Let's forever kill the "eye-candy" debate.

Plus, enough with this "Well, he had the money to do it".

The man worked hard for his money and people trust him, and if you had the money, you'd make a 300 million dollar Zombie short movie yourself, am I right? Jealousy and envy aren't good companions to have, people.

Says a lot that producers and studios trust the man with that amount of money, and HE DELIVERED.

That's the thing. He's becoming possibly the most successful movie directors of all time in terms of revenue and aid to the industry.

If I was an indie filmmaker I'd be kissing Cameron's feet for keeping theaters in business so I might possibly get my project into one...

Plus let me tell you from firsthand experience that James isn't some fire-breathing egotistical tyrant on set.

The man gets what he wants, and if you don't give him what he's looking for, he lets you know about it and he's intense about it. He produces and he wants competent crew members working for him and he doesn't tolerate low-grade quality for a second. That's why he assembled 3 milti-oscar-winning sound engineers to mix Avatar, and even they had a rough time of it.

The rumors that he yells and is mean came from some idiot gaffer who screwed up shot after shot after shot and Cameron was fed up with the money in film he was losing and fired his incompetent crew. And then that crew goes and spreads that rumor. Trust me.
 
Last edited:
Hehe. I like this food-as-movie debate. Way more fun.

I don't think anyone is arguing that we should live off a diet of just pizza. Not only would that be incredibly unhealthy, but that'd just be weird. I mean, why would you even want to do that?

I think at least one thing we can agree on is that it's good to have a variety -- I love a city that offers a great deal of different types of cuisines, done differently by different restaurants. What's that they say? Variety is the spice of life?

Needless to say, that doesn't mean we should never eat pizza. I mean, it can be pretty darned delicious.

:D

agreed :yes:
 
Honest to Mr.G, if i ever said that you thought it was just eye candy, then that was just my misinterpretation of your words.

Any film can be anything to anyone.

I thought it sucked, but then again i love 'The Terminal' and loads of people tell me that sucked! :P
 
Honest to Mr.G, if i ever said that you thought it was just eye candy, then that was just my misinterpretation of your words.

Any film can be anything to anyone.

I thought it sucked, but then again i love 'The Terminal' and loads of people tell me that sucked! :P

It's perfectly fair for somebody to say that it's nothing more than "eye-candy" to them. But for some reason, the "Avatar" debate often ends with the "Avatar"-hater telling me why people like it, and I'm like, uh, dude, you're talking about me.

Also, I think "The Terminal" is terrific. Interesting sidenote -- what's something "Avatar" and "The Terminal" both have in common?










Zoe Saldana.
 
Actually they both liked the Pizza cos it's loaded with MSG, which is also, incidentally, the Colonel's secret spice...

Avatar? They use a ton of cheap tricks but underneath that there's a solid base.

I think it reaches so many people because it touches the No War wave of consciousness that's coming in society, with people getting sick of the Military Industrial Complex. and the suffering it causes. One ONE level, could the Navi be the innocent victims of the modern war machine?

There are many other levels though...
 

Yeah, I've seen those reviews. They're not his best work.

First of all, and most egregiously, this review is a perfect example of exactly what I'm talking about in this thread. The reviewer spends a great deal of time (more than half of the review) talking about how "effective" the movie is, in that it tricks the naive audience members into feeling emotional.

This isn't my interpretation -- the reviewer very blatantly calls the audiences who liked "Avatar" naive, and he spends a lot of time telling us what tricks we fell for. Such an argument is absolutely idiotic. If you wanna know why somebody likes a movie, maybe you should ask them.

But no, I'm too stupid to know why I liked "Avatar". It wasn't the grand adventure of running off to an exotic new land, learning the ways of the locals. No, I didn't fall in love with the adventure of it. I just liked it because the Na'vi have big eyes and cat-noses. It wasn't Jake's story of re-birth, of putting a difficult past behind, to live a new life, that got me. No, it was because Neytiri is hot. I thought I was almost shedding tears of joy when Jake stepped into his new body for the first time, and just had to run, but no, I guess I'm just a stupid naive audience member who was dazzled by the 3D imagery.

This review is fucking stupid.
 
The Voyage Home is the best TOS movie. But the best Trek movie of all is First Contact. I'm sorry, it's just a much better film.

The Terminal was fantastic! My only complaint would be that it's a little long and can have the side effect of making you feel like you just spent 6 months in an airport.

And I liked Avatar. I only saw it once, but I thought it was great. Nothing wrong with retelling a classic story, as long as you make it your own and do it well. Sure the 'visuals' were cool, but if that were all there was to it, I wouldn't have sat through 2+ hours of it. No way.



"Everybody remember where we parked!"
 
The Voyage Home is the best TOS movie. But the best Trek movie of all is First Contact. I'm sorry, it's just a much better film.




"Everybody remember where we parked!"

The Voyage home was the most entertaining TOS film. My fav moment from the movie would prob be the following:

Dr. Gillian Taylor: Do you guys like Italian?
Kirk: Yes.
Spock: No.
Kirk: Yes.
Spock: No.
Kirk: I love Italian,
[looks at Spock]
Kirk: And so do you.
Spock: Yes.

And wanna tell me how First Contact is a much better film? :tongue:
bc methinks TUC was the most well crafted film of them all.
 
Last edited:
And wanna tell me how First Contact is a much better film? :tongue:

I may be biased as I'm not a huge TOS fan (I've really only watched the movies). And I'm no film student so I've never written an analysis of a film, but I'll try to convey why I have that opinion.

To me, the original films were all very slow paced and tended to stagnate a lot. While the concepts and stories weren't all bad, I think they were poorly executed.

On the other hand, First Contact not only has a solid story and concept, with a great villain, awesome paradoxes, well developed characters played by great actors, but it moves along at a perfect pace. I won't compare special effects because it isn't an even playing field considering the two time periods.

The big reason why I think it's the best is its mass appeal. I can (and have) shown First Contact to people who have never seen Trek, who are biased against Trek because of the 'nerdy' stigma. And not only do these people love the movie, but they can follow it, get into the characters, and have been known to become Treksters themselves after seeing it.
 
As far as the "Treks" are concerned, I actually do put "Voyage Home" slightly ahead of "Khan" (I know, that's heresy for Trekkies). "Voyage Home" is just such a fun movie.

Dready, I can see why you say that about "First Contact".

I find myself parting ways with most Trekkies when it comes to discussing "Nemesis". I actually like it, a lot. It's "Khan" for us Next-Gen Trekkies.

My favorite quote, from all the "Trek" movies:

"Well, double-dumb-ass on you!"
 
I think my thing with Avatar was everyone built it up so much, and I didn't see it straight away. Then when i did it didn't really move me much at all, and i ended up slightly falling asleep towards the ending haha. And then everyone was calling it the best movie ever made and i was like :|
 
Back
Top