Avatar

[Montresor]

As far as the effects go, I became desensitized to special effects years ago. If all you want is something pretty to look at, throw a dollar at a stripper and you'll see something better than Cameron can show you. If I watch a movie, I expect it to have a plot, and to have a good one.

My sentiments exactly.

I've seen nothing in the trailer which makes me want to see this film. The story looks so familiar I hardly see the point.

[Kil Tyme]

Oh, there's a plot and an intense story line, but it is a reused theme, a la "Dancing With Wolves", "Little Big Man", "A Man Called Horse", etc. This is really a Western theme and so Avatar is a SciFi/Western movie, of sorts; they even have bows and arrows in the flick. Anyway, I liked the movie in general, but agree that with all this time to think, ponder and then work the film, Cameron should have come up with better dialog. I'd be embarrased if I were him to let this film out with the lines they gave the merc leader. My 13 yo niece even groaned at some of those lines. Some stupid stuff happened in this flick and I reject as believable the premise of the mercs wanting to blow the cats away just to get at some rock under a big tree, but I enjoyed the ride anyway; some really excellent action seqs despite a tired general plot.

[ParanoiA]

Thinking about it, the only interesting point of focus is Pandora and its features. That seems to be where Cameron put his effort. I read somewhere that the biology was intensely worked out with actual science - only the biology. That makes sense, because after viewing this movie, my recollection always goes back to the setting as the saving grace, if there is one.

So, I'm starting to believe the only real idea Cameron had all these years was the setting and some loose reference to a resource that humans will try to destroy the setting to get. The rest is put together by standard formula that has proven to get a return on investment.

As far as the effects go, I became desensitized to special effects years ago. If all you want is something pretty to look at, throw a dollar at a stripper and you'll see something better than Cameron can show you. If I watch a movie, I expect it to have a plot, and to have a good one.

A stripper may even cost less too, as long as you hang out on pervert row you won't need many dollar bills.

But I have to disagree on a minor level. I'm desensitized after a certain point. I mean, I didn't care about Transformers, T4, none of that - but I did when that level of CGI first hit the screen. I don't mind an occasional movie that's more about tech than plot and so forth, if they're trying to pioneer something crazy expensive and all that - the thing is, they rinse and repeat instead of using the tech for real, actual movies.

This is where the eccentrics of Jack White become validated in my mind. The aversion to technology is a healthy one for creative people at this point, I suspect. We are far too one dimensional. It's either special FX or quality story, or quality acting, setting... We can't seem to get all of this in one package. And it's not like it's hard really. There's a ton of books and stories out there, entirely fresh and original, with depth and believable action and plot. There's plenty of material and good actors to work with.

[Savor Dam]

I and my family really enjoyed the movie...but then we were there to watch with the suspended disbelief that is the proper approach to cinema...not looking for political subtext to pick apart.

No, it is not great art, but it was worth the cost and the time.

[jacob Raver, sinTempter]

I myself (redundant, huh) mucho prefer Jedi's space battle special effects to any CGI I've seen - though the attack on the tree scene from Avatar was very close.

[Loredoctor]

As far as the effects go, I became desensitized to special effects years ago. If all you want is something pretty to look at, throw a dollar at a stripper and you'll see something better than Cameron can show you. If I watch a movie, I expect it to have a plot, and to have a good one.

My sentiments exactly.

I've seen nothing in the trailer which makes me want to see this film. The story looks so familiar I hardly see the point.

I agree, too.

[Cagliostro]

But I have to disagree on a minor level. I'm desensitized after a certain point. I mean, I didn't care about Transformers, T4, none of that - but I did when that level of CGI first hit the screen. I don't mind an occasional movie that's more about tech than plot and so forth, if they're trying to pioneer something crazy expensive and all that - the thing is, they rinse and repeat instead of using the tech for real, actual movies.

This is where the eccentrics of Jack White become validated in my mind. The aversion to technology is a healthy one for creative people at this point, I suspect. We are far too one dimensional. It's either special FX or quality story, or quality acting, setting... We can't seem to get all of this in one package. And it's not like it's hard really. There's a ton of books and stories out there, entirely fresh and original, with depth and believable action and plot. There's plenty of material and good actors to work with.

