YES, I love that they didn't overdue it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalub
I forgot it was in 3d after a while because it was so immersive.
Printable View
YES, I love that they didn't overdue it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalub
I forgot it was in 3d after a while because it was so immersive.
Does it have a good plot?
It's a plot we've all heard before (several times), but the script handles it fairly well. There are a few cheesy lines, mostly by the humans, but the movie was so immersive it didn't bother me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwood
The plot, while being the usual expected thing, was completely new to me. I was actually trying to see if there was a novel counterpart to get the full story. I mean... damn I was shittin bricks all night and even the girly liked it. (She is lame...)
They really need to find a new solution to the glasses though... they hurt my head.
Even though I basically knew the entire plot going into the movie, there were enough nuances and new angles on the archetypal story that I thoroughly enjoyed it. The glasses were a little annoying, but I used to wear glasses before I got contacts, so they didn't bother me that much. And the 3D was so smooth that I never felt like I was getting a headache from it, which I did in other 3D movies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalub
Just got back home from watching this, it's a good movie but nothing really stood out besides the CG work. The acting was rather mediocre throughout, but it wasn't too terrible. I can't really say it has much rewatchability either, it was a long movie.
Only part of the acting I hates was the girls wailing....
The acting was fine, the only terrible actress was the girl that flew the plane things, "Rebel one" girl.
She was a terrible actress, and her outfit, unlike all the others, looked like it came from a costume bin from in the early 90's.
That's because those are the only clothes that she can afford and own in real life because her terrible acting gets her no where.
It's Michelle Rodriguez. She's a typical Cameron character from the '90s. Haha. I just accepted her as soon as I saw her, because it seemed like a logical thing to see in a James Cameron film. :P
Also, I just took screenwriting, and that movie is a perfect example of story structure, just like Titanic was. I was keeping a mental checklist, every time they showed something- yep, that's paid off, yep, that one too, what haven't we seen again in a while HOLY SHIT THERE IT IS. Lol payoff. Not a bad thing, just interesting, and fun to play with mentally.
And, I'll say it, I was mildly attracted to the blue women.
It was very mild and normal.
Normal.
Lmao. I saw the original post via email notifications. :downs:Quote:
Originally Posted by Heathen
It was very mild and normal, but I found them sexy despite their pretty different appearance :/
But yeah, me too.
Ohh dude i watched that shit.. so amazingD:
righto any post regarding dane, or any of his posting is now getting deleted.
enough of this high brow shit and dane sometimes things where and are popular for a fucking reason. All this shit about tweeting on the go? scene kids blah blah blah is nothing but projective bullshit and i'm fucking over it.
When i was in the theatre not half an hour ago watching this brilliant movie any cunt that was talking or carrying on with shit was threatened on getting kicked out, because no one wanted to water down the experience for anyone else.
hands down the best movie experience i've seen, visuals, colour, entertainment, audience reaction, sound was great, so before you start making wild accusations and projective bullshit you need to shut the fuck up, leave your opinions at the door and then make up your mind.
but for now just fuck off.
NO MORE DANE DISCUSSION FLAMING TROLLING< RESPONDING , POSTING IN THIS THREAD
OR ELSE.
your the biggest stereotyping idiot in here and for that you can kindly fuck off.
Alright movie. Wasn't very fond of what's-her-name screaming all the god-damned time, though. Those scenes really felt forced to me. CG was nice, but really, the story was lacking a lot. Basically "Dances with Wolves" in Space.
Edit - Another mild complaint: Why do so many sci-fi alien races have apostrophes thrown every which way in the language? Is that common in human languages? It seems like a fallback for trying to make your made-up species sound more "foreign". And frankly, it doesn't work when it's done so often.
absolutely loved the movie, cannot wait to get it in blu-ray.
HOLY SHIT. GO SEE THIS MOVIE.
Right now, and if you already saw it, do yourself a favor and see it again. This is an experience that is as immersive as it gets, and I wasn't even watching the 3D version. During the first few minutes you think to yourself, "Oh damn, this was really overblown... I've seen effects like this before." And then the minute the shuttle crosses through the clouds onto Pandora it's just like "OH SHIIIIIIT!" The first shot you see ofthe human base has a scale that feels real and overpowers everything that's come before it, and it just keeps getting better from there. I personally had seen the IMAX 3D preview back in August, so right from the get-go I instantly recognized what I was missing out on as far as the new perspective it adds, but this movie swept me in before I got hung up on it. Still seeing it again in 3D, though. Can't wait.
