4815162342 Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Fun Fact : Guess who brought Racism up in this thread? The answer is Dash Render the great Avatarian defender when he called District 9 racist. From there it kind of snowballed from how could you consider that racist but not Avatar to where we ended up. I don't actually consider to be an out-and-out racist film. More clumsy and cliched in its dealing with race. It is NOT my biggest criticism, which is that the story is cliched and done to death and the characters have no depth to them. This thread had so much ranting I didn't bother to read it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil in the Blank Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Coming from the poster calling Avatar racist?? Seriously mate, you need to think less before you type because you come up with some complete bullshit when you do. Type "avatar racism", into google and discover the wonderful world that is film analysis that has occurred well before anything I wrote on here. For example : http://theweek.com/article/index/104466/avatars-ugly-message If I was to identify with one of those three quotes, it would be number 2 : "Avatar may not be racist but it is undeniably a "fantasy about race," says Annalee Newitz on I09.com. Jake Sully's efforts to save the Na’vi aliens is just a "sci-fi rehash of an old white guilt fantasy" that dates back to "genocide" Europeans perpetrated against Native Americans. But well-meaning characters like Sully are just "a sneaky way of turning every story about people of color into a story about being white." And directors should resist that impulse. "When will white people stop making movies like Avatar?"" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil in the Blank Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 This thread had so much ranting I didn't bother to read it all. I do not blame you at all You deserve some cake for even trying.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessie Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Type "avatar racism", into google and discover the wonderful world that is film analysis that has occurred well before anything I wrote on here. For example : http://theweek.com/article/index/104466/avatars-ugly-message If I was to identify with one of those three quotes, it would be number 2 : "Avatar may not be racist but it is undeniably a "fantasy about race," says Annalee Newitz on I09.com. Jake Sully's efforts to save the Na’vi aliens is just a "sci-fi rehash of an old white guilt fantasy" that dates back to "genocide" Europeans perpetrated against Native Americans. But well-meaning characters like Sully are just "a sneaky way of turning every story about people of color into a story about being white." And directors should resist that impulse. "When will white people stop making movies like Avatar?"" And you seriously think that was Cameron's intention?? lol, These comments are the result of bored people looking to stir shit up and you've fallen straight into it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil in the Blank Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandias Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 I think this is the only time I've liked seeing this women. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 I think this is the only time I've liked seeing this women. Hate gives meaning and purpose. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatebox Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 (edited) JP was my first event movie so Avatar would never stand a chance in this stand-off, but I'm pretty certain JP has aged better in the 20 years since its release than Avatar will in the same time span. Edited May 1, 2013 by Hatebox 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandias Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Hate gives meaning and purpose. Believe it or not, I don't hate your fantasy girl, never truly did. I just don't see anything in her that would make me gush over her everyday. Its just that your often obnoxious fixation on her just comes off like BKB's 49 year old boner for anything Marvel which sometimes makes it tempting to poke some fun. You gotta give me some credit bro, I don't think I've ever opened the Catching Fire thread now that I think about it. Still didn't like The Hunger Games though. And you got it wrong, hate has a meaning and purpose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 There just isn't a contest here in my eyes. While Avatar is visually stunning, it has little significance. Is it iconic? Does it have a distinct, memorable score? Did it change movies? Are the character's interesting? Is the acting good? I'd say no to all of them. It's a good film, but nothing more. It has little redeeming qualities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolioD1 Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 This thread is hilarious. Thanks guys. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goffe Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 (edited) tough choice, both of them are overestimated, but I choose Avatar because don't have some annoying things like in JP. Avatar 8/10, B/B+ JP 7.8/10, B Edited May 1, 2013 by Goffe 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vc2002 Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 (edited) Hate gives meaning and purpose. LOOOOL this is one of the best "right back at you" replies I've ever seen on this site. Literally cracked me up haha Edited May 2, 2013 by vc2002 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vc2002 Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 (edited) JP was my first event movie so Avatar would never stand a chance in this stand-off, but I'm pretty certain JP has aged better in the 20 years since its release than Avatar will in the same time span. No films today could age better than JP, particularly heavy CGI films like Avatar. Edited May 2, 2013 by vc2002 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatebox Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 No films today could age better than JP, particularly heavy CGI films like Avatar. Agreed, but that's just it - people aren't really impressed by modern CGI anymore. It's a given that it'll look good now and probably age badly because technology improves so fast. The animatronics in JP still look great because they were 'real'. The CGI... not so much. Luckily there's a lot more of the former in the movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dashrendar44 Posted May 3, 2013 Share Posted May 3, 2013 (edited) Agreed, but that's just it - people aren't really impressed by modern CGI anymore. It's a given that it'll look good now and probably age badly because technology improves so fast. The animatronics in JP still look great because they were 'real'. The CGI... not so much. Luckily there's a lot more of the former in the movie. So that CGI T-rex has aged badly now? And don't the pet favourite of y'all D9 rely much on CGI? How won't it age badly ten years from now then? Oh no, D9 won't age badly because you decided it's an instant masterpiece even if it's a CGI vfx reel that couldn't be what it is without them. (I love how people think they can spot CGI but you only see what you want to see. When you see the Na'vi and dinosaur creatures as obvious CGI even if they're photoreal, you know they don't exist so you can say it will age badly as a pavlovian response. But at the same time, you don't even realize the jungle around is 100% computer-generated, every single leaves and trees. No one has never point out how those trees are so "faaaaaake". No one bat an eyelid even if the whole environment is CGI or enhanced by digital imagery. How could a full CGI photorealistic jungle age badly? It's the proof that CGI have already reach the photorealistic aspect that will still look photorealistic ten years from now). Edited May 3, 2013 by dashrendar44 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatebox Posted May 3, 2013 Share Posted May 3, 2013 (edited) No one has never point out how those trees are so "faaaaaake". No one bat an eyelid even if the whole environment is CGI or enhanced by digital imagery. How could a full CGI photorealistic jungle age badly? It's funny you mention that, because the environment of Pandora is one of the reasons I find the movie hard to get through a second time. The Uncanny Valley-esque effect of the fauna is jarring to me. With the alien creates they at least look so out there my brain doesn't have trouble acknowledging they're fake. That may sound like a nitpick but, as someone who watches their movies on a hi-def projector, Avatar is the only one with which I've noticed this phenomenon occur. PS - For what it's worth, I thought the Na-Vi mo-cap was by far the most impressive aspect of the production. Edited May 3, 2013 by Hatebox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4815162342 Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 Jurassic Park has aged very well in most respects because it used the CGI smartly and efficently. Some of the daytime CGI shots like the fleeing herd of Gallimimus do look fairly dated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Marston Posted May 4, 2013 Author Share Posted May 4, 2013 Agreed, but that's just it - people aren't really impressed by modern CGI anymore. It's a given that it'll look good now and probably age badly because technology improves so fast. The animatronics in JP still look great because they were 'real'. The CGI... not so much. Luckily there's a lot more of the former in the movie. this still looks awesome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vc2002 Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 this still looks awesome Try to look at it on blu-ray at least. CG looked pretty bad (in fact, pretty out of place I could say) in daylight scenes on blu-ray. Just like Titanic. It used to be look really good on DVD, on blu-ray some of the 90's-ish CGI are easy to spot. I think blu-ray really put those old heavy-CG films into a new test for geeks like us, and under that test, it's easy to spot dated scenes (or effects). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
