Print 87 comment(s) - last by jonmcc33.. on Apr 29 at 1:22 PM

Avatar continues to rake in truckloads of cash
Fans with some Samsung Blu-ray players may not be able to watch

Avatar became the highest grossing film ever when it hit theaters last year. The film drew huge crowds and while it lined the coffers of 20th Century Fox and the wallet of James Cameron, the movie drew lots of interest to 3D in theaters and homes. Even though the film garnered lots of fans, it also had a few critics including the U.S. Marine Corps.

20th Century Fox has announced that Avatar is the best selling movie in America on both Blu-ray and DVD. The film is also the best selling Blu-ray movie of all time with 2.7 million copies sold in only four days on store shelves in North America alone. The previous record was 2.5 million units. 

In all,
Avatar has sold 6.5 million copies (DVD + Blu-ray) since it launched on Thursday of last week. The downside to the popularity of Avatar on Blu-ray is that some buyers of the movie are finding that the Blu-ray disc won’t play on some players on the market.

The specific player cited in reports is the Samsung BD-UP5000. The reason the player reportedly can’t play
Avatar is because of a firmware update that is missing and needed by the device. Other Samsung Blu-ray players are also facing the same issue. Presumably, Samsung will be rushing the update out for the players since the Avatar is so popular.

Some users are claiming that it's not a firmware issue, but some sort of DRM issue with the movie itself pointing the finger at 20th Century Fox rather than Samsung.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By fatedtodie on 4/26/2010 12:40:39 PM , Rating: 1
I saw this movie and I still don't understand why it made/is making so much.
Bad acting
Cliche story
visual effects

what else was there? Did I just miss something? Did I not recieve the subliminal messages that told me I have to watch this several times and give all my money to James Cameron?

The effects werent THAT good that it was "better" than any movie, let alone enough to have everyone buy into it.

Please tell me what about this did I miss so I can understand because to me I would barely give it a 6.5 out of 10.

RE: why?
By BladeVenom on 4/26/2010 12:49:58 PM , Rating: 5
Sure the movie was just a rewrite of Pocahontas, but it was an amazing tech demo. Imagine what could be done with that in better movie, or games.

RE: why?
By consumerwhore on 4/27/2010 2:38:31 PM , Rating: 1
But that does not explain why throngs of idiots are buying it on DVD where they are left with:

1. All of the Pocahontas rewrite.
2. None of the "amazing tech demo".

RE: why?
By majorpain on 4/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: why?
By oab on 4/26/2010 1:40:06 PM , Rating: 2
The "special" effects in Twilight were terrible. I'd seen better stuff in mid 90's tv-shows.

RE: why?
By Reclaimer77 on 4/26/2010 1:55:28 PM , Rating: 2
What you didn't like the Flash Gordon style swooosh animated behind people moving super fast so the audience would get they are moving fast ? lol

RE: why?
By lainofthewired on 4/26/2010 12:59:14 PM , Rating: 3
Man, people's tastes are a fickle as the wind. But this movie had just the right amount of visuals and cliche to provide the right kind of escapism that's worth almost $2.8 billion worldwide. That stuff's cliche for a reason. There was a lot of visual noise to cover up the crap. And the acting wasn't that bad.

RE: why?
By bradmshannon on 4/26/2010 1:01:37 PM , Rating: 4
Other than the cliche story and uber liberal message, it was a very enjoyable movie. I'd give it upwards of 8 out of 10. But then again, I liked AvP:R...

RE: why?
By HotFoot on 4/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: why?
By Reclaimer77 on 4/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: why?
By MrBlastman on 4/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: why?
By MrBlastman on 4/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: why?
By HotFoot on 4/26/2010 3:09:48 PM , Rating: 2
No. My point is more ironic. As in, if today conservative values mean fighting terror with terror and using shock and awe (where none is necessary), then what the hell happened to conservative values?

If one ties this film to the Iraq war, that would be to say that Cameron believes the real reason for the invasion was for oil. Maybe that's true. Is that a liberal point of view, or is it just anti-Bush? Or is everything anti-Bush by definition liberal?

