Avatar

[finn]

LF, you name some of my favourites there too! I got that you were exaggerating for effect and softening with the joke.....maybe you did not get that I was teasing you back???

I think many things are actually multifacetted, wine may be sniffed by a connoisseur or sipped to enhance a particular food, it can be traded for its rarity, used to toast to hello and say goodbye. It forms a part of a worship and is also consumed by those wishing to get to oblivion faster than beer will take them there. You may not like the movie because the plot is weak, but others may get their value from other facets than the plot, the music, the visuals, whatever.....

The point is that this thread has decried Avatar as a movie and the main rationale presented is its plot. There have been some condescending remarks and attitudes towards those who liked the movie based upon that rationale being THE criteria for determining if its good or bad. My view is that there are other criteria for other people and those criteria are equally valid..... I suspect you don't entirely disagree with this.............

I think the movie itself is stupid, but if others can enjoy it so be it

................and as I said I can live with that.

[Worm of Despite]

The point is that this thread has decried Avatar as a movie and the main rationale presented is its plot. There have been some condescending remarks and attitudes towards those who liked the movie based upon that rationale being THE criteria for determining if its good or bad. My view is that there are other criteria for other people and those criteria are equally valid..... I suspect you don't entirely disagree with this.............

Yeah. I just think the movie is dumb, and no amount of visuals or blue people saved it for me. What I think of those who like it is a distant, unconcerned second that should concern nobody else.

For me, my criteria for why the film is bad is THE criteria, just like a man's reason for believing in God is completely right for him. Why someone likes the film is also totally right within his or her universe. I don't see the issue here. I'm right. You're right. We're all right. However you approach the film, you can do no wrong. All I've been doing is explaining why I think the film is a bunch of expired guacamole--not that it empirically is.

And I can find no condescending remarks or attitudes toward those who liked the movie on this thread. babybottomfeeder doesn't count, since he's a troll, and in fact I was called out and insulted in an earlier post (something to do with me having no "association with truth"). But I don't care, really. I don't feel backed into a corner, and honestly, do you Avatar fans feel so? I'm sure you'll like the movie regardless of this man's opinion.

LF, you name some of my favourites there too! I got that you were exaggerating for effect and softening with the joke.....maybe you did not get that I was teasing you back???

Oh. Gotcha. With text it's hard to tell when someone's joking, sometimes!

[finn]

That's cool LF and whilst you have been strident in your poor opinion of the movie, you have not characterised those who disagree with you, certainly my comments in that dierction were not aimed at you or indeed especially to anyone, however there are some charaterisations and there is some intellectual snobbery displayed.....imo.

[Worm of Despite]

But not from me or anyone else? So this snobbery...is made up? Or do you refer to the real world and not KW? I suppose I have stayed the course in my opinion, but it wasn't difficult; I'd say no more being-on-course than those who like the film.

[finn]

Hmmmmm, IMO its there, but I do not think it would be useful to pick over posts and risk confrontational dialogues, better left in the Tank. I'm taking a break from some of the crap in there and really don't want to import it to other parts of the watch. I stand by the above and I reserve the right to leave it at that! 'kay?

[Worm of Despite]

'kay?

M'kay!

[Rigel]

This statement is kind of the equivalent of reading a book and loving it, based solely on the awesome cover art.

No it is not, regardless of how condescending and trivialising your remark attempts to be.

You're right, of course. It's more like reading a book, and loving it because the font is so pretty.

On the one hand, you have the central substance of the book, which many people have decried as bland and sterile.

On the other hand, you have that substance's presentation, which many other people have praised as being so pretty.

While I think that both should be present in a truly great film, if you're going to be missing one or the other, I'm a utilitarian at heart who values substance over flash. I prefer a good story with bad presentation to a pretty but bland film.

[Seareach]

Crikey!