I agree with this. I think I've become bored with effects and action films in general. I saw the first Transformers movie, and was not wowed. In fact, I think the last time I was blown away by effects was with Gollum in the LOTR movies. But I've not seen Avatar, and do intend to, but I suspect I'll be twiddling my thumbs a bit.

[SoulBiter]

I and my family really enjoyed the movie...but then we were there to watch with the suspended disbelief that is the proper approach to cinema...not looking for political subtext to pick apart.

No, it is not great art, but it was worth the cost and the time.

This is where I landed. I enjoyed the movie and saw it in 3-D.

[Zarathustra]

I and my family really enjoyed the movie...but then we were there to watch with the suspended disbelief that is the proper approach to cinema...not looking for political subtext to pick apart.

No, it is not great art, but it was worth the cost and the time.

This is where I landed. I enjoyed the movie and saw it in 3-D.

That's where I was during the movie, too. Not so much afterwards once I had a chance to think about it and discuss it.

The naive political subtext didn't bother me (mainly because it was so naive and laughable). It was the problems with the story that bothered me in retrospect. The only character development happens in the first 10 minutes of the movie, when 1. Jake infiltrates the Na'vi and 2. his blue girlfriend sees some fluff land on him, and 3. Sigourney Weaver's character decides to like him because of this. From there on out, every character is locked into their perspective and does not change. Their perspective deepens along these directions, but does not alter course at all.

A story where everyone is basically the same as they are in the first 10 minutes is a deeply flawed story, in my opinion. If your major character changes all happen shortly after the opening credits, you are more interested in message-agenda than story. And since this message-agenda was so simplistic and childish, this problem with the character development is a deep, deep flaw. Basically, you're left with nothing but pretty images to redeem the movie.

If this movie had been a basic kids' cartoon, with basic drawn animation, would any of us feel the same about it? I seriously doubt it. There's no way I'd sit through 2+ hours of cardboard characters preaching to me about how shitty humans are if it hadn't look good.

Reminds me of Wall-e. Why do makers of kids movies feel the need to tell us how bad (fat, lazy, wasteful, polluting, capitalist, etc.) humans are? When did our myths change from depicting universal human drama to politically correct liberal guilt? It's not just that I disagree with it . . . it makes shitty stories. If I wanted a story that preached to me about how awful I am, I'd read the Bible.

. . . the suspended disbelief that is the proper approach to cinema . . .

I don't agree that there is a "proper approach" to watching the movie. Nor do I agree that this "proper approach" is to ignore the main feature of the film--the aspect for which character development and story were sacrificed in order to serve this feature. That's not suspending disbelief. That's completely ignoring Cameron's main message.

[Cagliostro]

Reminds me of Wall-e. Why do makers of kids movies feel the need to tell us how bad (fat, lazy, wasteful, polluting, capitalist, etc.) humans are? When did our myths change from depicting universal human drama to politically correct liberal guilt? It's not just that I disagree with it . . . it makes shitty stories. If I wanted a story that preached to me about how aweful I am, I'd read the Bible.

Well, as far as futuristic tales go, on a simple level, some portray the future as they'd like to see it, and some create a cautionary tale. Because watching blue creatures in 3-D might just change someone's mind to give a hoot and not pollute. Or whatever Avatar is about (I've still not seen it). Ok, so seeing a mostly silent robot who has a thing for Hello Dolly might just change someone's mind to give a hoot and not pollute. There. But I love Wall-E, and that wasn't the entire story. And I also see your point.

[Zarathustra]

Well, as far as futuristic tales go, on a simple level, some portray the future as they'd like to see it, and some create a cautionary tale.

Good point. Not all stories have to be character-driven. But those are the stories I prefer, personally, as a Donaldson fan. What I like so much about SRD is how he makes character-driven stories that partake in deeper truths, instead of preaching those truths with caricatures (as opposed to characters).

Ok, so seeing a mostly silent robot who has a thing for Hello Dolly might just change someone's mind to give a hoot and not pollute. There. But I love Wall-E, and that wasn't the entire story.

