Troy's Avatar Thread...

[Worf101]

You can't put that kind of Peanut Butter on the trap and not expect a mouse to stick his head in to git it!!!! Gives us the 411 bro!!!!

Worf

[Troy]

Oh, very well. Here's why I'm going to go out of my way to avoid Avatar:

It's well documented that Cameron almost drowned several of his actors and crew filming The Abyss. What was most shocking was his lack of contrition or remorse about it. I remember reading an interview with an extremely pissed off Ed Harris about it. The crew boycotted the set and there were lawsuits. It was a real mess.

Cameron is the worst kind of Hollywood hack director. He's always been very willing to crush and ruin the career of anyone in the way. Again, very well documented if you care to look for it. Where most great directors develop a rapport with crews and actors, using them over and over again on all their productions, Cameron goes thru people like kleenex. Nobody wants to work with the guy twice.

Lets look at his movies. Does anyone even care that The Abyss exists at this point? Glacial pace and virtually no payoff at the end of almost 3 hours. What a bloated stiff. Aliens was the best thing he ever did hands down, but when you get down to it, this was nothing more than a coke and popcorn, bug-hunt, sci-fi flick. There's really nothing else there. The Terminator movies started out as a quicky low-budget action hack-job that looks embarrassingly dated now. And the series devolved into bloated mess with bigger budgets, more CGI and explosions with even less character or logic driving the story. Titanic was excessive, cheesy and overwrought in virtually every way. Really, a terrible movie who's CGI effects already look dated (the problem with every CGI-driven film, but that's another post). Far as I'm concerned, winning the best picture oscar® is usually a bad thing. The bad movie, the one that will be embarrassing when you look back at it 10 years later, almost always wins.

This Avatar flick looks like no exception to his parade of infantile crap. I can't tell you the last time I've seen such an overhyped advertising campaign! Man, you cannot avoid hearing about how "this movie will change moviegoing, forever!" There's been an all out blitz in every form of media and even a 60 Minutes story for old people. It's been my experience that the more a movie is advertised, the more it's going to suck. If that's true, then Avatar will be a monumental turd. Face it, any movie where the ad campaign uses an ancient cornball line like "We're not in Kansas anymore" has got to be written for a 9 year olds level of understanding. I bet someone says "Lock and Load" at some point too. Pathetic. Inexcusable in a movie hails itself as a total industry changer.

And let me get this straight, the lead character has lost his legs in battle and you see him in a wheel chair and they tell him he can walk again by putting his consciousness in this alien body they made from alien DNA. Well if they can do that, why can't they just cook up some new human legs for him from his own DNA? What an incredibly STUPID idea on such a basic, fundamental level! Typical, half-baked Cameron BS. I can hear the back room talk: "We'll just dazzle 'em with shiny stuff and they'll forget that it doesn't make any sense."

Does Roger Dean get an art direction credit? So much of the look of this movie is a outright rip off of many of RD's paintings. I googled "Roger Dean Avatar" and while many reviewers echo my sentiments, (http://io9.com/5426120/did-prog-rocks-greatest-artist-inspire-avatar-all-signs-point-to-yes/gallery/?skyline=true&s=i) Cameron has been entirely silent on the subject. I just looked at the entire on-screen-credit-list at imdb.com and Dean's name is nowhere, not even the special thanks list. Just another example of the typical Cameron business ethic.

Other than that I can't wait to see it . . .

[ForeverAutumn]

And let me get this straight, the lead character has lost his legs in battle and you see him in a wheel chair and they tell him he can walk again by putting his consciousness in this alien body they made from alien DNA. Well if they can do that, why can't they just cook up some new human legs for him from his own DNA? What an incredibly STUPID idea on such a basic, fundamental level! Typical, half-baked Cameron BS. I can hear the back room talk: "We'll just dazzle 'em with shiny stuff and they'll forget that it doesn't make any sense."

Isn't that true of many hollywood flicks though? This use of stupid and unbelievable premises is not unique. Hubby and I have made a game of this when we rent movies. One of us will put up our hand and we'll pause the movie while we ask something like...but if he can walk on water, why does he need a lifejacket? (Sorry, I can't think of a specific example at the moment, although I know there's lots of them).

[Troy]

Isn't that true of many hollywood flicks though?

Sure, but why does Cameron get a pass when these gratuitous flaws appear in every production he's involved with?

Most people are more forgiving about these things than I am, but I suppose that's part of why I don't like most blockbuster-type films.

[nightflier]

Cameron may be a class-A jerk, but it won't stop millions of people from seeing it. It's almost as if people are clamoring for another Titanic-scale movie to hang their hopes on. Personally I only needed to see Titanic once, and probably would fall asleep the second time, but I still saw it. Same with Terminator, Abyss, and Aliens.

I suppose there are quite a few directors who are jerks (Verhoeven, Gibson, etc.), but people still go see their movies. Anyhow, who ever said that geniuses are fun folks to hang out with? As most of you know, I do draw the line somewhere (Tarentino), but as long as the subject is not too revolting, I'll give it a look-see. With Avatar, I'm just curious to see what all the hoopla's about. I probably won't see a fascinating LOTR-like story line with in-depth Babel-like character development, but I'm not really expecting it - just like I didn't expect it when I saw any of his other movies, nor did I expect it with Batman, Hancock, or just about anything Bruce Willis has been in.

Now I also draw the line at morbid stupidity, the kind of rehash that Disney puts out every half year. I mean Grimm and Andersen would be spinning in their graves if they saw how their stories were pared-down to the lowest common denominator, were over-sexualized, and infused with a level of unrealistic action and effects that completely guts the tales from any historic or philosophic message. Vampire movies are also up there with the same tired story line every time, although I am still guilty of seeing a few. But at least with Cameron, I'm fairly safe to know that there will at least be a little more to stimulate my gray matter than the rest of the over hyped and CGI'ed Hollywood drivel that passes for entertainment these days (think Transformers and GI Joe)

[GMichael]

Isn't that true of many hollywood flicks though? This use of stupid and unbelievable premises is not unique. Hubby and I have made a game of this when we rent movies. One of us will put up our hand and we'll pause the movie while we ask something like...but if he can walk on water, why does he need a lifejacket? (Sorry, I can't think of a specific example at the moment, although I know there's lots of them).
Here's a basic one. "If there is no air in space, how come I can hear that spaceship fly by?" Pick a Sci-fi movie.

