My God.
I'm actually glad they left out the Kyoshi Warriors.
They look awful and not sexy at all.

>not sexy at all.
Well, then, they cast Suki properly.

>>84145

You're just mad cause you wouldn't know what to do with it.

>>84146
Well, I'd put a bag over it to start.

>>84147

Mmmmmh....yes. And then what?

>>84123
People who say this are so fucking blind it's irritating. Those seven guys were working the walls. It was the one guy moving that small stone, and he was moving it slowly it slowly to get it the aim correct then he rapidly sped it up when he was ready to fire it. The movie sucked, and so did the bending but at least get your complaints correct. Yes, I fucking mad that nobody else on either /co/ noticed this until I pointed it out.

>>84149

They were dancing after the wall came up and back down.

>>84150
Like I said, the bending sucks. They had to go through all that dancing to raise another wall. Either that or there was another wall offscreen. The screen direction in this movie WAS atrocious.

>>84149
I ought to be fucking shitting me if you think that is what actually happened. Those 5 guys were working the fucking STONE. If they have danced, there would be a fucking WALL and there WASN'T.

niggershit hurrpa derpa

>>84152

What's your reasoning for the seven guys moving the stone? Because the stone isn't even visible until they've stopped moving and it's the single Earthbender that maneuvers it.

Also, why has no one considered the possibility that those seven guys might be doing some kind of battle ritual and not solely bending?

>>84152
Nope. If you pay attention to the dimensions of the shot, it's most likely it's the man nearest the stone, the one who came on screen bending in sync with the rock. If you also pay attention to the size difference between the rock and the wall, the rock was a good size in comparison to the awful bending in this movie, as was the wall involving those dancing men. If you'll also pay attention to the timing of the men dancing and the rock being bended you'll see that it is completely off. The evidence supports my theory. So if we were thinking logically, my theory should be considered fact.

>>84156
If you'll also notice that the rock impacts the guard when the man makes the punching motion, further suggesting that he was moving it steadily until he was ready to fire it as a projectile.

I actually just realized that this scene would actually have a pretty drastic effect on Zuko's speech to his father in movie 3 (not that will get one but still).

You know the speech I'm talking about. Zuko's "The people of the Earth Kingdom are proud and strong. They can endure anything as long as they have hope."

We'll it's pretty obvious from this scene that they can't endure jack shit since they're about as strong and resilient as a paper mache vagina.

Here's how the scene will probably go (despite the fact that the movie won't get made).

Fire Lord Ozai: Prince Zuko, you’ve been among the Earth Kingdom commoners. Do you think that adding more troops will stop these rebellions‌

Zuko: Shit yeah. I mean, holy fuck, don't you remember when we had those earthbenders trapped in a not prison surrounded by billions of tons of the one thing only they can use as a weapon and they didn't do a damn thing cause they were scared of the five guards and their campfire!?

Fire Lord Ozai: Oh, ok. Sooo, then the wars pretty much done and we don't have to bother doing anything.

Zuko: Nope. In fact, since those fuckers are pretty much functionally retarded, it was probably in their best interest that we conquered them and put them in camps. That way they can't hurt themselves.

Azula: Christ. I was thinking that maybe we should burn their cities down... but there so pathetic even I feel kinda bad for em.

Zuko: Yeah dad. Banishing me was the best thing you could have done for my life. It put me on the right path. I've seen that this war really was in the worlds best interest. Sorry I ever doubted you.

Ozai: Give me a hug son, then let us all go hunt the Avatar together, your sister included.

Azula: Yeah, a happy ending for everyone.

The End!

Regardless, the fact that the vast majority of viewers have thought that the half-dozen dancebenders were moving the small stone indicates that, if Shyamalan, didn't mean that, he utterly failed at camerawork and communicating things to the audience.

The idea that they were all working on that stone wall is stupid too, just because of the prediction involved in "the Firebenders are going to shoot fire at that guy over there in about 10 seconds, so we should flail around to put up a wall just before it hits him instead of having him move out of the way."