Put another way, if Avatar reminds you so much about the Iraq war, what does that tell you about what you think about the Iraq war? If you believe the Iraq war was about enforcing the UN resolutions when Iraq flouted them, or about removing dictator who was horrible to his people - or about pre-emptively taking out a power that was threatening regional stability, then there are no correlations between Iraq and Pandora. If the situation in Pandora seems so much like what's happened in Iraq, maybe that just means you think the invasion was actually about oil and not about one of the various other justifications for it.

RE: why?
By Reclaimer77 on 4/26/2010 3:16:57 PM , Rating: 2
First off lets get something straight. It's not Reclaimer only saying this stuff. There are thousands, maybe millions, of people online who also recognized the CLEAR anti-Iraq anti-military messages behind Avatar. If I'm wrong, than I guess everyone ELSE is wrong, and vice versa.

RE: why?
By HotFoot on 4/26/2010 3:22:12 PM , Rating: 5
How is that relevant to what I just said?

RE: why?
By Phenick on 4/26/2010 3:36:34 PM , Rating: 4
He isn't saying you are wrong, what he is saying is that when you make a movie like Avatar and you put themes underneath it and everyone assumes they are planned allegories to something else then it would be safe to assume that everyone equates the author of the fictions view to the reality of the second thing.

As in he is saying that EVERYONE must be right in believing that underneath it all Iraq was just about the oil and not about the 10 things they tried to sell us on in the media as it happened. Why? Because none of those things are actually depicted in the film.

RE: why?
By QuantumPion on 4/27/2010 8:38:56 AM , Rating: 3
Obvious troll is obvious.

Using those terms, previously associated with the fighting of Islamo-fascists and Saddam Hussein- in the context of this movie were applied to US marines murdering innocent natives.

RE: why?
By FITCamaro on 4/26/2010 4:21:05 PM , Rating: 2
You are truly in denial if you can't admit the movie was a huge anti-corporate slam. I didn't go into it thinking that but while watching it clearly saw the impression Cameron was trying to convey about his views of large corporations. That they and the military will do whatever they want to get what they want.

That said I enjoyed the movie. While not completely original I enjoyed it. I won't be buying it yet though because I'm not going to buy it again when they release the extended edition.

RE: why?
By wallijonn on 4/26/2010 7:06:23 PM , Rating: 2
That they and the military will do whatever they want to get what they want.

You must have missed the movies, "Alien," and "Resident Evil," to name just two...

RE: why?
By gralex on 4/26/2010 9:06:46 PM , Rating: 2
"You know, Burke, I don't know which species is worse. You don't see them fucking each other over for a goddamn percentage."

RE: why?
By crimson117 on 4/27/2010 9:25:49 AM , Rating: 1
That they and the military will do whatever they want to get what they want.

And this opposes your understanding of the world?

RE: why?
By xler8r on 4/26/2010 1:16:50 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't this release the same one that has just the movie and "no frills"? I seem to remember there being multiple releases....

RE: why?
By delphinus100 on 4/26/2010 1:35:09 PM , Rating: 2
I believe the 'deluxe' version with assorted features will be out in November (I choose to wait for that), and a 3-D version next year...

I imagine it'll help sell a few more 3-D TV/BluRay players than might otherwise have been the case at that time, too.

(If it seems strange to you that people might do that, remember, big-screen TV sales promotions in general, increase near Super Bowl time as well.)

RE: why?
By geddarkstorm on 4/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: why?
By therealnickdanger on 4/26/2010 1:19:06 PM , Rating: 2
The effects weren't that good? Really? Name one movie with better CG.

I saw this movie in the theater 4 times and bought the Blu-Ray with pride. The 2-D Blu-Ray looks better than it ever did in the theater. The story is nothing original, but who cares? It's a fun ride (except for the boring hippie drum circles which I can now fast forward through) and is the most impressive Blu-Ray I have seen to date. I have never seen more detail on screen than in this movie. The audio also gives me a boner. Just sayin'. This movie is just further evidence that buying into Blu-Ray was a solid move.

My opinion of this movie is based almost entirely on its technical merits alone. The rest of my opinion is based on the entertaining action (big guns, mech suits, and general ownage). So... who cares? I'm glad this movie did so well and I'm glad Cameron is a rich SOB and I hope he makes sequels.

RE: why?
By Reclaimer77 on 4/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: why?
By jonmcc33 on 4/26/2010 2:37:22 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't look real? No, you are confusing Avatar with The Hulk movie. Now THAT didn't look real.

RE: why?
By jojo29 on 4/26/2010 3:04:38 PM , Rating: 1
See, Reclaimer, its people like you that will never "get it", your so caught up with things being "real", having political meaning, or just being too deep.

Thats the whole point of a movie, a summer movie, like Avatar is: ITS JUST FOR FUN. The movie itself doesn't take itself too seriously, at all. THATS WHY it uses such a generic storyline.

The effects look "cartoony". I'm sorry, but i thought they opted for a more "artistic" look. Lets take a look at two movies, both of which have some of the best CGI in a movie thus far:

District 9. Great job here PJ, the damn scenes look damn near real...BUT, notice that the colors are can say 'lifeless'...hey maybe that was the GOAL of PJ...the aliens were malnourished, almost lifeless, as are the, it was shot in a very run down area....notice thats his THEME, but it does look 'real'

Now look at Avatar. It takes place in a JUNGLE, which is quite the opposite setting than a run down city: ITS FULL OF LIFE, and unless your a moron, most jungles are chalk full of add the sci-fi element...if you were to ever be in real jungle, you would be very surprised at the amount of color, right down to its animals and flora...

Two different movies with two different themes, done perfectly as "realistic" as possible...

Avatar is not meant to be taken serious...its not meant to win Acting Academy Awards...its meant as a fun flick and in that respects, it trumps District 9.

You also have to remember, Avatar came out, when really, no action movie was really out to compete against, nothing on its scale.

And really thats the point of action/adventure type movies: to entertain..some movies entertain you in a deep type of way such as The Davinci Code, Indiana Jones as a quick example of excellent plots and great dialogue.

But then there are just movies that entertain our senses and our sense of just being "awestruck", for example like Star Wars, when it first came out with its grand visual effects, or a movie like..just pick an Arnold or Stallone film for just balls out action...the acting is horrible but most people knew that going in, they went for the pure action

Avatar is in the middle, where it had its money on its visual effects, and just enough dialogue/acting to keep, apparently over 2 billion entertained...

I'm glad companies are embracing CGI, im tired of all the current critics hating on the heavy use of it. I believe a lot of movies could have benefited from the use of MORE CGI, aka the Xmen Series, the AVP name a few...

RE: why?
By Reclaimer77 on 4/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: why?
By HotFoot on 4/26/2010 3:34:53 PM , Rating: 3
It's... a movie, Reclaimer. Sorry it couldn't cure cancer for you. There, I'm apologising for it, too.

RE: why?
By jojo29 on 4/26/2010 4:01:02 PM , Rating: 2
EVERY movie has its faults, even Braveheart, and trust me, that is my favorite movie.

I'm not trying apologize for anything, i'm just letting YOU know, you take movies WAY to seriously. I'm trying to let you know, your putting Avatar in the wrong category, it seems you want to put Avatar to movies with deep plots and a lot of character depth, but Avatar has none of that.

Avatar is all about its visuals, of which it has some of the, if not the best visuals of any movie to date. Period.

But, it has just enough plot/depth to keep most people, just entertained enough to keep watching, hell just read some of the comments here, most think the movie is "meh" but kept them entertained.

I don't think Avatar is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but , i can walk away and say 'hey, it was an alright movie', and is definitely gonna be THE new BR showpiece title for most BR owners. And thats what this movie is all about.

But hey, we are all different, if you didn't dig it, just say you didn't dig it, but you can't knock down faults that arent there.

