Telegraph name Avatar in list of 100 films that defined the noughties...

[RunningMild]

100 Avatar

James Cameron, 2009, DVD n/a: On the basis of a sneak 15-minute show reel, it’s not premature to predict that this ground-breaking 3D sci-fi epic will change the way we look at movies.

This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. How can anyone judge a film based on a trailer? There have been movies with awesome trailers that ended up being shit, and films with shit trailers that ended up being awesome. Hell, I downloaded a trailer off XBL for Avatar a couple of months ago and it was one of the worst movie trailers I've ever seen, but I'm still seeing the movie when it comes out.

Yes, it's 'films that defined the noughties' because it's in live action 3D, but what if that doesn't catch on? What if Avatar becomes a one-off? No-one can predict the future.

Sorry guys, but it is premature to predict the quality/cultural significance of a film before you've seen the whole thing, no matter what lame spin you try to put on it.


What do others think?

[AranchineD]

It does define the noughties, it's taken so long for it to be made and such and yet people are still excited over it, how many times have we seen that happen this decade!

[Stevorooni]

I know absolutely nothing about this film

[Xanafalgue]

This isn't surprising behaviour coming from the Daily Telegraph. Murdoch gotta pay the bills yo.

[Second]

What?

[Lex]

I know absolutely nothing about this film

This. All this time I thought everyone was talking about that crappy cartoon...

[Gee_Yai_Bro]

it's in live action 3D, but

Huh?

Anyway, the game looked lame and gimmicky but it was cool seeing a game in real 3D. Would suck to lose the glasses though

[jawsy]

This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen...What do others think?

Take a chill pill, lover, or you're gonna explode.

[ThePhotoshop]

I know that my last ten years have been spent doing nothing but thinking about Avatar.




















http://prettypaperbook.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/avatar-the-last-airbender.jpg

[BB2K]

This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

Not really. I'd say the first fully 3D movie would be a pretty big milestone, no matter how good or bad it turned out to be, and would definately do it's part in defining this decade in film.

[Jickle]

Eh, the truth is the film will be talked about for a while regardless of how good or bad it ends up being. I remember when I interviewed Stephan Elliot (minor director, did Priscilla Queen of the Desert and a few other things) he went off on a weird, unexpected rant about how Avatar was "going to end up costing $1billion including advertising" and how it was going to herald in an age where "we only see one or two big film releases a year". I think the guy was full of shit, but certainly there are a lot of eyes on Avatar. Even though it's not out yet I don't think it's at all unreasonable to put it on a list like this.

[big_b]

Yes, it's 'films that defined the noughties' because it's in live action 3D

Didn't they already try this with beowolf?

[Allick]

Pretty sure Avatar's just gonna be some shit explosion and CGI fest strung together by something vaguely similar to a storyling and extreme cliches.

Prove me wrong James Cameron, prove me wrong...

[fleshtea]

By the way, how awesome is the cartoon. Greatest wapanimation ever to be wapanimated.

[Stevorooni]

This. All this time I thought everyone was talking about that crappy cartoon...

You mean it's not!?!?!

I just looked up the wiki, it sounds like an odd film and I don't know why there's all this hoo ha about it. It's not like Cameron is doing a proper Terminator sequel (that wipes out the last 2 movies)

[RunningMild]

This isn't surprising behaviour coming from the Daily Telegraph. Murdoch gotta pay the bills yo.

It can't be owned by Murdoch, they named Fahrenheit 9/11 at number 1! ;)

This. All this time I thought everyone was talking about that crappy cartoon...

Funny how the film adaptation of that cartoon (The Last Airbender) can't be called 'Avatar' because of Cameron's film. :p

Also it's being directed by M. Night Shyamalan, so it will probably end with the main character ripping off his face and revealing himself to be Goku or something.

I'd say the first fully 3D movie would be a pretty big milestone, no matter how good or bad it turned out to be, and would definately do it's part in defining this decade in film.

