Avatar 2 is actually happening. Run and scream.

2010-06-30 11:30:04

#26

Miggle: FUCK UBISOFT; +1,411|6999|FUCK UBISOFT

Spearhead wrote:
Avatar 2!!! holy shit. Okay, nerd time

Unobtanium is a real word used by scientists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium

wikipedia wrote:
In engineering, fiction, or thought experiments, unobtainium (also spelled unobtanium) is any extremely rare, costly, or physically impossible material, or (less commonly) device needed to fulfill a given design for a given application.
Story is not always the most important characteristic of a film. Avatar's plot was fairly shallow (intentionally so), but just because it's not complex or totally groundbreaking does not make it throwaway. Avatar was great not because of the "3d" effects but because of the cinematography. The amount of quality, polish, editing, etc. that went into the film was an achievement on it's own... something which the average moviegoer often doesn't recognize but is as important to any film as the writing.

I found the cinematography just as dull as the plot.

Sure the CG was well done, but that doesn't mean it looked interesting, it just looked normal.

And I really don't understand why they needed 3 hours to show off the CG, when a short would have done it just as well without having time to get bland.

2010-06-30 11:59:13

#27

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6889|949

because people don't line up in droves to see a short. It's not as if James Cameron exists in some nether-reality where he doesn't care if his movies make money or not.

And 'normal' is one of the reasons the movie was so well done - CGI that looked 'normal'

2010-06-30 12:13:54

#28

Miggle: FUCK UBISOFT; +1,411|6999|FUCK UBISOFT

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
because people don't line up in droves to see a short. It's not as if James Cameron exists in some nether-reality where he doesn't care if his movies make money or not.

And 'normal' is one of the reasons the movie was so well done - CGI that looked 'normal'

doesn't mean it had to be 3 hours.

normal is boring, CG gives you a lot of freedom and the best thing you can come up with is normal? I was much more interested by the visuals of speed racer tbh.

2010-06-30 12:22:24

#29

jord: Member; +2,382|6936|The North, beyond the wall.

Miggle wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
because people don't line up in droves to see a short. It's not as if James Cameron exists in some nether-reality where he doesn't care if his movies make money or not.

And 'normal' is one of the reasons the movie was so well done - CGI that looked 'normal'
doesn't mean it had to be 3 hours.

normal is boring, CG gives you a lot of freedom and the best thing you can come up with is normal? I was much more interested by the visuals of speed racer tbh.

Ya but you don't like anything so it's k.

2010-06-30 12:24:11

#30

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6879|London, England

Still haven't seen the first one. Everyone that I knew who I'd consider going to watch a movie with had already seen it, so I thought fuck it

ah well... who cares about shiny pre rendered graphics, what is this... 1998?

2010-06-30 12:25:38

#31

jord: Member; +2,382|6936|The North, beyond the wall.

Mekstizzle wrote:
Still haven't seen the first one. Everyone that I knew who I'd consider going to watch a movie with had already seen it, so I thought fuck it

ah well... who cares about shiny pre rendered graphics, what is this... 1998?

I dno, people cared enough to spend over a billion dollars to see it.

2010-06-30 12:28:06

#32

Winston_Churchill: Bazinga!; +521|6996|Toronto | Canada

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
because people don't line up in droves to see a short. It's not as if James Cameron exists in some nether-reality where he doesn't care if his movies make money or not.

And 'normal' is one of the reasons the movie was so well done - CGI that looked 'normal'

Agreed. Show me other CGI that can do this much realism.

https://img191.imageshack.us/img191/2313/28750463.png

Or the fully alive, lush forest scenes... or this scene:

https://s61.radikal.ru/i174/1004/03/630642e8df2d.png

(bad pic, but that scene is incredible)

2010-06-30 12:42:42

#33

Ilocano: buuuurrrrrrppppp.......; +341|6925

Oil Rig BP disaster plotline + Killzone 3 action?

2010-07-04 19:12:56

#34

pace51: Boom?; +194|5431|Markham, Ontario

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
He had amazing special effects in the first one. To expect that he would go away from his highest grossing movie ever formula is a little naive, don't you think?

I don't think he 'needs' to do much to create another blockbuster. I'm not sure his intent is to make an art-house equivalent of Citizen Kane.

What I mean is, he [James Cameron] needs to top his original special effects. Like, he has to make this movie completely better, In my opinion. The first was incredibly succesful, if he wants to top it, he needs to do more than use hype. Like, the COD "make a sequel that's kinda good but really shallow and sucky in the long run" approach to top modern warfare ended up with MW2 being succesful but not one of the greatest games of all time, like cod was. Avatar 2 needs to avoid being the "mw2" sequel of avatar 1.

2010-07-04 19:15:16

#35

pace51: Boom?; +194|5431|Markham, Ontario

Avatar was by far the most exhilerating movie I've ever seen, actuallly. I admired it. I just hope they don't make a sequel that will suck. Not that James Cameron's movies suck (as someone mentioned abve). And, he made Aliens 2 an amazing sequel to the first, so there is a lot of hope .

2010-07-04 19:32:07

#36

rdx-fx: ...; +955|6849

Native American Indian Smurfs in SPAAAAAAAAAACCCEEEEEEE.... The Sequel.

No thanks.

2010-07-04 19:34:47

#37

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5843

Never saw the first one.

2010-07-04 20:23:27

#38

eskimo_sammyjoe: Did someone say tea?; +112|6492|S.A. Australia

Apparently Cameron always sort of planned Avatar to be a trilogy, I huess it just depended on how the first one went as to whether they would be made.

Serious Flex

2010-07-04 21:07:14

#39

-Sh1fty-: plundering yee booty; +510|5731|Ventura, California

I think the story is going to be interesting. I can't think of anything in the ocean that would work with Pandora

Any ideas guys?

And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.

2010-07-04 21:10:01

#40

RTHKI: mmmf mmmf mmmf; +1,741|6995|Cinncinatti

sharks with laser beams on their heads.

2010-07-04 22:02:49

#41

-Sh1fty-: plundering yee booty; +510|5731|Ventura, California

Guess I'll be seeing it then.

I enjoyed Avatar a lot, and I still do even in 720p on my laptop. I love the story, going to another planet, getting another chance at life, being able to walk again, fighting for something that matters, love, etc. I will be seeing Avatar 2 without a doubt.

I just cannot imagine where he can go from where it left off. I mean, to me the live happily ever after the way they left it.

And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.

2010-07-04 22:31:07

#42

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7029|PNW

-Sh1fty- wrote:
Guess I'll be seeing it then.

I enjoyed Avatar a lot, and I still do even in 720p on my laptop. I love the story, going to another planet, getting another chance at life, being able to walk again, fighting for something that matters, love, etc. I will be seeing Avatar 2 without a doubt.

I just cannot imagine where he can go from where it left off. I mean, to me the live happily ever after the way they left it.

Human DNA mixing with alien DNA could create monstrosities for a cool ten-foot zombie flick.

2010-07-08 14:00:35

#43

loubot: O' HAL naw!; +470|6836|Columbus, OH

Will it have General Zod?

BF2S Forums Avatar 2 is actually happening. Run and scream.

Spearhead wrote:

wikipedia wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Miggle wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Board footer