The scale is like nothing you've seen before, the 3D you've never seen before, and the CGI, my God, the CGI, you have never seen before. Maybe in split second bursts here and there, but NEVER in perfect quality for every single thing on screen at the same time for virtually the whole movie. You'll be watching the spray of water or the way something drags through mud and you'll be saying to yourself "This is real". It's ridiculous. Then to top it off, James Horner comes to the table to wrap it all up nicely in a musical score that draws from almost everything in his resume. You don't even have to listen carefully to hear where it echoes Titanic , Apocalypto, and Troy.
The only comments I've heard for this movie that weren't positive were about the story, the dialogue, and some of the characters. Well, although you've seen the story a million times before, there's a reason for that: It's a classic conflict. The only place you'll be seeing it more than in movies in your future is in your world. Whether it's a neighbor's eviction or whole countries fighting to protect their land from invaders, this is a timeless struggle, and it'll always be popping up from time to time. No reason it shouldn't here. Dialogue? Back in August I would've agreed with you 100%, as it was something I had noticed myself. After Parris Island, I'll just flat-out say that's exactly how Marines talk in real life. While I was watching it this time through, it didn't stand out because I was already used to it. Characters like the military badass and the corporate pig? Hey, if a motherfucker's got a job to do and he's too distant from the situation to interact with the people whose lives he's affecting, he's not going to give a shit and he's going to do everything in his power to get that job done. Life Parker Selfridge says "The only thing worse than bad press is a bad quarterly report." The most he knows is that he has bigger, closer problems to deal with involving his superiors if he doesn't. You grow up in New York City, you pick up on that shit pretty goddamn quick.
Final word of advice: Make sure to ask for a ticket to the 3D theater to get the full experience!
Saw it in 3d, fucking epic, will get on DVD.
Apparently they had the language designed for them. They even have a bunch of words, naming conventions, and grammars that are never used in the movie.Quote:
Originally Posted by thehoodedsmack
Yeah. It's not like they were randomly making up gibberish- James Cameron went to a linguist and had him design the entire language. The linguist gave him a bunch of different choices for the sounds, and that's what Cameron picked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Con
What pleasantly surprised me was that the score had elements and chords from some of Horner's previous films, but the score itself is mostly original. Coming from Horner that's the end of the world. His scores in the '90s were all nearly identical, and it had begun to grate on my nerves. I mean, seriously, Titanic and Braveheart are the same frigging score.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rorschach
That being said, I really like Horner's Avatar score, and I commend him for putting so much new effort into it.
what the fuck is wrong with you people this movie was terrible
the only thing that could've saved it was the entire blue-cat-elf species getting genocided into oblivion
stephen lang was badass though so that's something I guess?
TROLL ALERT
this is a no troll zoneQuote:
Originally Posted by Kalub
i just don't see why everybody liked this movie I mean maybe if you go to movies just to watch pretty explosions it would be acceptable to you
that's all I got, [TELL] me why this was not a trainwreck
Gotta wait till it's out on DVD in Germany, then pick up an English version.
Yes, actually, but it's for the most part nonexistent in Western languages. Thus why there is no letter to represent it in the Roman alphabet and that is compensated for instead by an apostrophe to mark a break in the flow of speech. The apostrophe takes the place of the "glottal stop" and the "guttural stop", vocal sounds that Western explorers encountered when they began to sail to other continents and came into more intimate contact with other races and began to document aspects of their culture and account for things such as language.Quote:
Originally Posted by thehoodedsmack
Just saw it and Holy Fucking shit. It didn't even feel like I was watching a movie. 3D made it awesome. I might go back and see it in IMax 3D. I wasn't expecting a very good story, seeing how it's James Cameron, but it was better than I expected.
with a crew of over 950 visual effects artists, I must say that movie was 0.o. I couldn't tell the difference from fake and real, except those obviously non-earth things, but that's only because of the design, not the visual. Outstanding visuals.
It's the age of exploration type stories...in Space.
I love the Banshee in this movie!
Just saw it in imax 3d tonight. Gotta say, I love Neville's work. He was an instructor of mine and also did creature creation for this film. The story was very well set up to explain Pandora itself, which is what was so important about this film. All the story needed to do for character interaction was show the difference in opinion between groups about this-or-that, and it did it well enough.
Great film, I absolutely recommend seeing it.
Just saw it with some friends. Didn't see the 3-D version though, however the movie was still outstanding. I really want to go back and see it in IMAX 3-D.
