In terms "advanced filmmaking techniques" sure they filmed with 3D cameras, but who actually prefers 3D to 2D? I think The Dark Knight using IMAX cameras for a live-action fictional feature was much more of an achievement that shooting in 3D. And I would rather go see an IMAX feature than a 3D feature.
Sin City would be my choice for most advanced filmmaking techniques so far this millenium. One of the first fully digital films including capture and backlot.
well whyever not, because it's exactly what half the prog bands were singing about and having drawn for their album covers through the seventies. you'll find a trillion creatures that look an awful lot like Navi, drawn by people that enjoy drawing sexualised human/animal combos and fiction/non fiction books about how we're connected to nature number thousands since the end of the 60s. There isn't an original bone in it, and it's all compounded by the hilarious charicatures and rubbish script. It one giant, dumb waste of money. Ooooh, but it looks soooo great. yes, but it's rubbish.
edit: And floating rock islands have featured in alsorts of stuff. I wasn't sure what, so I had to look it up. But they have.
No, you said that. The link I provided was just in reply to your not having seen much floating rock islands before. And your selecting of something that doesn't look like the islands in Avatar doesn't have anything to do with it.
No, you said that. The link I provided was just in reply to your not having seen much floating rock islands before. And your selecting of something that doesn't look like the islands in Avatar doesn't have anything to do with it.
You gave me one link. Forgive me for not knowing what to do with it. That image does look like similar, although I still haven't seen a whole lot of examples of the Na'vi. Are you also the kind of person who doesn't class Inception as original because there was a Scrooge McDuck comic along broadly the same lines?
well, because we're talking about how original the film is. So it would seem quite pertinent. Ok.
Just to sort of follow your train of thought... one of your main criticisms of the film is how unoriginal it is and you're showing this through vague influences from cover art (and science fiction stories) and pictures of two furries engaging in sexual behaviour?
But the Matrix which arguably has more direct and prominent influences is classed as a good film in your opinion. Do you think it's an original film then? How many films are left that can be called truly original? Why are these influences seen as negative when they work well within the film? Why is being unoriginal the ingredient for being a terrible film?
Do you think it's an original film then? How many films are left that can be called truly original?
No, I don't think it's very original at all. But it has an awful lot more going for it than Avatar. It was a gamechanger for so many people, whereas Avatar was just a mess and i'm amazed if by the end it had inspired anyone in the audience to do anything, other than dash to the toilet. It was lazy, obviously manipulative rubbish.
i'm off to the cinema now to see moonrise kingdom. hope it's good.
Are you also the kind of person who doesn't class Inception as original because there was a Scrooge McDuck comic along broadly the same lines?
I don't know what kind of person i am but I need to think more about that later. my opinion on Inception has soured somewhat so i need to give some thought as to why and work out if it's just me being stupid or not.
Just to sort of follow your train of thought... one of your main criticisms of the film is how unoriginal it is and you're showing this through vague influences from cover art (and science fiction stories) and pictures of two furries engaging in sexual behaviour?
But the Matrix which arguably has more direct and prominent influences is classed as a good film in your opinion. Do you think it's an original film then? How many films are left that can be called truly original? Why are these influences seen as negative when they work well within the film? Why is being unoriginal the ingredient for being a terrible film?
Well done, Ape. As per usual, you've pretty much summed up how ludicrous this whole argument is.
Well done, Ape. As per usual, you've pretty much summed up how ludicrous this whole argument is.
No, because it's misrepresenting the argument. Which was that Avatar is unoriginal, predictable, has a terrible script, charicatures etc. The unoriginality was the part of the argument that focus turned to, i'd rate the script and characters and general storyline and far bigger problems than the lack of originality. Go on, give your mate a clap.
Anyways. 10 warning points seems a little harsh for posting a NSFW cartoon image behind a link. Hadn't realised, and obviously should've read the instructions, but still, harsh. Wasn't trolling or attempting to be offensive.