>>84158
I lol'd

>>84159
Never said it wasn't stupid, but it's correct. They were operating those walls. When you apply the logic that this movie is fucking illogical to begin with, you have to go with the most likely thing no matter how inane. The people who thought the dancebenders were moving that stone still are blind though.

>>84162
So the dancebenders where just... dancing?

>>84162

But the wall was already gone by the time the benders are doing their Jazzersize. Why are they still moving if the wall is already done and back in the ground?

Sorry mate, but even your own "logic" doesn't support your wall hypothesis. And, as Maritova already said, even if that is what happened, it's not the fault of the viewers that the director couldn't make that clear.

Oh, and >>84158 was me. I forgot my name.

>>84164
Have you paid attention to my prior posts? They were likely raising another wall. But the facts are on my side, you may believe whatever you wish, but I'm right. I've stated most of the reasons why my theory is correct and no one has countered them.

>>84163>>84164
They were raising walls still. Seriously, it surprises me that people can still believe that they were moving that rock even with the reasons they weren't being provided. I believe this article is relevant.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/?page=full

OK, now that I'm rewatching that scene with the idea that they're doing the wall (damn you for making me view it again ;)), I can see it that they're raising and then lowering that wall from off-screen, since the guy they're protecting obviously wasn't doing anything himself and turns toward the dancebenders in response. I admit that my original recollection of the scene was messed up by thinking that the wall came up after the pebble floated by, not before.

But we still have the problem of the dancebenders doing their dance afterward. Here's why I think it's altogether reasonable for the audience to think that the dance was to move the small rock:
1: Shyamalan's bending idea is all about "pumping up and releasing chi."
2: The dance feels very much like building something up and then releasing it -- they even throw their heads back and yell.
3: Thus we expect something elemental to happen in the moment they "release" their chi.
4: The only bending we see in that moment is a small rock drifting right by them, in the same direction they're facing and only appearing after they've "released."

The only other options are doing a dance for no reason (which of course the audience does not accept as there would be no reason for the camera to focus on the dance and no reason for them to be doing nothing in the middle of a fight like that), or that their dancing is doing some Earthbending off-screen. But since we see no other Earthbending happening that would appear to correlate with their actions, the idea never enters most moviegoers' minds to even accept or reject. To say that they're raising other walls that we can't see and are never featured in the shot requires a complete invention on the part of the theorist -- one that is not required in the thought that they were moving the stone.

You're right about that one last Earthbender that sends the stone into the Fire Nation soldier, but what best explains this convoluted mess is that the dancebenders somehow raised the stone and the other one shot it into the soldier. Whether or not this was Shyamalan's intention is irrelevant -- this is a logical reading of what happened that makes more sense to more people than "the dancebenders were dancing for no reason or they were doing bending that we never see the effects of." In a situation like this, the audience isn't "blind" but rather "blinded" by being forced to choose between a situation that only half-fits with what's happening and a situation that demands invisible off-screen actions, and you shouldn't get so irritated at the audience for finding this path to interpret it.

>>84165
>They were likely raising another wall.

Where? Is this a wall only you can see and know about. Did M. Night tell you about this special off-screen wall on your nightly phone call with him?

I'm watching the video in another window.

The dirt wall blocks the fire and falls to the ground a full 2 seconds before the earthbenders are even doing their retardo dance. By the time they finish, the wall that you think they're summoning has been gone by a full 5 seconds.

What does happen when they finish is that a little rock gently saunters across the screen. Absolutely everything in that scene implies that it was the Earth Kingdom stepping class throwing that stone, and any supposed evidence to the contrary seems to exist only in your brain.

>>84169
Says the man yet to counter the evidence. The timing, dimensions, size difference between rock and rock wall and screen direction support my theory. If this was a court case of sorts I will have won.

>>84168
Okay, it's reasonable for them to think wrongly. But with the presented evidence it's ludicrous to think otherwise.