[nightflier]

That's for the benefit of the viewers only, lol.

[dean_martin]

I thought this was going to be about the bloodshot eyeball.

[ForeverAutumn]

Anyhow, who ever said that geniuses are fun folks to hang out with?

That's so true! I can't tell you how many people I've had tell me that I'm just no fun to hang out with.

[nightflier]

As a former victim of some of your genius mania, I cannot disagree.

[GMichael]

That's so true! I can't tell you how many people I've had tell me that I'm just no fun to hang out with.

Ba-dum-bump.

[Troy]

Cameron may be a class-A jerk, but it won't stop millions of people from seeing it. It's almost as if people are clamoring for another Titanic-scale movie to hang their hopes on.

No argument from me. People will flock to it because they are told to. Allow me the ability to dream that people would be smarter. (I'll admit, I'm sure I'll see it someday on cable or netflix)


I suppose there are quite a few directors who are jerks (Verhoeven, Gibson, etc.), but people still go see their movies.

There are different levels of jerkitude. Stanley Kubick gave Shelley Duvall a nervous breakdown during The Shining to get that freaked out 3rd act from her. Cameron almost allowed cast and crew members to die and insisted filming continue, even with most of the crew walking off the set. There's a big difference between making Shelley Duvall cry and being cavalier with people's lives, right? Cameron is a menace.


But at least with Cameron, I'm fairly safe to know that there will at least be a little more to stimulate my gray matter than the rest of the over hyped and CGI'ed Hollywood drivel that passes for entertainment these days (think Transformers and GI Joe)

You know, it's just really sad that the most intellectually stimulating movie we can see is a Jim Cameron movie. Paying to see it on first run sends the message to Hollywood that this is what you want to see. Vote with your wallet. Stay home and rent Idiocracy instead.

[nightflier]

You know, it's just really sad that the most intellectually stimulating movie we can see is a Jim Cameron movie.

And I will not be seeing it...

...this weekend. But I can't really come back to work in January w/o having seen it. Besides, someone is sure to spoil the plot (if there is one) for me by that time.

[Feanor]

Something I always do it check out a flick at Metacritic. After all why should I trust a few wiseguys like around here when I can go instead and get the rating a couple of dozen over-paid professional critics.

Anyway, not many review in so far on Avatar, but as at this moment its got 89/100 (http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/avatar?q=Avatar). Terminator, e.g, got 84. Their server broke so I couldn't get Alien, which, just a bug flick or not, was great; (contrast Star Ship Troopers which was pure trash).

I guess Troy would say there's no accouting for these things. Me too, I guess, when something as silly and puerile as Ratatouille gets a Metacritic score of 96.

[nightflier]

Hey, Starship Troopers was pretty funny and Rat. wasn't so bad either. Canadian movie critics - who let them in here?

[poppachubby]

I rarely go to the theatre. My wife occasionally. Of course, I am first in line for any big budget kung fu. Ninja Assassin, you know it!! Basically I am saying that I hardly have my finger on the pulse of cinema.

The thing is Troy, I just can't see this problem being unique to James Cameron. Entertainment is possibly the toughest biz to make it in. NO ONE makes it by being a consomate nice guy. Maybe he should lighten up on the artists a bit, but I'm sure there's a long line of jerks just like him. From what I can tell, Hollywood is predicated on jerkiness.

Troy, come over to the Kung Fu side. The water's warm and we're all smoking cigars!!

[Feanor]

Hey, Starship Troopers was pretty funny ...
That's the problem: it wasn't supposed to be funny.

[audio amateur]

Yeah I hear he's not the easiest guy to work with. His Terminators & Alien 2 are part of my favourite films though

[Troy]

That's the problem: it wasn't supposed to be funny.

Actually it WAS supposed to be funny.

From Wikipedia:
The film included visual allusions to propaganda films, such as Why We Fight, Triumph of the Will, The Battleship Potemkin, and wartime news broadcasts. However, this satire was embedded in slickly produced action sequences with clever special effects.
In the DVD audio commentary for the film, director Paul Verhoeven states unambiguously that the movie's message is "War makes fascists of us all", and that he sees the movie as a satire of American militarism. (The dress uniforms bear a distinct resemblance to those worn by members of the Third Reich.) On the same commentary, screenwriter Ed Neumeier (who had previously worked with Verhoeven on RoboCop) broadly concurs, although he sees the satire as applying to the whole of human history, rather than solely to the United States. Since the filmmakers did not make these statements at the time of the film's release, viewers have interpreted it variously: as a satire, as a celebration of fascism, or as a simple action film.

Watch it again as a comedy and you'll see that it's really a tart little movie.

[bobsticks]

I thought this was going to be about the bloodshot eyeball.[/QUOTE]

Me too.

Originally Posted by nightflier
Anyhow, who ever said that geniuses are fun folks to hang out with?



That's so true! I can't tell you how many people I've had tell me that I'm just no fun to hang out with.

I don't know about that. I found you to be fun...lot's of fun...almost mindnumbingly so :23:

[3LB]

Actually it WAS supposed to be funny. Right, mostly satire, the actors were encouraged to act deathly serious, while references to WW2 propaganda films and wartime radio and movie news serials were made every act.

Amazing how two of Verhoven's movies (Robocop and Starship Troopers) turned out to be rather prophetic regarding their depictions of future culture...well, both amazing and sad that they did.

As for Avatar, I have no idea why I'm supposed to know what this story is...if someone had pitched me the name avatar months ago I mighta said it was the name of some sort of Japanese Anime'. Was this this one of those "graphic novels" (comic books) or is it just a screenplay?





*anime - french word meaning: "I'm an adult watching cartoons instead of dating"

[Feanor]

Actually it WAS supposed to be funny.

From Wikipedia:
The film included visual allusions to propaganda films, such as Why We Fight, Triumph of the Will, The Battleship Potemkin, and wartime news broadcasts. However, this satire was embedded in slickly produced action sequences with clever special effects.
In the DVD audio commentary for the film, director Paul Verhoeven states unambiguously that the movie's message is "War makes fascists of us all", and that he sees the movie as a satire of American militarism. (The dress uniforms bear a distinct resemblance to those worn by members of the Third Reich.) On the same commentary, screenwriter Ed Neumeier (who had previously worked with Verhoeven on RoboCop) broadly concurs, although he sees the satire as applying to the whole of human history, rather than solely to the United States. Since the filmmakers did not make these statements at the time of the film's release, viewers have interpreted it variously: as a satire, as a celebration of fascism, or as a simple action film.

