|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jul 29, 2012 18:15:04 GMT -5
Over at Huff Post Entertainment:
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Jul 29, 2012 22:01:22 GMT -5
even if he shoots it at 60 fps, and even if that means he takes time developing new tech, I'm not sure why it will still take him another 3 to 4 years to get out a movie that he's been doing nothing but planning for since 2009.
Sure, he can argue that the CG and motion capture and 3D cameras and whatnot were needed before he could make the first movie, which took 12 years (so he did some documentaries and created Dark Angel in the interim), but this is getting ridiculous. Stanley Kubrick had faster turnaround on some of his projects.
...And is anyone out there REALLY clamoring for another Avatar? Personally, I'd kinda like to see the world hinted at in his first short film, Xenogenesis, which was really just an effects demo, but the artwork he did at the start and the story it hinted at seemed cool.
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jul 30, 2012 8:44:20 GMT -5
I couldn't care less if another Avatar comes out or not. I would probably see it, but ultimately, I didn't like the first one very much due to the obvious left wing pandering.
He didn't sell the aliens as good guys and the humans as bad guys.
As far as I'm concerned, Avatar is a sad story about a brave and heroic colonel, fighting for Earth, only to have his efforts dashed by the traitorous actions of one of his own.
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Jul 30, 2012 9:35:28 GMT -5
Yeah, I never got why, once they succeeded in forcibly removing the Na'vi, they didn't just mine the unobtainium and go away. Why keep chasing them?
I'm not convinced there's a story to be told in a sequel, certainly not two or three sequels.
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by Mel on Jul 30, 2012 9:46:07 GMT -5
So, in real life, if we could travel to other planets that are inhabited by indigenous sentient beings, but they're less technically advanced, we should just take over their planet to get what we need? To me, that isn't a left/right issue. WWKD?
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jul 30, 2012 16:10:15 GMT -5
Depends on the situation.
If it comes down to the survival of my planet, I would take it by force if necessary.
And let's not forget that the humans did NOT go in guns blazing. They tried every diplomatic means possible to get the unobtainium.
As for what Kirk would do, he took the whales.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jul 31, 2012 1:23:44 GMT -5
I couldn't care less if another Avatar comes out or not. I would probably see it, but ultimately, I didn't like the first one very much due to the obvious left wing pandering. He didn't sell the aliens as good guys and the humans as bad guys. As far as I'm concerned, Avatar is a sad story about a brave and heroic colonel, fighting for Earth, only to have his efforts dashed by the traitorous actions of one of his own. I couldn't care less if another Avatar comes out or not. I would probably see it, but ultimately, I didn't like the first one very much due to the obvious left wing pandering. He didn't sell the aliens as good guys and the humans as bad guys. As far as I'm concerned, Avatar is a sad story about a brave and heroic colonel, fighting for Earth, only to have his efforts dashed by the traitorous actions of one of his own.[/quote] Well, I wouldn't go that far with you about the Colonel. He was an A-hole. Don't forget that he didn't give his officer the time he requested before launching his endgame assault on the Na'vi. However, I do agree with you that the story and how humanity was presented was quite despicable. SF author David Brin touched on this film in a recent radio interview and he didn't like how Cameron crafted the story in that respect either, and he described how he would have handled the first five minutes of the movie differently. If you or anyone else here is interested, his interview can be accessed here: On Fiction, Science Fiction & writing: My interview on Hour of the Wolf t.co/32TsJTZV Brin starts talking about "Avatar" about 34 minutes into the interview and describes how he would have changed the film at 36 minutes in. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jul 31, 2012 6:46:24 GMT -5
I thought the colonel was awesome in that movie. He was the only part that made the movie somewhat tolerable.
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Jul 31, 2012 9:07:28 GMT -5
Thanks for posting that. It was a pretty good listen, and I'd agree with his point that if Cameron had set up the world with both parties being reasonable people on the whole it would have been better. As it stands now, Avatar feels like it's saying humanity is awful and the only thing to do is abandon it and live as another species.
Brin is spot on that liberal Hollywood spends just berates people and it turns them off.
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jul 31, 2012 10:17:54 GMT -5
The player I had didn't have a clock, so I couldn't skip. Maybe on my home computer.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jul 31, 2012 11:12:48 GMT -5
The player I had didn't have a clock, so I couldn't skip. Maybe on my home computer.
Sometimes I really miss my BlackBerry, which I had to trade in for this damn Android headache. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jul 31, 2012 14:32:28 GMT -5
I'll give that a shot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mel on Jul 31, 2012 14:53:31 GMT -5
Hardly an apt analogy, since he took them from the same planet he was from.
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Aug 1, 2012 13:08:18 GMT -5
But from a different time period.
He was there to get the whales, and he would have grabbed them no matter what. He wouldn't have let Earth be destroyed if the 20th century humans said no.
And while Spock may have been concerned with getting the whales' permission, I don't think Kirk would have been.
He couldn't afford it.
The closest analogy on YOUR side that I can think of would be Mirror Mirror, but Earth's existence was not on the line there.