>>84170
Not to get off subject, but you wouldn't happen to be a creationist by any chance. You sure argue like one.

>>84173
No, I'm atheist. But that sure is a bullshit way to denounce something. In fact, I would say you're arguing like a creationist. I've given you my logical and supported reasons for believing this theory and you counter it by ignoring every thing I've said. Meanwhile, I'm stuck in a circle telling you to actually counter my trumping evidence.

>and you counter it by ignoring every thing I've said.

Here pot, there's someone I'd like you to meet.

The fact that you guys are arguing over the sequence proves Shyamalan failed outstandingly to make it clear.

>>84176
Oh no doubt, Shyamalan fucked up royally.
>>84175
Once you use greentext and and sayings to attempt to prove your point you've failed. Until someone can properly counter my evidence I'm in the right.

>>84178
You have no evidence. You're just running in circles to defend this shit.

>Until someone can properly counter my evidence I'm in the right.

Except both Mari and I as well as a few other Anon's have countered your "evidence" along with providing "evidence" of our own as to why we think you're wrong.

You're response has been to ignore those posts, pretended they aren't there, then accuse me of doing the exact thing you're guilty of.

>Once you use greentext and and sayings to attempt to prove your point you've failed

Unless, you know, it's completely appropriate and fitting to the situation at hand.

>>84174
The fact that you exist proves God doesn't.

>>84178

>Until someone can properly counter my evidence I'm in the right.

What does it honestly matter once it's established that it's so difficult to understand the events in this scene that we all admit that it looks like six people moved one tiny rock?

Even Johan Matte, aka Rufftoon, a storyboarder for the actual show itself, thought that was the case. Going by Maritova's explanation, it sounds like you have to have the idea in your head that they make the wall, first, otherwise it's going to go over people's head 90% of the time, confuse the living hell out of a further 9%, the last 1% gets it on the first viewing and 99.99% of people think it's stupid anyway.

If was so poorly executed that you have to really closely examine it and fill in the blanks with context clues to arrive at a certain conclusion, then what's the point? That we have to do such a thing before we make fun of it, so that we do so correctly? I'm honestly not understanding your position.

>>84173
He does, and it's pretty obnoxious, but now that I'm watching the whole thing one more time (fuck you anon I was trying to forget this scene) I can start to see how the dancebenders could be doing walls and walls only.

The sequence of events:
Fire Nation guy gets hit by pebble
Fire Nation guy throws flame at boy who presumably threw pebble
Wall #1 is raised in front of him, then lowers, camera moves to father in Earthbending stance (presumably the one responsible for Wall #1)
Katara yells out "don't be afraid" and then stands around there lamely with nothing to do
Fire Nation guy throws more fire at father and son
Wall #2 appears and disappears to block, both father and son look surprised and look at dancebenders (who seem responsible for Wall #2)
Dancebenders dance
Stone appears, moves across screen, Lone Earthbender (a very fancy name!) appears and launches stone into soldier
Another Fire Nation guy throws flame at Lone Earthbender, Wall #3 raises in front of him as he puts his arms up

I think the way anon is interpreting is is that all walls, or at least #3 and not just #2, are by the dancebenders. Under this model, what I imagine is happening is this: the dancebenders are acting as a tank for the entire area, and their dancing is "pumping up the Earthbending" so it can be quickly released as a wall where and when it's needed. So they raise and lower Wall #2, and then stomp/pack the earth to "reload" their wall so when the Lone Earthbender is in danger they can quickly send it up and protect him. It's actually a clever concept and I wouldn't mind it at all.

However! This whole idea depends on the idea that raising Earth walls is a process that requires time (to "reload") and a fair number of people.

This is invalidated by the appearance of Wall #1 (and to a certain degree, Wall #3). The way the son looks at his father and how the father is in a stance makes it very clear that he was the one who raised Wall #1. Thus, one person can very quickly make an Earth wall -- so you don't need a bunch of benders to make a wall, nor do you need them to flail around to "load up" a wall to use in the near future.

