- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
So this avatar movie
Posted on 11/9/09 at 4:54 pm
Posted on 11/9/09 at 4:54 pm
What's supposed to be so great about it? The effects look pretty unrealistic from the film I've seen.
6
Posted on 11/9/09 at 4:55 pm to As RXd
James Cameron directing makes this big.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 5:05 pm to As RXd
In the words of someone else here...
Ferngully
Ferngully
Posted on 11/9/09 at 5:10 pm to Freauxzen
It looks terrible.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 5:20 pm to As RXd
It looks pathetic.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 5:24 pm to rondo
This seems to be the cool movie on this board to bash these days. As of now, I will take Speilberg's and Cameron's word for how good it is. And from what they've been saying about it, a Youtube trailer could hardly give anyone a feel for what the movie will actually be like. I find it likely that many of you will be eating your words about the film.
This post was edited on 11/9/09 at 5:29 pm
Posted on 11/9/09 at 5:32 pm to As RXd
Humans are the bad guys and Cameron made a new camera that allowed him to see the actors in character while filming. Neither makes me give a rat's arse about this.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 5:37 pm to rondo
Lets see....it's James Cameron utilizing a method of 3D we've never seen before.
Watch the 4:00min trialer and tell me it doesn't look amazing.
Watch the 4:00min trialer and tell me it doesn't look amazing.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 5:39 pm to filmmaker45
I saw a long trailer in the theater yesterday and it looks, like a cartoon with a crappy political message story about noble savages and the wrongness of Western civilization.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 5:40 pm to CC
quote:
Humans are the bad guys and Cameron made a new camera that allowed him to see the actors in character while filming. Neither makes me give a rat's arse about this.
If humans are ever able to achieve warp speed to where we can fairly easily travel between planets, I'd bet serious cash we would become the bad guys if we needed resources that were located on their planet, and especially if we needed to colonize there. We basically wipped out the Native Americans, and they were our own species.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 5:42 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
cool movie on this board to bash these days.
My favorite argument all-time against something...
"Well, it's the cool thing to do..."
What does that even mean? It doesn't even get to the point, a horrible story and a bad trailer.
quote:
I find it likely that many of you will be eating your words about the film.
I love film, so consequently I love GREAT film. If this turns out to be great, I'm all for it. But the trailer was extremely lackluster given all the hype and build up.
quote:
like a cartoon with a crappy political message story about noble savages and the wrongness of Western civilization.
Agreed.
It looks preachy too
This post was edited on 11/9/09 at 5:43 pm
Posted on 11/9/09 at 5:42 pm to CC
quote:
I saw a long trailer in the theater yesterday and it looks, like a cartoon with a crappy political message story about noble savages and the wrongness of Western civilization.
Cartoon? Are you kidding me? The CGI in the first trailer was questionable. But in the new trailer it's absolutely stunning.
And sorry but uh....Cameron doesn't litter his films with political messages. It just looks like a good story to me. I guarantee you the core of the story is not what you see in the trailer.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 6:43 pm to filmmaker45
It is hard to have respect for someone's judgment if they completely write off a movie because the trailer sucked. Avatar's trailer was not very good, but the movie and effects are probably amazing given the director's track record (minus Titanic, which was not very well written, and including Piranha 2, which is underrated).
This post was edited on 11/9/09 at 6:45 pm
Posted on 11/9/09 at 8:10 pm to Froman
This movie has box office fail written all over it from a financial standpoint.
Two articles I have read state the movie with marketing will cost over 500 million. That sounds a bit absurd given the projected cost of 230 million, but the guys on CHUD argue that the 230 number is small and that the actual cost is probably around 400 million just for the movie and $500 with marketing. Still seems a stretch that it actually cost that much, but once again the guys on CHUD argue that it did.
Going to be hard to make that back. Not impossible but pretty close to impossible given it is a sci-fi movie. Yes, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars and Transformers prove Sci-Fi can make some big money, but they are the exception not the norm.
My problem is the 3-D. I have a ban on the recent spate of 3-D movies because it is simply a ploy for Hollywood to OVERCHARGE for movies. It would be one thing if the movie price was the same but some bean counter came up with the idea of charging $4.00 to $8.00 more to see a 3-D movie and now Hollywood is running with that idea.
I can't say I am interested in this one based on the trailer, but I might go anyway just to see what $400 million can buy these days.
There is a ton of interest in this one though so it might be able to hit the numbers it needs. Although in Hollywood no matter what the number, they will claim it lost money, like the idiots involved with LOTR. The movies cost about 500 mil and grossed over 3 billion, yet they still lost money.
Two articles I have read state the movie with marketing will cost over 500 million. That sounds a bit absurd given the projected cost of 230 million, but the guys on CHUD argue that the 230 number is small and that the actual cost is probably around 400 million just for the movie and $500 with marketing. Still seems a stretch that it actually cost that much, but once again the guys on CHUD argue that it did.
Going to be hard to make that back. Not impossible but pretty close to impossible given it is a sci-fi movie. Yes, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars and Transformers prove Sci-Fi can make some big money, but they are the exception not the norm.
My problem is the 3-D. I have a ban on the recent spate of 3-D movies because it is simply a ploy for Hollywood to OVERCHARGE for movies. It would be one thing if the movie price was the same but some bean counter came up with the idea of charging $4.00 to $8.00 more to see a 3-D movie and now Hollywood is running with that idea.
I can't say I am interested in this one based on the trailer, but I might go anyway just to see what $400 million can buy these days.
There is a ton of interest in this one though so it might be able to hit the numbers it needs. Although in Hollywood no matter what the number, they will claim it lost money, like the idiots involved with LOTR. The movies cost about 500 mil and grossed over 3 billion, yet they still lost money.
This post was edited on 11/9/09 at 8:23 pm
Posted on 11/9/09 at 8:17 pm to As RXd
I don't care about the 3-D. If its as good a flop as Titan A.E. then I'll enjoy it, seems similar in story style. It's a kind of movie that I'll probably wait to rent. I'm not sure I like the long running time for this type of movie though.
This post was edited on 11/9/09 at 8:33 pm
Posted on 11/9/09 at 9:11 pm to filmmaker45
quote:
with a crappy political message story about noble savages and the wrongness of Western civilization.
yeah unfortunately i thought the same thing.
humans BAD
Posted on 11/9/09 at 10:04 pm to constant cough
quote:
Titan A.E.
Good movie
Posted on 11/10/09 at 12:10 am to Freauxzen
I put the "X" on 3-D movies after watching A Christmas Carol. I don't get all of the hype around 3-D movies because it's not anything spectacular. Other than a few snow flakes falling in my lap during the movie, I didn't see any reason to put it in 3-D.
Posted on 11/10/09 at 12:26 am to TigerMyth36
quote:
Two articles I have read state the movie with marketing will cost over 500 million. That sounds a bit absurd given the projected cost of 230 million, but the guys on CHUD argue that the 230 number is small and that the actual cost is probably around 400 million just for the movie and $500 with marketing. Still seems a stretch that it actually cost that much, but once again the guys on CHUD argue that it did.
How can they spend 100 mil on marketing? While the quality of the movie is questionable, its had one of the worst marketing ever for a high budget motion picture.
This post was edited on 11/10/09 at 12:27 am
Posted on 11/10/09 at 12:48 am to Freauxzen
quote:
Ferngully
that is basically what the trailer reminds me of
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News