord Calvert
Ah yes...the man who sold weapons to both Saddam Hussein and Ayatollah
Khomeni and once called the Taliban the "the moral equivalent of our
Founding Fathers"
Thanks, Ronnie.
Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
EAC Department of Paranormal Phycology
Christopher A. Lee
<Calver...@msn.com> wrote:
>On Dec 20, 1:35�pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On Dec 20, 8:19�am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> > the "George W Bush was the
>> > Greatest President EVER" crowd,
>>
>> That would be just plain silly. Obviously, George W. Bush, great
>> President though he was, did not surpass the accomplishments of Ronald
>> Reagan.
>
>Ah yes...the man who sold weapons to both Saddam Hussein and Ayatollah
>Khomeni and once called the Taliban the "the moral equivalent of our
>Founding Fathers"
>
>Thanks, Ronnie.
He said it about the Contras as well.
Uncle Vic
>> And about 15,000 of it went into my bank account, not including the
>> soundtrack re-use. �And many years worth of Secondary Markets Funds
>> (residuals) to follow. �I worked on the picture - music prep. �It was
>> a
>> dream gig. �All the scores were prepared in Finale, the leading edge
>> music publishing program. �We XMLd the files and extracted the parts
>> in Sibelius. �I'd have preferred just extracting them in Finale, but
>> my boss
>> (82 years old) insisted on Sibelius. �He claims to be too old to
>> learn Finale, and he's probably right - the learning curve on that
>> program is through the roof. �Whatever... it pays to know both
>> programs well. �On
>> busy days, we copyists were making over a grand a day. �Nice work if
>> you
>> can get it...
>
> That sounds like a cool life to be leading!
>
It is if you can learn to handle the financial aspect. Sometimes I go
for months making big bucks, then it dies out for a few months. It's the
furthest thing from a steady job. After losing Paramount TV (Star Trek
et al) I tried to make things steadier by offering my services to
everyone in town, and after a six-month period of unemployment, I got
picked up by Sony Pictures. Then a Live-TV house picked me up on the
side, and I got a little work out of Disney. Every now and then my old
Paramount office gets some work, and I've gone "dark" dates (non-union)
with a few other employers. Last season I was "hired" by the guy that
runs the Live-TV house (we do the music prep for Dancing With the Stars
among other shows), and things are looking to get steadier again.
Unfortunately, there are three month hiatuses between seasons of DWTS, so
I have to try to fill those up. I just did two days on an Adam Sandler
film at Sony, and I'm hearing rumors about two more pictures coming thru
next month, then maybe some "throw me a bone" work on the Academy Awards.
Sigh!
If you try to think more than two weeks ahead in this business you'll
drive yourself crazy.
The best time of the year starts on July 1 every year, when the annual
Secondary Markets check shows up in the mailbox. It's a collection of TV
& movie residuals based on new deals the production companies have made
on product you've worked on. (Like DVD releases, network TV, airline in-
flight movies, etc.) Many of us start counting down the days before the
checks arrive, beginning sometime in April. Heh... Granted, these
residuals take a while to build up, career-wise, but I've been in the
business for 25 years now. Last year's check was over 50K (32K after
taxes and processing fees). Yeah. BIG shot in the arm. I still have
about 6K left, but I'm now unemployed - hopefully not for long. DWTS
starts up again in March. Time to lie low - but my wife just informed me
she just bought herself her Xmas present from me, and talked the guy WAY
down from three grand. S H I T !!! :-)
What, me worry? If I did, I'd be dead by now. My brother has a steady
job, paid vacation, paid sick days, government pension... He had a heart
attack about five years ago. Stress related, I'll bet. I told him to
adopt my philosophy, "I don't give a shit".
Uncle Vic
There are many kinds of movies, IMHO. "Academy" movies like "Howard's
End", or "Out of Africa". Entertaining movies with big SFX and all-star
casts like "Armageddon", Star Wars stuff. Funny movies, chick flicks,
dick flicks, etc. Cult movies. And just plain bad movies. All are
judged as a matter of opinion, and movie critics are only expressing
their own opinions. People who believe what they say and base their
movie going experiences on said opinions are just, well, missing out.
Auntie Lib
> One fine day in alt.atheism, Sanity's Little Helper <elv...@noshpam.org>
> wrote:
>
> > posteth:
>
> >> REVIEW: Jim Cameron¢s ¡Avatar¢ Is a Big, Dull, America-Hating, PC
> >> Revenge Fantasy
>
> > sounds good. I wasn't going to bother seeing it....
>
> Aww hell. Get good and stoned first. I think you'll like it.
My beef is that the movie didn't NEED to be in 3-D. As in "Up," the 3-
D aspect didn't add anything to the experience. The glasses made me
kinda queasy for the first hour or so, until I got used to them. But,
still, they didn't even use the effect the one place it would've been
appropriate: when they were flying on those dragon things (Ikrun? Or
something?) I thought for sure they would show us the view from the
rider's perspective, experience the thrill of flying. But they
didn't. Just used standard camera work to show the soaring dragons
from the audience's perspective.
For the first half or so I was thinking "Yeah, 'Dances With Wolves,'
been there, done that." But then, when the HomeTree fell so
spectacularly, I felt myself getting misty-eyed. (I'm a woman, my
only excuse.) It was odd to be rooting AGAINST the soldiers for a
change.
Yeah, it's heavy-handed. But it's also true. And it isn't "America
hating." That's just ethnocentric garbage whereby everything is about
US. Most of your more successful nations have gone in and destroyed
indigenous peoples of one sort or another. It's what invaders do.
They could've been talking about the Aussies and their treatment of
the Aborigines. I think it was actually more akin to the world's
destruction of the Amazon Rain Forest and its native people. If the
right-wing sees some sort of "message" about the invasion of Iraq,
that's just guilt and projection talking.
I wasn't planning on seeing it but my brother works for Fox and they
had an employee screening on the lot today so I went. I'm glad I
did. (I'm not sure I would've paid to see it, but I enjoyed it.)
It's absolutely gorgeous to look at, the music was beautiful, the
script had some really good moments. Sigourney Weaver was fabulous.
Sam Worthington (?) was really good as both Jake Sully and Jakesully
the warrior. The story was emotionally compelling.
When I go to the movies I'm just looking to be entertained for a
couple of hours and "Avator" delived. I'm not looking for anything
"deeper" than that.
elizabeth
Auntie Lib
> On Dec 19, 11:09 pm, "D.F. Manno" <dfma...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <d578a11e-4c58-400a-9918-abbcda439...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> > Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > > The time for a movie like Avatar as it is would be after America has
> > > achieved total victory in the War on Terror
>
> > A final solution?