Watch it again as a comedy and you'll see that it's really a tart little movie.
Ah! Thanks for that education, Troy.

Not that all those "tributes" eluded me, but such allusions don't necessarily make a film funny, nor is satire invariably funny, and "funny" is what we were talking about in this thread. In any case the film was a flop overall other than that it did capture Heinlein's own crypto-fascist tendancies.

"War makes fascists of us all." Or is it simply that fascists make war?

Critics in general should take this under advisal: because a work have a lot of erudite allusions and tributes to the preceding literature doesn't make it great, (never mind funny).

[blackraven]

You guys miss the point. Many of todays movies are geared to the Teen and Twenty Something crowd, most of who don't really care about a movie that makes some social comment or makes them think. This age group just wants entertainment. I tend to lump movies into 2 categories 1)mindless entertainment-Star Trek, Avatar etc.
2) movies that get me involved in the story and make me think

Movies are just a form of fantasy entertainment where anything goes. Its always been that way dating back to silent movies.

[Feanor]

You guys miss the point. Many of todays movies are geared to the Teen and Twenty Something crowd, most of who don't really care about a movie that makes some social comment or makes them think. This age group just wants entertainment. I tend to lump movies into 2 categories 1)mindless entertainment-Star Trek, Avatar etc.
2) movies that get me involved in the story and make me think

Movies are just a form of fantasy entertainment where anything goes. Its always been that way dating back to silent movies.
I want to be entertained first and foremost. If a film makes me think, so much the better -- usually: but there are a few things I'd rather not think about.

One thing I'd rather not think about is the cleverness of the script writers and director. Another is literary or cinematic satire, (as distinct from political, social, etc. satire). I leave these things to the professional critics and scholars of the discipline.

[nightflier]

Movies are just a form of fantasy entertainment where anything goes. Its always been that way dating back to silent movies.

Then there are documentaries like The Inconvenient Truth, Food Inc. and Taxi to the Dark Side. Where do they fall?

Feanor,
Quite simply, fascists make war. It is the one activity that most closely matches their beliefs.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The thing is Troy, I just can't see this problem being unique to James Cameron. Entertainment is possibly the toughest biz to make it in. NO ONE makes it by being a consomate nice guy. Maybe he should lighten up on the artists a bit, but I'm sure there's a long line of jerks just like him. From what I can tell, Hollywood is predicated on jerkiness.


I agree with this, but I do not think it is unique to directors either. Actors are a pretty pampered bunch of folks. They get a VERY high salary, and they are expected to work hard for that high salary. Some of them are quite lazy, and you literally have to beat, scare or threaten the crap out of them to give you a good performance. Cameron movies are tough on actors because of both the physical and mental demands of the script. If an actor cannot cut it, don't audition for the part. Alfred Hitchcock was also very difficult to work with, but much of his work is considered classic.

I personally would love to work with Cameron. He is no tougher to work for than Tim Burton (at least from a post production view), and I really loved working with Burton on the remix of Nightmare.

As many Hollywood jerks that are in Hollywood, there are many really nice cool folks as well. Hollywood is no different than society as a whole.

[poppachubby]

Sounds right Terrence. Back to the OP, you are entitled to feel and do as you please. I just don't see why you feel so strongly to boycott this dude because he's mean. Cameron has had the misfortune of his activities being broadcast for the world to know.

I wonder though, how many corporate based products or services have you used in the last while? Do you suppose the executives behind them are all tip top fellows?

It could be a tough proposition boycotting based on this type of thing...

[blackraven]

Then there are documentaries like The Inconvenient Truth, Food Inc. and Taxi to the Dark Side. Where do they fall?

Feanor,
Quite simply, fascists make war. It is the one activity that most closely matches their beliefs.


I don't consider a documentary in the same class as a movie. I do watch documentaries but I usually rent them. Most of the time when I watch a movie its because I want to escape from reality. My life is much too busy and chaotic to have to think too much while watching a movie. If I want to be taught something, I would rather read a non fiction book!

[Troy]

Sounds right Terrence. Back to the OP, you are entitled to feel and do as you please. I just don't see why you feel so strongly to boycott this dude because he's mean. Cameron has had the misfortune of his activities being broadcast for the world to know.

I wonder though, how many corporate based products or services have you used in the last while? Do you suppose the executives behind them are all tip top fellows?

It could be a tough proposition boycotting based on this type of thing...

Fair enough.

I've fallen on my sword over my own personal baggage for this enough already. A few more comments and I'm out.

There's always been something about Cameron and his . . . tone . . . that gets under my skin. He comes across as smug and condescending in his public appearances. I know guys that talk just like that and they are douchebags to the core. That combined with the inordinate amount of bad stories about him (way more than any other director I can think of) and stories about how difficult, over-budget and disorganized his shoots are, etc., I dunno, the guy just makes my skin crawl. Yeah, lots of directors have the rep of being a tyrant, but Cameron's the poster-child for it.

I've seen firsthand that in order to rise in the corporate world, the more ruthless you have to be. So, are you saying that it's ok to approve of this guy's behavior because . . . well, because everyone else is doing it anyway? Sorry man, that slope is way too slippery for me.

Make no mistake. I'm not telling anyone to boycott it, I'm just sayin' I'm not gonna pay to see it. Cameron hasn't made a good movie since 1986. 23 years, and now this is being hailed as so visionary and ground-breaking, yet it looks like it's just "Dances with Wolves with tall Smurfs" in front of an animated Roger Dean painting. I've found the hype for this movie loaded with self-aggrandizement and totally overbearing–and I'm sure it's only made worse for me because it's coming from Cameron.

It's my cross to bear.

[nightflier]

I'm not gonna pay to see it. Cameron hasn't made a good movie since 1986. 23 years, and now this is being hailed as so visionary and ground-breaking, yet it looks like it's just "Dances with Wolves with tall Smurfs" in front of an animated Roger Dean painting. I've found the hype for this movie loaded with self-aggrandizement and totally overbearing–and I'm sure it's only made worse for me because it's coming from Cameron.

