Gorgon

Yes, 'fine', not 'good'. A good bad movie. Star wars also had, I dunno a certain charm that just isn't found in 100% CGI. Avatar did much better than the usual soullessness you find in Toy story/Final fantasy type movies, but there was still too much face time with dorky looking cat people, exacerbated by the fact that you didn't care whether they lived or died. Watching the tree burning scene just reminded me of how much better Apocalypse now was, more than anything I just wished they would get on with it and wipe out the whiny tree huggers.

You sure about that, all I saw were a bunch of poorly connected clich

And I'm alone in thinking a movie can't work without a story ?. This is pretty basic stuff, I don't know what to say to that.

I don't agree that a movie can survive on visuals alone and still be called good, I want more to award that label. Also I believe I was first in pointing out that quality is subjective. Film is a visual medium... Who's banging on about the obvious now ?. There has got to be more, there has got to be a compelling story, or you (they) aren't trying hard enough. Also, are you putting Avatar besides the original Star Wars, and Raiders. If that's the case then as the saying goes, well there should be one if there isn't : it's no use arguing with someone who's in love about the object of their affection.

Give it 50 years and he will be a saint, just look at the myth they created out of Reagan.

Fox news are pretty farcical to most people including those who don't care either way about politics. That a former VP candidate would chose that career path ought to leave one questioning just what kinds of people white house candidates are.

Neither Shakespeare or Michelangelo had artistic freedom, and neither are good because they got paid by a specific client,more like in spite of it.

Of course he hasn't got any research. How do you investigate media bias without being accused of the same crime. Can't be done. All anybody has got are opinions. Mine is that the BBC is reasonably professional and a reliable agency. Aren't they public service by the way, that should help in theory at least against political agendas in the boardroom.

The only reason to think this is if you assume that everyone follows the same criteria of what makes for great movie-making that you do. Popular does not equal good. Popular does not equal bad. Popular means people like it. This is true whether we are discussing a product or a work of art. A work of art is uncompromising, it doesn't pull punches and is not afraid to follow it's own conclusions. You can't set out to be popular and expect to create anything worthwhile.

^^ I think I'm pretty close to proving my earlier assertion that people are idiots.

Brass nutter.

'Failed to have sex'. What, he couldn't get it up and she cut his throat. Talk about performance anxiety.

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.

Hundreds of blogs, YouTube videos and Twitter postings apparently these days regurgitating internet blabber counts as a news source. 'Twitter postings'. Don't these things have a 100 word limit, and who the hell cares what people put in them enough to call it newsworthy.

So it started as an experiment in recreating the consciousness of the dead and somewhere along the line the developer developed a boner ? Mui bizarre

'Good' is of course a more or less subjective standard, but do you really think Avatar would have had a leg to stand on without the cutting edge CGI and Cameron's name. You can spend yourself to a box-office hit even if the story is weak, I think it's pretty obvious that that is what has happened here.

Also it is really pretty, and there's the 3D thing. Eyegasms does not a good movie make however.

People are idiots, that's an opinion that explains why popularity in no way correlates with quality.

Ohh yeah baby

It was.... boring. Beautiful and boring, and Cameron is one of my idols. Depressing really.

ehhh.. why was the world gonna end again ?

Well I should be in the clear then.

I agree, there is often a misconception between being politically (in)correct and just being an ass. I prefer having the asses spurt their idiocy to artificial language though, makes it easier to see what people are really about.

The wildlife AI definitely needs to be something other than a wild charge the second they spot you, that's a given.

I just wanted to point out one thing quick. Not "his worshipers" - just worshipers. There have been too many influential religions to say "his" as that would imply a single male monotheistic deity. In that same post you quoted i wrote 'his(her)' explicitly to point out the lack of a common gender pronoun. Pay attention !