It was interesting walking out of this ultra expensive environmentally themed movie and watching everyone toss their 3-D goggles. Sure they're getting recycled, but it's still all a little ironic.
I enjoyed it. The story is pretty cliche and predictable, but it was well done. District 9 and Inglorious Basterds were both better movies.
It was interesting walking out of this ultra expensive environmentally themed movie and watching everyone toss their 3-D goggles. Sure they're getting recycled, but it's still all a little ironic.
I enjoyed it. The story is pretty cliche and predictable, but it was well done. District 9 and Inglorious Basterds were both better movies.
Was it Wall-E that was giving out cheap disposable plastic watches to kids when they saw it?
Yeah, here you go. Is that irony?
It was interesting walking out of this ultra expensive environmentally themed movie and watching everyone toss their 3-D goggles. Sure they're getting recycled, but it's still all a little ironic.
I enjoyed it. The story is pretty cliche and predictable, but it was well done. District 9 and Inglorious Basterds were both better movies.
Well, that's weird. The theater I go to re-uses the 3-D glasses.
Anyhoo, I went to see it tonight, and I thought it was pretty awesome. Which is high praise considering I only got to see the first third of the movie the way it was intended. The reel broke, and they never were able to fix it properly. So I watched the last two thirds of the movie in fuzzy 2D with the sound not quite timed correctly to the film. Yeah, the theater gave me a free movie pass so I can go back and see it properly at some point. I'm really looking forward to it.
I would say not. If only because at one point Michael Biehn was in talks to be in the movie but Cameron decided not to cast them specifically because he didn't want folks to think it was Aliens.I have wondered if, given the presence of powered armor, dropships that appear similar to sme of his earlier work, and Sigorney Weaver, if this is not supposed to be set in a shed universe with Aliens.Saw this movie yesterday, and it'll require a few more viewings for me to decide if it's my new favorite James Cameron movie (an honor currently held by "Aliens").
So instead he used the same composer from "Titanic" and it's really obvious. I'm not even sure the composer tried to even resample it.
Other than the Titanic soundtrack, I enjoyed the movie quite a bit, the CGI was outstanding. The feel of the movie is very video game-ish... Night elves(WoW) vs. Terran Marines(Starcraft) for you Blizzard fans out there. That may just be due to my enjoyment of Blizzard's games though.
-------------------------------------------------------
They really are just big blue elves by theme, despite a semi-feline appearance.(live in a tree, love nature, etc.) I think those who see a movie as anti-this and pro-that are seriously reading into their entertainment a bit much. The story has been told about a billion and one times... cowboys & indians being the biggest example. If you watch every movie with an "OMG! THEIR FORCING THEIR OPINIONS UPON ME!" attitude, then why do you even bother watching any movies? It's for entertainment purposes, you should really see it that way and move on. Besides, we have the news/advertising media for forcing opinions down our throat, they get paid to do it 24/7.
As for Wall-E... that might have been their goal. Honestly, I couldn't care less. Did watching the movie change your life? Make you want to recycle, exercise and stop shopping at Wal-mart(Target, etc.)? I'm betting not a single soul changed their beliefs over Wall-E. Enjoy it for what it was, another cartoon with another happy ending blah, blah, blah.
I don't get why people say this movie was anti-war. In the movie, it took a war to stop an aggressor from accomplishing genocide! I'd say the movie was a bit more nuanced. War is tragic, but sometimes necessary. As in real life.
Creative Director
|
I don't get why people say this movie was anti-war. In the movie, it took a war to stop an aggressor from accomplishing genocide! I'd say the movie was a bit more nuanced. War is tragic, but sometimes necessary. As in real life.
I agree that it's more nuanced than that. Also... actual anti-war movies are almost non-existent, because fighting is exciting and it's tough making an anti-war statement in a movie when the movie you're doing it in has exciting sequences in it.
|
Creative Director
|
I listen to a LOT of sound tracks, and James Horner is a pretty prolific one, and a pretty brilliant one. Check out his IMDB page for proof; he's scored a LOT of great movies, and in some cases those movies were great because of his score.
When a composer's score builds upon previous themes he's explored before, it not only helps to build the movie's themes by evoking emotions that his previous scores and movies evoked, but it's kind of like an evolution of art. When I listen to Avatar's soundtrack, it doesn't remind me of "Titanic" at all... but it DOES remind me of his scores for "Apocalypto," "Aliens," and ESPECIALLY "Enemy at the Gates."
Just as movies from the same writer or same actor or same director should evoke expected themes, that's how it SHOULD work with a good composer.