It's true that the Wall-e movie had several themes . . . but it certainly had no character development. Wall-e was exactly the same robot from beginning to end. Lonely robot meets sexy female robot, joins her environmentalist cause to woe her, then lives happily ever after. That's not a change of character, but of situation. Except for being alone (which he couldn't help) Wall-e was just fine in the beginning. No need whatsoever to grow or change in order to achieve his goal. His job of cleaning up our mess wasn't essentially at odds with Eve's job of determining whether that mess was sufficiently cleaned up. Thus, he didn't have to change or grow in order to alter his personal problem (loneliness). Their individual purposes were never at odds to begin with.

[Zarathustra]

Come to think of it, these two stories are amazingly similar. For both characters, accepting the girl’s brand of environmentalism is not only the key to getting the girl, but also to repudiating the state exemplified by the humans (environmental indifference, technological/materialistic excess, etc.). Both stories had their main character undergo his one and only character change in the first act of the film (e.g. becoming Na’ vi or leaving earth to chase Eve) and then ultimately reap the benefits of sticking to that change for the rest of the film (e.g. saving the environment, dying/rebirth, getting girl). Broken down to their bare essentials, they’re exactly the same story.

[Cagliostro]

If I wanted a story that preached to me about how aweful I am, I'd read the Bible.

I just want to say how much this amuses me.

It's true that the Wall-e movie had several themes . . . but it certainly had no character development. Wall-e was exactly the same robot from beginning to end. Lonely robot meets sexy female robot, joins her environmentalist cause to woe her, then lives happily ever after. That's not a change of character, but of situation. Except for being alone (which he couldn't help) Wall-e was just fine in the beginning. No need whatsoever to grow or change in order to achieve his goal. His job of cleaning up our mess wasn't essentially at odds with Eve's job of determining whether that mess was sufficiently cleaned up. Thus, he didn't have to change or grow in order to alter his personal problem (loneliness). Their individual purposes were never at odds to begin with.

I dunno...I don't feel the need for characters to progress to be entertained and charmed by a story. I see this as a love story, and frequently the change that happens in love stories is that a character is able to love and be loved. But they frequently don't learn much other than how to give the other what they need, unless it is a cornball movie where "neanderthal man falls in love with strong woman who tames his ass and turns him into a pussy." Or just as bad, "strong woman independent bookstore owner meets corporate bookstore dickhead, and gives up her business and ideals for love." Sorry...I just hated You've Got Mail, or as I prefer, You've Got Male. Or even better, as something I read or saw once, (maybe Zak and Miri Make A Porno), You've Got Male Genitalia.

Sorry, I got a bit off track there.

But back to Wall-E, I think from the beginning, he was looking for love in a world occupied by garbage and a cockroach. Loneliness was part of it, but I think even stronger was the desire to love, from watching Hello Dolly. He went about it robotically at first, following from the film, and then taking care of Eve while she was inactive, and such.

Ultimately, it's a discussion of aethestics, and I was very charmed and moved by the movie, and the little Tin Man who doesn't have a heart, but really had it from the very beginning. And I have to say that the sequences like the dance in space and some of the first meetings with Eve really do it for me. Once they get on the ship anymore, I start to get bored on revisits to the movie.

[ItisWritten]

Come to think of it, these two stories are amazingly similar. For both characters, accepting the girl’s brand of environmentalism is not only the key to getting the girl, but also to repudiating the state exemplified by the humans (environmental indifference, technological/materialistic excess, etc.). Both stories had their main character undergo his one and only character change in the first act of the film (e.g. becoming Na’ vi or leaving earth to chase Eve) and then ultimately reap the benefits of sticking to that change for the rest of the film (e.g. saving the environment, dying/rebirth, getting girl). Broken down to their bare essentials, they’re exactly the same story.

The problem with statements like that is that some use it to go so far as to say there are no new stories, which is certainly false.

Even an old joke can be told with a fresh delivery and angle.

When you get to the bare essentials, that's not the place where imagination lives, which is why you dress them up with characters and setting. Stripping a movie like Avatar (or Wall-E) of its trappings removes its charm, and, as one who enjoyed it, the attempt to analyze how one appreciated or was disappointed by a movie can entirely kill the enjoyment one did experience. I did that with Lord of the Rings, and I haven't been able to watch it beginning to end since.

I've spoken with a few people who referred to their viewing of Avatar as emotional. Clearly, the story has resonance with a wide swath of the population (as the box office shows), however derivative the script is.

I suppose what I'm objecting to is the seeming intention to turn a popcorn movie with an obvious message into a referendum on movie making. It seemed to me the point of the movie was to make the audience feel.

[Rigel]

The problem with statements like that is that some use it to go so far as to say there are no new stories, which is certainly false.

Even an old joke can be told with a fresh delivery and angle.

Which is why my problem with the movie isn't the fact that it's a cliched story, but that it's a cliched story done badly.

It seemed to me the point of the movie was to make the audience feel.

The only things it made me feel were boredom and nausea. I'm glad that other people can enjoy and feel that they got their money's worth, but I don't enjoy movies like that.

[Zarathustra]

Stripping a movie like Avatar (or Wall-E) of its trappings removes its charm, and, as one who enjoyed it, the attempt to analyze how one appreciated or was disappointed by a movie can entirely kill the enjoyment one did experience. I did that with Lord of the Rings, and I haven't been able to watch it beginning to end since.

Yeah, I know I ignored the charm with my analysis (and there was some charm, in both movies). I just thought it was amusing to note how this particular myth is creeping into our collective mythology, how even romance is made to serve the purpose of PC, liberal, environmental propaganda. I think that strips both of these movies of their charm, and does far more damage to one's enjoyment, than me simply pointing it out. I didn't put it there. The writers did. If anyone is stripping the joy from modern movies, it's certainly not the people who notice what the writers actually write. It is the writers who think humans (particularly American humans) need to be condemned not only on the floor of the Senate or in the evening news, but also in their children's entertainment. So we agree that it kills the charm and robs the joy, but I place the blame squarely on the ones who produced these movies. That's my whole point.

[ParanoiA]

I didn't put it there. The writers did. If anyone is stripping the joy from modern movies, it's certainly not the people who notice what the writers actually write.

Thank you for this fine point. It gets frustrating for me to point this stuff out, and then receive criticism about how I've "teared it apart". There is a line between decoding the message and pulling things out that aren't there. I think I can quite tell the difference, and for me, this message was loud and clear.

That said, like you, it didn't ruin the movie for me and it isn't something I really even thought about as I was watching the movie. The movie was ruined by a quaint and cliched storyline with caricatures in place of characters. The childishly poetic message about humans and their fate was just another of a long list of disappointing premises.

But the 3D was cool. I wonder if Covenant in 3D would have been awesome...I'll bet so.

[High Lord Tolkien]

I saw Avatar several years ago when it looked like this:

[Zarathustra]

Thank you for this fine point. It gets frustrating for me to point this stuff out, and then receive criticism about how I've "teared it apart". There is a line between decoding the message and pulling things out that aren't there. I think I can quite tell the difference, and for me, this message was loud and clear.

That said, like you, it didn't ruin the movie for me and it isn't something I really even thought about as I was watching the movie. The movie was ruined by a quaint and cliched storyline with caricatures in place of characters. The childishly poetic message about humans and their fate was just another of a long list of disappointing premises.

Thanks. I agree. I'm not here to turn this into a political rant. The main reason the political message stands out (as opposed to pulling out something that isn't there) is precisely because the movie failed as a story. That, to me, is its essential flaw. People can make movies with whatever message they want. (I happen to agree with saving the environment--though not giving up my humanity in order to do so. It's amazing how frank and unapologetic Cameron is in preaching this message of self-denial and reality-denial. It's not an accident that the end seemed very religious--which has been one of the criticisms levied against environmental fanatisism: that it's more a quasi-religious movement than a scientific debate.)

But when Hollywood gives us movies with very little character development and a plot designed only to serve the message (since it doesn't serve the characters), then it is the message you notice (unless you've made up your mind to not notice, which some call "suspending disbelief"). Cameron calls attention to it himself by having nothing to stand between his message and his audience except cool graphics. Which is another way of saying it's not character-driven. Which is my main problem with it. The movie could be preaching the benefits of free market capitalism and I'd have the same exact complaint.

[Cagliostro]

I spoke with my wife about the Wall-E discussion, and she said that Wall-E changes everyone around him, which I think is a fair assessment.

For whatever it is worth.