Shop now Shop now Shop now See more Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Learn more Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Listen with Prime Learn more Shop Men's Shop Women's

Why are people fooled by this cr**

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 101-125 of 479 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 17 Oct 2010 15:38:44 BDT
Bob Drake says:
Fact brought to you by the same guys who claimed that Saddam has WMDs! :)

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Oct 2010 16:02:16 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 12 Apr 2011 16:01:38 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Oct 2010 16:06:01 BDT
Bob Drake says:
Crap is brown, Avatar is blue. Not crap. Q.E.D.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Oct 2010 16:06:07 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 12 Apr 2011 16:01:38 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Oct 2010 17:20:38 BDT
Bob Drake says:
Obviously your logic is crap. Elvis told me that Avatar is great! Just before he left the building with Jimi.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Oct 2010 18:55:30 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 12 Apr 2011 16:01:38 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Oct 2010 18:59:36 BDT
Bob Drake says:
May the Force be with you!

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Oct 2010 06:46:46 BDT
Last edited by the author on 18 Oct 2010 06:59:11 BDT
I watched it (many times) and I liked it. No evidence of crap at all. Your point eludes me.

You're a very silly man and I'm not talking to you any more.

Posted on 23 Oct 2010 14:25:24 BDT
Last edited by the author on 23 Oct 2010 16:57:27 BDT
Moray Greig says:
When it comes to opinions on movies, I would rather be a happy fool than a miserable genius.

I am definately in the "happy fool" category when it comes to Avatar.

the problem I have with many negative reviews is that they all seem to go into the cinema with a checklists and gives marks to different aspects of the movie as if it is an olympic sycronised diving competition.

Personally, I don't take a checklist with me. I just watch a movie and I enjoy it or I don't. When I watched Avatar, I didn't even notice it was like another movie. I didn't compare it to any other movie. In fact I wasn't thinking about any other movie at all because I was too busy enyoying the story, the characters and the World of Pandora.

In the end whether anyone likes a movie or not is a matter of perspective. Avatar, had all the elements that I want to see in a movie. For me Avatar is unique because it is nothing like I have ever seen before. I don't care if it is like this, that or the other film. It is irrelevant, at least to me.

Everyone is different. We all have different perspectives. We all have elements that appeal to us or put us off. Many of these things will be influenced by our experiences in life, the people we know and the places we have been. So it is ludicrous for any person to make a jugement on someone elses perspective just because it is not like their own.

Another common characteristic of negative reviews is to somehow claim the intellectual high ground. As if having a negative opinion somehow shows that they are somehow intellectually superior to those who like the movie. I'm sorry, but expressing a dislike if Avatar does not make you look more intellectual. At best, it shows they have a different perspective, opinion and taste in movies from those who like the movie, which of course is completely valid. And at worst, it shows them up to be prententious and arrogant.

So I much prefer to be a happy fool who loves Avatar, rather than some self professed miserable genius wollowing in his own mediocre psuedo-intellectual garbage. However, I do recognise that not all people who dislike Avatar are like this. But a lot are.

Posted on 23 Oct 2010 16:00:28 BDT
Bob Drake says:
Are you related to Jim Moray, the musician?

He is intelligent, too.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2010 16:53:26 BDT
Now that is 'proof' that Avatar is c***p. What a nerd!!!

"At a trade show I just saw a JVC Pro (commercial) 46" panel (GD-463D10) that displays 3D (over HDMI 1.3a) that can be seen using circular polarizing glasses (passive) rather than active at a cost of < USD 5K. The panel has a circular polarizing filter laminated to the glass. So you see a 1920 x 540 image per eye, 1920 x 1080 total. (The active glasses give 1080 alternating for each eye.) The thing is you can buy cardboard polarized glasses for < $1 each. This would be great for schools where an entire class could be issued glasses for very little money.

But even MORE amazing was JVC's IF-2D3D1 box that converts a 2D BD signal to 3D on the fly! JVC was displaying a 2D National Geographic BD on Ireland in 3D. Yes, there were artifacts in the picture, but it can be adjusted for parallax and 3D intensity depending on the source material. The cost of the box is USD 33K, which would be cheap for a cable company to convert existing 2D HD source material, or maybe even a bar that had only occasional 3D access but wanted the customers to see 3D all the time.

Consumer 3D has, by agreement, been limited to active glasses by way of HDMI 1.4. But this 46" monitor looked darn good with the cheap cardboard glasses. I want one!

Also just saw a presentation by the RED video camera folks of footage taken with the original RED One camera upgraded from the original 4K chip to the new 5K M-X chip. Stunning resolution. The comparison was made that the USD100,000 Sony F25 HD camera is like 16mm film as compared to the USD35,000 RED M-X which is like 35mm film. The presenter had a working prototype of the RED Mysterium camera which is a 5K video camera that weighs 5 pounds total and is the size of an oversized SLR. When this thing is used for 3D instead of Cameron's twin 1920 x 1080 set-up, all films (using the term loosely), including 3D, will be sharper than ever in the theatre. The upcoming film "Social Network," about the founders of Facebook, was shot with 6 RED M-X chipped cameras. Sample scenes projected in HD today looked excellent."

Yes, but all of the things I have listed previously are problems. Why do people give more consideration to the technology used to make and view a film, than to the film itself? George Lucas was handbagged when he made Star Wars Ep. I-III because the technology used appeared to be more important than the story (and all of the other things that make a great film). This isn't being miserable, it's called being objective about a film and not 'fooled' (maybe not a great choice of word) by the marketing department who tell you it's great. Would Glitter (awful film, Mariah Carey, never speak of it again) be a great film if it was in 3D, with complete CGI environments and characters?

