Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Really? People waste money on a few extra mins?

dem00n

By dem00n
in The Gibson Lounge

Recommended Posts

Izzy

Izzy

Posted
Posted

LMAO, it looks decent as looks go, lacks substance completely.

 

If the extra ten were of Michelle Rodriguez in a beater fixing the copper in her beater I'd get the special extended video once it made it to dvd...used....for a dollar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dROK83

dROK83

Posted
Posted

You would think Cameron would've spent a little more time on the script and storyline of this movie, I mean he had the story since Titanic, and was supposedly waiting for technology to catch up to his vision. I know he wasn't personally developing the 3d technology they used, so why not make the script a little more tolerable? This movie is basically the story of the Native Americans adapted to another planet. Cameron couldn't even be creative with the characters. They are all the cliche characters you would expect, the blood thirsty colonel, the bleeding heart scientist, and the main character who is stuck in the middle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shnate McDuanus

Shnate McDuanus

Posted
Posted

For the record, I liked it. In all honesty, if a bunch of friends were going out to see the recut Avatar, and wanted me to come along, I'd buy a ticket to see it another time. I almost picked up a copy of it to watch at home. It's not the most original movie out there, but much like George Thorogood covering Bo Diddley, Pocahontas in Space is entirely acceptable and enjoyable, if only a little "been there, done that."

 

My problem with it is really more with how much hype it received, with numerous claims of it being the "greatest movie ever," and while certainly it is a visual landmark, it's very much a bland rehash of an archetypal "epic" storyline, with very two-dimensional characters and very predictable, poorly thought-out SF trappings. I didn't for instance, think of it as really appropriate for it to be nominated for "Best Picture" at the Academy Awards (and I'm still very much an idealist when it comes to these things,) specifically because the whole production was creatively bankrupt. My interpretation of the film really is that it's more or less "a commercial for itself," in that it was created with the specific intent of appealing to a demographic which would be entirely willing to devote large amounts of discretionary funds towards purchasing movie tickets and licensed properties. Considering Cameron's industry clout, I'm sure it was very hard in mainstream critical circles to do anything but endlessly praise the production on merits (like an innovative storyline and relateable characters) that didn't quite exist.

 

Also, for those of you who enjoy reading, Poul Anderson's 1957 science fiction story "Call Me Joe" provides a very interesting read to those who have seen the film. Having read the story a few years before the film came out, I was shocked at times by the apparent similarities present between the two, (not narrative similarities, but rather incidental ones such as the concept of artificial organisms being controlled remotely, and other qualities,) and by the fact that it doesn't seem as if Cameron has admitted to have been influenced by it. At any rate, Anderson is one of the greats, and "Call Me Joe" really was an interesting and innovative story, with a lot of facets that were very interesting conceptually, at least to those with interest in the sciences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...