Devogue wrote:I saw it the other night and I thought it was brilliant.
However, the Jake Sully avatar looked and sounded like a giant blue Mel Gibson.
I was waiting for it to call the girl "Sugar tits".

Did you see it in 3D dev?
Devogue wrote:I saw it the other night and I thought it was brilliant.
However, the Jake Sully avatar looked and sounded like a giant blue Mel Gibson.
I was waiting for it to call the girl "Sugar tits".
No - our shitty local cinema doesn't have 3D yet - however, I'm not too bothered as I have read complaints about it in 3D.Elessarina wrote:Devogue wrote:I saw it the other night and I thought it was brilliant.
However, the Jake Sully avatar looked and sounded like a giant blue Mel Gibson.
I was waiting for it to call the girl "Sugar tits".
Now you mention that I kinda see it -argh! I never thought of that! I actually quite fancy the big blue Jake lol
Did you see it in 3D dev?
Trust me and go and see it in 3D when you get the chance.. or make the chance - I have seen very very few people complain about it (almost no one) .. most people are gobsmacked by it. It completely enhances the experience and brings Pandora even more to life.Devogue wrote:
No - our shitty local cinema doesn't have 3D yet - however, I'm not too bothered as I have read complaints about it in 3D.
I disagree, and anyway, the thing that annoys me most about CGI is when it is used just for the sake of it - it's something I think the new Star Trek film was guilty of - it was just too "busy", there was just so much wam bam CGI that it eventually became tiring. I didn't get that with Avatar.born-again-atheist wrote:It makes obvious CGI animation even more obvious is what it does.
WTF? You really thought that?Devogue wrote:I disagree, and anyway, the thing that annoys me most about CGI is when it is used just for the sake of it - it's something I think the new Star Trek film was guilty of - it was just too "busy", there was just so much wam bam CGI that it eventually became tiring. I didn't get that with Avatar.born-again-atheist wrote:It makes obvious CGI animation even more obvious is what it does.
WTF? You watched Transformers 2?Animavore wrote:WTF? You really thought that?Devogue wrote:I disagree, and anyway, the thing that annoys me most about CGI is when it is used just for the sake of it - it's something I think the new Star Trek film was guilty of - it was just too "busy", there was just so much wam bam CGI that it eventually became tiring. I didn't get that with Avatar.born-again-atheist wrote:It makes obvious CGI animation even more obvious is what it does.
Way better examples would be Transformers 2 and Indiana Jones ATKOTCS.
I actually liked the first one. It was a fun movieDevogue wrote:WTF? You watched Transformers 2?Animavore wrote:WTF? You really thought that?Devogue wrote:I disagree, and anyway, the thing that annoys me most about CGI is when it is used just for the sake of it - it's something I think the new Star Trek film was guilty of - it was just too "busy", there was just so much wam bam CGI that it eventually became tiring. I didn't get that with Avatar.born-again-atheist wrote:It makes obvious CGI animation even more obvious is what it does.
Way better examples would be Transformers 2 and Indiana Jones ATKOTCS.
They were both shit.Animavore wrote:I actually liked the first one. It was a fun movieDevogue wrote:WTF? You watched Transformers 2?Animavore wrote:WTF? You really thought that?Devogue wrote:I disagree, and anyway, the thing that annoys me most about CGI is when it is used just for the sake of it - it's something I think the new Star Trek film was guilty of - it was just too "busy", there was just so much wam bam CGI that it eventually became tiring. I didn't get that with Avatar.born-again-atheist wrote:It makes obvious CGI animation even more obvious is what it does.
Way better examples would be Transformers 2 and Indiana Jones ATKOTCS.
The second one was beyond fun though and was totally ridiculous.
Well at least it was advertised as what it was. I actually figured out why Avatar annoyed me so much. Its because Cameron advertised it as a serious sci-fi movie (the ad said From the director of "Terminator 2" and "Aliens" totally misleading and inappropriate to Avatar.) instead of what it was, a family movie. If he had of advertised it that way I may have liked it like I did Finding Nemo.born-again-atheist wrote:They were both shit.
It's supposed to be
Transformers: Robots in Disguise
Not
Transformers: Teen angst with a big metal talking thingy.
Animavore wrote:Well at least it was advertised as what it was. I actually figured out why Avatar annoyed me so much. Its because Cameron advertised it as a serious sci-fi movie (the ad said From the director of "Terminator 2" and "Aliens" totally misleading and inappropriate to Avatar.) instead of what it was, a family movie. If he had of advertised it that way I may have liked it like I did Finding Nemo.
Elessarina wrote:[there is a line of toys, a computer game, promotions at McDonalds etc...
BAA just likes disagreeing.Elessarina wrote:Dev just ignore what BAA says he is clearly disagreeing with everything I say to make a point
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest