Blarghagh

"There has got to be more"? Glad to see your preference is the litmus test on what a film does and does not need. By the way, good job shrugging it off with a "I can't argue with you because your opinion is different than mine".

That's an odd thing to say as without the cutting edge CGI and Cameron, Avatar wouldn't be Avatar. Would apple pie be as tasty if it didn't have apples and wasn't pie? "Just because something is popular, doesn't mean it's good" is a worthless statement as it doesn't tell us anything about the product in question Product ?. Maybe it is a good product, what do I care. Episode One was a probably a 'good product', it was also a horribly dull movie. If we are talking about a work of art I can't think of a more ever present truism than that popular does not equate with good. If stripped of the polish, which is admittedly very impressive, the rest is just so incredibly banal as to be an almost complete waste of time. The goal was to create a blockbuster, to entertain with the environment of Pandora, that they did, and those kinds of moves are rarely any good. Once in a while you get lucky and find both quality and a giant budget. Doesn't happen often though. I'm sorry, but what? First of all, that original question is a pretty high level of stupid. It's as stupid as someone asking "do you really think American History X would have a leg to stand on without it's characters and ethical investigation?" This film was made for the visuals, and no matter how much you pretend the opposite, making a film for the visuals is completely fine. Film is a visual medium. Just because some films go deep with plot and character, doesn't mean they all have to, and it doesn't mean that films that don't are immediately not 'good' if they don't. And some movies that don't pay enough attention to it can be terrible because of that. It may be not what you look for in a film, but that doesn't mean it's bad. If you don't want a film to focus, at least partially, on the visuals, you're out of luck. Because there are none. The moment the camera turns on, the people making it are concerned with sound and visuals. Don't like it? Tough. Go read a book. Also, who are you to objectively place this in the 'not good' section? Quality is subjective in the first place. I wanted good entertainment, and I got that (three times so far). This movie does for me what I want it to do, and it did it spectacularly, despite me seeing the weaknesses in it's storytelling. How is that not 'good'? I think it's incredible! Also, you're making it sound like this is a Michael Bay film. This is not a film filled with horrible acting, bad pacing, and terrible directing. It is not solely about explosions and people shooting guns at each other. It may not be the best as far as storytelling goes, but where film-making is concerned, this movie does everything right. Besides, for a film not: sequel, prequel, based on a book - graphic novel - true story, I think it did rather okay even on terms of storytelling. It's hardly right to complain about this film's story when nearly everything else out there is a story the filmmakers didn't even come up with. Coming from that, I'd like to repeat my earlier point - a couple of the only other movies that had stories that were thought up by filmmakers, Raiders of the Lost Ark and Star Wars, some of the best reviewed films ever that are completely ingrained in our culture, had fairly little to no original storytelling and relied almost entirely on their action sequences, stock characters and special effects. Why was it fine then and deplorable now?

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sleep While They Are Being Inappropriately Fondled?

Haha, me and the people here got a good laugh out of that one.

Wow. You have convinced me. "That don't fly" is a very compelling argument.

I'm getting a bit tired of everyone busily comparing this to all kinds of other things. Mostly because, if you take a look at the list of succesful Hollywood films, everything else is: Based on a book, comic book, a sequel, a prequel, based on a TV show, based on non-fiction, etc. Yet this one, based on an original script, gets all this flack for borrowing from other sources? I mean, I get it, it IS kindof derivative. But after years of being aflame with "WE ARE SO TIRED OF SEQUELS REMAKES" popular culture suddenly can't stop bashing this one for not having the most original plot ever? It just annoys me, really. Especially because you are unlikely to find anyone bashing this movie for unoriginality who hasn't got either Star Wars or Raiders of the Lost Ark, or Kill Bill or whatever on their favourite movie list. Like those don't borrow from other sources.

It's a good idea but that ticket price is waay over my budget. : /

You can go through withdrawal for soda? Well, ****. I better stop drinking so much of it.

I realised a while back that I have to accept fights will happen. Mainly because a) I'm pretty insensitive b) I date fiery women c) I enjoy a good fight I vote for A (I'm really insensitive) and B, but I only vote for C when it's anyone else. I enjoy a good fight, but not with her because I have a tendency to say things that really hurt when I'm angry. I can only think of one reason that makes fighting with her worth it, because the cliche is true: make-up sex is great.

I know it happens in every relationship, but I really hate fighting with my significant other, because I hate it when she's sad or angry.

Haven't found any problems while installing, if anyone else wonders. That gives it a better track record than Vista so far.

Ugh, tell me about it. Two years back I would go out drinking six nights a week, if I try that now I need one of those narcolepsy helmets because after three days of not catching a full night of sleep I will just start falling asleep randomly anywhere.

I'd like to add another recommendation for MSF. Some old internet buddies of mine I lost touch with but still have fond nostalgic memories off volunteered for them, and they needed all the help they could get.

Wrestling - because real Gladiators are illegal.

I honestly don't remember playing any 2009 games. Except for Scribblenauts, which I played casually in train rides at best and was a bit of a disappointment. This was a bad year for my inner gamer because I never had time to play games. I'm not going to have the time to try out my anticipated titles like Arkham Asylum or Dragon Age until like a month from now.

Why'd they pick Kate Beckinsale for a movie where they have her solving a crime mostly wearing a parka? Why couldn't they have the crime take place on a bikini-only beach?

Sunshine? I saw 9 (the animated one with the rag dolls). Quite honestly, it seemed like a waste of render farms to me. The story was okay, and the action sequences were decent, but the script and the pacing were so horrible, and the characters so bland and boring, that at times I was too bored to even keep watching.

I'm going to the inlaws.

Alright, to each their own I guess, but I don't see how the action can be described "a mess" at all. The action was so incredibly well done and epic. And I welcomed an action movie without that shaky cam bull**** that's so popular nowadays.

Starting on Good Omens, by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman. Then getting back into the Discworld series with Pyramids and Guards! Guards!

Well, yes, that much is obvious, but if there's a prevention method for any known issues then I'd like to know beforehand and save me a reinstall.

We know there are lots of issues getting it to work on Windows Vista, but I've upgraded to Windows 7, and I was wondering if there are any known issues when it comes to installing and running KotOR II on that?

I guess we'll have to wait for the Pandorapedia entry.

The movies art style was "influenced" by, or ripped off from if you prefer, album covers of the band Yes. I don't think they have any other explanation except that it looks cool. I think the official explanation is that they are filled with Unobtainium, a superconductor. The Unobtainium creates a magnetic field, and this magnetic field clashes with the magnetic field of Pandora itself. The idea is that they were originally formed on the ground, broke off and sort of just float around a bit, and not that they formed like this. The waterfalls is just meltwater from ice, and water from rain and mist. There's problems with this explanation but I can buy it enough for a cool movie scene. Also, yes, Pandora is a moon. A moon of a gas giant (I think it's called Polypous or Polymorphous or something) in the Alpha Centauri A star system.

If he had spent 14 years coming up with anything else, it would be the most epic anything else you have ever seen. Really. Also, I have to admit, you have to get used to the Na'vi look. They are kind of goofy. When Jake first goes into his Avatar and they test out his ear movements, I was like "oh god what did I get myself into". Thankfully that feeling soon faded away and was replaced by complete awe.