Fact is, if Earth was on the line, and needed unobtainium to survive, the Nav'i had no business saying no.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mel on Aug 1, 2012 17:42:50 GMT -5
I saw Avatar once on DVD. Given the beauty of it, I regretted not seeing it in 3D on the big screen, but it wasn't SF enough for me to care that much about the movie, so I didn't try to remember plot details.
My recollection is that humans had nearly depleted their natural resources and needed this rare fix-all mineral to exist. They found it on this inhabited planet. The Navi's tree was on the richest deposit of unobtainable in the area. I took that to mean the crew, having found it there, had stopped looking for it elsewhere on the planet. For all they knew, there were other rich deposits. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe, due to the biological connection with the tree, any deposit would have been a risk to Nav'i.
IIRC, the crew wasn't able to get the mineral because the animals on the planet helped turn the tide against them. Will the sequel be about humans mounting another attack on that planet?
As I said, in real life, I don't agree that we can take the mineral at any cost in order for us to survive. Again, I don't see this as a left or right wing issue.
Btw, nice to see new pictures around here.
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Aug 1, 2012 19:00:01 GMT -5
It's been so long since I've seen it that I don't remember it well either, and I didn't like the movie enough to want to sit through it again.
But I also believe that yes, humans depleted their natural resources, and this stuff helped deal with that.
Bottom line is this--if that's the case, time is an issue, and if that is the richest deposit of it, yes, they have to get it.
Taking it by force shouldn't be a first objective, but it is a last resort, and the Navi's inability to see the dire situation and help out another sentient lifeform that doesn't want to be hurt by the mistakes of their ancestors.
I felt humanity was not really in the wrong.
As for a sequel, I don't know what it would be about, but the Navi won a battle with the help of some traitors.
Why not just launch some nukes and grab the stuff?
It just seems like a species flying around on big birds carrying spears wouldn't stand a chance against a species that has mastered interstellar travel.
I try to change the pictures monthly.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Aug 2, 2012 15:52:43 GMT -5
It's been so long since I've seen it that I don't remember it well either, and I didn't like the movie enough to want to sit through it again. But I also believe that yes, humans depleted their natural resources, and this stuff helped deal with that. Bottom line is this--if that's the case, time is an issue, and if that is the richest deposit of it, yes, they have to get it. Taking it by force shouldn't be a first objective, but it is a last resort, and the Navi's inability to see the dire situation and help out another sentient lifeform that doesn't want to be hurt by the mistakes of their ancestors.
Ultimately Cameron's depiction of humanity is despicable though, and as David Brin said in the interview I posted the link to, the guy really is still stuck in the 60s, and that will be evident once again once the next movie in this series finally hits the screen. He will learn nothing from people like Brin because he's a typical liberal.
Oh, and the guy just bought 2500 acres in New Zealand, and is moving his family out there and intends to work from there from now on. So I guess America is too decrepit now thanks in large part to people who think like him --so our country gets destroyed from within thanks to people like him, and rather than continuing to live in this liberal nirvana that he and his ilk have been working toward giving us for the last half a century at least, well it's just not good enough for him now don't ya see, so he up and leaves and leaves the rest of us holding the bag.
Liberals are such a detestable lot, I swear. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Aug 3, 2012 6:52:42 GMT -5
I don't think they did it because they could. I think they did it to make a statement--one that was only necessary because the Navi wouldn't share.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Sept 10, 2012 17:03:22 GMT -5
Over at Blastr:James Cameron could be planning a lot more Avatar than we thought  We already knew James Cameron was gearing up for two new Avatar sequels, but it seems he could have even more Pandora adventures in the pike. How about a prequel trilogy? MORE: blastr.com/2012/09/james-cameron-could-be-pl.php
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Sept 10, 2012 17:31:24 GMT -5
This is dumb for several reasons.
1) is there really that much demand for nothing but Avatar content? Here's the guy who knew that 2 Terminator movies was pushing it.
2) it suggests he's becoming aware of how much wasn't explained in Avatar's exposition compared to what was apparently in his head. The only reason to do this is to make the first Avatar movie seem less of a creative failure.
3) funny how this "announcement" comes so soon after learning the Hobbit will be a trilogy as well.
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Sept 11, 2012 6:08:48 GMT -5
I'm not even sure I'm going to be so interested in the sequel. I really didn't like the left wing extremism of the first one. MAYBE I'll see the sequel, but the franchise is on very thin ice with me.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Sept 19, 2012 15:36:17 GMT -5
This is what I just said in reaction to this on the Blastr article Page:
Why not add Chinese military and scientists to work in conjunction with North American forces? Gee, maybe it's because [it's] the humans who are evil in this ongoing saga?
So much for thinking outside the box anyway.
Over at Blastr:Why James Cameron wants to add Chinese Na'vi to the Avatar sequel
 James Cameron's Avatar was one of the biggest hits of the past decade, and we've heard a lot about how he wants to turn the alien tale into a franchise that will last the next several years. To make the sequels even more internationally viable, Cameron now plans to add some cultural diversity to the tall, blue race of aliens. Say hello to the Chinese Na'vi. MORE: blastr.com/2012/09/why-does-james-cameron-wa.php |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Sept 28, 2012 6:36:07 GMT -5
I may not bother seeing these sequels, given how little I cared for the first movie.
|
|
