So just to be clear, we can never have a movie or a story about an advanced society attacking a primitive society without it being deemed white guilt? That seems a bit...weak. [Reply]
Originally Posted by unlurking:
So just to be clear, we can never have a movie or a story about an advanced society attacking a primitive society without it being deemed white guilt? That seems a bit...weak.
Strawman alert.
Who said that? No one.
The context of the story determines it. Avatar clearly operates on the concept that colonialism was nothing but evil Europeans taking away resources and lands from those poor innocent natives. It is an allegory in space with clear themes.
Not every advanced/primitive society story involves colonialism but Avatar does. [Reply]
How is it different between any non-white conflict? When farmers from Bolivia, Columbia, Brazil, etc. burn down swaths of rain forest and push out local tribes, is that also "European Colonialism"? Is every story involving a bully usurping the weak an allegory for "European Colonialism"?
I'm seriously asking here. I just don't get it. Early American atrocities against native peoples is not unique. I mean, genocides are occurring all the time on this planet. Why does everything have to be considered an attack on America? [Reply]
It was entertaining enough until the story got predictable; I wasn't really sure how to take the 'connection' angle with the tail thing. It seemed really inappropriate in the context of the film.
I have the Blu-Ray however I don't think I would play it just to watch it like I would some other movies like Terminator or Aliens.
Even after knowing what is supposed to be happening in 2001, I still have no idea how the audience is supposed to understand why HAL was killing everyone or what the whole acid trip through the monolith was about. [Reply]
It was entertaining enough until the story got predictable; I wasn't really sure how to take the 'connection' angle with the tail thing. It seemed really inappropriate in the context of the film.
I have the Blu-Ray however I don't think I would play it just to watch it like I would some other movies like Terminator or Aliens.
Even after knowing what is supposed to be happening in 2001, I still have no idea how the audience is supposed to understand why HAL was killing everyone or what the whole acid trip through the monolith was about.
Funny you should mention 2001. That's another perpetually overrated piece of crap starring groundbreaking special effects and little else. The story, as presented, was largely incomprehensible (although at least it was original), and the lead actors' performances were so wooden that their noses would have grown had they lied. And that interminable final sequence - hey, look a bunch of long helicopter shots over barren landscapes with the colors skewed - woohoo isn't this neat? I remember getting flashbacks of that while watching the equally bad first Star Trek movie.
I did enjoy the book, though. And I loved the sequel, 2010, which featured a solid, understandable plot and world class actors. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Frazod:
Funny you should mention 2001. That's another perpetually overrated piece of crap starring groundbreaking special effects and little else. The story, as presented, was largely incomprehensible (although at least it was original), and the lead actors' performances were so wooden that their noses would have grown had they lied. And that interminable final sequence - hey, look a bunch of long helicopter shots over barren landscapes with the colors skewed - woohoo isn't this neat? I remember getting flashbacks of that while watching the equally bad first Star Trek movie.
I did enjoy the book, though. And I loved the sequel, 2010, which featured a solid, understandable plot and world class actors.
2010 was a much better movie that closed a lot of the plot holes in the first one. Lithgow was a bit over the top though. Enjoyed them giving HAL another chance and explaining why he went insane. 2001 had a very good sound track and a lot of models getting plenty of screen time. It was really hard to understand WTF was going on most of the time.
The first ST movie was such a disappointment; I remember getting tickets and being so excited and got stoned to see it and after about 20 minutes we fell asleep in the theater.
The third book wasn't very good from what I recall. [Reply]
Originally Posted by crayzkirk:
2010 was a much better movie that closed a lot of the plot holes in the first one. Lithgow was a bit over the top though. Enjoyed them giving HAL another chance and explaining why he went insane. 2001 had a very good sound track and a lot of models getting plenty of screen time. It was really hard to understand WTF was going on most of the time.
The first ST movie was such a disappointment; I remember getting tickets and being so excited and got stoned to see it and after about 20 minutes we fell asleep in the theater.
The third book wasn't very good from what I recall.
There was a fourth book as well, set 1,000 years in the future. I read both of them decades ago, but frankly don't remember all that much about them, except that Frank Poole was the main character in the last one (his body was found floating in space and revived). [Reply]
Originally Posted by Frazod:
There was a fourth book as well, set 1,000 years in the future. I read both of them decades ago, but frankly don't remember all that much about them, except that Frank Poole was the main character in the last one (his body was found floating in space and revived).
Originally Posted by BigRedChief:
Don't know about 3D. Always seems dare to me.
That trailer shows a major leap forward in CGI. Amazing details in motion. I'll want to see this on the big screen.
^^^
You'll definitely want to see Avatar 2 in IMAX 3D (to get the proper cinematic experience that its intended for. I assure you the 3D is going to be jaw dropping. It was in the 1st one . I'm sure it'll be even more incredible in 2022)
The short teaser definitely got me hyped and I really liked the under water shots. I do wish James Cameron would have just called it Avatar 2 instead of Avatar The Way of Water:-) which sounds so cringe worthy lol.
Also FTR, I can completely understand how some folks wouldn't be into Avatar. Without getting political, James Cameron does hit the audience over the head with some really heavy handed save the environmental messages which I'm sure annoyed quite a few people which is perfectly understandable.
For me though, I just view Avatar as a highly stylized sci fi action/adventure epic and I think the sequel is going to be a blast to see in IMAX 3D. [Reply]
Originally Posted by sully1983:
^^^
You'll definitely want to see Avatar 2 in IMAX 3D (to get the proper cinematic experience that its intended for. I assure you the 3D is going to be jaw dropping. It was in the 1st one . I'm sure it'll be even more incredible in 2022)
The short teaser definitely got me hyped and I really liked the under water shots. I do wish James Cameron would have just called it Avatar 2 instead of Avatar The Way of Water:-) which sounds so cringe worthy lol.
Also FTR, I can completely understand how some folks wouldn't be into Avatar. Without getting political, James Cameron does hit the audience over the head with some really heavy handed save the environmental messages which I'm sure annoyed quite a few people which is perfectly understandable.
For me though, I just view Avatar as a highly stylized sci fi action/adventure epic and I think the sequel is going to be a blast to see in IMAX 3D.
I agree that the way to see it would be during its opening run at IMAX 3D.
And I could imagine it being a fun time with mind blowing cinematic experience. I enjoyed seeing the first Avatar at IMAX 3D in a non sober state of mind.
And twenty years from now Avater 2 will be just as lame as other previously mind blowing special effect movies like 2001, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, any of the King Kong films from the 1930's on, the original Avatar, 95% of Hollywood action films etc.
Oh actually, Roger Rabbit is actually a pretty good film with or without special effects. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BigRedChief:
Don't know about 3D. Always seems dare to me.
That trailer shows a major leap forward in CGI. Amazing details in motion. I'll want to see this on the big screen.
Did you see the first one in theaters in imax 3d? It was pretty incredible and I'm not a big 3d guy. It was designed for 3d.
The cgi definitely looks great...but they'll need this to blow it out of the water with most movies now are up to speed on effects when they weren't in 2009. [Reply]