The storyline was pretty decent, graphics were practically mind blowing, voice acting could of been better, but I don't really care about that.
either way, amazing movie, must see now :iamafag:
I don't know my opinion of the movie...
They seem to want to self-contain the movie... so they fed pieces of information inside it in little chunks...
Which makes it long and predictable -- because you can tell what partswill appear later on in the film.
On the other hand, they also made you identify with the characters -- not individually -- but collectively. Individually they were kinda 1D.
They also didn't beat you over the head with the 3D aspect of it... it was used subtly... too subtly in a couple of parts, as per below:
Never DOF blur foreground objects in 3D! If it pops out at you, you might want to focus on it... which if it's DOF'd is impossible... and ruins the illusion. DOF only for the background, if at all... preferably not at all.
In 3D you have less control over what the audience sees... and so the common 2D trick of using DoF to draw audience focus just doesn't work.
**
Oh and the emotional moments were blown out and some of the dialogue was cheese... but the higher-level story (not dialogue, story) was great.
I live in the middle of nowhere and cinemas here have the movie running in English.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bastinka
Basically, the only way they could avoid that is to have everything in focus, which looks very weird and fake in 2D. It's a tradeoff- you either have it look perfect in 3D, or you have it look nice in both, and have to deal with those issues. After the first 10 minutes or so, I found that if I let my eyes follow the focus line, the movie placed everything where it needed to be in terms of focusing. After that, I had no problems with it. You just have to train your eyes not to focus on stuff in the foreground.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phopojijo
I agree with the DOF Blur. 3d already gives it that depth, you don't need to blur it, the eye will naturally do it.
They had to render it 3 different times times for 2D and 3D, I don't see why they couldn't turn off blur for the 3d version.
edit: live action camera blur is fine, but the pandora blur really kills the visual.
i think you guys where thinking about the 3d too much when you where watching it.
15 minutes in i just let the movie show me where to look and i never had a problem.
if your thinking about that too much your gunna give yaself a headache.
15 minutes in i just let the movie show me where to look and everything was brilliant.
I just saw the movie in 3D, and man, it was fucking amazing. There;s not much else to say about the movie that hasn't already been said, so I'll just leave it at that :)
no, thats just it. I didn't even remember it was in 3d after a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by ßðÐŻÍ££å
It was soo immersive.
Saw the 3D version today. The 2D version just doesn't compare. Damned awesome.
indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reaper Man
You know what the weird thing is? I saw the movie this morning at ~11:30am... and as the day progressed after I left the theatre, the more I liked the movie.
I started off cringing at Unobtainium and the campy dialogue at multiple points etc... but I guess as time went on I was thinking more and more about the higher-level story and theme and THAT I really enjoyed.
I dunno, it's weird.
Interestingly enough James Cameron said he has 2 sequels thought up (after the opening weekend success)...
I can't really think of any meaningful direction except the campyapproach... or theBoth of which would seem to be *terrrrrible* no matter how they played it.
So yeah, I dunno. But -- I'd be interested to see what'll happen.
I think it would be a
sequel.
I've got the same problem - I really want to go see it again already :xQuote:
Originally Posted by Phopojijo
I second this statement. I thought that a nice 8 hours of sleep would have calmed me down, but it only made things worse...or better? I don't think I consider wanting to see it again as having made things worse...Quote:
Originally Posted by Timo
The weird part is originally I was of the "meh" opinion. Now, I *really* like it o.OQuote:
Originally Posted by Timo
sublimenal messages itm
I need to see this movie again. In IMAX 3D. Nao.
Okay, that plot was amazing. Most people get too attached to the characters to not let them die but yeah James Cameron knew how much killing a bunch of characters (that are more than just nameless boneheads) off adds to the amazingness of a movie and its story. Plot was really good to me. Typical and predictable in some ways, yet there was a couple of points where I was like "whaaaat" - they didn't just follow what the people in film school told them to do, they made those suggestions to fit the plot.
Anyways, the more I think about it (like phop) the more I have to watch it. I can't believe I thought the movie would be stupid.
God damnit, why aren't there any 3D theaters in my area!?
Well then... get a BluRay drive, an nVidia Stereo monitor + glasses, and wait a few months :pQuote:
Originally Posted by ExAm
Going to the Loews IMAX on Broadway in the city tomorrow to see this again (after seeing the 15 min. 3D IMAX preview in August and the full movie in 2D last weekend), The Road in all its limited-release-Oscar-powerhouse glory, and if I have the time or the willpower to keep my ass in a chair for another two hours after all that, Sherlock Holmes. I would see Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus tomorrow, also, but there is no way I'd be able to make it through a fourth. Anyway, Merry Christmas to me, indeed!
just got back from seeing it in 3d, awesome.
Something about the colonel punching that handicap guy in the face made me laugh.
2d vs 3d?Quote:
Originally Posted by StankBacon
3d fo sho, also we need to let this die till the dvd comes out so I will be excited, k?
In summary:
3D DeviantART's Pocahontas with a BIGGGG budget and a draft script.
The movie was good. However, I think there were more ways to express the troubles with the Indians, Pollution, the Vileness of Corporations, and that something is greater than all of us. Oh and also that if the Natives had flying Pterodactyls back when we were expanding West, we'd all be screwed.
*Side Note: The tags for the topic are beyond hilarious. Props to Modacity for it.
I am actually interested in how the 2nd movie (if there is one) works out... To see what James Cameron thinks about it all and to understand his message a bit more. It wouldn't be any Shrek or Toy Story 2 where they basically hired off another director for it... it'd be closer to a Matrix 2/3... in terms of sequels, I believe.
James Cameron mentioned in an interview somewhere that he was thinking of exploring other planets/moons in the sequel, since there are plenty of moons orbiting the planet shown in the movie.
Those first 2 were actually decent while Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions were just bad. Sorry for offtopic :ugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwood
The movie is like watching a dream.
2 and a half hour amazing dream.Quote:
Originally Posted by Random
saw this
first movie I enjoyed in a while
Saw it in 3D, really really liked it.
Why is it though, that all villains these days must be motivated by greed alone? And all leader/tough guy important people take fucking forever to kill?
Other than that, the story was very enjoyable and original, and as said, the CGI was great.
The need for a resource such as Unobtanium, American military superiority, fear of the unknown, weapon advancements assuring victoryQuote:
Originally Posted by ODX
Saw this a week ago, I was like :downsdance: the rest of the day, great movie.
Saw in IMAX 3D. For free. I was a combination of :neckbeard:,:woop:,:downsdance:,:pcgaming:,:holy:, :eekdance:, and:parrot:
Saw it on IMAX 3d yesterday. The CGI was amazing and it had an interesting story. Overall I give it a 4 out of 5 on my book.
Just finished watching the IMAX 3D version, quite possibly the best movie of 2010... Destroyed Sherlock Holmes in my opinion, and I didn't have many problems with the storyline either (though there were a few)!
2009! : DQuote:
Originally Posted by Freelancer
made a billion dolllars so far.
thats awesome.
it's awesome.
This movie is horrible tbh you guys are insane. It was merely a rip off from the famous disney snow white, characterized by the seven clans of the navi, saving the sleeping beauty (jake sully). Igno fags.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainsy
j00 best be trollin'
I never trole. This movie sucked in everyway possible and merely took inspiration from the great hit of a movie snow white was. Disney only wanted to bring love to the life of kids everywhere, james cameron instead ripped it out and sprinkled it with blue men porn. I give it - 5 stars. Also the cgi sucked, made WOW look like crysis.
permabanned~Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainsy
from life~Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainsy
Chains you faggot, get dead.
I can't get over how well they did the 3D, hopefully we'll have a TV that's capable of displaying 3D by the time the Blu-Ray comes out (what's required for modern 3D Blu-Rays? 240Hz televisions?)... I also hope they include a non-3D version of the movie on the Blu-Ray, just so I can check it out in 2D.
they do have screens capable of doing it, it's just the prices are insane
The 2D version will come out first, and then the 3D blu ray will be out later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freelancer
I know that you can get 3D with the nVidia glasses setup and a 120Hz monitor, however I'm just wondering what the specific requirements are for televisions since they usually just bundle cheaper 3D glasses with the Blu-Ray. I'd assume a 240Hz (or higher) television would be a must?Quote:
Originally Posted by ßðÐŻÍ££å
Also, do Blu-Ray 3D releases work like the IMAX version? As in polarized 3D instead of that shitty blue/red 3D? If there's going to be shitty blue and red lines everywhere on the 3D Blu-Ray version it will just completely ruin it for me!
Wow, just shut the fuck up Chains. How about you try making all of that then, hmmm? Inventing/making the equipment yourself, shooting it all, capturing motions, then putting it all together near seamlessly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainsy
The movie looked amazing, you can't deny that one bit.
Naw it sucked, the cgi in the barbie princess chronicles for 2 dollars at walmart is better then this.
I didn't know you could have a 3D blu-ray, cool.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freelancer
I usually wait for movies to come out on DVD or blu-ray for me to watch, and this movie does sound pretty awesome, can't wait for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freelancer
James Cameron helped solidify the plans for the technology only a few weeks ago. As for the glasses, it depends on the tv, not the blu ray- I believe most use alternating frequencies, so the glasses would be the brand of the tv you have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Needles
the way i've been told is that they get that effect by flicking both images on both sides extremely quickly and the glass's are nearly like polaroid sunnies, they blur the image and you end up with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freelancer
but in order to do this properly you need insane hz.
from what i've heard it's in the 1000's hence why it's so expensive.
240hz just wont give the illusion properly.
***Special Treat to those who read the post all-the-way to the end... you'll thank me later***Quote:
Originally Posted by Freelancer
Yeah there's a few things wrong with your assumptions.
Almost every 120Hz and 240Hz TVs accept only 60Hz inputs... and using a little logic they guess in the in-between frames. They have NOTHING to do with 3D.
Here's pretty-much the complete list of all TRUE 120Hz TVs on the market (or otherwise 3D capable):
http://www.3dmovielist.com/3dhdtvs.html
Notice how only 19 of them are LCD/Plasma/CRT... and the rest are those boxy rear-projection... and of those 19 -- 2 are laptops.
If it's not on this list... yeah... basically you can't do 3D on it regardless of what the box says. The shutters flip at 120Hz... but the plugs attached to it only listen to 60.
Most 3D BluRay movies will run on synchronized shutter glasses. Basically each eye will only see half of the refresh rate that the TV gives. If you have a 120Hz monitor (that actually can accept 120Hz... not just smooth out between frames). This requires some sort of synchronization device (having left eye open while the right eye is visible would, needless to say, ruin the effect)... nVidia uses Infrared -- but the old ones were wired.
***********
In the movies you have a few more options... and the reason why is because you can have a really fucking expensive projection in a movie theatre... as long as the glasses are cheap because they're basically 1-use.
As a result... there's a few options...
The first is having vertically and horizontally polarized light... without going into light theory... basically one has every photon's electric field pointed up and down... and the other has every photon's electric field pointed right and left.
You can have one eye block up and down... and the other block right and left... and you'll be fine. The problem is if you then need to keep your head perfectly straight.
-----------------------
The second corrects this problem by adding a circular-to-linear polarizer on the lens. Clockwise light would convert to either horizontal or vertical -- and counter-clockwise would convert to the other. Since it's spiral-shaped... turning your head doesn't change the direction of the spiral -- so you can always get the correct polarization in the correct eye. This is "RealD".
The problem is you then need a special screen to preserve polarization of light upon reflection... that's expensive.
-----------------------
The third way -- which is VERY rare -- uses a little colour science. Any colour can be made up of red, green, and blue. You can make an eye see yellow by giving it one particle of red, and one particle of green.
The way Dolby gives 3D is it has two slightly different shades of red, two slightly different shades of green, and two slightly different shades of blue.
One R/G/B set gets blocked by the left eye but transmitted by the right... and vice versa. The difference in the Red-Left/Red-Right, Green-Left/Green-Right, Blue-Left/Blue-Right is just ~15nm. No polarization required -- left sees a full set of RGB values... right sees a full set of RGB values... and thus, 3D.
************************
The anaglyph 3D you see here --
http://www.newfreedownloads.com/imgs/20964-w520.jpg
is not used by just about anything anymore... let alone BluRay 3D.
... Just about the last use of Anaglyph 3D is Youtube... and it's also got an option for "Crosseye 3D" which gives you a migraine after 2 minutes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qftUs9ppnbA&NR=1
((Click the drop-down menu under the video and select "Cross-eyed"... then cross your eyes and look at the video in the centre))
And yes... Youtube has allowed 3D since like -- July.
To that I say...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkBN1FX8rqE
POW! HAHA!
Ah, very good information there, I was under the assumption that Blu-Ray 3D would go down the road of nVidia's shutter glasses since you only need refresh rates of 120Hz to pull it off. I didn't know that most of the higher Hz televisions available only accepted 60Hz inputs though.