What makes it the 'first fully 3D movie'? I'm trying to figure out what differentiates it from Spy Kids 3, or Sharkboy and Lavagirl (which both had live action), or even CGI films like Beowulf and Up.


Also, wasn't this meant to be a film about an ultra-realistic MMO? Man, I'm confused. I'm just going to wait and see the final film, because every trailer I see and info I read only makes it more confusing.

[FrozenSoul80]

focuses on an epic conflict on a far-away world called Pandora, where humans and the native species of Pandora, the Na'vi, engage in war over the planet's resources and existence.

Oh ****, not again.

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/5439/navi.jpg

[Spudzilla]

Now that was a decade defining production

[Daniel]

Nothing stupid about the inclusion Mr M. It is a film that is utilising new types of cameras made especially for it, special effects that are being pioneered for it and has cost somewhere between $320 and 500 million to make, exclusive of advertising. It will also probably be the last big film of the decade.

That is a decade defining film.

[StorminNorman]

Yeah, I have to say I'm really excited about Avatar. If it lives up to the hype, it really will be a genuine classic. It's great to see something so different come out of Hollywood like this.

For the curious, there is also an Avatar: The Last Airbender movie in production, directed by that M. Night Shyamamamamalamamalan guy. It's just being called "The Last Airbender" though, for obvious reasons.

[aubergine]

Avatar is the Duke Nukem Forever of film. From the clips I've seen it looked like a pixar cartoon with a bit more detail telling the story of Viva Pinata on Lost Planet. If it ever even comes out it better be something unforseen and remarkable or James Cameron is going to look like a complete egomaniacal has-been. If avatar is important to the oo's it's only because we've been hearing about it for ten years.

[Xanafalgue]

Nothing stupid about the inclusion Mr M. It is a film that is utilising new types of cameras made especially for it, special effects that are being pioneered for it and has cost somewhere between $320 and 500 million to make, exclusive of advertising. It will also probably be the last big film of the decade.

That is a decade defining film.

Like this one

http://1416andcounting.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/spice-world.jpg

Film of the 90's

[RunningMild]

Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but...

It is a film that is utilising new types of cameras made especially for it

Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones? The first blockbuster film to be shot entirely with digital cameras. No-one would call that a decade defining film.

special effects that are being pioneered for it

Transformers? I'm pretty sure the SFX in that film were light years ahead of the rest of Hollywood, but no-one even called it a year-defining film.

I appreciate that this film is using brand new technology, but if I may play devil's advocate, the whole 'motion capturing actors as CGI' or whatever has already been done in films such as Polar Express (facial capturing IIRC) and Beowulf. Cameron's new tech may make it easier to direct and potentially reduce the shoot time, but that won't make a lick of difference to the audience watching it on screen. Based on what I've seen in trailers, there's nothing in that film that couldn't have been done with traditional methods (even if it is more difficult and time-consuming with said methods). Hell, I thought the aliens were wearing prosthetics and body paint when I first saw them- either that or traditional CGI. :p

And like I said before, the new tech might not catch on. It may have zero impact on the film industry whatsoever. You can't judge a film's importance until you see how many other films have followed it's lead IMO.

[StorminNorman]

I honestly don't understand how you can not be excited by Avatar. It looks totally awesome.

I'm almost as excited by it as I am by Where The Wild Things Are.

[Spudzilla]

I'm not excited at all.

[Joel]

classic Mr_M

[proofreeder]

Mr M, strangely enough, I'm with you. Judge a movie by the movie, not the hype, not the techniques it will use and not the trailer. The Matrix sequels, Fable, etc etc. Even if it does prove to be everything the hype promises, judge a movie by the movie. IMO.

Edit: video game analogy, utilises, I dunno, lots of cutting edge technology I wouldn't know the name of, costs a shit load to make. Does that mean the game will be better than Deus Ex? What do people value in movies/games? What about the story? Matrix sequels, dammit.