... you haven't actually seen it and you are pre-judging it. Last time I took this position about a director who I also happen to find despicable, you certainly weren't shy about rubbing my face in the fact I hadn't seen the movie (Inglorious Basterds) and was not going to see it either - I still haven't. I'm not trying to pick a fight over this, but I dare say what comes around....

[Troy]

... you haven't actually seen it and you are pre-judging it. Last time I took this position about a director who I also happen to find despicable, you certainly weren't shy about rubbing my face in the fact I hadn't seen the movie (Inglorious Basterds) and was not going to see it either - I still haven't. I'm not trying to pick a fight over this, but I dare say what comes around....

Well, that's why I'm soft-pedaling here (something you never did in the IB thread)!

I have seen several long previews and interviews with Cameron as well as a making-of short film. For not having seen it, I know more about it that I'd like, frankly.

But you're right. I need to see it before I go off on it any further.

[nightflier]

Fair enough.

And if it's a consolation, I'm still not going to see it this weekend.

[3LB]

This movie looks like Halo -v- Ferngully. Olias Of Sunhillow with guns. I'm not saying I won't get dragged into seeing it - its right up my 14yr old son's alley (the target audience). Otherwise, I'm not chomping at the bit. I do think the studio hype machine is way over the top with its "changing moviegoing forever" or whatever. I guess they have to make outrageous claims at the end of a year chock full of forgetable big buget movies where CGI effects dominate while story and acting are optional.

[Worf101]

Sugi, my friend in the Movie Biz (www.spectrum8.com) sez that the reason they're pushing the "revolutionary" aspects of htis film so hard is because it's a "new" brand of 3D vision that's supposed to be "light years" ahead of the crap in the 50's and 60's. I'm even more depressed now because, due to wounds from military service, I don't have bi-nocular vision, I can see out of only one eye at a time. Therefore I don't get the 3D effect, it only looks like an ordinary movie to me... so I guess that's some caish I'll be a saving this month.

Worf

[ForeverAutumn]

Well, although Troy has stated some good reasons not to support this film...curiousity killed the cat...and I'm curious, so kill me. I want to see this. Even if the storyline sucks it looks like visual eye candy to me. How can I not want to see a movie filled with Roger Dean-like space-scapes (can't really call them landscapes)? Perhaps Dean was ripped off, perhaps not. Not having seen the movie, I can't make that judgement.

I'm interested. I don't know if I'll get to see it in the theatre since time is hard to come by and I just hate crowded theatres and overpriced, over-salted popcorn. So maybe we'll wait for the DVD. But one way or another, I'll probably see it.

[eisforelectronic]

It's the first movie in a long time that allowed me to completely shut my brain off and simply escape into another world. The 3D was fantastic and I think it's the best CGI yet.

[nightflier]

Anyone else see it yet? Any other thoughts? For those of us experiencing Avatar vicariously, that is....

[Geoffcin]

I'll be seeing it after xmas at our local Imax theater. I would say that the tech in the movie would absolutely need an Imax theater to work correctly so if your seeing it at a regular theater, or waiting for the DVD/BlueRay to come out your not going to be seeing the movie as the director intended.

I've seen "Up!" in 3-D and while it was quite remarkable (both as a film AND the 3-D effects), the tech is not fully up to fast movement in 3-D. There's noticable judder when fast action takes place. Probably because of the split frame rate. If they can answer that problem then I'm all for 3-D taking over the theaters.

[Feanor]

I saw it this evening (in 3D). Outstanding; a must see.

The thing is, Troy's criticisms are pretty much valid. The thing is one cliché after another. Doesn't matter though: the movie simply transcends these quibbles.

Definitely see it in 3D. No, the effect isn't really life-like, but it is used powerfully and it's absolutely the way the director intended that the movie should be seen.

[E-Stat]

I saw it this evening (in 3D). Outstanding; a must see.
Ditto. Saw it yesterday in IMAX. It was quite a ride!

rw

[JoeE SP9]

It would seem I'm the only poster who has actually seen Avatar. Before everyone jumps on the "Avatar is mindless entertainment" train at least watch it.

As a reader of science fiction, (That's books to all who thought of comic books) I usually find most Hollywood depictions of science fiction to be silly, unscientific and totally unbelievable. Even when the story is taken from a good book or short story Hollywood usually screws it up royally. Two examples of Hollywood ruining a good book are Battlefield Earth and Starship Troopers. I must admit that "Troopers" is humorous while having little resemblance to Heinlein's book. Battlefield Earth is just a terrible movie.

Avatar while being a true Hollywood production with all that entails is actually not a bad movie. It is highly derivative and rather formulaic. I have been thinking of it as "Dancing with Aliens". Cowboys in outer space with big blue noble savage natives is probably more appropriate though.

One last comment, the reasoning behind a cripple "driving" an avatar body and not getting a broken spine repaired is explained quite nicely in the movie. I'm waiting for someone else who has actually seen Avatar to comment.

Sorry about the "only one" comment. The rest of my post stands and is supported by other viewers comments.

[Troy]

I gave in to the pressure of everyone I know telling me "You gotta see it you hard-headed moron!" and went last night.

My god, it was beautiful. Being such a fan of the Roger Dean aesthetic, I loved the overall design of the film. I can't even begin to stress that enough. Visually, it is a jaw dropper. Cameron is still a douche for not giving him credit, but I hope someday someone corners him in an interview with the question "Were Roger Dean's paintings the inspiration for this film's look?" just to make him squirm.

The articulation in the animated characters faces was amazingly lifelike and is the real technological advance here. I loved the way they had the features of the actors that voiced them, especially the tight t-shirt on the Na Vi version of Sigourney Weaver. Sexiest animated character since Jessica Rabbit.

The ridiculous writing really hurts the film though. The dialogue from almost every character (especially the evil humans) was truly embarrassing. The characters were way too contemporary, or even worse, they seemed dated. Most of them were lifted directly from "T2" or "Aliens." Off the rack, broad cliches, across the board.

My wife, not a sci-fi fan in any way, adored it. She agrees in principal on my assessment about the writing, but like everyone else, she got swept up in the epic visuals.

So, 5 Stars for the visuals, 1 star for the writing makes it a 3 star movie, overall.