This is actually a pretty effective way to evoke themes and feelings in a movie, in fact—mimicking another composer's style. I just recently saw "The Box," which was a GREAT movie. It was set in 1974 and had a lot of suspense and mystery, and the fact that the composer built a score that felt very much like Bernard Hermann (who did a LOT of Hitchcock's movies) really helped to make the movie feel more suspenseful AND to feel like it was set in 1974, since that was a point where Hermann's music styles were pretty widespread.
What bugs me is when a composer tries to do this trick and fails. Usually by doing the same thing that brought up this whole giant post; when a composer creates a score that sounds identical to another composer. The soundtrack to "300" is a great example; significant parts of this movie's score are lifted, note for note, from a more obscure movie (and a much better movie) called "Titus." It's a very distinctive score, and hearing it repeated so closely in "300" helped to shape a negative feeling of that movie for me.
EDIT: I do have one complaint about Avatar's score, though... and that's the choice of song over the movie's end credits. Felt like a blatant attempt to get a "best new song" into the Oscars (which is another rant... why do "best new songs" at the Oscars need to be songs with lyrics?). It takes me out of the experience to hear something that might show up in a modern-day top 50 song-of-the-week radio show. Would have been better to just use the score itself over the end credits. Or EVEN BETTER, have the song but sung in Na'vi rather than in English.
So to wrap things up... I can certainly see how a familiar sounding score can annoy folks... it annoys me, but only when the composer doing the score is "cheating" by ripping off another one's work. When a composer's score sounds familiar because its building off of his previous work, I find that to be fascinating and, usually, quite delightful. For the same reasons that people have favorite bands; you like a band because their songs have the same feel and themes. Why's it bad for music composers to get the same love?
I think those who see a movie as anti-this and pro-that are seriously reading into their entertainment a bit much. The story has been told about a billion and one times... cowboys & indians being the biggest example. If you watch every movie with an "OMG! THEIR FORCING THEIR OPINIONS UPON ME!" attitude, then why do you even bother watching any movies? It's for entertainment purposes, you should really see it that way and move on.
I both agree and disagree with this statement.
I actually wish people would read more into movies and think more critically about what they are seeing, not just sit by. Visuals are very powerful (thus the millions of dollars spent on commercials). I think if one doesn't go in with a critical attitude, one may not realize the effect a movie is having on one's viewpoints. In my mind, all movies are pushing some attitude, even if it isn't overt like Avatar.
However, just because a movie doesn't jive with your particular politics doesn't mean you should be incensed. I happen to like a lot of well made movies in which the overall message isn't one I subscribe to. For example, Woody Allen's Crimes and Misdemeanors shows that people can get away with terrible crimes because, in a Godless universe, there is no real justice. I may not like that message, but I like the movie and find its message to be something worth thinking about, even if I don't agree. It's okay to be exposed to viewpoints different than your own.
I don't get why people say this movie was anti-war. In the movie, it took a war to stop an aggressor from accomplishing genocide! I'd say the movie was a bit more nuanced. War is tragic, but sometimes necessary. As in real life.I agree that it's more nuanced than that. Also... actual anti-war movies are almost non-existent, because fighting is exciting and it's tough making an anti-war statement in a movie when the movie you're doing it in has exciting sequences in it.
Don't you think a lot of war movies are anti-war? Some war movies show war as an incredible hell - tragic and ultimately meaningless. Commanders are often portrayed as masochistic bullies. Platoon comes to mind, which shows war's horrible affect on the psyche and moral judgement of the American soldiers. I would argue that such movies are in their own way anti-war.
|
Creative Director
|
Don't you think a lot of war movies are anti-war. Some war movies show war as an incredible hell - tragic and ultimately meaningless. Commanders are often portrayed as masochistic bullies. Platoon comes to mind, which shows war's horrible affect on the psyche and moral judgement of the American soldiers. I would argue that such movies are in their own way anti-war.
"Paths of Glory" is one of the more successful anti-war movies I've seen.
As for why I call "Avatar" an anti-war movie... basically because it has a lot of commentary about a technologically superior foe coming in to push around a technologically inferior foe... which is something that's been happening in a lot of wars lately. Although that aspect of the movie is certainly NOT the movie's focus, which is anti-corporations, pro-environment.
What sort of enhancement bonus would I get from crafting a weapon out of *snicker* unobtainium?
Really, James? Unobtainium? I almost spit up my soda when I heard that.