For the record, i don't think it's loving a book because of the cover art type thing. I love the outdoors, I'm a country gal, I've spent time in rainforests, I've worked with indigenous people. I've had adventures in worlds like the one in Avatar so that's what appealed to me (as well as the other things I mentioned in my first post).

I often read books where I think "hmmm, gorgeous writing, beautiful mechanics but the story really didn't grab me". That doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the experience (it also doesn't mean I *did* enjoy it). But I got something out of it.

<shrug> I'm not into arguing about this kinda stuff: I've never really cared what everyone else thinks--meaning that just because everyone else hated it doesn't change my experience.

[ItisWritten]

This statement is kind of the equivalent of reading a book and loving it, based solely on the awesome cover art.

No it is not, regardless of how condescending and trivialising your remark attempts to be.

You're right, of course. It's more like reading a book, and loving it because the font is so pretty.

This kind of comment is exactly what the internet encourages. An opinion intended to be snarky for its own sake. It assumes there is no other merit to the movie besides the flash.

Perhaps to you, Rigel, the movie was bland but there are dozens of reasons for people to like what they saw, and very few of them would require an indiscriminating perception.

So, I was watching Avatar on DVD this week--the first time I'd seen it since the cinema--and halfway through I wondered what it was that held my attention, especially the second time. The story is obvious and leaks plot holes; the acting unremarkable. The CGI may be stunning, but that's not why I watch movies.

I found my answer late in the movie when Sully can't reach the breather and Neytiri comes to his rescue. When she looks at him in his human form she doesn't flinch at all. She looks at the fragile human and sees the source of her Jake. It's an emotional impact and comes right through the CGI blue skin and yellow eyes as if it were mere face makeup.

That wasn't the only time but this one buzzed in like a Jeopardy champion. I can't argue against how I feel, and when a movie or book gets me, I just go with it.

For those who appreciate Avatar, it's like reading a book and accepting it for what it is, however that works for them.

[Worm of Despite]

Sure, we can boil things down to saying "it works different for everyone," and I'm the first to say I totally respect that, but no amount of equivocating will keep Avatar from being divisive among fans and non-fans (and for a long time to come, I believe). I find it interesting such qualities are there--that people either get into a gut-wrenching-emotion-or-awe-moment when viewing the film or are left cold-fish. There's usually no wiggle room between.

In the end, Avatar strikes me as one of those military adventure novels that some people dig into and other readers sneer at as one of the dumber subsets as sci-fi. While I don't think Avatar is full-bore as dumb as some military sci-fi I've read (I mean, come on; one book cover had a dinosaur with laser-cannons on its shoulder), there's definitely a vibe I picked up from Avatar that struck me as similar. That may be one of my beefs with the film; that I've been seeing these Indepedence Day-style epics for so many years now that the whole hardcore-military-versus-aliens theme has worn me thin.

Sure, Cameron put a little of his lemon spice on it and his usual gravitas and panache, but I'll be damned if he didn't hit his perfect-pitch a year after I was born when he released Aliens in 1986 (and one year before my existence with The Terminator).

[Seareach]

I was talking to a friend today about Avatar, and I mentioned views in this thread.

This is how I feel (and their thoughts were on a similar level): you can listen to a song and hate the lyrics but love the music; you can look at a piece of art and have no idea of the artists intent but still think that what you are looking at is something that is beautiful; ...that kind of thing.

I think that challenging someone's intellect based on understanding the artist's intent and whether that is "original" or not is pure snobbery!

Anyway, I've got to the point in my life where I don't really care what other people think. I'm not going to change my mind (nor think any less of my own opinion of something) just because the majority says otherwise...just because others want to label my thoughts in a way that makes sense to them (but which has no baring on me).

We all have opinions based on our own life experiences, upon our own values, needs, wants etc. And I'm certainly not going to get hung up by those who seem to think that my acceptance (and enjoyment) of Avatar on a purely...um..."aesthetic" level reflects my intellect. The whole "You're dumb coz you like something that the majority don't" is just a wank, imo.

