James Cameron's 'Avatar' - The next gen of cinema

Tummy · 14 Jan 2010 at 22:17

Kenai said:
What an epically pointless argument all because Gustov said he looks for something a bit deeper in his films than Avatar offers and easyrider took issue with that :/

I took issue with Gustov dissin' ma rollercoasters!

easyrider · 14 Jan 2010 at 22:19

Chimerical said:
Key words you're not picking up on.

Not all churches are art.

But thats not waht we are discussing.

You argue that something with fuction cannot be art.

I am saying that someting can be functional and still be deemed as art.

Buildings with architectural distinction can have function and be deemed as art.

Shamikebab · 14 Jan 2010 at 22:36

I think you should take this into a new thread now

Gustov · 14 Jan 2010 at 22:36

Kenai said:
What an epically pointless argument all because Gustov said he looks for something a bit deeper in his films than Avatar offers and easyrider took issue with that :/

Shamikebab said:
I think you should take this into a new thread now

Like I said

Gustov said:
Art is a term we could go on about for eternity...

It's all subjective. Which as I said before, makes art......well, art.

easyrider · 14 Jan 2010 at 22:39

Kenai said:
What an epically pointless argument all because Gustov said he looks for something a bit deeper in his films than Avatar offers and easyrider took issue with that :/

Then why did Gustov go an see it then?

Gustov · 14 Jan 2010 at 22:40

easyrider said:
Then why did Gustov go an see it then?

So I could have an opinion on it! I enjoyed it immensely but soon forgot about it

*Plus the 3D was made of win

Curunen · 14 Jan 2010 at 22:41

Shamikebab said:
I think you should take this into a new thread now

Yeah, it has gone a bit off track.

easyrider · 14 Jan 2010 at 22:42

Gustov said:
So I could have an opinion on it! I enjoyed it immensely but soon forgot about it

Plus the 3D was made of win

You need more consistency in your posts

Gustov · 14 Jan 2010 at 22:43

easyrider said:
You need more consistency in your posts

Nope! I went to the film to be entertained! Wasn't expecting any more and didn't get anymore (unfortunately). I'm also doing my best to lighten the thread up a bit as well

I've said many times in this debate, I DO enjoy watching Hollywood films but don't expect to get much out of them.

My consistency needs no alterations

easyrider · 14 Jan 2010 at 22:48

Gustov said:
Nope! I went to the film to be entertained! Wasn't expecting any more and didn't get anymore (unfortunately). I'm also doing my best to lighten the thread up a bit as well

I've said many times in this debate, I DO enjoy watching Hollywood films but don't expect to get much out of them.

My consistency needs no alterations

Very odd.

Russinating · 14 Jan 2010 at 22:50

Just thought I'd say I'm going to the BFI IMAX next Tuesday to see it for the third time at an IMAX

. The previous two times it was at Millenium Point in Birmingham.

Absolutely love it :cool:

.

Gustov · 14 Jan 2010 at 22:50

easyrider said:
Very odd.

Or maybe you just don't understand me

easyrider · 14 Jan 2010 at 22:53

Gustov said:
Or maybe you just don't understand me

I think you resort to calling people morons when you struggle to communicate.

Gustov · 14 Jan 2010 at 23:00

easyrider said:
I think you resort to calling people morons when you struggle to communicate.

You're the one in denial

Tummy · 14 Jan 2010 at 23:04

I'll offer my opinion again on this film to help get it back on track.

I think this film looks stunning, a real visual orgasmic exprience.

Lacks in about every other department, a decent film but one that will be remembered for raising the bar in terms of visuals, not anything else.

I still enjoyed it a lot, so much I'm going back for another visual creaming. This and District 9 really raised the bar.

easyrider · 14 Jan 2010 at 23:09

Gustov said:
You're the one in denial

That old chestnut.

I destroyed your lame arguement.

I stayed cool and you named called.

and MUSE are still ****

Gustov · 14 Jan 2010 at 23:13

easyrider said:
That old chestnut.

I destroyed your lame arguement.

I stayed cool and you named called.

and MUSE are still ****

Keep telling yourself that

Muse's new video btw

http://www.mtv.co.uk/artists/muse/video/resistance

my_computer · 14 Jan 2010 at 23:21

muse are SO the avatar of music

Shamikebab · 14 Jan 2010 at 23:29

my_computer said:
muse are SO the avatar of music

Not at all, the current album though, yes.

Amp34 · 14 Jan 2010 at 23:43

easyrider said:
The floating mountains...

Well its an alien world,so why not?

There really are some dumb ass posts in this thread

The floating mountains...

My assumption was a very strong gravitational/some other force in that area hence all the issues with the sensors in the area.

mavity because there was a massive planet in the sky over them which would cause massive gravitational anomolys. Now obviously you should get massive volcanism and tectonics going on round there too but it is a film...

I watched it a couple of weeks ago and its the first film in a while that after a few days I was still thinking about and i'm still tempted to go and see it again (I've NEVER seen a film at a cinema twice). I went there expecting something epic and I came out not disappointed which to me shows how good it was. No it didn't have the "depth" and "provocitism" that arty films have but then it was something entertaining not boring as sin. If i want that i'll watch a documentary.