Unobtainium is actually not all that unusual of a term, and was pretty much used in a way consistent with its general use. That is of something extremely hard to obtain but that might actually exist.
D&D, adamantine might be refered to by the term unobtainium.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I just got back from this. What an incredible film. I was glad to see no 3D gimmicks that distracted from the narrative but its use really did heighten the viewing experience. I'd been worried that the expectation for this would be too high after 12 years of development by Cameron, but he didn't disappoint at all.
I don't get why people say this movie was anti-war. In the movie, it took a war to stop an aggressor from accomplishing genocide! I'd say the movie was a bit more nuanced. War is tragic, but sometimes necessary. As in real life.I agree that it's more nuanced than that. Also... actual anti-war movies are almost non-existent, because fighting is exciting and it's tough making an anti-war statement in a movie when the movie you're doing it in has exciting sequences in it.
A good anti-war movie? Check out "Idi i smotri" (aka "Come and See") by Elem Klimov. Read about it at IMDB. There is a trailer somewhere.
I must warn you. This movie is not for the faint-hearted. It is really cruel and brutal, but it is a damn good movie....one of the best movies ever made.
|
Unobtainium is actually not all that unusual of a term, and was pretty much used in a way consistent with its general use. That is of something extremely hard to obtain but that might actually exist.
It was really the conviction with which they said the word that made me laugh. Maybe Ribisi's character was meant to use the term in a humorous context when they wrote the script but he said it like that was the actual name for the element, and the idea that it was the actual scientific name is what made me laugh. For me, it was like James Cameron was naming the Macguffin "the MacGuffin."
Got to see the movie properly last night. Still think it's totally awesome. :)
The kid liked the parts with the Na'vi, but thought the rest of it was boring. Too much talking for his bloodthirsty six year old tastes. :)
|
Creative Director
|
What sort of enhancement bonus would I get from crafting a weapon out of *snicker* unobtainium?
Really, James? Unobtainium? I almost spit up my soda when I heard that.
It's a real word, for a real concept. Check out the wikipedia entry.
I got the impression from the movie that the stuff they were looking for wasn't CALLED unobtanium, but that they used the word unobtanium as an adjective to refer to it.
The idea of having the song over the end credits be in Na'vi rather than English is one of the nerdiest concepts ever. I love it!
Kind of like Viggo singing at the not-quite-the-ending to Return of the King.
A couple of thoughts.
Remember the first time you saw Avatar? It was called Ferngully.
I heard that Avatar pretty much had to break all kinds of records just to break even. Sadly, for Avatar, next week Sherlock Holmes comes out and I think it is going to easily take the top spot.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
A couple of thoughts.
Remember the first time you saw Avatar? It was called Ferngully.
I heard that Avatar pretty much had to break all kinds of records just to break even. Sadly, for Avatar, next week Sherlock Holmes comes out and I think it is going to easily take the top spot.
I dunno, I'm planning on re-seeing Avatar next week (or sooner) at least once and I probably won't see Sherlock Holmes until after the new year. I think repeat viewing and word of mouth is going to keep Avatar doing very well for quite a while.
|
|
A couple of thoughts.
Remember the first time you saw Avatar? It was called Ferngully.
I heard that Avatar pretty much had to break all kinds of records just to break even. Sadly, for Avatar, next week Sherlock Holmes comes out and I think it is going to easily take the top spot.
Actually, the movie I thought it had the most in common with was Dustin Hoffman's "Little Big Man". So far global box office has hit a little over half of what the projected cost of the movie was, so I think its a fair bet that they'll at the very least recoup their costs. And while I'm very much looking forward to seeing Sherlock Holmes (and The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus) this weekend, I'm definitely planning on at least one repeat theatrical viewing of Avatar.
Anybody else here about all the internet talk about how the movie is racist and "ablist"?
I haven't seen this yet, but it seems worth considering. The effects look both beautiful and immersing, and Avatar kind of reminds me of Escaflowne with it's musical score.
I do have a few mixed feelings about it though. It seems kind of preachy to me (not without good reason at times, namely the allegory to Blackwater and Halliburton, both of which deserved to be called out). I guess I'm little burnt out from the sheer amount of movies that lump Americans into the category of a bunch of "blood-thirsty, immoral capitalists," and I wonder if that is completely warranted. I don't recall China being "environmentally friendly" lately.
It's not that I want to see more movies like Transformers 2 or G.I. Joe (thought the last half of Transformers 2 was an Air Force recruiting commericial), but some of the best war movies I've ever seen were a balancing act. War is a terrible thing, but it doesn't mean those that serve are terrible people, or that every conflict fought was completely unethical and served to prolong a military-industrial complex.