The movie itself doesn't take itself too seriously, why should you? <---you know what i mean here? some movies take themselves too seriously

And you have to give credit where its due: namely its CG, although, since i am a gamer, i have seen much better "artistic styles" than in Avatar, Final Fantasy still has better "styled" floating islands lol

RE: why?
By jonmcc33 on 4/26/2010 4:23:18 PM , Rating: 2
Colors. Ones besides green and blue.

Green and blue? Did you miss the yellows? The purples? The pinks? The animals in Avatar were full of amazing colors.

RE: why?
By Reclaimer77 on 4/26/2010 4:55:46 PM , Rating: 2
The animals in Avatar were full of amazing colors.

You mean the Dinosaurs? Ooops, I mean, Space Dinosaurs!

RE: why?
By HefeRME on 4/26/2010 3:29:28 PM , Rating: 2
@jojo29 Avatar wasn't a summer movie, it was released December 18 2009

I didn't like the movie, visually it was stunning... but overall i thought it was meh..

You guys need to watch Mr. Plinketts review
Part 1:

RE: why?
By therealnickdanger on 4/26/2010 3:18:32 PM , Rating: 2
By the way, "CG" stands for "computer generated"...

Avatar was almost entirely CG, and photo-realistic, from the blades of grass to the mountain peaks (as real as flaoting mountains can be, I guess). District 9's effects were laughable at best and only composed a small percentage of the total shots. Seriously, that looked like a bad Havok demo. Blade Runner...? LOL Blade Runner is one of my all-time favorites, but certainly not because of its effects.

I'll concede that the only part about Avatar that looked like a cartoon were the Disney-ized faces, but even those looked more realistic than either movie you mentioned. Do people seriously believe that Avatar doesn't have the best CG of any movie released? It's like the Crysis of movies! Anyway, if you don't agree, then there's not much I can tell ya.

Epic fail. That, in of itself, is NOT a justification for paying to watch a movie. You have got to be a teenage kid. No doubt about it.

Says you, apparently. Is is perfect justification in my book. I'm in my 30s, thank you very much. My dad enjoyed it and he's almost 70. Not sure where this baseless hate is coming from, but it's just a movie, dude.

Let me guess, you thought the Star Wars prequals were awesome too didn't you? WOW lots of CG !!! It must be good.

Now you're just being mean.

The prequels had mostly half-assed CG, even for their time, but I was still entertained despite the massive plot holes, wooden performances, and the eternal void that Lucas peddled as a written script. I will buy them when they inevitably come out on Blu-Ray. I don't need my movies or my videogames to have epic story-telling or excessive character development. It's refreshing when they do, but the day I start taking media so seriously that I can't enjoy mindless entertainment... well, let's just say that I won't. I'll leave that up to folks like you.

RE: why?
By jojo29 on 4/26/2010 3:49:11 PM , Rating: 2
He wrapped up the point of what i was trying to say;

I dont need ALL of my movies to be full of deep plots and character developments, just needs to be fun"

My bad on the summer movie thing, big whoop, you guys are not idiots, you know what i meant by calling it a summer movie, its just there to be a fun, movie. Avatar brought a breath of fresh air, as we could agree, there wasn't much out there when it released

RE: why?
By Reclaimer77 on 4/26/2010 5:01:44 PM , Rating: 1
Again, missing the point. I don't care about the CGI ! Nobody does. It's a medium to tell a story, it shouldn't BE the entire story.

Avatar was a tech demo more than it was a movie. And he spent 10 times more than District 9, it damn well SHOULD look better. But Cameron still managed to make a movie much worse.

LOL Blade Runner is one of my all-time favorites, but certainly not because of its effects .

EXACTLY GODDAMNIT !!! Blade Runner's visuals were breathtaking and ahead of it's time. But that wasn't the entire point of the story. Are you getting it??

RE: why?
By jojo29 on 4/26/2010 6:27:16 PM , Rating: 2
"Again, missing the point. I don't care about the CGI ! Nobody does. It's a medium to tell a story, it shouldn't BE the entire story."