Maybe it should be included in the list because it defines how superficial mainstream society has become, how advertising is God, more important than product, and how technology has become more important than ideas and ingenuity. And also, how making controversial lists generates discussion and gains recognition and publicity.

This isn't a critique of the movie (BECAUSE THERE'S NO MOVIE TO CRITIQUE!), just commenting it's the modern day equivelant (or antithesis) of the timeless proverb "don't judge a book by its cover".

[RunningMild]

I honestly don't understand how you can not be excited by Avatar. It looks totally awesome.

I am looking forward to the film (mainly because James Cameron made my favourite film ever and this looks like a 'going back to his roots' kind of film), but I can't see why anyone would start putting it on lists before they've even seen the finished product.

Judge a movie by the movie, not the hype, not the techniques it will use and not the trailer.

Maybe it should be included in the list because it defines how superficial mainstream society has become, how advertising is God, more important than product, and how technology has become more important than ideas and ingenuity.

I really couldn't have said it better myself. :p

And besides, this is the 'films' that defined the decade, so the basic qualifier for the list should be that the film gets released. ;)

[Halt, Hammerzeit]

Didn't they already try this with beowolf?

Or the Final Fantasy movie? To be honest, I'm in the camp that thought Avatar was the movie for the cartoon. Haven't really been paying attention to this, but I also don't understand how a film can make it into the list of influential films when it hasn't been released yet.

[StorminNorman]

I am looking forward to the film (mainly because James Cameron made my favourite film ever and this looks like a 'going back to his roots' kind of film), but I can't see why anyone would start putting it on lists before they've even seen the finished product.

While I agree with this, the story behind the development of Avatar (it's a movie that Cameron's been developing for almost 20 years), and the fact that there was a failed attempt to make it in the 1990s (at the time, the SFX pushed the budget to over $400 million!) has given the film something of a mythical status in movie fan circles. Whether or not you agree with it, the movie's place in film history is already confirmed, which is a bit odd.

Of course, anime fans were pissed off when it was announced because it means an even longer wait before the Battle Angel movie comes out (and thanks to Cameron sitting on the rights to the anime, an even longer wait before the original OAV gets released on DVD. :( ).

[Readman]

Nothing stupid about the inclusion Mr M. It is a film that is utilising new types of cameras made especially for it, special effects that are being pioneered for it and has cost somewhere between $320 and 500 million to make, exclusive of advertising. It will also probably be the last big film of the decade.

That is a decade defining film.

Shame the decade is about to finish in a month.

[aubergine]

Technically not, as there was no year zero.

[Readman]

Technically not, as there was no year zero.

Yeah, that's a good point but I think that the Telegraph is referring to 2000-2009.

Mr_M is entirely correct. Whether or not Avatar is a good film, you can't claim something as 'defining a period of time' if it didn't occur within that period of time. It's like saying that the bombing of Nagasaki was the defining historical act of the Roman Empire.

[Daniel]

It's coming out this year. That fits within the decade. It's nothing at all like comparing two entirely different time periods.

[Halt, Hammerzeit]

Yeah, but it hasn't come out yet. I think the impact of Avatar can be measured by the number of people in the thread that didn't even know what it was about. How can you say that it defined the last decade when there's a good portion of people that don't know about it?

Then there's the fact that it hasn't had time to have an impact on this decade. If it's good enough it could have an impact on the next decade.

[Readman]

It's coming out this year. That fits within the decade. It's nothing at all like comparing two entirely different time periods.

What part of the decade is it defining, exactly? The last month?

Come on, this is getting ridiculous.

[Lex]

What part of the decade is it defining, exactly? The last month?

Come on, this is getting ridiculous.

... What?

[Stevorooni]

It's a stupid list in a newspaper, is it really worth the grief?

[JimmyKane]

This. All this time I thought everyone was talking about that crappy cartoon...
+1

ITT neckbeards get grumpy about other people's lists. Again and again.

[Readman]

It's a stupid list in a newspaper, is it really worth the grief?