[Geoffcin]

Well we finally got to see it. Gotta hand it to Cameron, he's delivered what he intended in a big way. With all the hype and spin surround the film it's really was worth seeing. Yes the plot was simple(but effective). Yes the dialog was some time cringe worthy, but the movie really worked. Oh, and every seat was sold out, and for every showing. We actually had to buy our seats a day in advance AND show up 45 minutes early the day of the show to get decent seats.

[Geoffcin]

OK, now this is getting weird. I just got asked if I wanted to go see it again and before I even had a chance to think I said "Yes!" I've seen like 3 movies in the theater twice in the last 20 years and I don't even think twice to do it this time? Oh well, a couple more hours on Pandora with the Na'vi. I just hope I don't turn blue.

[nightflier]

Well our holidays were so busy, that I still haven't seen it. 'Hope there's no spoilers coming.

Ironically, I think I'm the only one left who has not seen it.

[Worf101]

Well our holidays were so busy, that I still haven't seen it. 'Hope there's no spoilers coming.

Ironically, I think I'm the only one left who has not seen it.
My friends that own the art theatrre in town (www.spectrum8.com) don't do blockbusters. I hate movie chains and have worked out a barter system with the Spectrum soooo I don't go to the mall much. I'll bust down and see it next weekend probably at the evil mall. Saw Holmes though.

Worf

[E-Stat]

I gave in to the pressure of everyone I know telling me "You gotta see it you hard-headed moron!" and went last night.
Did you see it at an IMAX theater? If not, you need to do so. I felt as though I was still in the story an hour later. It made quite an emotional contact with me.

rw

[3LB]

I tried twice this holiday break to see this movie but all the 3D screens are booked days in advance. Our schedule is such that we can't commit days away for a movie. There are only a couple of IMAX screens in and around the Puget Sound and requires quite an effort to see a movie on one of them.

[Geoffcin]

I tried twice this holiday break to see this movie but all the 3D screens are booked days in advance. Our schedule is such that we can't commit days away for a movie. There are only a couple of IMAX screens in and around the Puget Sound and requires quite an effort to see a movie on one of them.

It's the same way here and we've got several IMAX theaters within a half hour drive. I wouldn't worry about not getting to see it though, as it looks like Avatar will be playing for quite some time.

My advice is that if there's a chance that your not going to be able to buy tickets at the venue then it's best to buy them ahead of time online.

[nightflier]

Not to be a party-crasher, but any idea when it will be out on disk/BR for purchase?

[E-Stat]

Not to be a party-crasher, but any idea when it will be out on disk/BR for purchase?
Give it at least six months. It just crested the $1B mark recently.

rw

[Geoffcin]

Not to be a party-crasher, but any idea when it will be out on disk/BR for purchase?

Probably a few weeks before "Avatar part deux" hits the theaters.

[Geoffcin]

Avatar has overtaken "Return of the King" as the second highest grossing picture of all time.

http://filmonic.com/avatar-overtakes-return-of-the-king-762

And I haven't even gotten to see it again!

[jvc]

We went this past Sunday to see it, at an Imax theater in 3D. A bit too much tree hugging, but not too bad. The 3D effects are spectacular! They alone, are worth seeing the movie. With all the talk about 3D being the big thing at CES, and the coming thing in home theaters, if it's 3D like used in Avatar, I'll definitely embrace the technology. But I'll have nothing to do with the red & blue lens crap.

[nightflier]

So will the DVD be in 3D (lenses included, I presume)?

[Gerald Cooperberg]

Via the AV Club, there is supposedly a sex scene that was cut from the movie that will be included on the DVD:

There's only one semi-sexy scene in James Cameron's blockbuster "Avatar," but what couldn't be shown in theaters you'll be able to watch in the privacy of your own home.

Cameron admitted in a recent group interview that "Avatar" did have a sex scene between Zoe Saldana's Neytiri, a Na’vi, and the avatar of Sam Worthington's character, Jake Sully, but he cut it out in favor of a PG-13 rating.

"That [scene] will be something for the special edition DVD, if you want to see how they have sex," Cameron said. (http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/06/avatar-sex-scene-on-dvd/)

Uh, Coop

[Troy]

Via the AV Club, there is supposedly a sex scene that was cut from the movie that will be included on the DVD:
Uh, Coop

Yeah, I heard about this. Already pimping the DVD, are they?

I think the Na'vi' version of Sigourney Weaver is the sexiest cartoon character since Jessica Rabbit.

[Geoffcin]

Yeah, I heard about this. Already pimping the DVD, are they?

I think the Na'vi' version of Sigourney Weaver is the sexiest cartoon character since Jessica Rabbit.

While I agree with your sentiments re; Sigourney, you really can't call any of the principle Na'vi characters "cartoons" since their movement was done by direct motion capture. They are more like enhanced visual representations of the actors. In effect the Avatars were digitally painted onto the actors. Certainly there's no scene in the whole film that looks "cartoonish" in any way.

This actually bring us an interesting conundrum. There's no way that Avatar is not going to get nominated for a host of Oscars.With that being said, how would you go about awarding something to Zoe Saldana? Best Actress? Certainly she's done much more than voice over work, and in any other movie that's what she would get nominated for. Remember it's not just the gross physical motion either, all the facial expressions were done by direct capture too. Does that diminish the actor's input to the point of NOT being able to be nominated for an award?

Certainly if the academy overlooks Zoe's performance, one that I thought stood out as very Oscar worthy, they are going to piss off both her and more importantly Cameron, and you don't piss off your #1 money maker. Avatar may wind up to be the highest grossing movie of all time! It's going to be interesting to see how the academy figures this all out. They might even have to add a new category, or several!

[nightflier]

Adding a new category for actor and actress, would certainly make the event a little more than a winner-takes-all kind of affair - twice as many chances to get an award or nomination.

[Gerald Cooperberg]

This actually bring us an interesting conundrum. There's no way that Avatar is not going to get nominated for a host of Oscars.With that being said, how would you go about awarding something to Zoe Saldana? Best Actress? Certainly she's done much more than voice over work, and in any other movie that's what she would get nominated for. Remember it's not just the gross physical motion either, all the facial expressions were done by direct capture too. Does that diminish the actor's input to the point of NOT being able to be nominated for an award?