Also, with Wall #3, it's obviously one that the Lone Earthbender is quickly putting up and not one the dancebenders are building for him. He is not shielding himself with his arms like the boy or his father, but has fists clenched in a more solid pose, and the wall rises up in concert with the rising of his arms.

There are only these three walls visible, and no one else is in any visible danger where a wall would be needed. To postulate any others is to insert an ad hoc hypothesis (awh yeah Latin). It seems apparent that the dancebenders can only be responsible for Wall #2. And since the dancebenders are doing nothing wall-related after Wall #2, their dancing has no apparent meaning unless they are working in concert with the Lone Earthbender on that small rock.

On the other hand it is possible that the father is just stronger than the other Earthbenders and can make that Wall #1 by himself, while the others need to work in dancing formations and charge up each time -- though that does strike me as ad hoc as well, since the only evidence for the father being a stronger Earthbender is that it's the only way that theory would work. Plus the way that Wall #3 seems to accord with the Lone Earthbender's movements weakens the idea that the dancebenders were responsible.

I will very much admit, though, that the stone feels like it's from the angle of the Lone Earthbender and not the dancebenders.

It's just a scene where no single interpretation can fully cover what we see, and that the only conclusions that can be made are that the dancebenders are moving the stone (which doesn't quite fit with the angles), the dancebenders are prepping to raise Wall #3 (which doesn't correlate with the way the Lone Earthbender is moving or the effortless ability of the father), or the dancebenders are working a wall offscreen to protect someone we never see (which has no evidence for it). In such a situation, I think no interpretation can be truly conclusive.

>Until someone can properly counter my evidence I'm in the right.

And just to be clear, that's actually the exact opposite of how that works. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

By your logic, if I claim that the inside of the moon is filled with 5 mile tall purple elephants, would your inability to disprove it make it true?

>>84184
I could disprove your reasons. I know the burden of proof is on me, that's precisely why I provided it. So until then, I'm still right. You can throw around what ever shit you want but until you can present evidence to the contrary I'm to be considered correct.

>>84182
I'm not in anyway defending it. It was atrocious screen direction and the fact that I have to use several reasons and my skills of deduction after years in investigation is even further evidence that who ever directed that scene is an idiot. The fact that it's in anyone's head that all those people were moving one stone is saddening. I could except this if it was from an amateur director, but someone that Hollywood consistently looks to to make movies is disheartening.

>>84185

Well, alright then. Now, if you'll all excuse me, I'm going to go do something a bit more productive and argue with the brick wall in my basement a bit.

>>84186
Apologies. "Except" in that last comment should be "accept".

>>84185
Nuh-uh! I'm right! I know I'm right because I said it and I'm the one to judge my own statements! And if no one replies to this post in 5 seconds I'm right forever, no do-overs!

>>84187
You do that friend. I'll go see inception again.

>>84189
How childish. Do you sincerely believe that by trying to mock me you can trump me logically? Well, you certainly have a bright career on fox news ahead of you.

Interesting. My reply is appearing on the front page, but not in the actual thread.

I apologize for the duplicate post. It wouldn't go through so i assumed there was something wrong with .gif file.

Really guys? This great big shitstorm over the dancebending scene?

To the Anon arguing we're all stupid for thinking the dancebenders were helping move the tiny rock, as the others have stated, Shyamalan did a terrible job of making that scene clear if this many people believe that's what happened. And even if you're right about this one little scene, and it doesn't sound like you are, that doesn't make up for the rest of the movie being complete and utter shit. So who gives a damn?

>>84145
GTFO

>>84211
You're saying it as if I haven't stated that several times, which shows me that you haven't read my posts and that you're set in your incorrect ways. If you had read my posts you would see that in no way has anyone even attempted to dispute my reasons while saying that the burden of proof is on me when in fact I've provided proof, and they haven't.

>>84226
Excuse me, what the fuck is this?

>>84236
Eh just some photoshop on dA.