[Movie] Avatar (2009) - BZ wants your nub

Okay, so the scriptment says stuff about superconductivity at room temperature and whatever, but, I mean, it's not like the fantastic properties of unobtanium were used as a plot device, like in The Core. It could have been called Space Gold or Astro Oil or whatever and nothing would change; all that mattered was its monetary value.

I see that the scriptment's in-universe explanation of the term is that it started as a joke name and stuck, which is plausible, though not terribly clever.

EDIT: whoops quazi already said that

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Don't forget all the banshee piss. Also, it's not like a mountain would stop having an aquifer just because it's floating. It's just that the scale is way off; the waterfalls would be too big for the "peaks" even if the mountain clumps were on the ground.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

The only thing that bothered me was when protruding foreground objects were out of focus, because my instinct is to try and focus on the floaty bits jutting out towards my face, and it feels weird to not be able to. That's the point, I guess--I'm not supposed to be looking there--and maybe the impulse will go away once I get used to seeing 3D movies.

But, if a film's going to be in 3D, wouldn't it make sense to have a really deep focus and let your eyes do the work naturally? I know playing with focus has been in a cinematographer's toolbox for forever, but it just doesn't make sense to me outside of a 2D projection.

Maybe dudes smarter than me who know more about the technology and filmmaking could explain why this would be a bad idea.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

You guys are getting way too bogged down in this "art" talk.

This is from Roger Ebert's review of Raiders of the Lost Ark:

Originally Posted by Roger Ebert

"Impersonal," critic Pauline Kael called the film, and indeed it is primarily a technical exercise, with personalities so shallow they're like a dew that has settled on the characters. But Spielberg is not trying here for human insights and emotional complexity; he finds those in other films, but in "Raiders" he wants to do two things: make a great entertainment, and stick it to the Nazis.

Yet, I have no problem calling Raiders a great movie, or an amazing movie, or a masterpiece. I understand that some of you think Avatar flat-out sucks in every way, but understand that it's that kind of achievement that's spawning all this praise--only the rare fanboy is comparing this to Shawshank or what have you.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

It's weird watching that after his Phantom Menace review, in which he talks about how you shouldn't stray from stock characters too much. For the first half, I thought he was only pretending to dislike Avatar. I mean, contrast with this bit:
(not embedded due to timecode)

But I get his point that Cameron played it too safe. I think this was a fair review. He makes it pretty clear that your personal tolerance for eyeroll moments can make or break this one for you; for me, it helped that I expected all the noble savage white guilt preachy junk before I walked into the theater.

I was speaking idiomatically.