Despite my reservations, I think I will go see it. It's probably one of last decent movies to hit theaters for a while.
|
Creative Director
|
It didn't strike me as particularly preachy really. It CERTAINLY didn't strike me as having anything to do with being pro- or anti-American at all. It might be anti-HUMAN, but the movie doesn't create any obvious ties to current nations or religions really.
And in any event... I think this year has been really rather incredible for quality movies, especially in the Science Fiction genre, with entries like Avatar, Moon, The Box, The Road, District 9, Knowing (which seems to be the most polarizing of these movies), and Star Trek.
parts of the film are visually incredible, if only they worked on the script as much, at some point it starts with one cliche after another, it's nowhere near District 9, particularly it lacks that level of ''realism''
Although by far the best 3d movie that I have seen in terms of technical accomplishment, I just couldn't shake off the feeling that I had seen this story before. The plot had me thinking Pocahontas in a fantastic setting. Don't get all upset you Avatar lovers, I think the director did a masterful job of telling a story. It just isn't a new story, nor does it deviate much from its progenitors.
Not sure how Cameron resolves the dichotomy of a $300 million major Hollywood production with an anti-corporate theme.
The brother-in-law and I saw it on the weekend. Some mutual friends were in the audience. They asked us after what we thought, and when we didn't get all gushy about it, they were actually visibly shaken that we didn't have some quasi-spiritual experience. Maybe it really is good art after all if it prompts such strong reactions?
I will not likely go see it a second time.
|
Not sure how Cameron resolves the dichotomy of a $300 million major Hollywood production with an anti-corporate theme.
I have heard this a few times but honestly I didn't get the anti-corporation vibe. There was a lot of room for things to have gone a different way, but I didn't think it was anti-corporation any more then I thought it was pro-environement. If anything it was pro-responsibility.
|
Creative Director
|
Although by far the best 3d movie that I have seen in terms of technical accomplishment, I just couldn't shake off the feeling that I had seen this story before. The plot had me thinking Pocahontas in a fantastic setting. Don't get all upset you Avatar lovers, I think the director did a masterful job of telling a story. It just isn't a new story, nor does it deviate much from its progenitors.
The more movies one sees, the less likely one is to see a "new story."
"Star Wars", for example, rips off Kurosawa's "Hidden Fortress."
"Alien" takes its plot from "It! The Terror From Beyond Space."
"Star Trek" takes a lot of its cues from "Forbidden Planet," which is in and of itself inspired by Shakespeare's "The Tempest."
There's an old theory that there are only about 34 different stories, and that all tales are nothing but variations on those 34 different stories.
Personally, if someone takes a familiar story and their version improves on that story in presentation, I wouldn't call that a cliche. "Alien" is still my favorite movie, even though its story is taken almost whole-cloth from the much-earlier monster-in-the-spaceship movie "It! The Terror From Beyond Space," because alien improves on the previous movie in pretty much every way.
EDIT: I CAN identify with the feeling of being looked at like you're an alien for not getting all gushy and raving about something everyone else likes. I've always felt that Star Wars was kinda a boring movie, and fail to see any humor in Mel Brooks movies, and am bored by "The Princess Bride." Turns out, not everyone likes the same things, and that's fine.
I'm not suggesting that the greedy corporates out to pillage a pristine environment for a profit motive, backed up by a mercenary army was the only part of the movie. But it certainly was an important element. So does pro-responsibility mean anti-corporate exploitation? Perhaps we realy are agreeing here.
I saw it Sunday, Visually stunning to watch, but the story felt a little flat to me. And after it was over my analytical part of me went over and started critiquing certain parts of the action..like why then base didn't have a master override to shut down the copter when it was escaping...or even some blast doors that had to be hacked open first..
I do that with most movies, but I came out of the experince thinking that I just had a sushi dinner that looked amazing, but the fish was a little old. I think with some differnt plot choices it could have been the most amazing movie since Star Wars first came out. But to be honest, as it stands I will not see it again.
James,
I agree totally that most stories are rehashings of previous favourites. It is the interesting twists that present the real treasures. Why continue to produce art if it is just recycled ad infinum? Is it just a retelling of the same story in a different setting that we are looking for in our entertainment? Don't know. But based on box office receipts I guess that it is.