Some movies are about the medium, there have been countless movies that totally rely on its special effects some more so than others. Granted some movies do it better than others , Bladerunner <----but Bladerunner flopped at the box office, it didn't have the impact it did until it hit home, just as a fyi. BUT, i think Avatar is a case of overhype: people like yourself went into this movie with these huge expectations, i guess because of the $$ spent on the CG ( more on this later ) whereas i came in thinking it was gonna be exactly what i thought it was: A "tech" demo, as Fox/Cameron were both hyping the visuals, with a decent enough story to garner a very broad audience, and it couldn't have been done any other way.

Look, heres the conundrum: People always are quick to hang Hollywood for it's lack of creativity, YET, when an original movie comes out, usually it's met with pretty harsh reviews from critics like yourself, which makes studios NOT want to take risks with original content...blame yourselves..

Avatar is a good example of a "half" risk: the risk is in its full use of CG as the medium and the half is the broad plot...

District 9 cheaper than Avatar..true, but do you even know why Reclaimer that is so? I hope you do, but in case you don't, remember, Peter Jackson HAS HIS OWN CG studio, the costs to bring that studio up was more than likely covered with the LotR Trilogy and King Kong...THATS WHY District 9 was cheap...

RE: why?
By Reclaimer77 on 4/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: why?
By powerincarnate on 4/26/2010 10:54:56 PM , Rating: 2
I came late to this conversation, but if you didn't go see the movie, then this whole argument is moot.

Now, to throw in my two cents. People often times wonder things like why is Final Fantasy VII so loved, why do so many people buy the iphone, why was star wars so loved, why do so many people buy the japanese cars (minus recent issues, but honda, toyata, and to a lesser extent nissan). And now avatar.

Reason is because they usually do a lot of things right, and not a lot of things wrong. For example, was the ipod the first mp3 player, no but they sure did a lot of good things from ease of use to marketing so that it didn't even need to be the best, but good enough, easy to use good marketing = money. same with iphone, I had the nokia n95 at that time and now I have the n900 but even though it is cheaper in the long run, it has already been proven that the general populace will not put up 550 or 600 or 700 bucks up front for a phone. iphone was easy to use. At the time had like the largest screen by far on a readily accessible phone, could be used as an ipod and had great marketing. same issues with cars, or street fighter success vs. Virtua Fighter (i love that game) failures, and so forth. Which brings me to movies.

The cheap indie film that is boring as hell, but maybe had some good "technical" acting doesn't sell. People don't give a SH#$ about technical acting. Star Wars had some poor acting, the prequals were even worse, but that didn't stop Star Wars from being a mega hit, and it's two sequals continuing it. Which then prompted the eventual sequals.

The Hurt Locker won best picture, some people said it wasn't an accurate description of what happens in IRAQ, that include military people, but it still won. But it didn't make money, ask someone in the streets, and I bet 75% of them won't even know what it is, they probably can't even tell you it won. Others like the English Patient, which won as well, i tried to watch and it was BORING as HELL, that was when I was a teenager, who knows now, if I might change, but that was 12 years ago and it was a snore fest.

Which brings me to the most important point. THE NUMBER ONE ROLL OF A MOVIE, or game for that matter, is to entertain you, and to entertain as many a you as possible. If a movie has good acting but wasn't entertaining then it sucks, plain and simple.

People say Avatar was all hype, No it wasn't, it opened up to just 78 million dollars in the US. That is good, but there are a boat load of movies that opened up to much higher results. The differences is that Avatar had a huge word of mouth afterwards, and thus it only dropped to 75 the next week, then a bit less the following week and so forth. Instead of openning to 115 then dropping to 60s like others, only to be in the teens by week 4.

Finally, People often times give disney, pixars, dreamworks movies a free pass. Was UP's visuals better, was the acting and writing better??? What about the cliche's was Kung Fu Panda, or Nemo, or Incredibles somehow original movies. It is 2010 now, for the most part, EVERY MOVIE you see will have themes of movies prior. It is how it is implemented and how entertaining it is that really matters, and Avatar has proven via 2.8 billion dollars that it is pretty damn entertaining.

