Film Fanatics - Chat Thread II

Scroll to see replies

Yeah it's obviously complete *******s. making a list is pretty impossible but you know that someone's badly shagged it up when it's got Avatar and The Hurt Locker in it. They'd be lucky to make it into the top 200 once you've power-hosed all the hype off them. I'm amazed someone remembers them in 2012, because sure as hell nobody will in 2022

You're genuinely amazed that people still remember Avatar? How poor is your memory?

Reply 6461

Mister Dead

Original post by Phalanges

You're genuinely amazed that people still remember Avatar? How poor is your memory?

Ha! Extremely poor indeed, as a matter of fact. I guess this tells us something about the power of marketing, not only to get people to go in the first place, but to place an absolutely rubbish film as one of the best of a decade.

Quite the opposite of what I said is true, it seems. It will be remembered.

Reply 6462

PoGo HoPz

Original post by Abiraleft

Also, has anyone seen Time Magazine's top 10 movies of the millennium (thus far)? This is the list:

Spoiler

Thoughts?

Where the hell is Inception on that list? :lolwut:

Reply 6463

Ape Gone Insane

Original post by Mister Dead

I guess this tells us something about the power of marketing, not only to get people to go in the first place, but to place an absolutely rubbish film as one of the best of a decade.

Do you really think it's marketing that got Avatar that spot on the list when there's films like Synecdoche, New York on it? I think Avatar will be remembered for it's visuals and I don't that's a bad thing at all even if it doesn't deserve to be on the list.

Reply 6464

Mister Dead

Original post by Ape Gone Insane

Yes, I absolutely do. It was a ****ing terrible film and no amount of 'impressive' visuals makes up for that.

Reply 6465

Colonel.

Avatar wasn't terrible. Don't be stupid.

Reply 6466

Mister Dead

Yes it was. It was crap. It was dumb, predictable and unoriginal.

Reply 6467

Ape Gone Insane

The only films I would consider to be terrible would be ones that had no redeeming qualities at all.

Reply 6468

Colonel.

How one can call a film with the most advanced filming techniques and technology so far in the history of film "unorginal" is beyond me. There were plenty of redeeming qualities to the film.

Reply 6469

Mister Dead

Original post by Colonel.

How one can call a film with the most advanced filming techniques and technology so far in the history of film "unorginal" is beyond me. There were plenty of redeeming qualities to the film.

by watching the film and realising that it's, well, unoriginal. maybe they're taking this new technology in completely the wrong direction.

Reply 6470

Phalanges

I have to say, 9 foot blue people with neural connections to the plant life and floating rock islands weren't exactly concepts I'd seen a lot of before.

Reply 6471

Mister Dead

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.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 6472

Colonel.

Cool, thanks for that. Your opinions are now going on the same pile as Dalek1099's.

Reply 6473

Mister Dead

Original post by Colonel.

Cool, thanks for that

original

Reply 6474

soup

I think the point really is that other films should have been on that list instead of Avatar. As mentioned previously, Inception is the most original Holywood blockbuster in years. However, it is not on that list. Avatar has certainly been the most influential film in the last couple of years because it was filmed in 3D, and what is everyone doing nowadays, shooting in 3D. 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.

Reply 6475

Ape Gone Insane

I wouldn't recommend the Matrix. It ~~is influenced by~~ copies philosophical ideas that have been around for centuries and ~~draws upon~~ steals ideas from earlier anime shows like Akira and Ghost in the Shell.

Reply 6476

Mister Dead

Original post by Ape Gone Insane

that's the difference isn't it. The Matrix is actually quite a good film. Whereas Avatar is lazy, clichéd, vacuous tripe that's a ****ing chore to get through because the script and performances are so utterly crap.

Reply 6477

Phalanges

Original post by Mister Dead

Any specifics?

Reply 6478

Mister Dead

Original post by soup

...prefers... 3D to 2D?

Interestingly, when I went to see the Avengers the other night (which also was crap ;0) the 2d had sold out and the 3d was only 1/3 full. I dunno what the trends are nationwide, but I was a little surprised. I wasn't by halfway through though when I realised just how **** the colour was from the loss in luminescence, or whatever the problem is.