Didn't this same debate rear its head with Gollum (and to a lesser extent Andy Serkis' performance as King Kong)? I guess Brad Pitt got nominated for Benjamin Button, which isn't that far off. Would it change your opinion if it wasn't motion capture? What if the animator just modeled the facial expressions on the voice-over actor (which happens a lot, right)? Is the whole notion of nominating individual actors willfully ignoring that most acting performances also bear the fingerprints of the director (or animator, etc) and aren't always an individual feat as we'd like to believe?

-Coop

[emaidel]

Well, everyone's had his say, and now it's time for me to join in. I saw Avatar a couple of weeks ago and am still in awe of how good a film it is. I totally disagree with the negative comments about the writing of the film, and found it one of the most dazzling visual feasts, and emotionally involving films I've ever seen.

I found The Abyss a bit long and slow, but ultimately worthwhile. Aliens was a helluva scary and exciting horror flick, and far and away the best of the three Alien films. Terminator 2 likewise was the best of that cycle, and while not the most intellectually-inspiring film ever made, it was superb film-making. Titanic blew me away, by managing to keep my full attention for its 3-hour length with a rather sappy love story, and my actually caring for the characters. It also set all-new CGI standards for the day.

I disagree with comments that Ratatouille was "peurile," as I found that animated film exceptionally entertaining, and considerably above others of that ilk. Star Trek, released this past summer, was far and away the best film in that series - ever, and well worth the praise it received from critics nationwide.

My two cents.

[Troy]

While I agree with your sentiments re; Sigourney, you really can't call any of the principle Na'vi characters "cartoons" since their movement was done by direct motion capture. They are more like enhanced visual representations of the actors. In effect the Avatars were digitally painted onto the actors. Certainly there's no scene in the whole film that looks "cartoonish" in any way.

Maybe to you. While Avatar is quite advanced over past motion capture characters, there is still no mistaking that they are animated. And they have features that are exaggerated. Cartoonish? That's just semantics. Do they have to appear cartoonish (IE: like Elmer Fudd) for the animation to be considered a cartoon? I say no. Animation=Cartoon.


This actually bring us an interesting conundrum. There's no way that Avatar is not going to get nominated for a host of Oscars.With that being said, how would you go about awarding something to Zoe Saldana? Best Actress? Certainly she's done much more than voice over work, and in any other movie that's what she would get nominated for. Remember it's not just the gross physical motion either, all the facial expressions were done by direct capture too. Does that diminish the actor's input to the point of NOT being able to be nominated for an award?

Motion capture=animation. Period. Animated characters have never been eligible for acting oscar® contention.

Yes, MC introduces an interesting conundrum. I have no idea how you determine where the line is for an actor getting a nomination if the character they portray is animated.


Certainly if the academy overlooks Zoe's performance, one that I thought stood out as very Oscar worthy, they are going to piss off both her and more importantly Cameron, and you don't piss off your #1 money maker. Avatar may wind up to be the highest grossing movie of all time! It's going to be interesting to see how the academy figures this all out. They might even have to add a new category, or several!

Well, I'm gonna disagree, there isn't a single acting performance in Avatar (animated or otherwise) that deserves a nomination, so we don't have to worry about it. Yet.

I suspect most actors don't like the idea of animated characters getting oscar® noms, whether they are MC or not.

I also think that your " you don't piss off your #1 money maker." comment, as it applies to acting nominations doesn't hold water. While this is true for most of the other major oscar® categories, the acting oscars® usually have nothing to do with box office. A look at nominations of the past will bear this out.

And to anyone that finds the writing in Avatar to be good, I direct you to this hilarious gem I found on the internets:

http://www.designshed.com/samplestuff/pocatar.jpg

[Feanor]

...
And to anyone that finds the writing in Avatar to be good, I direct you to this hilarious gem I found on the internets:

http://www.designshed.com/samplestuff/pocatar.jpg

So what's your point, Troy? I'm told there are only ten seven basic plots in all of literature. Is it a big deal if Avatar uses one of them?

By the way, I think Stephen Lang's portrayal of Colonel Miles Quaritch was about perfect as the character allowed.

[Geoffcin]

So what's your point, Troy? I'm told there are only ten basic plots in all of literature. Is it a big deal if Avatar uses one of them?

By the way, I think Stephen Lang's portrayal of Colonel Miles Quaritch was about perfect as the character allowed.

Yeah, there's some great caracter acting in Avatar. Lang looked like he could chew on a steel bar and spit out nails! How about Giovanni Ribisi as the corperate slime-ball? Also about as perfect as you could portray.

[Troy]

Yeah, there's some great caracter acting in Avatar. Lang looked like he could chew on a steel bar and spit out nails! How about Giovanni Ribisi as the corperate slime-ball? Also about as perfect as you could portray.

Both actors were over-acting horribly in these roles. Good acting is about subtlety and nuance, not scenery chewing. Both characters sorely lacked any sort of duality or inner conflict, critical for a worthwhile acting role.

I'll agree all day long at how impressive the visuals were in this movie, but love for the acting and writing? No way. In that regard, this movie was utterly pedestrian.

[Troy]

So what's your point, Troy? I'm told there are only ten basic plots in all of literature. Is it a big deal if Avatar uses one of them?


Yes, that's true about the 10 basic plots. What sets apart a new story based on one of these plots, however, is it's reinvention of that plot. Just plugging new names into a previously written plot is not what I would call a reinvention. It's just lazy.

[Troy]

Adding a new category for actor and actress, would certainly make the event a little more than a winner-takes-all kind of affair - twice as many chances to get an award or nomination.

I disagree with this too. The more awards given, the more it dilutes the meaning of winning that award. It cheapens the brand. The increase from 5 to 10 nominations and the addition of the animated category are both bad moves. But the oscars are more about business now then they've ever been, so I wouldn't be surprised to see them add still more categories and noms every year.

Plus, the stupid show will be 13 hours long.

[Geoffcin]

Both actors were over-acting horribly in these roles. Good acting is about subtlety and nuance, not scenery chewing.

I'll agree all day long at how impressive the visuals were in this movie, but love for the acting and writing? No way. In that regard, this movie was utterly pedestrian.

Good acting means you convey your caracter to the audiance so that they understand exactly what you are trying to tell them about it. The trick is to do that and appear that your "real"and not acting. The best actors all know how to "overact" acccordingly.

I still chuckle when I think of Ribisi saying "Look at all that chedder!"