Aliens remains one of my favourites from this director. Not sure if Avatar will make the list.
|
|
I'm not suggesting that the greedy corporates out to pillage a pristine environment for a profit motive, backed up by a mercenary army was the only part of the movie. But it certainly was an important element. So does pro-responsibility mean anti-corporate exploitation? Perhaps we realy are agreeing here.
I can go along with anti corporate exploitation. However, in my mine tht is a long way from being anti corporation in a Michael Moore "Capitalism" sense.
Although by far the best 3d movie that I have seen in terms of technical accomplishment, I just couldn't shake off the feeling that I had seen this story before. The plot had me thinking Pocahontas in a fantastic setting. Don't get all upset you Avatar lovers, I think the director did a masterful job of telling a story. It just isn't a new story, nor does it deviate much from its progenitors.
I have no idea what you are talking about (especially starting at 3:50).
I can go along with anti corporate exploitation. However, in my mine tht is a long way from being anti corporation in a Michael Moore "Capitalism" sense.
We agree, this is not "Capitalism; A Love Story." Cameron doesn't equate corporate or profit with evil design. At least not in any dogmatic or overt way. There are comments in passing that suggest this, but it isn't in one's face.
Pres Man: thanks for the clip. I had a good laugh. You're right! I have seen this show before!
|
It didn't strike me as particularly preachy really. It CERTAINLY didn't strike me as having anything to do with being pro- or anti-American at all. It might be anti-HUMAN, but the movie doesn't create any obvious ties to current nations or religions really.
And in any event... I think this year has been really rather incredible for quality movies, especially in the Science Fiction genre, with entries like Avatar, Moon, The Box, The Road, District 9, Knowing (which seems to be the most polarizing of these movies), and Star Trek.
+1
Had something really cool to say, but the boards ate my post as I waited too long to hit submit... :(
I have heard this a few times but honestly I didn't get the anti-corporation vibe. There was a lot of room for things to have gone a different way, but I didn't think it was anti-corporation any more then I thought it was pro-environement. If anything it was pro-responsibility.
Not sure how Cameron resolves the dichotomy of a $300 million major Hollywood production with an anti-corporate theme.
Pro-responsibility, at least in my opinion, IS anti-corpratism and pro-environmentalism.
Then again I am just a bleeding heart hippie that happens to listen to fast music.
I think those who see a movie as anti-this and pro-that are seriously reading into their entertainment a bit much. The story has been told about a billion and one times... cowboys & indians being the biggest example. If you watch every movie with an "OMG! THEIR FORCING THEIR OPINIONS UPON ME!" attitude, then why do you even bother watching any movies? It's for entertainment purposes, you should really see it that way and move on.I both agree and disagree with this statement.
I actually wish people would read more into movies and think more critically about what they are seeing, not just sit by. Visuals are very powerful (thus the millions of dollars spent on commercials). I think if one doesn't go in with a critical attitude, one may not realize the effect a movie is having on one's viewpoints. In my mind, all movies are pushing some attitude, even if it isn't overt like Avatar.
However, just because a movie doesn't jive with your particular politics doesn't mean you should be incensed. I happen to like a lot of well made movies in which the overall message isn't one I subscribe to. For example, Woody Allen's Crimes and Misdemeanors shows that people can get away with terrible crimes because, in a Godless universe, there is no real justice. I may not like that message, but I like the movie and find its message to be something worth thinking about, even if I don't agree. It's okay to be exposed to viewpoints different than your own.
+1
The brother-in-law and I saw it on the weekend. Some mutual friends were in the audience. They asked us after what we thought, and when we didn't get all gushy about it, they were actually visibly shaken that we didn't have some quasi-spiritual experience.
There are SO many movies that my friends will gush about that I can't stand. Honestly, I dislike, if not outright hate, 99% of what Hollywood puts out. Last two movies that I actually went "WOW" to were Fanboys (I think that's what it's called) and Wall-E, and both of those were honestly because I was under the influence of substances that I probably shouldn't say here. Suffice to say orange juice makes the stuff stronger *hint*.
Then again, since I'm such a Star Wars fanboy, Fanboys still strikes a chord with me sober, just not as strong.
Maybe it really is good art after all if it prompts such strong reactions?
Eh, people have strong reactions to Britney Spears. It's not good art, it's merely following the formula that has proven to pull heart strings.
Then again, there are probably a lot of people who are gonna get on my case for saying that Avatar isn't good art, since I haven't seen it. Sorry, but when it comes to movies, I'm jaded. Blockbusters are ALWAYS crap in my opinion.