Posted on 23 Oct 2010 17:21:07 BDT
Moray Greig says:
In the end, many negative reviews do have a whining depressive tone to them. Especially when part of there argument is "I can't understand how anyone likes this movie...etc" argument. Their negative review seems to complain as much about people whom like the movie as the movie itself.

I don't know about others, but I didn't watch the movie because of the technology marketing. In fact I knew nothing about the technology used before seeing the movie. The reason I found out how Avatar was made was because I liked the movie and wanted to find out more.

To be honest I still don't know that much about the technology. What you say may be right or may be wrong. But it doesn't really impact at all on how I see the movie. So to say I was fooled by the technology is mistaken, at least in my case.

The truth is your title was emotive and was always going to get criticism. If you just simply had the title "Why I don't like Avatar" or "Why I think Avatar technology is overrated." That would be a different discussion completely, and probably more interesting.

When it comes to unimportant things in like like movies, I believe everyone has a right their opinion. And if that makes me a "fooled" "Nerd" because the movie is "cr*p", then so be it.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2010 17:24:31 BDT
Last edited by the author on 23 Oct 2010 17:37:40 BDT
Moray Greig says:
Hey Bob, we're in an Avatar forum. Nobody is intelligent here.

Posted on 23 Oct 2010 17:26:12 BDT
Bob Drake says:
Why did Vladimir Horowitz have his 9' Steinway grand shipped for him to play at each concert venue?

The Social Network has a 97% critic/92% audience positive review average on and it is not the first time that David Fincher has used RED cameras.

The best use the best.

Avatar has an 83% critic/92% audience positive review average. (WOW, 92%!) Blu-ray sales set records.

I think you went into the theater to see Avatar with a chip on your shoulder. Talk about being "objective." NOT!

Avatar used 3D wisely. It was followed by How to Train Your Dragon, another GREAT 3D movie.

Star Wars I - III were terrible because George Lucas ran out of ideas. The ONLY Star Wars film that I watch is the original (IV). PERIOD.

Go back to your 4:3 B&W films and 1953 Studebaker and leave the future to the bold. Like James Cameron.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2010 17:50:27 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 12 Apr 2011 16:01:39 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2010 18:12:47 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 12 Apr 2011 16:01:39 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2010 18:26:18 BDT
Last edited by the author on 23 Oct 2010 18:37:16 BDT
Moray Greig says:
Hey that sounds like the sort of movie that most of the Avatar haters wanted to see.

I have to admit that Cameron did manage to whip some money out of this sexless ex-Dungeon & Dragons enthusiast nerd. And I loved every second and it was worth every penny. Thank you Mr Cameron, please give me another.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2010 18:59:59 BDT
Bob Drake says:
" we can choke some money out of some sexless nerds and dungeons and dragons enthusiasts"

Wow. He sure did that, didn't he. Guess you can fool all of the people all of the time. Or, maybe...

Sort of reminds me of the coin-tossing scene from Tom Stoppard's brilliant play Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead where they realize that THEY are the ones outside of probability AND NOT EVERYONE ELSE. THEY are the odd ones out.

I wonder when that will dawn on you.

Posted on 23 Oct 2010 19:05:25 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 12 Apr 2011 16:01:39 BDT]

Posted on 23 Oct 2010 19:26:03 BDT
Bob Drake says:
Interesting that Claude's Ph.D. dissertation was in genetics.

But I'll go with the limey Stoppard (who is actually Czech) the greatest playwright that ever lived, Shakespeare included.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2010 19:38:16 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 12 Apr 2011 16:01:40 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2010 19:41:56 BDT
Bob Drake says:
Except that 92% of his Ph.D. "dissertation committee," the public, disagrees with you.

The science in Aliens is crap relative to Avatar.

Posted on 23 Oct 2010 21:23:42 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 23 Oct 2010 21:24:09 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Oct 2010 19:50:50 BDT

People don't 'give more consideration to the technology used to make and view a film, than to the film itself', it's simply that they like the film in the first place and would wish to view it again in the most appropriate and technologically up-to-date media. Anyway, if some people were (possibly) amazed by the technology does it really matter as long as they enjoyed the film.

I'm no technical expert like Bob but I'm sure that he does not consider all the things he (not you) listed to be problems but, rather, enhancements to a film that is widely admired.

I have never been a Star Wars fan so I can't comment there; I'm a 'Trekkie'.

You nearly fooled me there: I thought you were at last offering something original and interesting with your lengthy comments but on closer inspection I saw that they were simply a verbatim repetition of comments made by Bob. Shame on you but top-marks for effort. It must have taken you ages copying all that down.

The marketing department can sing the praises of Avatar all they want but, in the final analysis, it's public opinion that counts. A super-hyped marketing campaign cannot disguise a 'turkey' and fool people into thinking it's something exceptional. If it's as atrocious as you suggest they would soon shun it. But it's not and the fact is that it is widely liked and has much to commend it other than the hype. Anyway, I pay no attention to all that twaddle.

The appreciative audience of Avatar were not fooled just because they suspended disbelief and entered the beautifully rendered and immersive world of Pandora. They were stunned and amazed maybe, but never fooled.

The ayes have it and you're about as objective as an ingrown-toenail.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Oct 2010 19:57:47 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 12 Apr 2011 16:01:40 BDT]
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Participants:  30
Total posts:  479
Initial post:  2 May 2010
Latest post:  18 Jan 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

This discussion is about