If you don't think so, then your in the minority, there has never been a movie that was 100% liked, and there never will be.

RE: why?
By Reclaimer77 on 4/27/2010 2:40:57 AM , Rating: 2

RE: why?
By therealnickdanger on 4/27/2010 8:35:04 AM , Rating: 2

I thought you liked substance over flash...? LOL

Look, man, it's clear you're just a hater, plain and simple. You admit you haven't seen the movie which means that your opinion about said movie is irrelevant. You have formed your opinion based solely upon the sensationalized reports in the media.

Avatar carries a stigma because its technological aspects completely overshadow its seen-before, tried-and-true plot. Also, because of some overly sensitive folks that don't pay attention to said plot, they believe it has some sort of anti-military Iraq message. The plot really isn't bad, though it is predictable and a bit silly. Cameron made his hypocritical bias known to the world years ago (and it saturates this entire movie), but it has not affected his ability to make an effectively entertaining movie that is well worth the price of admission... at least once.

RE: why?
By Reclaimer77 on 4/27/2010 2:59:05 PM , Rating: 2
I haven't read "War and Peace", but I know it's a landmark novel. I haven't seen Avatar, but I'm intimately familiar with the story, plot background, and how the visuals are used to tell the story.

You have formed your opinion based solely upon the sensationalized reports in the media.

That makes no sense. The "Media" sensation of Avatar has all been overwhelmingly positive. Where are you coming from with this ??

The plot really isn't bad, though it is predictable and a bit silly.

That's putting it mildly. The plot is simple tripe, for simple minded people. No offense, but if you enjoyed Avatar you simply aren't a big thinker. Because anyone who is would HAVE to be offended by how the movie insults your intelligence and attempts to pull your heartstrings at every turn.

I just have a hard time getting past how manipulative and simple the story is. The Na'vi are way too peaceful and harmonious for a primitive culture. And the military was way too simplistic and destructive for an advanced culture. It's a comical stereotype, a crewcut wearing racist white man. After 200 years and human evolution and the development of space travel, the military is apparently still stuck in the 18'th Century mindset in terms of cultural understanding. For one, it's kind of insulting to the military today given the obvious allegory driving the message of the movie. And two, it's a little too easy and convenient. There's no middle ground. And the ultimate irony is that with all the time and money spent making this a 3D movie, the story and characters are stuck in one dimension.

RE: why?
By therealnickdanger on 4/28/2010 11:24:50 AM , Rating: 2
That makes no sense. The "Media" sensation of Avatar has all been overwhelmingly positive.

I was referring to the negative media that link the movie to real-world events and culture.

I'm fully aware of Cameron's pessimistic views of humanity and how they are portrayed and displayed in this movie, but you're really reaching with your views (especially since you haven't even seen the movie). To put it simply, if this movie was supposed to be a factual documentary on the Iraq war or the story of Pocahontas, then it would be worth the time and effort to defame it and argue its agenda. However, this is a purely fictional story that borrows, like ALL fiction, from stories we have heard before.

In the name of fun, I will make a few counterpoints.
The Na'vi are way too peaceful and harmonious for a primitive culture.

We are given a window into really only one tribe of Na'vi. Outside of a miraculous unifying force, we really don't know how they normally interact with other tribes. We know that the Na'vi have weapons and nothing in the movie implies that they never fight one another. All that we do know is that this particular tribe is under assault.
The Military was way too simplistic and destructive for an advanced culture

The "military" forces depicted were not part of any recognized military force, but rather mercenaries. The movie itself describes them as mercenaries, in it only for action and money, not for honor.
crewcut wearing racist white man

He was the primary antagonist, but there were many other skin colors represented. It was a "diverse" group of mercs.
After 200 years and human evolution...

