Avatar 3D

Remove all ads!

Haven't seen the film, but the presence of "unobtainium" means that I won't be able to anyway. Good heads-up.

I wish that just once we could see humans portrayed as a minority of sociopathic bastards suffering under a majority of overly-sensitive apologists. Now that would be realistic.

 

Well yes, I definitely agree Still, I take what I can get. It's a fairly under-represented genre when it comes to movies, and it scratched the itch. The entire thing could have been thought out a lot better. There are a lot of truly alien elements in the setting - it would have been nice if those were reflected better in the culture.

Then again, their alienness in the setting still didn't reach the level of The Dark Crystal even though they seemed after the same sort of thing there.

Meh - it's a missed opportunity, but it was enjoyable for what it was until the plot took over.

I'm not sure that it is supported by the story. The idea of a world-wide neural network with trees acting as neurons is cool - but how does it follow that it can control all the animals? There are so many better ways they could have used that concept then as the cavalry come to save the day.

 

It's like the Force, man. The neural network binds, surrounds, and penetrates all living beings from the planet so that they can surround and penetrate the invaders.

 

I actually liked the movies, depsite agreeing with most of the criticism.

I went in an expected a movie about african-indian-elves-space-cats that lived in pact with nature until the evil space-conquistadores arives to take thier space-gold, which is pretty much what I got

yes it was a corny poochahontas in space, with an element of furrieism, but it was visual stunning and the story wasn't that bad for an action movie.

 

At least Sigourney was able to play a cross between Ripley and Fossey... in a Smurf's body.

 

Actually, I think it had more to do with the atmosphere being unbreathable, and thus normal human life in the local environment being unsustainable. That's just my guess, though.

Now THAT is a great movie. More fantasy than sci-fi, though.

Well, we know of at least one bridge betweent the plant neural net and the animal neural net (which seems to be a much more transient thing).

I noticed that, too, and I have no idea. Maybe he was trying to show the hopelessness of the "quit smoking" campaigns? Maybe he was using it as a symbol for a degraded society (though there could have been a lot better ones)?

 

I totally enjoyed the visuals. I was a little disappointed in the sound as I saw the movie in an IMAX theatre and expected better. As I expected the plot was ridiculously anti-business, anti-military, etc. This pretty much summed it up for me

Spoiler

Things I learned while watching Avatar:

- It’s OK to kill things as long as you use a bow and arrow and not a gun or missile.

-Teh Interwebz au Naturale of the Allmother (or whatever the f*** the Giganto-smurfs called her) beats the technology of a species that has harvested the power of the atom, is capable of celestial travel, and has armored the unholy f*** out of everything. Also:

-It’s a much better way to call up your bizarro world rhino and pterodactyl allies (the ones that previously wanted to eat you) than a Tarzan call or a Conch shell. But, you still have to send the Dire-pony express to the Four Corners of the world to rally the tribes.

-Soldiers are bad unless they are A) not Caucasian or B) handi-capped. All other soldiers are A)psychopaths B) mindless myrmidons or C) nameless cannon fodder (or in this case arrow fodder)

-Even shallow, selfish, homicidal savages are good because they’re…savages and therefore inherently and unquestionably noble.

-The best way for primitive screw-heads to fight off a technologically superior, militarily sophisticated force is to fight the superior force on their terms. Asymmetric strategy, insurgent tactics and guerrilla warfare couldn’t possibly even the odds. Not in a million years.

-All scientists are compassionate and resent the very soldiers prepared to die to protect them. This is completely reasonable and in no way intellectually dishonest. Hollywood decrees it!

-Subjugating other species is wrong… unless you are able to have mind-blowing ponytail intercourse and biologically hack into their brain. Then it’s OK.

-When you encounter a new mineral that floats and causes whole mountain ranges to float, the coolest, catchiest, most marketable name for it is Unobtainium. After you succeed in mining it, it semantically transforms,a la magma/lava, into HaHaHa!It’sAllMine-ite.

-When the nobly savage Giganto-smurfs, the Emo-scientists and their Land-networked planetary defense menagerie evict the eeevil military-capitalist Gestapo from their idyllic floating mountain paradise back to their ecologically dead world, the nature frolickers all live happily ever after. There’s no chance in hell that those same military-capitalists will return with a full blown invasion fleet. Never happen. Hollywood decrees it

 

Well, except for Titanic, making sequels has really been Cameron's forté. What with the money poured into trying to set the new standard for making movies, in which he succeeded with Avatar much better than Lucas, a sequel is to be expected. If the movie grosses enough...

It did look good for many parts, but that's just about it. The actors, the directors and the producers will have to learn new methods of doing their stuff in front of the blue/green screen...Oh yeah, and are the Hollywood screenwriters still on strike

 

I just saw it today. Ugh.*I thought it was visually stunning. The special effects were great and the movement capture were outstanding. However like most people said, the story is pretty stale. A lot of people were talking about that, so I expected it. I think the comparison between Pocahantas is sound (or even Dances with Wolves...)...