Don't spoil my fun. :(

[Stevorooni]

Don't spoil my fun. :(

ok it's the defining list of the decade, if you haven't seen and liked the films on that list then there is something seriously wrong with you and you should think about what you are doing with your life, which is why putting silly movies on it can ruin lives. RUIN LIVES I SAY!

[RunningMild]

While I agree with this, the story behind the development of Avatar (it's a movie that Cameron's been developing for almost 20 years), and the fact that there was a failed attempt to make it in the 1990s (at the time, the SFX pushed the budget to over $400 million!) has given the film something of a mythical status in movie fan circles. Whether or not you agree with it, the movie's place in film history is already confirmed, which is a bit odd.

If I may do a proofreader and use a gaming example... Too Human was in development for ten years, which included many failed attempts and huge costs. Would you say that it's place in videogame history was confirmed? After it's release, everyone forgot about it because it was deemed mediocre and crap. What if Avatar is mediocre? Everyone will write it off just as quickly.

Then there's the fact that it hasn't had time to have an impact on this decade. If it's good enough it could have an impact on the next decade.

Exactly. If the new technology and filmmaking techniques in this film do end up redefining the industry, that's going to occur in the next decade. Aside from a massive hype machine, what actual impact has the film had on this decade? Less than nothing, that's what.

ITT neckbeards get grumpy about other people's lists because they contain films that no-one in the universe has seen yet. Again and again.

Fixed. :p

[Jickle]

If I may do a proofreader and use a gaming example... Too Human was in development for ten years, which included many failed attempts and huge costs. Would you say that it's place in videogame history was confirmed? After it's release, everyone forgot about it because it was deemed mediocre and crap. What if Avatar is mediocre? Everyone will write it off just as quickly.

Yeah, but then you could quite reasonably use Daikatana to prove the exact opposite point.

[JimmyKane]

Still neckbearding, Mr M.

[JubeiSaotome]

I know absolutely nothing about this film

You've seen Fern Gully, haven't you?

[big_b]

hahah. fern gully. I remember getting that on video for christmas one year.

[RunningMild]

Yeah, but then you could quite reasonably use Daikatana to prove the exact opposite point.

So Daikatana is a game that defined the nineties? :p

Still neckbearding, Mr M.

What does that even mean? :confused:

[Jickle]

So Daikatana is a game that defined the nineties? :p

It came out this decade. I think, considering the money spent on it, the advertising ****-ups, the sheer awfulness of it, the fact that I can mention it today and at least half the people on the forums will probably be familiar with the whole Daikatana travesty...I don't think it would be out of place on a list of games that defined the decade at all. Hell, I'd put Duke Nukem Forever on that list and that never even came out. But then that's a tangent from the original discussion. I strongly believe that when people think about the big films of this decade in years to come, they'll think of Avatar - maybe in the same way they think about Waterworld, maybe in the same way they think about, say, Terminator 2.

I would dare say that those who weren't aware of the film before now simply aren't paying much attention to the movie industry. Which is all well and good, of course, but I don't think you could reasonably argue that the movie isn't already a pretty big deal.

Also probably worth noting that, apparently, there are actually people who have seen an almost finished cut (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/nov/26/avatar-james-cameron-3d), although their numbers would be few so it's maybe not relevant to the crux of the argument.

[proofreeder]

Mr M remains correct, here is my ironclad argument:

The title of the article is "The films that defined the noughties"

Note that the word "defined" is past tense. Now has Avatar, presently, defined the Noughties? No.

Lock this thread please.

But seriously, you could argue symantix, but then tell me why is the title in past tense? Because it isn't supposed to be a list of predictions, it's supposed to be a list of actual judgements.

To give another exaggerated analogy:

A top 100 greatest players of all time in the NBA list including a player in college who hasn't played a game, no matter how unmissable his potential. Now you imagine if the NBA or any credible association made a list that took these kind of liberties, based on "unmissable potential". The list would be a sham right? Exactly, I'm glad you agree. It's black and white.

