5punk

Grimmie wrote:Gordon Ramsay has earned that hype and fame though.

So now James Cameron isn't famous? I suggest you get ye to IMDB and realise who you're talking about.

Grimmie wrote:Gordon Ramsay has earned that hype and fame though, and he's probably got a pretty banging restaurant to boot.
Nobody but the love/hate-everything critics saw Avatar beforehand, and it's a brand new film. I'm not sure you can compare the two.

Kinda mixing the comparison, which was between james cameron and gordon ramsay... but then again james cameron's made some films I thought were utter shite anyway, so (at least personally) it's not a case of omfg-films-golden-boy-who-does-no-wrong all of a sudden disappoints by having an unoriginal story.

Anyway... oh noes, an unoriginal plot in a big block buster film (but at least one that was packaged in a decent-to-good overall presentation/experience).

Lets
Get
Angry

I guess I was lucky seeing the film as soon as possible then; I wasn't exposed to much hype. Apart from some advertising, a trailer and a favourable review from Empire. Also I had in mind that the director's previous proper film was Titanic, which I didn't enjoy, or even watch properly.

It's a shame that others enjoyment was tainted by overzealous praise for what is essentially a highly polished 3D cinema product. And I'm sure the film will drop from the #37 spot on IMDb before too long, especially once the home releases are available.

Who's Gordon Ramsay?

MORDETH LESTOK wrote:Who's Gordon Ramsay?

this chap

I said "Who"? not "Woo" lol

funny you should say that, they do look alike.

you linked WEY..

Anyways, I know GR is that screaming chef. I sometimes catch a few seconds of the commercial before I hit fastforward..

Historically WEY was likened to Ramsay. It's a running joke.

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:I suggest you get ye to IMDB and realise who you're talking about.

On reading this, I realised that, actually, I didn't know what he had directed and what he hadn't. I have discovered:

T2 = Awesome, cant fault him there
Titanic = cheesy story (I mean the romance bit, not the boat part) made watchable by decent special effects.
The Abyss = cheesy story made watchable by decent special effects. Hmm.
Alien = cheesy story made watchable by decent (and scary) special effects.
The Terminator = Probably great at the time, but I saw it *after* T2, and in comparison its poop.

Got to say, other than T2 I think he's pretty much on par with Avatar.

I disagree about T2, Terminator, and Alien. Terminator was a great modern take on The Mummy with what was an interesting Sci-Fi premise and dark, apocalyptic tones. By comparison T2 was a special effects bonanza rehash of the same story. Alien was a claustrophobic thriller with an interesting setting in an era of teenage slasher movies. All were defined at least in part by their special effects though, it's true, but I wouldn't say they were all cheesy.

Dog Pants wrote:Terminator was a great modern take on The Mummy with what was an interesting Sci-Fi premise and dark, apocalyptic tones. By comparison T2 was a special effects bonanza rehash of the same story

Like I said though, I saw T2 first. For me, Terminator was the same story with significantly shittier special effects.

Plus, for some reason, original terminator never scared me, whereas liquid metal terminator gives me the heeby jeebies.

hmm...thought he did more than these:

Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) - Awesome but with some cheese
The Abyss (1989) - could have been Awesome but ran too long and ending was kinda meh - but not nearly as bad as the last Indiana Jones flick...
Aliens (1986) - Awesome
The Terminator (1984) - Awesome

Some of the Top Sci-Fi movies ever...

I can understand that. I think a lot of people saw T2 first, along with its huge hype machine. I did like the T1000 as well, but the T800 seemed so much more believable (within the context of the film). There's a bit where it shows a rebel shelter being entered by a T800 in disguise, with the dogs going mental it him before he goes on a shooting spree. It's Arnie playing it and you know what's going to happen. It's a great atmosphere setter for what's to come later as you know what the thing's capable of.

Damn, can't find a youtube clip.

I enjoyed it. But because of the showcase for 3D rather than anything else. As Pete said, it's a ride.

Story was OK. Nothing original, but not much is these days. Couldn't quite work out whether I was watching Pocahontas mixed with Star Wars or Final Fantasy mixed with Dancing with Wolves. Actually, maybe Pocahontas & Final Fantasy then...

What I do know is:-

* I'm looking forward to more 3D films
* I'm looking forward to 3D technology permeating into the living room with Video and Games. Maybe mixed with Johnny Lee's head tracking type gizmo's would be even better.
* I'm looking forward to the next generation of laser discs (green) and Ultra High Definition Video
* Pixars "Up" was a much better film than Avatar and I should have seen that in 3D.

They're starting to bring out TVs and suchlike that do the whole polarized felcher thing ...

But to be honest I think stereoscopic stuff is all a bit gimmicky. There's ways of loading 3D drivers for directX games. No one really uses it. 3D content is also reliant on knowing the size of the screen you're displaying on ... I'm just not sure it's ready for home use yet.

Currently am running one in my living area using two projectors with filters and a stereoscopic player - its a lot of effort and tweaking to make things look right. Also the work flow is pretty under developed for most FX houses.

cheeseandham wrote:As Pete spoodie said, it's a ride.

Credit where credit's due.

I too am quite excited by the prospect of seeing more decent 3D content after Avatar. And perhaps other technologies can be introduced as well, to revive the flagging cinema industry.

spoodie wrote:to revive the flagging cinema industry.

Perhaps movies with a decent story might help more than a $240 million tech demo?

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:Perhaps movies with a decent story might help more than a $240 million tech demo?

That hasn't worked for years. Watching films at home is good enough for most people, with their big TVs. If cinemas can offer a lot more than people can easily get at home they're on to a winner.

That's a good point actually. If the cinemas can offer something that people can't get at home then it stands to get more people watching the big screens. However, I'd like to see films that will also be worth watching at home.