Quote:
Originally Posted by ASU2003
You are really complaining about the evolution in a make believe world? You do realize that there are examples on Earth of animals walking on 4 legs, or spiders with 6 legs, dragonflies with compound eyes, fish that have no legs and can breathe underwater, and birds that have feathers and fly.
I saw it at the IMAX 3D in the second row. It was perfect. The CGI was very well done.
It was more political than I was expecting (I only knew the name and that there were blue aliens on a distant planet going in). It combined the Native American/indigenous people, environmentalists, religious freedom fighters, anti-oil, and anti-war groups in one movie. And it turned out that the good side won out in the end.
I do wonder if they will be able to come up with something to allow my projector to turn into a 3D projector. It might be active glasses, but it didn't look like there was anything special about the image on the screen besides it being blurry. But, it would be cool if it would work with a normal DVD player.
|
My point was that there are so many films and books that handle this better.
In the run-up to the launch, I was told over and over how it had been in gestation for many years - that Cameron had originally wanted to make it over a decade ago but had waited for the technology to be right, and so on.
In the end, almost everyone I've seen writing or heard talking about this film has said (in essence) "it looks great, but the story has problems".
This film cost mind-numbingly large sums of money, was made by some of the most talented and creative people in the world today, and yet the story hangs together badly, like it's an add on to the ACTUAL point which is the visuals.
My point was that I'd rather see a fabulous story on a plain stage (i.e. visit the theatre), than a shoddy story on a fabulous immersive 3D experience (i.e. Avatar). My overall point however, was that what would have made it the best film ever made is if they had slung the script to half a dozen jaded Sci Fi novelists and said - point out where this sucks, and make it better, and make it internally consistent.
Case in point.
Is is rational (in corporate situations) for your most expensive and valuable project to be being run by a young angry man, who seemingly can be over-ruled by his chief of security? Where was the local board of directors? Even if the film wanted to not fanny about with the weight they'd place on the plot, at least explain in a brief exchange that "it's a pain running the place on my own, but all the bosses died when they ate the salmon mouse", or something.