This list lacks any credibility, it exchanged it for controversy. It's all pretty silly. Why is Avatar at number 100? Rather convenient.

[texta]

Technically not, as there was no year zero.There clearly was a year 0. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601) That covers the first year up until "year 1". Furthermore, since the question is "Films that defined the noughties", and since "the noughties" refers to years that have a zero for their decade, it pretty clearly covers the time period from Jan 1 2000 to Dec 31st 2009.



To give another exaggerated analogy:

A top 100 greatest players of all time in the NBA list including a player in college who hasn't played a game, no matter how unmissable his potential. Now you imagine if the NBA or any credible association made a list that took these kind of liberties, based on "unmissable potential". The list would be a sham right? Exactly, I'm glad you agree. It's black and white.

This list lacks any credibility, it exchanged it for controversy. It's all pretty silly. Why is Avatar at number 100? Rather convenient.There's a big difference between "greatest" and "defining" and as I've said, Avatar's development is what has made it defining. It's going to be an important movie from this era irrespective of whether it's any good or not.

If you're looking for a comparison; then worst case scenario for Avatar, something like Cleopatra (1963) would be pretty apt. If you were to do most defining or most important movies of all time, you'd probably chuck Cleopatra in there. But I don't think any movie critic would ever put it in their top 100 greatest movies. (That said, Avatar has a lot more going for it and has had a lot less problems than Cleopatra).

[Ad-Rock]

Had no idea what avatar was so I went and watched a trailer.

CGI looked to be a complete mixed bag, some looked great, some was embarrassing.

I don't see how you could say it was a defining movie of the decade until after its release. To me the trailer didn't give the impression that it was going to be a very good movie; the story looks to be full of cliches and (as I said) the CGI was nothing to be excited over.

[dinopoke]

Yeah, but then you could quite reasonably use Daikatana to prove the exact opposite point.

But Too Human was mediocre not GODDAM AWFUL. :p

I doubt Avatar will be like that. It'll probably be a decent movie but one forgotten after a couple of months. But the main point here is that it is too early to tell whether or not it will.

[jawsy]

But the main point here is that it is too early to tell whether or not it will.

That's not the point at all.

The argument could be made that one of the defining characteristics of films in the noughties is the associated hype (general public, industry, etc) and Avatar seems to fit that bill, even before its release.

[proofreeder]

There's a big difference between "greatest" and "defining" and as I've said, Avatar's development is what has made it defining. It's going to be an important movie from this era irrespective of whether it's any good or not.

Can you honestly say Avatar is a top 100 film that has already "DEFINED" the noughties?

Regardless of whether it's the greatest players or players that defined the NBA, any credible list ie list that actually has some importance and accountability, wouldn't pull this kind of crap.

Edit: BTW speaking of cliches, not saying the film is cliched but the trailer did seem very reminiscent of Dances with Wolves, which The Last Samurai also paid homage too. Did anyone else think this?

[JimmyKane]

What does that even mean? :confused:

You're gonna wish you hadn't asked. (http://www.pcpowerplay.com.au/forums/index.php)

Anyway my point isn't whether you're right or wrong, it's that people shouldn't give a shit at any rate. Just saying :cool:

[Halt, Hammerzeit]

That's not the point at all.

The argument could be made that one of the defining characteristics of films in the noughties is the associated hype (general public, industry, etc) and Avatar seems to fit that bill, even before its release.

You could also argue that the film hasn't had much influence at all if so many people are not even aware that it's due to come out.

[Almighty Beanchild]

What does that even mean? :confused:

It means he doesn't have a real point to make and you should ignore him. :P

[jawsy]

You could also argue that the film hasn't had much influence at all if so many people are not even aware that it's due to come out.

Anyone with an even remotely legitimate interest in film is aware of its existence. Just because a handful of dolts on this forum associate the title with a cartoon for kids doesn't change that fact.

I even went as far as to nominate 'industry hype' for those who would try to argue such a point.

[proofreeder]

Anyone with an even remotely legitimate interest in film is aware of its existence. Just because a handful of dolts on this forum associate the title with a cartoon for kids doesn't change that fact.

I even went as far as to nominate 'industry hype' for those who would try to argue such a point.

Personally, I disagree with that one. I know a lot of people who haven't heard about it when I mention it. If it wasn't for Hyper, I wouldn't be overly interested myself.

I'll have a very rough guess and say the percentage of people genuinely interested in this movie would be well under 5%. Even on this forum run by a videogames magazine that gave a movie a large preview article, many people are still unaware or unenthused about it. You would also imagine posters on this forum would be more likely to be interested in such things, influencing the cross-section further.

People with a real interest in the movie industry might be trembling with excitement, sure, and expect everyone else to be, but you don't need such interest in the industry to be influenced by film, they effect everyone... eventually.

For example, of the 95% or so who wouldn't be aware of the "relevance" of this film, how many of those would have watched or been influenced by the Matrix?

[igotnewsuper8systemWRONG!]

Avatar looks like a shit film.

edit: with a shit story

[[m]averick]

Personally, I disagree with that one. I know a lot of people who haven't heard about it when I mention it. If it wasn't for Hyper, I wouldn't be overly interested myself.


But that's par for the course in any industry. You have to have a cursory interest in something for it to affect you. I'm not a massive movie-buff but I cant think of a film that has been this heavily anticipated, this massive in its scope and potential and this massive in its ambition.

Plus, it's James ****ing Cameron. The man only puts out films that change the movie landscape. It's a movie with an unheard of budget. It's a movie with specially designed cameras. You might not think many people know about the film, fair enough, but the trailers are just coming out now for a December 17 release. In two weeks time, this movie will be all anyone's talking about.

It deserves its place on the list.

[igotnewsuper8systemWRONG!]

G.I. Joe looks more revolutionary than this.

[RunningMild]

For example, of the 95% or so who wouldn't be aware of the "relevance" of this film, how many of those would have watched or been influenced by the Matrix?

Hell, maybe they should have put The Matrix on the list instead of Avatar. Sure, The Matrix came out in 1999, but the entire noughties was defined by it. ;)

averick"]It's a movie with specially designed cameras.

So is Attack of the Clones. >_>

[Readman]

averick;1144367']Plus, it's James ****ing Cameron. The man only puts out films that change the movie landscape. It's a movie with an unheard of budget. It's a movie with specially designed cameras. You might not think many people know about the film, fair enough, but the trailers are just coming out now for a December 17 release. In two weeks time, this movie will be all anyone's talking about.

It will completely change the last two weeks of the decade!!!11

Honestly, people. Come on.

[StorminNorman]

Too Human was in development for ten years, which included many failed attempts and huge costs. Would you say that it's place in videogame history was confirmed?

Your analogy is flawed in a couple of ways. Too Human was a game made by talentless hacks, so it was pretty much guaranteed to suck from the get-go. Avatar is made by a guy who's a pretty awesome movie director, so it has a pretty good chance of being awesome.

Maybe you'd have a point if Avatar was being directed by some hack director, but it's not.

Exactly. If the new technology and filmmaking techniques in this film do end up redefining the industry, that's going to occur in the next decade.

The technology for this film has already redefined the industry. You know all those "3D" movies that have popped up over the past few years? The cameras used in them were designed for Avatar.

[Readman]

Which makes it a good inclusion for the list '100 Film Development processes that defined the naughties'.

[REQUIEM]

It looks good enough to get me out the house to go to see it at IMAX3D.

[RunningMild]

Your analogy is flawed in a couple of ways. Too Human was a game made by talentless hacks, so it was pretty much guaranteed to suck from the get-go.

Really? I thought Eternal Darkness was considered to be one of the best games of last-gen, if not ever. ;)

[JubeiSaotome]

http://kotaku.com/5419824/conan-obrien-now-picking-on-60+metascore-games

Also, not going to bother with Avatar, it looks like Twilight crossed with Starship Troopers.

