James Cameron's AVATAR discussion thread

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
You guys know nothing about visual effects

All you need to judge effects are eyes. Avatar looked good, but what was on screen wasn't revelatory or even particularly groundbreaking. Other movies had better CG effects last year.

Behind the scenes (the technologies used) it was quite an achievement. That's not the same thing. The effects were good. D9 was more realistic. Sorry if you feel tribal about special effects, but get over it.
 
I don't think he understands. :)

I dont get it ? isnt posting on a forum saying bad things considered trolling i know he's a long time member or whatever but i think its just for attention, maybe instead of calling names you should maybe tell me that he's not being a troll and he's just provoking people into an argument. WHich is sorta worse imo, constantly saying a movie sucks and saying its faults is annoying its ok to have an opnions but dont be a troll about it.
 
avatar was the first film for me where CGI eyes actually looked like eyes... and not overly glossy 'not physically in the head' looking things. usually CGI eyes have an unreal look about them... these ones were totally real looking.
 
Worst movie I ever seen. Especially the last half an hour, seriously how dull was that. And the banghee training. That scene looked so crap it should have been cut
 
All you need to judge effects are eyes. Avatar looked good, but what was on screen wasn't revelatory or even particularly groundbreaking. Other movies had better CG effects last year.

Behind the scenes (the technologies used) it was quite an achievement. That's not the same thing. The effects were good. D9 was more realistic. Sorry if you feel tribal about special effects, but get over it.

You're biased against so many things, if there weren't so many people that liked the movie I'm sure you'd be saying something different.

You can't even try to say the effects were better in District 9, they hardly had to do anything to put the effects in there. People keep talking about the characters in Avatar, but also realize--almost the entire environment is CG, You can't compare something like District 9 where almost everything in the image is in fact real to something like Avatar where there are good chunks of the movie where both the environment and the characters are CG. They're completely different things
 
You're biased against so many things

I'm not biased against anything. It was a typical popcorn flick with good - but not amazing - effects and a pedestrian script.

You can't even try to say the effects were better in District 9

The effects in D9 were better from my perspective. They appeared photorealistic and "really there" whereas Avatar felt like a highly rendered cartoon to me. Very pretty, but not better.

People keep talking about the characters in Avatar, but also realize--almost the entire environment is CG

Yeah, I'd already seen that in the Star Wars prequels. So the whole movie is set in Felucia - big deal.
 
I dont get it ? isnt posting on a forum saying bad things considered trolling i know he's a long time member or whatever but i think its just for attention, maybe instead of calling names you should maybe tell me that he's not being a troll and he's just provoking people into an argument. WHich is sorta worse imo, constantly saying a movie sucks and saying its faults is annoying its ok to have an opnions but dont be a troll about it.

I am done with this conversation but good luck in life buddy. You need to know when to choose your battles. Ignoring people is a powerful thing.
 
I just noticed in the paper today that AVATAR is back in our local IMAX, bumping out How To Train Your Dragon. Interesting. I didn't think it'd be back until the extended release this fall.
 
OMG Y DID THEY PUT DAT HORRIDLY EFCT MOVIE BAHK INTO DA MOOVIES??// De feffcx luk leik film from 1928. omg so gahy.
 
Back
Top