Snook, I didn't take it as anti-business or anti-military per se. It take a stance against imperialistic actions, like those done against native americans in the european colonization of America (and other places around the globe like Africa). I also didn't agree with many of the points in the list you mention. I think where the movie fails story wise is that the entire plot is a redux of many previous movies and too much obvious. Everything in the movie is stuffed down your throat...

 

I'm not sure why people are lambasting it for it's plot - yes, it is cliche and not original at all, but how many movies these days (or that matter, since the 60's) are actually original and accessible? This movie was made for it's visuals. Besides, despite the unoriginal plot, he still made a good movie - I felt what he wanted me to feel. Perhaps I was just caught up in the 3D IMAXness of it and that helped draw me in, but I enjoyed the characters and their journey, even if it has been done before.

Also, not sure why people are upset about the obviousness of the movie's messages... nearly everything that comes out of Hollywood has a blunt, simple message that is "stuffed down your throat." Cameron isn't doing anything (storywise, messagewise) that hasn't been done before in Hollywood, but people are upset like children when they learn

Spoiler

Santa isn't real.

I mean, the message of Terminator is "don't mess with Arnold," and the entire movie was dedicated to him shooting things and blowing things up. That's a message that was shoved down our throats. But no one complains there because it is a simple action movie. This is a simple adventure movie meant to entertain with it's visuals and appeal to relatively modern issues in a straightforward way.

Hell, from the advertisements, we know exactly what is going to happen and what the messages are - we aren't going for that; those are subplots in Cameron's overall plot of epic wowness visually. I mean, I don't think this is the best movie to ever be spawned from the Abyss-like rectum that is Hollywood, but it is certainly enjoyable and doesn't deserve the flak it is getting.

/end rant.

I should stop visiting IMDB's boards - it is either fanboys or those who hate the film that leave comments, and they make me angry enough to write things like this

Of course, it is probably just one of those films that, because it receives such high praise, the lashback criticism is equally as high.

 

I think Snook's list is pretty good. The movie is so blunt with its message it hurts - and I agree with the message (well, mostly ... sort of - there are some unfortunate implications there). If you want to say something about society you have to do it in a way that actually reflects society or it will come off as ********. Avatar doesn't do that - it creates psychopathic strawmen and then has them shot full of arrows.

A good movie with an anti-military message will make you think about why that sort of thing is bad, not make you go 'but the military isn't like that!'.

I'm not saying that it's the worst movie evar - but I disliked a great deal of it because it was so average it was bad, and it deserves a lot of flak for that. There's no reason for this to be such an average idiot-action movie except for poor creative direction - there are all the elements there for something brilliant and they did this? Movies like this should be dumped on because the last thing we need is more of the same crap tacked on to interesting concepts.

 

Maybe it is Cameron's way of getting his technology into the industry? He has (perhaps) opened the way for more epically visual movies, and ones in the future will hopefully have better scripts. That being said, he had 14 years to make this story good and all he came up with was Pocahontas.

 

Saber, you're right that every movie has a message, and even that many of them are crammed down our throats, but at least they generally have the courtesy of serving them with a full-course meal, or at least coating it with chocolate.

I wasn't expecting a brilliant plot when I saw the movie. Not only is James Cameron not known for his brilliant plots and characters, the commercials didn't give any hint for one. I had at least hoped for some interesting sub-plots and enough originality for me to be interested in something other than the visuals. Even Terminator had a more original plot than this.

All in all, I get the feeling that this was the movie version of Fable: a beautiful proof-of-concept for a new technology, but not really a full-blown movie. That being said, with 14 years to work on it, there's no excuse for that.

I still have hopes for sequels, though. They've done Dances with Wolves already, so maybe next they'll do Dances with Space Marines?

 

Here is a response to the claim that one of Cameron's messages is "all military are bloodthirsty, moral-less people," I snagged from IMDB:

 

They got the math wrong - it's only 6 years in cryo each way - but the same point remains.

Let's speak plainly. These soldiers were not heroes, as Sully states in the outset "back on earth these guys were fighting for freedom," they were now trigger-happy mercenaries "working for the company." All of them chose to be there for money. They weren't defending freedom or protecting the innocent - quite the opposite. Any of them, at any time, could have objected to what was being forced on the natives and voided their contracts. All of them were perfectly happy to slaughter the natives to get to the stupidname-ium rocks, again, for money. And of course, to "kick some ass," for money. There's a real-life entity this is very analogous to, and I'll give you a hint: it's not the American military.

Cameron's message was (obviously, in my view) not anti-military, it was anti-mercenary. It was not anti-business, it was anti-bottom-line-at-any-cost. The villains in this movie aren't villains because they're a general and a business man, respectively. They're villains because they're hell-bent on achieving their objectives with ZERO regard for collateral damage, give no thought to 'the law of unintended consequences,' and arrogantly dismiss the treehugging sissies that try get them to see the bigger picture. It is that kind of hubris and over-reach in military and business matters that is being criticized, with obvious analogies to very real world issues. That was a general lesson behind the Terminator and Alien movies as well. I don't think for a minute said criticism was why Cameron made this film, but he did use that angle quite effectively to appeal to the widest contemporary audience.

