That blue furry movie

[CyrusVillalobo]

Thorn apple

Promitheus Zek

still i dont think there furs ><

No offense meant, young sir, but I believe the very definition of a "fur" is an anthropomorphic animal, which the na'vi most certaintly are.

They are "animals" by the accepted definition of the word, and they are "anthropomorphic" without any room for doubt.

Now, if you choose to assert different definitions for these words then you are welcome to do so but until they are accepted "Avatar" will remain as the highest budget "furry" film of all time.

well thats what you think ^^ li only say till wen he got his dragon and still it maybe or not be a fur movie dont care either  

[Thorn apple]

Very well, though since neither of my points have been refuted, they still stand.  

[Thorn apple]

Atlaas

I still don't know if having an alien persona makes me a furry or not.

AND I still don't care about this movie.
Plot > Graphics.
This isn't an interesting, or new movie in any way.
It's just a pretty one.

"Furry" is kindof a grey term. You might well be more welcome in other groups, depending upon your attitude.

I agree with your analysis of that movie as far as its being "new." No, it isn't "new." But interesting? Yeah...it is. Not plot-wise, no, but being a vehicle for new and important camera technologies? Yeah, it is.  

[Garek Maxwell]

Thorn apple

I agree with your analysis of that movie as far as its being "new." No, it isn't "new." But interesting? Yeah...it is. Not plot-wise, no, but being a vehicle for new and important camera technologies? Yeah, it is.

I think I'm with some postmodernist thinking here when I say that we're fast approaching an age were, if it hasn't already happened yet, all stories to tell will not be new but rather remixes or alterations upon the already existing.

There may be large categories like "Romance" and "Romantic Comedy", but there's only so many ways to can tell the same story before it's been done before. I don't think there will be any new plots over my life time, just different ways of doing the same.

It's not a bad thing really, since you get to see nifty costumes or effects all grounded in the familiar heroic epic plot or whatever.  

[CyrusVillalobo]

Thorn apple

Very well, though since neither of my points have been refuted, they still stand.

no , no i get u but i still think it might be a fur movie or then again it might not be and it migth be us making it look like a fur movie since we all are ... the possibility are endless biggrin  

[stickfanatic]

Garek Maxwell

Thorn apple

I agree with your analysis of that movie as far as its being "new." No, it isn't "new." But interesting? Yeah...it is. Not plot-wise, no, but being a vehicle for new and important camera technologies? Yeah, it is.

I think I'm with some postmodernist thinking here when I say that we're fast approaching an age were, if it hasn't already happened yet, all stories to tell will not be new but rather remixes or alterations upon the already existing.

There may be large categories like "Romance" and "Romantic Comedy", but there's only so many ways to can tell the same story before it's been done before. I don't think there will be any new plots over my life time, just different ways of doing the same.

It's not a bad thing really, since you get to see nifty costumes or effects all grounded in the familiar heroic epic plot or whatever.

EXACTLY. this is what I tell all the people who hate Avatar based on its "Pocahontas" plot, THERE'S NOTHING LEFT THAT'S ORIGINAL. WE'VE NEARLY USED IT ALLLL UP  

[Thorn apple]

Promitheus Zek

no , no i get u but i still think it might be a fur movie or then again it might not be and it migth be us making it look like a fur movie since we all are ... the possibility are endless biggrin

Umm...ok...

Furry...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furry

I fail to see how the Na'vi are anything but this. They are anthropomorphic (man-shaped) animals (living things that aren't rooted in spot like algae, angiosperms, etc...)

So if avians aren't furry because they have feathers, then...?

(And no, I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm cutting off arguments yet-to-come, I hope. This is an old, old argument.)  

[Thorn apple]

stickfanatic

Garek Maxwell

Thorn apple

I agree with your analysis of that movie as far as its being "new." No, it isn't "new." But interesting? Yeah...it is. Not plot-wise, no, but being a vehicle for new and important camera technologies? Yeah, it is.

I think I'm with some postmodernist thinking here when I say that we're fast approaching an age were, if it hasn't already happened yet, all stories to tell will not be new but rather remixes or alterations upon the already existing.

There may be large categories like "Romance" and "Romantic Comedy", but there's only so many ways to can tell the same story before it's been done before. I don't think there will be any new plots over my life time, just different ways of doing the same.

It's not a bad thing really, since you get to see nifty costumes or effects all grounded in the familiar heroic epic plot or whatever.

EXACTLY. this is what I tell all the people who hate Avatar based on its "Pocahontas" plot, THERE'S NOTHING LEFT THAT'S ORIGINAL. WE'VE NEARLY USED IT ALLLL UP

This counts. Judging by Campbell and Jung, there isn't much left to go over.

Sure, the details vary, but the structure doesn't. Not enough.

What story deviates from the monomyth?  

[CyrusVillalobo]

>< fine there furries happy now  

[Psycho Lee]

Thorn apple

Promitheus Zek

no , no i get u but i still think it might be a fur movie or then again it might not be and it migth be us making it look like a fur movie since we all are ... the possibility are endless biggrin

Umm...ok...

Furry...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furry

Furry more refers to people who are into anthromorphic animals. So if you call someone a furry, it means they are into anthromorphs in some way.  

[FabulousNerd]

I would think so, as I consider all animal-like humans to be in the class of furry. (e.g. Nekomimis, Winged People, Nagas, Draenei, etc.)  

[Thorn apple]

Ah, semantics. Well, you got me, though of course some people do call anthropomorphic animals "furs" or "furries."

I personally prefer "chimera" though since there's no consensus of what anthropomorphics are or where they come from that quite often fails to be accurate.  

[Psycho Lee]

Thorn apple

Ah, semantics. Well, you got me, though of course some people do call anthropomorphic animals "furs" or "furries."

I personally prefer "chimera" though since there's no consensus of what anthropomorphics are or where they come from that quite often fails to be accurate.

yes but if you call ALL anthromorphic creatures "furries" even if they don't have fur, or are reptiles, avians, or aren't even vertebrae, or not even animals.  

[Thorn apple]

I concede your point, but a certain amount of inaccuracy is usually deemed tolerable for the sake of expediency.

While "anthropomorphic" may be precise, it's also very unwieldy.

"Humanoid" is good, but not specific enough.

In any event, I am forced to concede that the na'vi's status as "furries" is open to debate.

Oh, Semantics...you're like the ex I always swear I'll never call again...  

[Atlaas]

Psycho Lee

Thorn apple

Ah, semantics. Well, you got me, though of course some people do call anthropomorphic animals "furs" or "furries."

I personally prefer "chimera" though since there's no consensus of what anthropomorphics are or where they come from that quite often fails to be accurate.

yes but if you call ALL anthromorphic creatures "furries" even if they don't have fur, or are reptiles, avians, or aren't even vertebrae, or not even animals.

OR ALIENS!

Screw trying to figure it out. I'm just going to force myself on the furry community.