Hey man, I'd like to be optimistic about the future, but if history has shown us anything, it's that technology and "evolution" are no guarantees of decreased brutality or increased understanding.
...story and characters are stuck in one dimension.

LOL I've heard that one many times before. Are you a Red Letter Media fan? haha This isn't a B-movie, it's got some excellent performances - even if they are cliched, they are cliched very well.

My advice: give it a rent (on Blu-Ray, if possible) and relax. You might actually enjoy it if you stop trying to glean meaning from it.

RE: why?
By therealnickdanger on 4/28/2010 6:19:32 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, did I call that one. You almost quoted RLM verbatim:

C'mon, man! Get your own opinions!

RE: why?
By FITCamaro on 4/26/2010 9:04:11 PM , Rating: 1
Because Avatar did NOT look real. Not at all.

Have to disagree with you there man.

RE: why?
By wallijonn on 4/26/2010 7:13:50 PM , Rating: 2
and is the most impressive Blu-Ray I have seen to date.

Visuals wise, try "Ultra Violet" on BD. Is "Avatar" pretty on BD? Sure is. Is it better than the theatre? That may depend on whether or not you saw it in digital in a theatre, the screen size, and what HDTV you have at home, no?

RE: why?
By rburnham on 4/26/2010 8:27:56 PM , Rating: 2
Megashark vs Giant Octopus.

I mean the shark ate a plane while it was flying SEVERAL THOUSAND FEET in the air. That is how you spend 10 bucks on a 3d effect!

RE: why?
By Meinolf on 4/26/2010 1:24:03 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe you seen a different movie the acting done by the female Avatar was great.

RE: why?
By fatedtodie on 4/27/2010 6:37:44 AM , Rating: 1
If by great you mean uninspired, I agree. Or if you mean that her character left her no room to ACT and was so cookie cutter I could mute her lines and still lose nothing of the story, I again agree.

Good acting usually means someone taking a cookie cutter character and making it their own.

The James Bond series has a good example. Daniel Craig does good acting in the new Bond movies. Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan were poor attempts at being Sean Connery.

Also look at Denzel Washington in American Gangster or Russel Crowe in A Beautiful Mind. That is a bit more of a lesson on acting.

Please read my comment for what it was, not a slam on the movie but confusion as to its fame.

RE: why?
By brandonicus on 4/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: why?
By Gio6518 on 4/26/2010 1:38:49 PM , Rating: 2
I saw this movie and I still don't understand why it made/is making so much.

I liked it, though i agree its not the greatest thing i ever saw

RE: why?
By jonmcc33 on 4/26/2010 2:34:45 PM , Rating: 1
Maybe you were sleeping during the entire movie?

The movie is considered an "epic" film, much like Braveheart and Gladiator. If you can comprehend the epic meanings behind those movies then you should understand Avatar as well. If you did not then you probably have poor comprehension and are very naive about the world around you.

RE: why?
By therealnickdanger on 4/26/2010 3:22:49 PM , Rating: 3
He is in the place where the eye does not see.

RE: why?
By fatedtodie on 4/27/2010 6:28:06 AM , Rating: 1
So every epic tale should make the most money ever?
Explain why Lord of the rings didn't in any of the 3 movies? At least their story was copying a book series that was brilliant. Yes it was the retelling of a Norse myth but that didn't take away from it.

Avatar was, as many have stated, a extremely cliche and overdone story.
So the one Na'vi he runs into after running away from the weird hammerhead/rhino thing is the princess of the tribe (see Pocohantas)... The main character is military and stranded forced to live on his own in an area surrounded by "natives" (see Dances with wolves).

No you are right it is the most epic story ever and I should bow the the very mention of the movie's name.

RE: why?
By jonmcc33 on 4/29/2010 1:22:08 PM , Rating: 2
Did Gladiator or Braveheart make over $2B at the box office?

Believe it or not, many movies are based upon events in real life. That way we can relate to them. The princess of the tribe comparison (Pocahontas) is a reach. She didn't love him at first. She hated him. She was already promised to another mate.