Oh, and I'll agree all day long that the plot was copied pretty much wholesale. Reminds me of another blockbuster with the same problem, heck that one even had it's own problem with "overacting"; can you say "Star Wars"

[nightflier]

I'm told there are only ten basic plots in all of literature.

I seriously doubt that. What exactly do you include in "all of literature"?

[Troy]

Reminds me of another blockbuster with the same problem, heck that one even had it's own problem with "overacting"; can you say "Star Wars"

Yeah, The acting was awful in Star Wars too.

And there were no best acting nominations anywhere near the Star Wars franchise, right? Isn't that what we were talking about?

[Geoffcin]

Yeah, The acting was awful in Star Wars too.

And there were no best acting nominations anywhere near the Star Wars franchise, right? Isn't that what we were talking about?

Funny how even with the so-so acting Star Wars changed the movie industry.

Expect the same effect from Avatar. Even though the acting was much better! :thumbsup:

[Feanor]

I seriously doubt that. What exactly do you include in "all of literature"?
Apart from the fact that I was just razing Troy, there was somebody somewhere who proposed that there are only seven (not ten -- my mistake) basic plots. Of course we're talking about very high level plot descriptions.

HERE (http://www.ipl.org/div/farq/plotFARQ.html) is one discussion of basic plots. This also talks about 1, 3, and 20 basic plots.

There is also an author, Christopher Booker, who fairly recently wrote a book about seven basic plots, (different from the ones above). See a description HERE (http://fiction-plots-pacing.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_seven_basic_plots). (Arguably Avatar follows the "Rebirth" plot.)

[atomicAdam]

This might be more entertaining than the movie. Not that I've seen it. NSFW language.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uJarz7BYnHA&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uJarz7BYnHA&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dLzKwTcGO_0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dLzKwTcGO_0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'll be seeing it after xmas at our local Imax theater. I would say that the tech in the movie would absolutely need an Imax theater to work correctly so if your seeing it at a regular theater, or waiting for the DVD/BlueRay to come out your not going to be seeing the movie as the director intended.

This is not quite correct. When this movie comes out on Blu ray(at least), it will look exactly like what you saw in the theater - it will not be a red and blue affair this time around.


I've seen "Up!" in 3-D and while it was quite remarkable (both as a film AND the 3-D effects), the tech is not fully up to fast movement in 3-D. There's noticable judder when fast action takes place. Probably because of the split frame rate. If they can answer that problem then I'm all for 3-D taking over the theaters.

You are not seeing the same format of 3D that was shown in the theaters. There is no judder in the theatrical 3D system because the differing frame rates and shutter sequencing is locked together to prevent judder. What you see is probably an artifact of the red/blue system, not the 2D plus meta data system used in the theaters, and what will be eventually used at home.

[Kam]

This is not quite correct. When this movie comes out on Blu ray(at least), it will look exactly like what you saw in the theater - it will not be a red and blue affair this time around.



You are not seeing the same format of 3D that was shown in the theaters. There is no judder in the theatrical 3D system because the differing frame rates and shutter sequencing is locked together to prevent judder. What you see is probably an artifact of the red/blue system, not the 2D plus meta data system used in the theaters, and what will be eventually used at home.

not meant as a sidetrack, but holyjeebus i just noticed you have FOUR 15" subs in your system??? daaaaaayyyymmmmmm. das-nice. :)

[Troy]

Yeah, that guy's reviews are hilarious. If you have the time, watch his 7 part review of the Star Wars prequels.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKtZmQgxrI

Where did the youtube embed feature go?

[thekid]

Well my wife and I felt compelled to finally see this today. Thankfully we saw it in 3D.
I am sure I am raining on a lot of people's parade but if I was to sum this movie up it would be;

Dances With Wolves+Ewoks+Revenge of an Inconvienient Truth = Avatar

Visually stunning and great soundwork but an obvious and unoriginal story. I hope it does well in the technical categories tonight but it should not be "Best Picture".

Just my 2 cents....

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Well my wife and I felt compelled to finally see this today. Thankfully we saw it in 3D.
I am sure I am raining on a lot of people's parade but if I was to sum this movie up it would be;

Dances With Wolves+Ewoks+Revenge of an Inconvienient Truth = Avatar

Visually stunning and great soundwork but an obvious and unoriginal story. I hope it does well in the technical categories tonight but it should not be "Best Picture".

Just my 2 cents....

Nah, no rain here. Nobody can overwrite my own personal opinion of anything based on entertainment. That is a to each his own area.

[Worf101]

Well my wife and I felt compelled to finally see this today. Thankfully we saw it in 3D.
I am sure I am raining on a lot of people's parade but if I was to sum this movie up it would be;

Dances With Wolves+Ewoks+Revenge of an Inconvienient Truth = Avatar

Visually stunning and great soundwork but an obvious and unoriginal story. I hope it does well in the technical categories tonight but it should not be "Best Picture".

Just my 2 cents....
Seems like the Academy listened to you afterall there Keed. Congrats.

Worf

[Feanor]

Well my wife and I felt compelled to finally see this today. Thankfully we saw it in 3D.
I am sure I am raining on a lot of people's parade but if I was to sum this movie up it would be;

Dances With Wolves+Ewoks+Revenge of an Inconvienient Truth = Avatar

Visually stunning and great soundwork but an obvious and unoriginal story. I hope it does well in the technical categories tonight but it should not be "Best Picture".

Just my 2 cents....
Well, looks like the Academy agreed with you. No real argument from me either.

I haven't seen Hurt Locker yet so I have no personal opinion on that. Funny thing, though, about Hurt Locker is that while the consensus among professional critics has been pretty much, "terrific", the rection among the viewing public has been more like, "not bad".

Dances With Wolves+Ewoks+Revenge of an Inconvienient Truth + FernGully = Avatar. Yeah true, but I enjoyed it anyway since I go to flicks for passive entertainment not to stoke my effete-snob critic hauteur.

[Tarheel_]

Maybe to you. While Avatar is quite advanced over past motion capture characters, there is still no mistaking that they are animated. And they have features that are exaggerated. Cartoonish? That's just semantics. Do they have to appear cartoonish (IE: like Elmer Fudd) for the animation to be considered a cartoon? I say no. Animation=Cartoon.