Though I can kind of see how some (and I don't mean just here, I've seen this criticism all over the net) choose to view it as anti-military and anti-business, it isn't terribly surprising to me, as it seems the people most offended by the plot are the same folks who learned all the wrong lessons from the last 10 years of similar failed foreign policy experiments and business ventures too. But that's fodder for the Alleys where I no longer tread.

I thought it was a thoroughly enjoyable movie, myself. So did the half-dozen or so conservative Republicans I saw it with (so not everyone feels the need to get their nickers in a twist about it). First movie in years I actually paid to see twice in the theater (mainly for the 3D, I admit). Sure, it was basically "Dances with Smurfs," but whatever - I liked it anyway. I found it a compelling, if not terribly original, story, and the action was great. It's the first CGI movie I think I've ever seen where I wasn't so distracted by the flaws I saw in the CGI that I couldn't immerse myself in what was going on (ala Polar Express, the Prequels). I was immersed from the get-go. On that note, the real star for me was the technology, and I'm really looking forward to what others do with it in the next few years of moviemaking.

 

To me it doesn't matter if the message was anti-military or anti-mercenary (I'm anti-both) - the problem is that it was so forced and blatant that it was painful to watch. No time was taken to establish the characters as characters rather than as stereotypes to reinforce the argument. The commander and the business guy are just ... urgh. They don't not-care about the Na'vi for any reason except that they're stupid ignorant psychopathic wankers.

Ultimately I think the story has an anti-human or anti-modern message. It pounds in the idea that this culture is superior to humans, that all humans are bastards, and the only way to have a fulfilling life is to go back to running naked through the forest. That human society has some (many!) good points isn't mentioned - it's all 'look how **** we are! Look how great these guys are!'.

 

I think it pounds the idea that their culture has more honor, not that they are superior overall. Not all the human beings are bastards - of the 5 main human characters, 3 of them are good-guys. And those are the ones we relate more with - I take from the movie that we should be more like them than the bad guys, not that all humans are bad. The message (for me) is that even amongst the lowest of the low, there are some human beings worth redemption.

I thought it was very clear that they don't care about the Na'vi because of their greed, not their stupidity. They aren't stupid, they just aren't concerned with people who aren't like them. Their goals are money, at any cost. I am not sure how you could simply boil them down to ignorant psychopathic wankers. They aren't psychopathic at all - the general is adamant on getting what he wants, and his pride won't let Jake beat him. He is quite rational, in fact, just a greedy dick.

Plus, the business man had one shot in which he actually looked regretful (which I thought could have used more development) that hints that he is more complex than is initially thought. I believe it was during the tree destruction seen.

 

I don't believe that at all. I think if Cameron's goal was to be anti-human, he would have made the aliens a lot more...well, alien. Aside from being blue and having ponytail genitals, the Na'vi could easily have existed on Earth. Their mannerisms, speech patterns, even their walk - all based on human aboriginal tribes. The message wasn't that the Na'vi (or any other naked, forest-dwelling people for that matter) were superior, just that they shouldn't be arbitrarily exterminated for corporate profit, and they have every right to defend themselves and their home, as any civilization would. Your argument that human society having good qualities was ignored would carry more weight if humanity in this case wasn't attempting to force those qualities on a populace that clearly wasn't interested and then destroy said populace when they didn't show the decency to bend over and spread 'em for said humans.

But I guess arguing movie impressions is as pointless as arguing politics, so...I'll leave it there. I enjoyed the movie immensely, and that's all that really matters to me. I'm sorry your experience wasn't as pleasant.

 

I think it's important that of the good guys, most of them literally become Na'vi (I assume the other scientists that stay behind go through the body-swap thing - wouldn't make much sense otherwise). The message I'm getting is that the way to redemption lies in abandoning human society...

I don't agree. The general in particular was just a dick. The scene where they're talking about the last report being two weeks ago and when Jake indicates that he might be able to reason with them and avoid bloodshed - then the commander gets angry pretty much (it seemed to me, anyway) because it means he won't be able to pull out his guns and slaughter people. Whenever the idea of negotiating with them comes up, he dismisses it completely. His sole desire throughout the movie seems to be to kill the Na'vi (never got any indication of greed from him).

Business guy ... yeah, he has greed. I don't think that makes him any less of a psychopath though (unless we take that bit of regret seriously). It would have been easy to make this a real character, but everything about him except maybe the regret-shot indicated an utterly shallow character there to make humans look bad.

DR:
Okay, maybe 'anti-human' is a bit too far - but it definitely seems anti-modern society/culture. I don't agree that the only message there is that you shouldn't exterminate the natives for profit - it could have been that but the way that everything was portrayed takes it further. I'm not sure if this was the intended message, but that's what came across to me.