My good friend did previz on Avatar for 3 years, so I was very anxious to see it. I thought it was fantastic! Even though I had heard the basic story before I saw it, I was enthralled the entire 2 1/2 hours.
To me, it reminded me most of Star Wars, in the sense that it transported me to a fantastical world that I did not want to leave. If a movie is able to accomplish that it is truly great IMO.
As for the story, it was basically a morality play. One thing I DO get tired of is people saying this is too pushy or that is too preachy. People love to whine about things these days.
Definitely my favorite movie of the year, as determined by the amount of times I'm likely to watch this again versus other flics released this year.
BTW, my buddy it down in New Zealand working on The Hobbit, probably my favorite movie in 2011.
And yet I don't believe anyone mentioned how awesome stealing still shots from this movie would be for portraying a fantasy world for their RPG sessions. I loved the floating mountains and my first thought was Forgotten Realms.
You know, I thought Netheril at first glance too.
|
|
I have heard this a few times but honestly I didn't get the anti-corporation vibe. There was a lot of room for things to have gone a different way, but I didn't think it was anti-corporation any more then I thought it was pro-environement. If anything it was pro-responsibility.
Not sure how Cameron resolves the dichotomy of a $300 million major Hollywood production with an anti-corporate theme.
Pro-responsibility, at least in my opinion, IS anti-corpratism and pro-environmentalism.
See to my eyes there are lots of corporations that are using their resources responsibly. If there was no Microsoft, for example, there would be no Gates Foundation. If there was no Paizo, we would not be friends. Saddly th reality of human nature is that most of us need a profit motive to push themselves. Most of us are not Benjiman Franklin. Most ofthe major advances over the 60 years or so have been driven by corporate research or defense/national security research, including the internet that makes this conversation possible. I think the major message of the movie was that we need to balance our two responsibilities, to advance human society and civilization and to protct the environemnt. I think that is born out by the fact that
Ironicly, in many ways the "good" people are more destructive than the "bad" people if we look at how history has worked. The "re-education" of "primative" people has done more to destroy their way of life than people simply interested in their resources. Siguorny Weaver's character was probably the most "evil" person in the entire story.
See to my eyes there are lots of corporations that are using their resources responsibly. If there was no Microsoft, for example, there would be no Gates Foundation. If there was no Paizo, we would not be friends. Saddly th reality of human nature is that most of us need a profit motive to push themselves. Most of us are not Benjiman Franklin. Most ofthe major advances over the 60 years or so have been driven by corporate research or defense/national security research, including the internet that makes this conversation possible. I think the major message of the movie was that we need to balance our two responsibilities, to advance human society and civilization and to protct the environemnt. I think that is born out by the fact that ** spoiler omitted **I have heard this a few times but honestly I didn't get the anti-corporation vibe. There was a lot of room for things to have gone a different way, but I didn't think it was anti-corporation any more then I thought it was pro-environement. If anything it was pro-responsibility.
Not sure how Cameron resolves the dichotomy of a $300 million major Hollywood production with an anti-corporate theme.
Pro-responsibility, at least in my opinion, IS anti-corpratism and pro-environmentalism.
See, where you and I differ is I personally believe the whole "needing the profit motive" is largely socialized. I also think that any good that has come from the profit motive has really come in spite of the profit motive, as those people that did good with it resisted the very base of the profit motive. Like using the dark side to do something "good." Sure, the surface result is "good," but you've also cemented the driving force of the profit motive, greed, into your psyche even more.
It's because we have a competitive economic system that we have people willing to do anything to compete, no matter who it hurts.
It blew my mind. Now I have to see it in IMAX. I didn't see it there the first time just because I'm always afraid that with a lot of stuff going on on-screen the IMAX can be too big to take it all in. But having seen it now I have to see it on the superbig screen.
You could watch the movie with no sound and be pretty impressed just from the technical aspects.
Well I saw it with my wife who was oh great another guy movie. At the end she was like this is the best movie I have ever seen and we will have to see it again soon. I loved it as well and it is now my favorite James Cameron movie. I really think people look to much for hidden messages I didn't see any anit-war theme or go green. It was just a well told love story with great visuals to enhance the story telling and some action put in for us guys. It all worked well, yes maybe some more background would have been nice. But from what I have heard he is coming out with book soon with answers to a lot of peoples questions. The movie looked great the story was well told and the action kept tings moving so I didn't notice how long it was. Overall it was one of the best movies I have seen in a long time. I will say that I'm really looking forward to Clash of the Titans and Solomon Kane. Oh Merry Christmas to all posters, gamers and Paizo staff.