[StorminNorman]

Really? I thought Eternal Darkness was considered to be one of the best games of last-gen, if not ever. ;)

I don't follow. How is that relevant?

[punkgorilla]

I don't follow. How is that relevant?

You said Too Human was made by 'talentless hacks'. Talentless hacks usually don't make classic games.

[StorminNorman]

Well, no. I don't see how that's relevant, though.

[RunningMild]

I don't follow. How is that relevant?

Because:

Your analogy is flawed in a couple of ways. Too Human was a game made by talentless hacks, so it was pretty much guaranteed to suck from the get-go.

Too Human and Eternal Darkness were made by the same company (Silicon Knights). How can they be talentless hacks if they made what is considered to be one of the greatest videogames ever? It's like saying that Phantom Hourglass was made by talentless hacks, even though it's the same company that made Ocarina Of Time.

My point is, after ED I don't understand why the follow-up from that company was 'guaranteed to suck from the get-go'.

Unless you don't actually think ED is a good game, which is fair enough. :p

[StorminNorman]

Too Human and Eternal Darkness were made by the same company (Silicon Knights).

Shit, really? I didn't know that.

How can they be talentless hacks if they made what is considered to be one of the greatest videogames ever?

While I'd hardly call Eternal Darkness "one of the greatest videogames ever", it is a pretty great game.

Maybe a different (talented) team within the studio worked on it. Maybe they got lucky that one time. I don't really know. My point is that Too Human is a game clearly made by people with no talent, whereas Avatar has a lot of talent going into it.

That said, early reports suggest that Avatar isn't... that great. Which worries me, because it should be utterly, utterly awesome, and anything less than total awesomeness from Mr. Cameron will be disappointing to me.

It's like saying that Phantom Hourglass was made by talentless hacks, even though it's the same company that made Ocarina Of Time.

To be fair, those games are clearly developed by different people.

Unless you don't actually think ED is a good game, which is fair enough. :p

It's pretty good, and definitely one of the better Gamecube games.

[Australian Ninja]

It's funny that when people don't already know about something, they assume it's no good, or not worth knowing about. Some of the comments here are just ridiculous.

As already mentioned, the tech developed for Avatar has already been used for other productions and one of them is the new Tintin film.

Anyhow, I''ll be watching Avatar and hope the story is decent, seeing as T2 and Aliens are still two of my all time favourites. No matter what it turns out to be, Cameron is still an innovator at the end of the day who will hopefully keep pushing boundaries (and actors) until he's dead.

[RunningMild]

That said, early reports suggest that Avatar isn't... that great. Which worries me, because it should be utterly, utterly awesome, and anything less than total awesomeness from Mr. Cameron will be disappointing to me.

That's the thing. Just as you did with Too Human, if you watch Avatar and it turns out to be terrible and you're not familiar with the director's previous work, you might think that it was...

clearly made by people with no talent

:p

the tech developed for Avatar has already been used for other productions and one of them is the new Tintin film.

Which won't be coming out this decade, hence the original point. ;)

[Second]

God damned Special Olympics!

[proofreeder]

It's funny that when people don't already know about something, they assume it's no good, or not worth knowing about. Some of the comments here are just ridiculous.

As already mentioned, the tech developed for Avatar has already been used for other productions and one of them is the new Tintin film.

Anyhow, I''ll be watching Avatar and hope the story is decent, seeing as T2 and Aliens are still two of my all time favourites. No matter what it turns out to be, Cameron is still an innovator at the end of the day who will hopefully keep pushing boundaries (and actors) until he's dead.

I'm psyched about seeing Avatar myself, but that's not what I'm arguing. That's a completely different issue to judging, rating or comparing something when you haven't seen the finished product.

[Blob]

While I'd hardly call Eternal Darkness "one of the greatest videogames ever", it is a pretty great game.

Maybe a different (talented) team within the studio worked on it. Maybe they got lucky that one time. I don't really know.

When Nintendo is over your shoulder a bit I think it helps.