>
> Don't be silly. This would be for after the terrorists are completely
> crushed, but the Muslim world is very much alive, and so we need to be
> re-oriented to be nice to them as we re-orient their nations towards
> responsible world citizenship. Just as we re-oriented Germany, rather
> than exterminating it.
A perfect example of someone for whom the entire point of the movie
went - whoooosh! - soaring over his head. Who are these "terrorists"
you're hoping to see "completely crushed"? Hmmm? The entire theater
I saw it with laughed when the general said "We will fight terror with
terror" as they discuss their plans to wipe out the entire indiginous
population of the planet simply because they inconveniently live on
top of a source of valuable ore. Sheesh. Some people are so cranky
when things don't go their way. (Was it really called "unobtainium"?
How funny is that!)
elizabeth
Nic A. Heretic
> more flatulent and pompous than some jackass you don't even know
> dictating what entertainment you should enjoy based on nothing more
> than them having a couple of semesters of "Cinema as a Gut Form" in
> college?
>
> Budikka
Good post, no, GREAT POST Budikka! One Of The Year's 10 Best!!!
--
Religion needs Spirituality; Spirituality NEEDS NOT *ANY* NEED religion(s)...
Ray Fischer
>> A final solution?
>
>Don't be silly. This would be for after the terrorists are completely
>crushed, but the Muslim world is very much alive, and so we need to be
>re-oriented to be nice to them as we re-orient their nations towards
>responsible world citizenship. Just as we re-oriented Germany, rather
>than exterminating it.
And right there, ladies and gents, is the inevitable rationalization
for a totalitarian dictatorship. Pol Pot wanted to create a utopian
agronomy. Hitler wanted to purify humanity. Lenin wanted to
eliminate the oligarchs. And here we have a luntatic who wants to
"re-orient" the oppressed so that they will suffer their chians more
willingly.
And always the result is that people who dare to be free are killed.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ilya2
exactly like humans, down to facial expressions. In a low-budget, no-
CGI production like "Star Trek" it is excusable -- but "Avatar" has
entire ecosystem of CGI-rendered alien animals, ferchrissake! Couldn't
they come up with somewhat PLAUSIBLE aliens, which make sense in the
context?
Which Na'vi emphatically do not. Not only they are way too human-like,
they seem to be the only quadrupeds on a planet where every large
animal is six-limbed. How did they ever evolve?
One possible answer is: they did not. Na'vi are biotools, purpose-
built lifeforms Eywa created specifically to interact with humans --
and to push humans' emotional buttons. (Na'vi know nothing about their
ancestry except what Eywa tells them -- perhaps that history is just a
convenient fiction.) But this does not seem to fit the movie's overall
moral message.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> My problem with "Avatar" is not politics -- it is aliens who look
> exactly like humans, down to facial expressions. In a low-budget, no-
> CGI production like "Star Trek" it is excusable -- but "Avatar" has
> entire ecosystem of CGI-rendered alien animals, ferchrissake! Couldn't
> they come up with somewhat PLAUSIBLE aliens, which make sense in the
> context?
No, because (A) it'd be harder-to-the-point-of-impossible to get the
humans WATCHING the movie to empathize with them and "get" the
expressions, and (B)the romantic subplot would never work.
You may not care about those two things, but if I were making a movie
like that and investing $300 million into it, I would be very wary of
doing anything which might turn off a sizeable fraction of my potential
audience (SF geeks who actually give a damn about that stuff are NOT a
sizeable fraction, just FYI)
>
> Which Na'vi emphatically do not. Not only they are way too human-like,
> they seem to be the only quadrupeds on a planet where every large
> animal is six-limbed. How did they ever evolve?
>
> One possible answer is: they did not. Na'vi are biotools, purpose-
> built lifeforms Eywa created specifically to interact with humans --
> and to push humans' emotional buttons. (Na'vi know nothing about their
> ancestry except what Eywa tells them -- perhaps that history is just a
> convenient fiction.) But this does not seem to fit the movie's overall
> moral message.
That would be more a Solaris approach, and would likely trigger fear,
loathing, and nuking of Eywa-til-it-glows once the humans caught on.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Ilya2
> > built lifeforms Eywa created specifically to interact with humans --
> > and to push humans' emotional buttons. (Na'vi know nothing about their
> > ancestry except what Eywa tells them -- perhaps that history is just a
> > convenient fiction.) But this does not seem to fit the movie's overall
> > moral message.
>
> That would be more a Solaris approach, and would likely trigger fear,
> loathing, and nuking of Eywa-til-it-glows once the humans caught on.
Actually, I was thinking about John Varley's "Titan", and how Gaia
created titanides using real humans and mythical centaurs as a model.
But you are right of course -- the last sentence of my previous post
was a deliberate understatement. (Titan/Gaia did not work out so well
at the end either!)
Avoid normal situations.
[..]
> Anyone who pays attention to movie critics is a moron.
Au contraire. In this day and age, when there are more movies to see than
ever before, it makes more sense than ever to, however indirectly, pay people
to test the waters for you. After paying attention for a while, you learn
which ones to whom to listen and which ones not.
--
alt.flame Special Forces
"It is providential that the youth or man of inventive mind is not 'blessed'
with a million dollars. The mind is sharper and keener in seclusion and
uninterrupted solitude. Originality thrives in seclusion free of outside
influences beating upon us to cripple the creative mind. Be alone -- that is
the secret of invention: be alone, that is when ideas are born."
-- Nikolai Tesla
Ilya2
> > built lifeforms Eywa created specifically to interact with humans --
> > and to push humans' emotional buttons. (Na'vi know nothing about their
> > ancestry except what Eywa tells them -- perhaps that history is just a
> > convenient fiction.) But this does not seem to fit the movie's overall
> > moral message.
>
> That would be more a Solaris approach, and would likely trigger fear,
> loathing, and nuking of Eywa-til-it-glows once the humans caught on.
Now that I think of it, "fear, loathing, and nuking of Eywa-til-it-
glows" IS how significant part of humanity should react to Eywa once
they know about her. She is a *hive mind*. How is that different from
Borg?
By "should" I do not mean it is a logical, moral, or appropriate
reaction -- just a realistic one, given human instincts.
Michael Grosberg
> Now that I think of it, "fear, loathing, and nuking of Eywa-til-it-
> glows" IS how significant part of humanity should react to Eywa once
> they know about her. She is a *hive mind*. How is that different from
> Borg?
But it's not a hive mind. Sure, you can listen to the whispers of your
forefathers if you connect to that tree, and you can jack into and
control other animals, but that's just a fancy USB port. There's no
sharing of thoughts or emotions between Na'vi (that's we've witnessed,
anyway) and certainly no sharing of self. they are clearly
individuals.
The propaganda back on earth might paint them as hive-mind pinko
commies, of course.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
>>> One possible answer is: they did not. Na'vi are biotools, purpose-
>>> built lifeforms Eywa created specifically to interact with humans --
>>> and to push humans' emotional buttons. (Na'vi know nothing about their
>>> ancestry except what Eywa tells them -- perhaps that history is just a
>>> convenient fiction.) But this does not seem to fit the movie's overall
>>> moral message.
>> That would be more a Solaris approach, and would likely trigger fear,
>> loathing, and nuking of Eywa-til-it-glows once the humans caught on.
>
> Now that I think of it, "fear, loathing, and nuking of Eywa-til-it-
> glows" IS how significant part of humanity should react to Eywa once
> they know about her. She is a *hive mind*. How is that different from
> Borg?
Because it's all warm and green and natural, not mechanico-clanky like
the Borg, of course.
Auntie Lib
> My problem with "Avatar" is not politics -- it is aliens who look
> exactly like humans, down to facial expressions. In a low-budget, no-
> CGI production like "Star Trek" it is excusable -- but "Avatar" has
> entire ecosystem of CGI-rendered alien animals, ferchrissake! Couldn't
> they come up with somewhat PLAUSIBLE aliens, which make sense in the
> context?
Since we're talking about fantasy here, the "aliens" can look any way
the creator wants them to. (I don't notice you complaining that the
whole "ecosystem of CGI-rendered alien animals" looked like Earth
animals. Those "dogs"? The armored things that look like rhinos?
The flying dragons? The seed pods that float around like jellyfish?
Why aren't you complaining about any of them?)
A world that would evolve all of those animals is likely to evolve
creatures of higher intelligence who have the skills to become top of
the heap. Large heads (big brains); eyes, nose, mouth, speech. Just
the right number of arms for tasks and the right number of legs for
movement. Fingers and thumbs for fine motor skills.
It's entertainment. And since it was made for earthlings, the
earthlings must be able to relate to what they see onscreen. It can
be different, but not so different that the audience can't relate to
what they see. They must be able to sympathize with the alien
characters and fear the alien animals.
It's a movie. You're way overthinking it.
elizabeth
Ilya2
> On Dec 21, 11:04 am, Ilya2 <il...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
> > My problem with "Avatar" is not politics -- it is aliens who look
> > exactly like humans, down to facial expressions. In a low-budget, no-
> > CGI production like "Star Trek" it is excusable -- but "Avatar" has
> > entire ecosystem of CGI-rendered alien animals, ferchrissake! Couldn't
> > they come up with somewhat PLAUSIBLE aliens, which make sense in the
> > context?
>
> Since we're talking about fantasy here, the "aliens" can look any way
> the creator wants them to. (I don't notice you complaining that the
> whole "ecosystem of CGI-rendered alien animals" looked like Earth
> animals. Those "dogs"? The armored things that look like rhinos?
> The flying dragons? The seed pods that float around like jellyfish?
> Why aren't you complaining about any of them?)
All of these animals are entirely reasonable for their ecological
niches, and are analogous to Earth counterparts, not identical. The
armored thing was no closer to a rhino than it was to a triceratops --
"large armored herbivore".
> A world that would evolve all of those animals is likely to evolve
> creatures of higher intelligence who have the skills to become top of
> the heap. Large heads (big brains); eyes, nose, mouth, speech. Just
> the right number of arms for tasks and the right number of legs for
> movement. Fingers and thumbs for fine motor skills.
They should have been either centauroid or (in line with living in
trees) four-armed.
> It's entertainment. And since it was made for earthlings, the
> earthlings must be able to relate to what they see onscreen. It can
> be different, but not so different that the audience can't relate to
> what they see. They must be able to sympathize with the alien
> characters and fear the alien animals.
I already mentioned that "Avatar" reminded me of John Varley's
"Titan". In that book titanides are centaurs and obviously alien, yet
there is emotional and even (in sequels, anyway) romantic connection
between titanides and humans. Sure it would be harder to do on screen,
but possible. Viewers certainly identified with Woody Allen's "Antz",
and they had six limbs. Cameron took an easy way out.
William George Ferguson
<byend.removethis...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>In rec.arts.movies.current-films Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>> Anyone who pays attention to movie critics is a moron.
>
> Au contraire. In this day and age, when there are more movies to see than
>ever before, it makes more sense than ever to, however indirectly, pay people
>to test the waters for you. After paying attention for a while, you learn
>which ones to whom to listen and which ones not.
As long as a reviewer's tastes are known and consistent, their
recommendations can work for you regardless whether you agree or disagree.
As an example, Siskel and Ebert hated Robert Altman's Popeye, and from
their review of it, I knew I would love it (and did).
I should also add that 'when there are more movies to see than ever before'
is not a true statement. There's a much smaller number of movies released
theatrically today that there were in the 30s. This year there were less
than 700 films released in theatres in the US, while in 1939 there were
over 2300 films released theatrically in the US (of course, theatrically
was the only option in 1939).
Sturgeon's Law applies, most of those 2300 films were crud, although there
were a couple of exceptions, like:
The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (Rathbone/Bruce)
Beau Geste (Gary Cooper)
Dark Victory (Bette Davis et alia)
Destry Rides Again (Deitrich/Stewart)
Drums Along the Mohawk (Colbert/Fonda)
Gone With the Wind
Goodbye, Mr. Chips
Gunga Din (Grant/McLaghlan/Jaffe)
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (Charles Laughton)
Intermezzo (Howard/Bergman)
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
Ninotchka
Of Mice and Men
Stagecoach
The Wizard of Oz
The Women (all-female cast including Shearer/Crawford/Russell/Goddard)
Wuthering Heights (Oberon/Olivier)
Young Mr. Lincoln (Henry Fonda)
Of course it has been intimated that 1939 was a better than average year.
--
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
(Bene Gesserit)
Invid Fan
Ferguson <wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On 22 Dec 2009 07:58:48 GMT, "Avoid normal situations."
> <byend.removethis...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
> >In rec.arts.movies.current-films Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> >
> >> Anyone who pays attention to movie critics is a moron.
> >
> > Au contraire. In this day and age, when there are more movies to see than
> >ever before, it makes more sense than ever to, however indirectly, pay
> >people
> >to test the waters for you. After paying attention for a while, you learn
> >which ones to whom to listen and which ones not.
>
> I should also add that 'when there are more movies to see than ever before'
> is not a true statement. There's a much smaller number of movies released
> theatrically today that there were in the 30s. This year there were less
> than 700 films released in theatres in the US, while in 1939 there were
> over 2300 films released theatrically in the US (of course, theatrically
> was the only option in 1939).
>
Yes, but unlike before, we have access to 100 years worth of movies
from which we have to find something we will like. New theatrical films
are only part of what he was referring to.
--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'
erilar
<ac2ef5d0-9902-4aee...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Ilya2 <il...@rcn.com> wrote:
> Now that I think of it, "fear, loathing, and nuking of Eywa-til-it-
> glows" IS how significant part of humanity should react to Eywa once
> they know about her. She is a *hive mind*. How is that different from
> Borg?
Worse by far, a planet-wide intelligence is much too smart for
small-minded human corporate types and their hired guns to want to do
anything buy KILLKILLKILL
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Budikka666
> My problem with "Avatar" is not politics -- it is aliens who look
> exactly like humans, down to facial expressions. In a low-budget, no-
> CGI production like "Star Trek" it is excusable -- but "Avatar" has
> entire ecosystem of CGI-rendered alien animals, ferchrissake! Couldn't
> they come up with somewhat PLAUSIBLE aliens, which make sense in the
> context?
I didn't have a problem with the aliens they looked fine to me. It
woulda been kinda hard for Jake to fall for something which looked
like a spider or an octopod, dontcha think?!
The beauty of the system Cameron used was that they actors had cameras
attached which monitored their facial expressions precisely so the
characters *would* look emotive. It worked a treat. I've seen
several remarks on the I'net about how much Sigourney Weaver's avatar
looked like her (if somewhat unnecessarily sexed up! LoL!
But from an evolutionary PoV, it's a lot harder to imagine how an
organism would develop into the tightly-knit society the N'avi had
without being able to emote facially.
> Which Na'vi emphatically do not. Not only they are way too human-like,
> they seem to be the only quadrupeds on a planet where every large
> animal is six-limbed. How did they ever evolve?
That's actually a good point. I had a problem with that, but it's one
of those things you either let nag your ass all thru the movie or you
let it go. I chose to let it go and enjoy whatever it was Cameron
wanted to show me.
Besides, our lineage didn't start out exactly like us. Maybe the
second pair of arms got lost as the N'avi went thru their arboreal
stage! I'm actually waiting on the people at www.scienceblogs.com to
start in on Avatar, but they seem peculiarly unheedful of it at
present.
> One possible answer is: they did not. Na'vi are biotools, purpose-
> built lifeforms Eywa created specifically to interact with humans --
> and to push humans' emotional buttons. (Na'vi know nothing about their
> ancestry except what Eywa tells them -- perhaps that history is just a
> convenient fiction.) But this does not seem to fit the movie's overall
> moral message.
There ya go! Now you're getting into it! LoL!
Cameron is hoping to make two sequels to this, so I guess we'll have
to wait on the box office numbers in a couple of weeks to see if it's
making enough that he can go ahead with part two.
Budikka
Budikka666
Now now, don't be mean! ; )
But isn't this great? Everyone's jumping in and having a great old
exchange about the movie and coming up with some cool comments and
ideas. I wish a.a would be like this all the time, but it's kinda
hard to keep it that way with the creationist liars and the fundie
morons tossing their hate bombs all over the place.
Maybe we should include the rec.arts groups in all our messages! LoL!
I read somewhere that Cameron's 12 year hiatus - a good portion of
which he spent under water - heavily influenced the look of Avatar,
and it's easy to see that. You mentioned the "jellyfish" seed pods,
but it's also evident in the bioluminescence and in the one scene
where Jake and Neytiri go swimming.
Budikka
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:e6791db9-1b6d-4ca1...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.c
om:
> On Dec 21, 1:04�pm, Ilya2 <il...@rcn.com> wrote:
>> My problem with "Avatar" is not politics -- it is aliens who
>> look exactly like humans, down to facial expressions. In a
>> low-budget, no- CGI production like "Star Trek" it is excusable
>> -- but "Avatar" has entire ecosystem of CGI-rendered alien
>> animals, ferchrissake! Couldn't they come up with somewhat
>> PLAUSIBLE aliens, which make sense in the context?
>
> I didn't have a problem with the aliens they looked fine to me.
> It woulda been kinda hard for Jake to fall for something which
> looked like a spider or an octopod, dontcha think?!
>
> The beauty of the system Cameron used was that they actors had
> cameras attached which monitored their facial expressions
> precisely so the characters *would* look emotive. It worked a
> treat. I've seen several remarks on the I'net about how much
> Sigourney Weaver's avatar looked like her (if somewhat
> unnecessarily sexed up! LoL!
>
> But from an evolutionary PoV, it's a lot harder to imagine how
> an organism would develop into the tightly-knit society the
> N'avi had without being able to emote facially.
It wasn't that the emote that seems to be the complaint, it's that
their emotions are absolutely indentical to ours. Which is a valid
complaint, if you don't realize that the smurfs are not, in fact,
aliens, but merely non-whites being oppressed by Evil White Guys. A
common literary trick in sf, after all.
>
>> Which Na'vi emphatically do not. Not only they are way too
>> human-like, they seem to be the only quadrupeds on a planet
>> where every large animal is six-limbed. How did they ever
>> evolve?
>
> That's actually a good point. I had a problem with that, but
> it's one of those things you either let nag your ass all thru
> the movie or you let it go. I chose to let it go and enjoy
> whatever it was Cameron wanted to show me.
Accept that it's fantasy, and all those complaints disappear.
Does it really have floating mountains?
And does anything *really* consider *that* science fiction, rather
than fantasy?
>
> Besides, our lineage didn't start out exactly like us. Maybe
> the second pair of arms got lost as the N'avi went thru their
> arboreal stage! I'm actually waiting on the people at
> www.scienceblogs.com to start in on Avatar, but they seem
> peculiarly unheedful of it at present.
Possibly because it's obviously fantasy. One might as well complain
that elves in LotR have pointy ears.
>
>> One possible answer is: they did not. Na'vi are biotools,
>> purpose- built lifeforms Eywa created specifically to interact
>> with humans -- and to push humans' emotional buttons. (Na'vi
>> know nothing about their ancestry except what Eywa tells them
>> -- perhaps that history is just a convenient fiction.) But this
>> does not seem to fit the movie's overall moral message.
>
> There ya go! Now you're getting into it! LoL!
>
> Cameron is hoping to make two sequels to this, so I guess we'll
> have to wait on the box office numbers in a couple of weeks to
> see if it's making enough that he can go ahead with part two.
>
It's already done nearly $300 million at the box office. There will
be as many sequals as Cameron wants, until one of them loses money.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Frank Mayhar
The idea that an independent evolution would result in something almost
indistinguishable from human is just ludicrous, IMHO. We are the result
of too many optimizations and adaptations of chance mutations to think
that some other line would be the same. Indeed, the "aliens" ain't. But
it is ever thus in SF, both written and filmed.
After all, aren't virtually all of our stories about _us_, in the end?
>>> Which Na'vi emphatically do not. Not only they are way too human-like,
>>> they seem to be the only quadrupeds on a planet where every large
>>> animal is six-limbed. How did they ever evolve?
>>
>> That's actually a good point. I had a problem with that, but it's one
>> of those things you either let nag your ass all thru the movie or you
>> let it go. I chose to let it go and enjoy whatever it was Cameron
>> wanted to show me.
>
> Accept that it's fantasy, and all those complaints disappear.
>
> Does it really have floating mountains?
It does indeed. In fact, they are a major plot point.
> And does anything *really* consider *that* science fiction, rather than
> fantasy?
Dunno about "anything" but _I_ surely don't. In fact, the resemblance to
_Dragon Hunters_ nearly knocked me down.
--
Frank Mayhar fr...@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/
http://www.zazzle.com/fmayhar*
erilar
<e6791db9-1b6d-4ca1...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Cameron is hoping to make two sequels to this, so I guess we'll have
> to wait on the box office numbers in a couple of weeks to see if it's
> making enough that he can go ahead with part two.
next the humans come back for more KILLKILLKILL ?
Quadibloc
> On Dec 20, 1:35 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > On Dec 20, 8:19 am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > > the "George W Bush was the
> > > Greatest President EVER" crowd,
>
> > That would be just plain silly. Obviously, George W. Bush, great
> > President though he was, did not surpass the accomplishments of Ronald
> > Reagan.
>
> Ah yes...the man who sold weapons to both Saddam Hussein and Ayatollah
> Khomeni and once called the Taliban the "the moral equivalent of our
> Founding Fathers"
Be that as it may, it was Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative
that helped bring about the ultimate defeat and collapse of Soviet
tyranny! The War on Terror hasn't been won yet.
So the conservatives who might be inclined to find G.W.B. a great
President would still find Ronald Reagan a greater one. What liberals
think of him is a different matter; my point is that the "George W.
Bush is the second greatest President EVER" crowd would be bigger than
the one previously mentioned, even if that crowd, too, might be
misguided, objectively, or at least in your eyes.
John Savard
Jimbo
> On Dec 20, 8:07 pm, Lord Calvert <CalvertdeG...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 20, 1:35 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > > On Dec 20, 8:19 am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > > > the "George W Bush was the
> > > > Greatest President EVER" crowd,
>
> > > That would be just plain silly. Obviously, George W. Bush, great
> > > President though he was, did not surpass the accomplishments of Ronald
> > > Reagan.
>
> > Ah yes...the man who sold weapons to both Saddam Hussein and Ayatollah
> > Khomeni and once called the Taliban the "the moral equivalent of our
> > Founding Fathers"
>
> Be that as it may, it was Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative
> that helped bring about the ultimate defeat and collapse of Soviet
> tyranny! The War on Terror hasn't been won yet.
>
> So the conservatives who might be inclined to find G.W.B. a great
> President would still find Ronald Reagan a greater one. What liberals
> think of him is a different matter;
Liberals, most moderates, and even a number of moderate republicans.
The guy only had what? A 24% approval rating? I've been around
since 1944, voting since 1962, and Bush Jr. is the only president in
that time I witnessed being booed out of office. Although. LBJ
certainly deserved to be. Anyone, and I mean anyone that thinks that
Bush Jr. was a great president has lodged their heads so far into self
delusion that I doubt there would be any saving them. Best just to
step back and let them go the way of the Doo-Doo.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:189a07-...@jill.exit.com:
Would they be of any interest if they weren't? SF has *always* been
about social commentary, as is most literature.
>
>>>> Which Na'vi emphatically do not. Not only they are way too
>>>> human-like, they seem to be the only quadrupeds on a planet
>>>> where every large animal is six-limbed. How did they ever
>>>> evolve?
>>>
>>> That's actually a good point. I had a problem with that, but
>>> it's one of those things you either let nag your ass all thru
>>> the movie or you let it go. I chose to let it go and enjoy
>>> whatever it was Cameron wanted to show me.
>>
>> Accept that it's fantasy, and all those complaints disappear.
>>
>> Does it really have floating mountains?
>
> It does indeed. In fact, they are a major plot point.
Ergo, fantasy, not science fiction.
>
>> And does anything *really* consider *that* science fiction,
>> rather than fantasy?
>
> Dunno about "anything" but _I_ surely don't. In fact, the
> resemblance to _Dragon Hunters_ nearly knocked me down.
Mind you, being fantasy doesn't mean it's bad, it just means it's
fantasy. (Being "Dances With Smurfs" means it's pretty bad, but
that's another issue entirely.)
Free Lunch
<budi...@netscape.net> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On Dec 21, 1:04�pm, Ilya2 <il...@rcn.com> wrote:
...
>> One possible answer is: they did not. Na'vi are biotools, purpose-
>> built lifeforms Eywa created specifically to interact with humans --
>> and to push humans' emotional buttons. (Na'vi know nothing about their
>> ancestry except what Eywa tells them -- perhaps that history is just a
>> convenient fiction.) But this does not seem to fit the movie's overall
>> moral message.
>
>There ya go! Now you're getting into it! LoL!
>
>Cameron is hoping to make two sequels to this, so I guess we'll have
>to wait on the box office numbers in a couple of weeks to see if it's
>making enough that he can go ahead with part two.
Two sequels, eh? That must be because he's still pissed that he couldn't
make a sequel for "Titanic".
William December Starr
Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> said:
> wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>> Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> said:
>>
>>> Anyone who pays attention to movie critics is a moron. What
>>> could be more flatulent and pompous than some jackass you don't
>>> even know dictating what entertainment you should enjoy based on
>>> nothing more than them having a couple of semesters of "Cinema
>>> as a Gut Form" in college?
>>
>> What does that make anyone who pays attention to you?
>
> Well you did so why don't you tell us what you are? LoL!
Ah, you cut out my followup line: "(Other than to mock you, of course.)"
Which makes you not just a buffoon but also a dishonest asshole.
-- wds
William December Starr
Auntie Lib <walle...@msn.com> said:
> My beef is that the movie didn't NEED to be in 3-D. As in "Up,"
> the 3-D aspect didn't add anything to the experience. The glasses
> made me kinda queasy for the first hour or so, until I got used to
> them.
Question: do these 3-D glasses even work -- e.e., fit and stay in
place properly -- for people who wear glasses?
-- wds
Wayne Throop
:: It does indeed. In fact, they are a major plot point.
: Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com>
: Ergo, fantasy, not science fiction.
I thought the flyin' mountains were onaccounta the unobtanium deposits,
hence, newly discovered physics, like, say, vacuum energy or force fields
or scrith or jumpgates? Eh, haven't seen the movie yet, but that was
my impression so far.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
William December Starr
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> said:
> MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> the "George W Bush was the Greatest President EVER" crowd,
>
> That would be just plain silly. Obviously, George W. Bush, great
> President though he was, did not surpass the accomplishments of
> Ronald Reagan.
Satire is dead, folks.
-- wds
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In article
> <e6791db9-1b6d-4ca1...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> Cameron is hoping to make two sequels to this, so I guess we'll have
>> to wait on the box office numbers in a couple of weeks to see if it's
>> making enough that he can go ahead with part two.
>
> next the humans come back for more KILLKILLKILL ?
>
Nuke 'em 'til they glow, then shoot 'em in the dark!
Frank Mayhar
> ::: Does it really have floating mountains?
>
> :: It does indeed. In fact, they are a major plot point.
>
> : Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> : Ergo, fantasy,
> not science fiction.
>
> I thought the flyin' mountains were onaccounta the unobtanium deposits,
> hence, newly discovered physics, like, say, vacuum energy or force
> fields or scrith or jumpgates? Eh, haven't seen the movie yet, but that
> was my impression so far.
Yes. (And you do know, do you not, that "unobtainium" was the name used
in the movie?) There were also floating chains of boulders all tied
together by vines and roots. One can only assume that any loose ones
have wafted high enough to have left the vicinity and fallen to, as it
were, earth.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:12616...@sheol.org:
>::: Does it really have floating mountains?
>
>:: It does indeed. In fact, they are a major plot point.
>
>: Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com>
>: Ergo, fantasy, not science fiction.
>
> I thought the flyin' mountains were onaccounta the unobtanium
> deposits,
Which is to say, fantasy, and admittedly so by the very name they
chose.
Wayne Throop
: Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com>
: Which is to say, fantasy, and admittedly so by the very name they chose.
So, Niven and Doc Smith wrote primarily fantasy.
Thanks for clarifying what you mean by "fantasy" there.
And of course people or characters in other works or IRL never use joke
terms, like "wizard" or "demon" for computer processes, or whimsical
ones like "barn" for a unit of cross section, and just have it catch on,
so clearly those indicate fantasy also.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>:: I thought the flyin' mountains were onaccounta the unobtanium
>:: deposits,
>
>: Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com>
>: Which is to say, fantasy, and admittedly so by the very name
>: they chose.
>
> So, Niven and Doc Smith wrote primarily fantasy.
Doc Smith, yes, certainly, arguably even by the standards of his
day, and certainly so now. Niven, less obviously so, but in some
ways, yes, him, too.
> Thanks for clarifying what you mean by "fantasy" there.
If you're classifying flying mountains as science fiction, then
there is literally nothing that doesn't fit your definition, son.
Really. Lord of the Rings is science fiction, not fantasy, it
*must* be.
>
> And of course people or characters in other works or IRL never
> use joke terms, like "wizard" or "demon" for computer processes,
> or whimsical ones like "barn" for a unit of cross section, and
> just have it catch on, so clearly those indicate fantasy also.
>
Fying mountains, son. Think about it. You're saying that *flying*
*mountains* are not fantasy.
Wayne Throop
: *mountains* are not fantasy.
So... asteroids and large satelites are Right Out?
Or is "centrifugal force" on a list of exemptions?
Is cavorite or similar and/or partially-sheilding substances also Right
Out, whether or not there might have been large natural deposits of the
stuff on other planets, like in A Deepness In The Sky? (Well... large,
but likely not natural, but still.)
Ah well, here's a collection of some of Poul Anderson's fantasy work:
http://www.amazon.com/Tales-Flying-Mountains-Poul-Anderson/dp/081253073X
Budikka666
<tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote innews:e6791db9-1b6d-4ca1...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.c
Ha! How can we be so sure their facial expressions wouldn't be the
same as ours, given that both their physiology and physiognomy is very
similar? Bearing teeth is considered a threatening gesture throughout
the animal kingdom when accompanied by one sound (a growl) and a
laughing gesture when accompanied by a different sound. Maybe we'd be
surprised at how alike we are if we ever do encounter social bipedal
aliens.
> >> Which Na'vi emphatically do not. Not only they are way too
> >> human-like, they seem to be the only quadrupeds on a planet
> >> where every large animal is six-limbed. How did they ever
> >> evolve?
>
> > That's actually a good point. I had a problem with that, but
> > it's one of those things you either let nag your ass all thru
> > the movie or you let it go. I chose to let it go and enjoy
> > whatever it was Cameron wanted to show me.
>
> Accept that it's fantasy, and all those complaints disappear.
>
> Does it really have floating mountains?
Indeed! They're great. But I disagree that it's so irretrievably
lost in fantasy. As the movie shows, it's possible to levitate
objects - the last thing I read that had this done to it was a mouse -
and the rocks don't levitate everywhere, only in this one location
where a special mineral exists which happens to be both the same
mineral the corporate goons are seeking and a sacred place to the
N'avi.
There are special gravitational conditions here, too, since Pandora
isn't so much a planet as a moon orbiting a huge gas giant. Not that
they make any issue out of that in the movie which I found slightly
distracting
> And does anything *really* consider *that* science fiction, rather
> than fantasy?
>
>
>
> > Besides, our lineage didn't start out exactly like us. Maybe
> > the second pair of arms got lost as the N'avi went thru their
> > arboreal stage! I'm actually waiting on the people at
> >www.scienceblogs.comto start in on Avatar, but they seem
> > peculiarly unheedful of it at present.
>
> Possibly because it's obviously fantasy. One might as well complain
> that elves in LotR have pointy ears.
I've seen humans with pointy ears!
> >> One possible answer is: they did not. Na'vi are biotools,
> >> purpose- built lifeforms Eywa created specifically to interact
> >> with humans -- and to push humans' emotional buttons. (Na'vi
> >> know nothing about their ancestry except what Eywa tells them
> >> -- perhaps that history is just a convenient fiction.) But this
> >> does not seem to fit the movie's overall moral message.
>
> > There ya go! Now you're getting into it! LoL!
>
> > Cameron is hoping to make two sequels to this, so I guess we'll
> > have to wait on the box office numbers in a couple of weeks to
> > see if it's making enough that he can go ahead with part two.
>
> It's already done nearly $300 million at the box office. There will
> be as many sequals as Cameron wants, until one of them loses money.
I hope so. This movie was great.
Budikka
erilar
I've idly wondered about that. The theater where I see the occasional
movie is far too small to have things like 3D, so the question has never
come up for me.
What do abortion and atheism have to do with a sf movie?
Budikka666
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:46:25 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>
>
>
> >news:e6791db9-1b6d-4ca1...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
Well we got australopithecines, neanderthals, chimpanzees, gorillas,
orangutans, so it's not so ludicrous.
We got intelligence in ocean-going mammals, in birds (and therefore,
very likely in dinosaurs which were also bipedal).
The fact is that until we actually *do* encounter aliens, we can't
make any claims as to what they'd look like or how they'd behave.
> We are the result
> of too many optimizations and adaptations of chance mutations to think
> that some other line would be the same.
Convergent evolution disagrees with you.
> Indeed, the "aliens" ain't. But
> it is ever thus in SF, both written and filmed.
>
> After all, aren't virtually all of our stories about _us_, in the end?
>
> >>> Which Na'vi emphatically do not. Not only they are way too human-like,
> >>> they seem to be the only quadrupeds on a planet where every large
> >>> animal is six-limbed. How did they ever evolve?
>
> >> That's actually a good point. I had a problem with that, but it's one
> >> of those things you either let nag your ass all thru the movie or you
> >> let it go. I chose to let it go and enjoy whatever it was Cameron
> >> wanted to show me.
>
> > Accept that it's fantasy, and all those complaints disappear.
>
> > Does it really have floating mountains?
>
> It does indeed. In fact, they are a major plot point.
>
> > And does anything *really* consider *that* science fiction, rather than
> > fantasy?
>
> Dunno about "anything" but _I_ surely don't. In fact, the resemblance to
> _Dragon Hunters_ nearly knocked me down.
> --
> Frank Mayhar fr...@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
> http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/
> http://www.zazzle.com/fmayhar*
Budikka
erilar
wrote:
> ::: Does it really have floating mountains?
>
> :: It does indeed. In fact, they are a major plot point.
>
> : Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com>
> : Ergo, fantasy, not science fiction.
>
> I thought the flyin' mountains were onaccounta the unobtanium deposits,
> hence, newly discovered physics, like, say, vacuum energy or force fields
> or scrith or jumpgates? Eh, haven't seen the movie yet, but that was
> my impression so far.
Once I saw the "unobtainium" floating above its "container" in the lab,
floating mountains, particularly around the major flux area, weren't
that unacceptable.
Budikka666
> In article
> <e6791db9-1b6d-4ca1-bafd-6f679c2d1...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > Cameron is hoping to make two sequels to this, so I guess we'll have
> > to wait on the box office numbers in a couple of weeks to see if it's
> > making enough that he can go ahead with part two.
>
> next the humans come back for more KILLKILLKILL ?
I hope Cameron has something better than that planned! He put out
"Alien" and then followed it up with "Aliens" (which I thought was
actually better than the first one), but which was kinda more of the
same without actually being the same.
Budikka
Budikka666
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:17:19 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
What most people don't realize is that "Titanic" was actually part of
his "Terminator" series. The Terminator in this case being a really
large ship....
Budikka
Budikka666
> In article <1a9698c9-b09a-42d7-b16f-c11bcae78...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> said:
>
> > wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> >> Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> said:
>
> >>> Anyone who pays attention to movie critics is a moron. What
> >>> could be more flatulent and pompous than some jackass you don't
> >>> even know dictating what entertainment you should enjoy based on
> >>> nothing more than them having a couple of semesters of "Cinema
> >>> as a Gut Form" in college?
>
> >> What does that make anyone who pays attention to you?
>
> > Well you did so why don't you tell us what you are? LoL!
>
> Ah, you cut out my followup line: "(Other than to mock you, of course.)"
>
> Which makes you not just a buffoon but also a dishonest asshole.
>
> -- wds
Go fuck yourself shit bag.
Budikka
Wayne Throop
: Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
: [... the unobtanium makes 'em float ...]
: There are special gravitational conditions here, too, since Pandora
: isn't so much a planet as a moon orbiting a huge gas giant. Not that
: they make any issue out of that in the movie which I found slightly
: distracting
But being a moon of a gas giant wouldn't give you any special
dispensation gravitationally. Sure, there are tides, but to get
rocks to float, or even close, the tides would be pulling apart
the moon, and you'd end up with a ring of gravel rather than a moon.
Hm. Was the moon shown tidelocked to the gas giant, or did it
move in the sky? I'd be happier if it was tidelocked, but eh.
Sean Eric Fagan
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>Question: do these 3-D glasses even work -- e.e., fit and stay in
>place properly -- for people who wear glasses?
Depends on the person and the glasses. It's a one-size-fits-all system, so if
you have a larger head, or larger glasses, you may be out of luck.
I have a larger head, but small glasses, so they can fit -- but I also have a
right eye that drifts decidedly to the right, and 3D just *does not work for
me*. (Normally, when watching a movie, reading, or anything but driving, I
just relax my eye and let it drift, and pretty much only pay attention to the
left eye. This doesn't work with 3D films, and it has a tendency to cause me
a bad headache. Worse, even when I *do* focus -- which gets tiring after 90
minutes, let alone 2h20m -- my eyes aren't in perfect alignment, which causes
the 3D effects to just fail.)
Howard Brazee
>The beauty of the system Cameron used was that they actors had cameras
>attached which monitored their facial expressions precisely so the
>characters *would* look emotive. It worked a treat. I've seen
>several remarks on the I'net about how much Sigourney Weaver's avatar
>looked like her (if somewhat unnecessarily sexed up! LoL!
Did it work for _The Polar Express_?
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Tim McGaughy
Cameron had nothing to do with 'Alien'.
Tim McGaughy
I don't see why not. Generally, they're pretty big, and that's probably
exactly why.
Jacey Bedford
>In article <hgu0p6$hfd$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>
>> In article
>><7a1ceecc-703f-4a0f...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>> Auntie Lib <walle...@msn.com> said:
>>
>> > My beef is that the movie didn't NEED to be in 3-D. As in "Up,"
>> > the 3-D aspect didn't add anything to the experience. The glasses
>> > made me kinda queasy for the first hour or so, until I got used to
>> > them.
>>
>> Question: do these 3-D glasses even work -- e.e., fit and stay in
>> place properly -- for people who wear glasses?
>
>I've idly wondered about that. The theater where I see the occasional
>movie is far too small to have things like 3D, so the question has never
>come up for me.
No the 3d glasses don't fit comfortably over specs. Though I managed to
keep them on I spent much of the time pushing them back up the bridge of
my nose where they clanged against the bridge of my glasses. The lenses
of the 3d glasses were big enough to cover my own lenses, but something
like shape of the wrap-around blue-blockers (more like goggles) would
work better. They are designed to fit over even the largest glasses and
they are comfortable.
I prefer movies in 2d.