Before Avatar the last 3D experience I had without expensive Nvidia shit was the color altering method, and overlaying that over a feature film just fucks up all the colors and ruins the experience. I did know that IMAX used "RealD" polarization when I went into the theater and when I heard that they were going to retail a 3D Blu-Ray I was wondering how they'd do it.
Bottom line, we shouldn't get a new TV any time soon if we want to make use of Blu-Ray 3D features in the future, correct?
It all depends... there'll be a huge blitz of 3D-ready TVs... probably in the summer or before Christmas.
If you want a rear-projection TV with the whole quick-to-die bulbs and such -- it's good now. The big LED-LCD TVs will be coming shortly... CES had several of them... including an LG LEDTV that has backlit LED.
********
To explain why the eye only needs Red Green and Blue light to see all colours -- is because our eye can only see Red, Green, and Blue.
Here is a picture of the full spectrum of light... and what the "Red detector" can see... what the "Green Detector" can see... and what the "Blue Detector" can see. (The thin black line is how our perceives brightness, not colour... so it's useful for like... nightvision and edge/detail detection)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...on_spectra.png
As you can see... Yellow light causes both Red and Green retina nerves to respond. So technically... firing a red photon and a green photon at two adjacent red and green retina nerves... will produce the same response as two yellow photons... one hitting a red, one hitting an adjacent green.
So how can your eye tell the difference? It can't!
A side note -- the red and green overlap a lot... the more those two receptors overlap in response... the more red/green colourblind the person will be. Why? Well if the red sensors and the green sensors both respond exactly the same to any given photon... a green sensor can see a red photon and a red sensor can see a green photon. Colourblind.
(The guy the picture was modeled after was probably slightly colourblind... but that's just a guess).
Red/Green/Blue Colour isn't some Physics-given... it's just how our brain works. It sees how close a photon is to either Red, Green, and/or Blue... and then says "Well it's halfway between red and green... so it must be yellow".
Ah okay...
So most 3D capable televisions are goign to use "RealD" style shutter glasses and I assume 3D projectors will use the polarization method used in IMAX 3D flicks? I can't seem to find much info on 3D capable projectors on Engadget, have you seen any information regarding these?
... no... but I seriously doubt projectors will use RealD. The real cost in RealD is the special silver-based screen that preserves polarization on reflection. I believe REAR Projection TVs work on it... but yeah.
Well, I know that if they decided to mass-produce some screens like that the cost would definitely go down, and it's not like the entire screen is made of woven silver... I guess we'll have to wait a few more years for home theater 3D to catch on before that happens.
Double posting because I just got back from seeing this again in IMAX 3D, god it's so good... One of those movies that I'd rather live in than real life, know what I mean? I can't believe how amazing the 3D and CGI on this movie come together for an almost surreal immersion experience, I'm not ashamed to say that this movie actually shook me a small bit... I just grabbed the soundtrack and it's pretty awesome as well, however could someone tell me what this trailer music is?
Trailer music
:eng101:
I knew I heard it before! It was from The Island, which was also a pretty good movie... Kinda weird that they'd use a movie soundtrack song in another movies trailer isn't it?
It's actually fairly common. Often a separate company does the trailers for movies, which is why the music isn't from the movie's soundtrack- it hasn't been written yet. These companies have libraries of music, and I've heard that clip from "The Island" before, so some smart person in charge of that soundtrack must have sold the rights to advertising in return for that I'd assume to be a large sum of cash.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freelancer
Avatar Sequel Confirmed. Well, then. Let's see if they can make the sequel even more cliche.
I just saw the movie again, in IMAX. Still just as awesome as last time. I'm interested to see what they do with the sequel. If anything, it would have to be less cliche, because the basis of the story has already been covered.
Great time for the announcement... just long enough to push people into theatres when demand SLIGHTLY dribbled a bit.
Meh, I'm sure that I wasn't the only one who left the theater the first time thinking "I wonder what the sequel will be like?" and not "I wonder if there will be a sequel"?
If they're going to make a sequel, they'd better have the humans come back and completely destroy the Na'vi. Give the movie a tragic ending, and leave the viewer reflecting on the troubles of military industry. Otherwise, I can't think of a single acceptable way to make an enjoyable sequel to this movie. I still can't believe so many people liked it.
actually saw this
it was not as good as it was made out to be, and was predictable at every point in the story
pretty tight as a movie none the less
It was every bit as good as it was made out to be! :maddowns:
god, the part where he sheds a tear and is like "What are you doing Jake?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Freelancer
I was like...."Fuck, me too buddy."