The main character was never stranded on his own in an area surrounded by natives. He was on a corporate installation the entire time. You reach for every excuse it seems, as opposed to actually grasping the storyline.

The actual story is a man that initially goes in on a mission to help remove the aliens from their home and instead learns to love them and become one himself after he defends them from the real enemy: mankind. It is a story of overcoming oppression of an invading force, something that the entire planet can relate to as it has been happening on Earth for thousands of years.

You cannot seem to understand that at all and instead you over-examine and desperately grasp at straws.

RE: why?
By FaceMaster on 4/26/2010 3:29:51 PM , Rating: 2
Some people will rate this film down because it's got a simple, predictable plot. In all honesty I'm pleased it did, it left more room for the exploration and scenery that I enjoyed so much. Cut out the fighting and the rest of the story for all I care. The Elder Scrolls series could learn a thing or two from this movie.

RE: why?
By gwzubeck on 4/26/2010 3:50:59 PM , Rating: 2
It makes an eye popping Demo Disk for people with really good Home theaters. LOL

RE: why?
By BZDTemp on 4/26/2010 4:38:32 PM , Rating: 2
Just take it as prof that form rather than substance is what matters for many people.

Avatar is like Star Wars, reality TV and fast food. All things that may go down easy but leave us nothing (apart from perhaps fat).

I've read somewhere that Cameron will do more Avatar movies but that he is waiting for great stories - since that implies he thinks the Avatar had a great story I think there is little hope for the sequels.

RE: why?
By zenmonkman on 4/26/2010 8:41:51 PM , Rating: 2
Excellent synopsis

RE: why?
By insurgent on 4/26/2010 5:21:12 PM , Rating: 2
And that's why you won't be making any blockbuster movies,or anything close to an entertaining story, ever. You don't know anything, just pretending to be some elite film afficionado.

RE: why?
By wiz220 on 4/26/2010 5:54:53 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, I mean, unobtainium... REALLY??? Supposedly Cameron had been working on this film in his head for decades (since he started working in the industry) and that's the best he could come up with? FAIL.

RE: why?
By CptTripps on 4/26/2010 6:48:55 PM , Rating: 2
See, this is what ruined the entire movie for me... they didn't need to travel all the way to pandora to acquire said "unobtainium". They could have had Delroy Lindo (aka Dr. Ed 'Braz' Brazzleton) make some just like he did in 2003 when he saved Earth in "The Core".

I just watched the movie last week on upscaled DVD, I enjoyed it for what it was.

RE: why?
By wallijonn on 4/26/2010 7:21:00 PM , Rating: 2
And when is "The Core" coming to BD? I'm patiently waiting...

RE: why?
By CptTripps on 4/27/2010 3:32:57 PM , Rating: 2
The Core? That movie sucked, why would you want it on BD? I was just making a jab at the "unobtainium".

In my last line I was saying I finally watched Avatar on upscaled DVD and thought it was ok.

RE: why?
By Bateluer on 4/26/2010 8:24:35 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with the OP. Didn't see the movie in the theaters, but I watched it recently, still don't see what the fuss was about. There were way better movies.

RE: why?
By DEVGRU on 4/27/2010 11:43:47 AM , Rating: 2
what else was there? Did I just miss something? Did I not recieve the subliminal messages that told me I have to watch this several times and give all my money to James Cameron?

Hey man, don't blame us you can't see the sailboat (or schooner).

RE: why?
By fatedtodie on 4/27/2010 1:58:41 PM , Rating: 2
While I applaud the Mall Rats reference, I think you misunderstood my comment.

Avatar isn't a "magic eye" poster to see something deep in, there is NO depth, that is what I disliked.

I made the comment there must have been subliminal messages because so many people think it is awesome when it is not.

"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins
Related Articles

Latest Headlines
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
The Samsung Galaxy S7
September 14, 2016, 6:00 AM
Apple Watch 2 – Coming September 7th
September 3, 2016, 6:30 AM
Apple says “See you on the 7th.”
September 1, 2016, 6:30 AM

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki