See , that's a deal breaker for me right from the start. OK, so I'm a science geek, and used to work with a bunch of Astronomers and Cosmologists, but planets form around stars, be they 1st or 2nd gen stars, and bodies surrounding 2nd gen stars will contain all the elements that can possibly exist in varying quantities, so yes, this one world being special, and having an exceptional substance is contrary to Science, and therefore that makes for bad SciFi. I cannot accept the Fi, part if the Sci grates on me.
No I found that annoying, it makes little evolutionary sense that all these animals can interface with each other, it was a little to convenient for me to believe. All the rest I completely agree with. Jesus we all knew that! aaah no the aliens in aliens were not locals, the they had crashed landed there (Alien I) the humans terraforming that planet had nothing to do with it, the aliens in abyss certainly had no care about humans mining oil near them, its was the nukes that bothered them. It took 5 years to travel to pandora in alpha centauri, true that almost light speed but its not super-luminal. I so hope that sarcasm. Tell that to phlogistician and glaucon and their extra opinionated triple lobed visual cortex. yeah, I agreed with everything else but this: the matrix trilogies went from "wooow" to "oh god make it stop" in just 3 movies.
Duh. It's fantasy and/or science fiction. There were floating mountains, humans still fighting wars 144 years from now and nifty data-ports sprouting from the head of every higher animal. ~String
Poorly expressed sarcasm on my part! Re: Aliens. Yeah, I knew that. But, the point stands that there were bugs in their way. Re: The Abyss. See the director's cut of "The Abyss" if you can. The water-aliens did care and brought the oceans to the point of destroying all of our cities because of our pollution and destruction. I stand corrected. Then I'm annoyed at another scientific oversight: Planets don't form in multiple star systems and serendipitously five years away from earth. The neighboring gas giant and its numerous stars would also prevent life from forming. That said, if there were a gas giant in Alpha Centauri--at this day in age--it could be easily detected from Earth. Shit! We can see gas giants a hundred LY away. Five LY should be a cinch! Raw and un-adulterated. I know of NO person on earth who knit-picks movies more than me. In order to keep track of my knit-picks, I actually type them up in a Word document and file it under movies. I don't do it to all movies, but I do generally tear apart the ones I like. Star Trek this past year got shredded by me. I still loved it. All said and done (and my boyfriend, it should be noted, hated the movie): Avatar captured me and really didn't let go until it ended. I wanted to be there, I dreamed about it last night, and I'm still milling about in my head the whole story today. That says something about how much I liked it. [ I wasn't referring to their plot lines, just their visual effects. ~String
No they were just their to kill for the horror value, had nothing to do with hurting nature, their was nothing naturally alive on that planet, it was dead to begin with and it was dead to end with. I did, the aliens were saying "stop fighting", not "stop mining for oil". I talked about this before and on the astronomy forum, alpha centauri could have terrestrial planets based on present models, there is a full out search by 2 separate researchers in determining this, they will declare their results in a few years, but you are correct in that their is little chance in hell a gas giant could form in the alpha centarui system. I was not talking about nit-picking rather that those two declare it visual effects as burning to their eyes and one of them refuses to see it based on such. Yeah, no disagreement.
I love how half the people here are hating on this movie without even having seen it, judging it only by its trailer.
I don't disagree, but the point stands that there are very similar themes between the two. Both involve human invasions of an alien habitat in order to obtain some resource. In the end, it took some guy in a suit to make contact with them. ~String
no they don't, the connection you made are circumstantial and frivolousness, its like connecting Trainspotting with the Crying Game because of British accents!
Trainspotting had Scots accents, Crying game was Irish and English mostly. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If we were discussing the look of a lead actor or their accents, you'd be right. But we aren't discussing those things. We are discussing: "humans invading an alien environment and are confronted by strange natives/contact being bridged by a guy in a suit" themes in both movies. The connections are even more apparent when both were essentially written and produced by the same guy. Obviously there are significant difference, but the similar plot device is there. This isn't even a knock on them. Both rank as two of my favorite movies, but Cameron obviously has themes he likes. ~String
Which is a highly contrived theme, a mech suit is not a liquid breathing space suit, the under ocean and a terraformed planet are not the same thing, the aliens on that planet were not even native, etc, etc. No that is not a similar plot device, its too contrived, Dances with Wolfs and Avatar yes, but Abysis and Aliens, no. Oh yeah that totally explains Titanic and True Lies, no your just seeing patterns that aren't there. Cameron likes action, technology, and jerking off on robots but he has no preferences for "humans invading an alien environment and are confronted by strange natives/contact being bridged by a guy in a suit".
I am no fan of the movie, but I assumed that the unobtainium was a byproduct of the sentient neural network, hence it being concentrated under the magic trees that make up the network.
Making it dirty would definitely would make it look more realistic. Simply changing the textures can make the cgi look far more realistic. When the cgi is so clean and clear like in Amelei, it doesn't look as realistic. However, it does look much better. I can see how Avatar can be called cartoonish. But cartoonish doesn't look as good as real. Meanwhile, cgi looks better than real. I'm definitely all for digital enhancement to clean up imagery in film and photography. Looks way better. Way way way better.
People are caviling the realism of a magical miniral in this movie. Although I don't know why. The name of the mineral is definitely a crater sized blemish on the movie, but the fact that there is some sort of magical miniral that they want isn't really a big deal. It's a perfectly justifiable aspect of a scifi. Wrong and irrelevant. The comparisons between Abyss and Avatar are sound. Same director makes 2 movies depicting the same shit twice. Certain aspects of Abyss simply got recycled with a face lift. Directors do recycle certain elements from previous movies, but in the case of Abyss, Avatar pretty much repeated pretty much the same scenarios in a different story. This isn't a case of stealing ideas and techniques from other movies which he did plenty of for Avatar. It's more like going up to a person, and telling him the same thing twice in 2 different ways. He already heard you the first time. It's easy to judge whether or not you want to see a movie based on its trailer. I never saw the trailer to this movie, but I definitely can tell by watching a trailer whether or not a movie is going to be good or garbo. It just goes to show that not all homosexuals will enjoy this movie. Perhaps he should watch Twilight?
We went to see it last night. What can I say.. visually it was quite spectacular. But it was so cliche.. Don't get me wrong, it was a good movie, but some bits of it made me cringe (the speeches and the rallying the natives to fight back (all I could think about was Mel's 'they can take our land.. but they cannae take ooor freeedooom'..).. and the colonel was so cliche and cheesy..and his teeth.. wtf was with that colonel's teeth?).. I enjoyed it because I went along with it. But for me there was something lacking. The potential was there to make the storyline great. And in some parts he did. I enjoyed it visually and the soundtrack was good. It was just those cringe worthy bits that had me go a bit 'meh'.. Otherwise it is one of those movies you can watch and not really have to think about.
That's not right on so many levels. Trailers deliberately use voiceovers and footage that has often been cut from the actual movie. They also try to make out the story of the movie as something it is not, and to make it seem like an action movie--and vice versa--when it in fact maybe the opposite (like Red Planet tv spots, etc.) This is even worse and more ignorant than judging a book by its cover.
No they didn't you just making up a connection that is not there. Ferngully and Abyss were no way similar.
It's not worse because I don't judge books by covers. I typically decide whether or not I want to read something based on the synopsis on the back. Nor do I prejudge anything in any sense. However, movies almost always turn out the way you expect them to based on their trailers. You can pretty much tell by watching a trailer that when you watch the movie, it's going to suck. People watch trailers, and predict whether or not the movie will be worth their precious time to see. People watch the Avatar trailer, and get a pretty good idea how good/lame the cinematics, storyline, and overall experience will be. Then they post their critiques here telling how they feel the movie will be based on the trailer without ever watching the movie. And they're pretty damn accurate.