Motion capture=animation. Period. Animated characters have never been eligible for acting oscar® contention.

Yes, MC introduces an interesting conundrum. I have no idea how you determine where the line is for an actor getting a nomination if the character they portray is animated.



Well, I'm gonna disagree, there isn't a single acting performance in Avatar (animated or otherwise) that deserves a nomination, so we don't have to worry about it. Yet.

I suspect most actors don't like the idea of animated characters getting oscar® noms, whether they are MC or not.

I also think that your " you don't piss off your #1 money maker." comment, as it applies to acting nominations doesn't hold water. While this is true for most of the other major oscar® categories, the acting oscars® usually have nothing to do with box office. A look at nominations of the past will bear this out.

And to anyone that finds the writing in Avatar to be good, I direct you to this hilarious gem I found on the internets:

http://www.designshed.com/samplestuff/pocatar.jpg

Boy am I glad to find this...i tried to explain this movie to my wife (didn't see the movie) and said basically the whole Cowboy -- Indian story and this thread just proves what i was trying to say...what a joke. We were so disappointed in this movie because the lack of originality.
Could care less if i see it again. A remake sure, but don't pitch it as something new.

[RGA]

I too finally caved in and saw Avatar. The thing is the funny serial critic is correct on a lot of points painting the military out to be dunderhead unfeeling neanderthals who live to kill. On the other hand the main character was one of those members of the military who was the pivotal character to create change. Yes it's Dances With Wolves with Pocahontas in space. Or Aliens meets Pocahontas because the military in Aliens was as goofy as Avatar. Although Aliens IMO is a much better movie than Avatar because of better human drama.

And yes the acting was mostly two dimensional and no it's not a great film. But it is a good film. I mean ripping off Dances with Wolves or pocahontas isn't exactly a horrible idea. These stories of nature versus man's disregard for nature is one of the main ideas today and throw in a huge amount of Aristotlean spectacle and you'll have a solidly entertaining film. The movie is something like 2 hours and 40 minutes and the visuals and story carried me through their ride.

It's not best picture material - nor should it have been nominated in my opinion - but it was entertaining and it did seem to transport me to another world like few films of this type do. I just wish they would make the bad guys a lot more rounded. Sure they can be evil greedy monsters but perhaps not so on the nose about it. Cameron has to place the human drama above the special effects - he did it with the original Terminator - perhaps because of a small budget. With the large budget the human story is thinner and two dimensional so all you have is pretty pictures. This is why Jaws was so successful - the main special effects piece was the shark but the human drama of the three men on the boat is what made it a masterpiece and still holds up to this day. Avatar's story just isn't that good and once the special effects are surpassed - there will be little there to really admire.

I have not seen Hurt Locker - but Inglorious Basterds IMO is a much better film than Avatar.

[Kam]

Clavamox is stable in the presence of gastric acid and is not significantly influenced by gastric or intestinal contents. The 2 components are rapidly absorbed resulting in amoxicillin and clavulanic acid concentrations in clavamox birds (http://clavamox.agilityhoster.com/items/clavamox-birds.html), urine, and tissues similar to those produced when each is administered alone. Amoxicillin and clavulanic acid diffuse readily into most body tissues and fluids with the exception of brain and spinal fluid, which amoxicillin penetrates adequately when meninges are inflamed. Most of the amoxicillin is clavamox dog contraindications (http://clavamox.agilityhoster.com/items/clavamox-dog-contraindications.html) excreted unchanged in the urine. Clavulanic acid’s penetration into spinal fluid is unknown at this time. Approximately 15% of the administered dose of clavulanic acid is excreted in the urine within the first 6 hours. Clavamox combines the cat antibiotics clavamox no perscription (http://clavamox.agilityhoster.com/items/cat-antibiotics-clavamox-no-perscription.html) distinctive properties of a broad-spectrum antibiotic and a ?-lactamase inhibitor to effectively extend the antibacterial spectrum of amoxicillin to include ?-lactamaseproducing as well as non-?-lactamase-producing aerobic and anaerobic organisms. The susceptibility of these organisms has also been demonstrated in ampicillin amoxicillin penicillin (http://clavamox.agilityhoster.com/items/ampicillin-amoxicillin-penicillin.html), vivo studies. Studies have demonstrated that both aerobic and anaerobic flora are isolated from gingival cultures of dogs with clinical evidence of peridontal disease. Both gram-positive and gram-negative aerobic and Clavamox (http://clavamox.agilityhoster.com/items/index.html), isolates indicate sensitivity to amoxicillin/ clavulanic acid during antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

It's about time someone else saw the blatant way Cameron was discussing the issues of Clavamox through the plight of the N'avi! I knew someone else would see the similarities between the way clavulanic acid is excreted in the urine within the first 6 hours and how Jake Sully would connect to Neytiri.

Finally!! Someone gets it!!

[Feanor]

It's about time someone else saw the blatant way Cameron was discussing the issues of Clavamox through the plight of the N'avi! I knew someone else would see the similarities between the way clavulanic acid is excreted in the urine within the first 6 hours and how Jake Sully would connect to Neytiri.

Finally!! Someone gets it!!
WTF is this all about, and why does it matter?

[Kam]

WTF is this all about, and why does it matter?

in all seriousness i would guess it's a pure spam post. i was just having fun.

[GMichael]

in all seriousness i would guess it's a pure spam post. i was just having fun.

I got that part. Keep up the good work KAM. It's great to see you around lately.

[Rich-n-Texas]

My pet cat was getting Clavamox after I brought her home from the vet. Pet antibiotic.


WTF is this all about, and why does it matter?
See that little triangle with the exclamation point in it Bill? :rolleyes:

[Feanor]

My pet cat was getting Clavamox after I brought her home from the vet. Pet antibiotic.


See that little triangle with the exclamation point in it Bill? :rolleyes:

Hummmm ... :aureola:

[Kam]

ok now the clavamox relation to the n'avis plight and the jack sully connection i thought was pretty blatantly obvious. but stromectal? please, were we watching the same movie?

i think you might be confusing clash of the titans, seeing as the same actor was in both movies, as stromectal is far more relevant to clash of the titans than it is avatar. seriously, this is rediculous. stromectal and avatar. hahahaha. that's just ludicrous. now who wants to talk about stromectal and clash of the titans? there is an amazing discussion if i ever heard of one.