Jacey
>
--
Jacey Bedford
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 19, 9:32�pm, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
>> One fine day in alt.atheism, Sanity's Little Helper <elv...@noshpam.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > It is an ancient Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com>, and he
>> > posteth:
>>
>> >> REVIEW: Jim Cameron�s �Avatar� Is a Big, Dull, America-Hating, PC
>> >> Revenge Fantasy
>>
>> > sounds good. I wasn't going to bother seeing it....
>>
>> Aww hell. �Get good and stoned first. �I think you'll like it.
>
>My beef is that the movie didn't NEED to be in 3-D.
And it didn't NEED to be in color. But the 3D and the color both
enhanced the movie.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
rochrist
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:17:19 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
> <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> The beauty of the system Cameron used was that they actors had cameras
>> attached which monitored their facial expressions precisely so the
>> characters *would* look emotive. It worked a treat. I've seen
>> several remarks on the I'net about how much Sigourney Weaver's avatar
>> looked like her (if somewhat unnecessarily sexed up! LoL!
>
>
> Did it work for _The Polar Express_?
>
No. Which is why this movie is so remarkable.
rochrist
I wear glasses and they worked pretty much fine for me. Surprisingly well.
Bill Snyder
Starr) wrote:
The brain-dead are not noted for their grasp of humor and irony.
Even zombies don't seem to have much sense of fun.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Olrik
> On Dec 19, 9:32 pm, Uncle Vic<addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
>> One fine day in alt.atheism, Sanity's Little Helper<elv...@noshpam.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It is an ancient Sound of Trumpet<soundoftrum...@dcemail.com>, and he
>>> posteth:
>>
>>>> REVIEW: Jim Cameron�s �Avatar� Is a Big, Dull, America-Hating, PC
>>>> Revenge Fantasy
>>
>>> sounds good. I wasn't going to bother seeing it....
>>
>> Aww hell. Get good and stoned first. I think you'll like it.
>
> D aspect didn't add anything to the experience.
Are you kidding me? The 3D *does* add to the experience! Me & my friends
were in thrall!
But that was the first movie in 3D I was seeing since... well, since a
Friday the 13 in the '80s...!
Anyway, I loved the experience!
Olrik
>
> elizabeth
Budikka666
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:17:19 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
>
> >The beauty of the system Cameron used was that they actors had cameras
> >attached which monitored their facial expressions precisely so the
> >characters *would* look emotive. It worked a treat. I've seen
> >several remarks on the I'net about how much Sigourney Weaver's avatar
> >looked like her (if somewhat unnecessarily sexed up! LoL!
>
> Did it work for _The Polar Express_?
Avatar is nothing whatsoever like Polar express.
Budikka
Budikka666
You're right. Strike that first clause. The rest stands.
Budikka
Budikka666
> > Auntie Lib <wallenbr...@msn.com> said:
>
> >> My beef is that the movie didn't NEED to be in 3-D. As in "Up,"
> >> the 3-D aspect didn't add anything to the experience. The glasses
> >> made me kinda queasy for the first hour or so, until I got used to
> >> them.
>
> > Question: do these 3-D glasses even work -- e.e., fit and stay in
> > place properly -- for people who wear glasses?
>
> I don't see why not. Generally, they're pretty big, and that's probably
> exactly why.
They are rather large for kids, but I had no problem with mine. I was
unaware of them once I'd put them on and got used to them after a
minute or two. The ones I had, which presumably are what's issued at
all theaters showing this, were not the cardboard dealies with red and
green plastic in them; they were black plastic frames with pale gray
"lenses".
Budikka
Quadibloc
> They are rather large for kids, but I had no problem with mine. I was
> unaware of them once I'd put them on and got used to them after a
> minute or two. The ones I had, which presumably are what's issued at
> all theaters showing this, were not the cardboard dealies with red and
> green plastic in them; they were black plastic frames with pale gray
> "lenses".
So they were using polarizing glasses instead of anaglyph glasses,
which is better quality, but doesn't involve any new techniques.
John Savard
MarkA
> On Dec 23, 3:44ļæ½pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On Dec 20, 8:07ļæ½pm, Lord Calvert <CalvertdeG...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Dec 20, 1:35ļæ½pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> > > On Dec 20, 8:19ļæ½am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > the "George W Bush was the
>> > > > Greatest President EVER" crowd,
>>
>> > > That would be just plain silly. Obviously, George W. Bush, great
>> > > President though he was, did not surpass the accomplishments of
>> > > Ronald Reagan.
>>
>> > Ah yes...the man who sold weapons to both Saddam Hussein and Ayatollah
>> > Khomeni and once called the Taliban the "the moral equivalent of our
>> > Founding Fathers"
>>
>> Be that as it may, it was Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative
>> that helped bring about the ultimate defeat and collapse of Soviet
>> tyranny! The War on Terror hasn't been won yet.
>>
>> So the conservatives who might be inclined to find G.W.B. a great
>> President would still find Ronald Reagan a greater one. What liberals
>> think of him is a different matter;
>
> Liberals, most moderates, and even a number of moderate republicans. The
> guy only had what? A 24% approval rating? I've been around since 1944,
> voting since 1962, and Bush Jr. is the only president in that time I
> witnessed being booed out of office. Although. LBJ certainly deserved to
> be. Anyone, and I mean anyone that thinks that Bush Jr. was a great
> president has lodged their heads so far into self delusion that I doubt
> there would be any saving them. Best just to step back and let them go
> the way of the Doo-Doo.
What most impressed me about the Bush decade was that it was the first
time that a political party figured out how to really exploit the science
of public opinion. Karl Rove was just plain brilliant in his engineering
of the Bush image. I still can't believe that they were able to portray
Bush as "the war president" against Kerry, who actually served in Vietnam,
and was decorated for heroism, while they couldn't find anyone who
remembered Bush ever even showing up for his ANG duty! Of course, getting
elected is one thing; governing intelligently is quite another.
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
Budikka666
The new techniques were in the cameras used in filming this.
Budikka
Tim McGaughy
Those are polarized filters. They're color independent, and work by
blocking the polarized light meant to be seen by the other eye.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:12616...@sheol.org:
>: Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com>
>: Fying mountains, son. Think about it. You're saying that
>: *flying* *mountains* are not fantasy.
>
> So... asteroids and large satelites are Right Out?
Are you really so fucking stupid that you think that's the same
thing?
You're saying *flying* *mountains* are not fantasy.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:drache-F498E7....@news.eternal-september.org:
There's nothing wrong with fantasy. Some of the best stories ever
written are fantasy.
But calling floating mountains science fiction is just *stupid*.
And if people who are that stupid like this movie, then it's not
for me.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>:: Does it really have floating mountains?
But then, you already believe it's not fantasy.