LF: I'm an example of one who doesn't fit your mold. I'm in the "wiggle room". I lived it for what it was and experienced it for what it was (and didn't keep saying to myself "it is a rip-off of a, b, c & d" etc) but I didn't find the story 100% moving HOWEVER it was enough for me. I didn't over-analyze it...took it for what it was. Therefore = I'm not a die hard fan of it...but nor am I one who says it's a crock of shit. I'm an inbetween. I loved it for certain elements and didn't like it for others. But my overall thought was "Wow, took me on a wonderful ride for the whole three hours" (or how ever long it was).

I dunno. Maybe if you guys had been where I'd been, and hung out with the Aborigines I had, and lived in their world, and seen their big trees, and swum in their rivers with the black brim splashing at your legs, and heard their stories...maybe you *would* understand...I don't know....

Me being the type of person I am: I just don't get it. Why are we all so bent on thing being perfect?...on things being "different", being "unique"...that kind of thing. Avatar doesn't have the most unique story but what the hell is unique these days? We've got this whole overload of stories. Come on guys, we're all SRD fans: the writer who has a "one ring" (LOTR), who has...sh*t, I'm rereading the chronicles now and who denies the gazillon of parallels between LOTR and the Chronicles....

Long and short of it: I approach every story like it is new and I don't think "OMG, that's a rip-off of..." whatever. Take it for what it is, or live a life that is kinda shit, really: it's the same as a and b and c and d....man...how boring!

[Worm of Despite]

LF: I'm an example of one who doesn't fit your mold. I'm in the "wiggle room".

I never said there was no wiggle room. I said there just "usually" wasn't. So not only do you still get to join the mold again but you also get this nifty T-shirt that you are a rare occurrence!

I dunno. Maybe if you guys had been where I'd been, and hung out with the Aborigines I had, and lived in their world, and seen their big trees, and swum in their rivers with the black brim splashing at your legs, and heard their stories...maybe you *would* understand...I don't know....

Sounds like quite a lot to do to understand the movie.

Me being the type of person I am: I just don't get it. Why are we all so bent on thing being perfect?...on things being "different", being "unique"...that kind of thing. Avatar doesn't have the most unique story but what the hell is unique these days? We've got this whole overload of stories. Come on guys, we're all SRD fans: the writer who has a "one ring" (LOTR), who has...sh*t, I'm rereading the chronicles now and who denies the gazillon of parallels between LOTR and the Chronicles....

There are parallels, but people love the Chronicles because of the so many things different from LOTR and TCTC--and most importantly the characters, the unique beauty of the Land, the unique anti-hero, Thomas Covenant, the Giants, the world's history, the writing, on and on... Like I've said before; being similar to something is all right, but the most important thing is if you do something new with that similarity.

SRD had a template, but it was mostly transparent; on top of it he put the things we love. The stuff that this whole message board is here for. FOR ME, Cameron's imagination did not outstrip or outrun or OBSCURE his template; his bare bones of the movie showed for me, and I could not help but see it. It stopped me from fully enjoying the film. It felt more like product to me than working, living, breathing art that had that spark of fire or touch of God.

[Zarathustra]

It seems to me, psychologically, that those who like Avatar feel more victimized than those who don't like it. This is sometimes called mass hysteria or cultism. Jim Jones did it too. Now it's James Cameron's turn.

I think it's dangerous psychoanalyzing people based on their movie tastes, but I can see what you're saying. It certainly makes more sense than lumping people into "love nature--love Avatar," and "hate nature--hate Avatar" categories.

I love the woods. I grew up in the middle of a forest in a log cabin we built ourselves after clearing the land to build it. I lived a very primitive, 19th century lifestyle as a child. And after I save up enough to build a house, I'm moving back to those very same woods. It's my biggest dream (beside getting published). Nature--specifically the wooded type--is very, very important to me.

If I were to engage in the psychoanalsis that I just said was dangerous, I'd say that Avatar appeals to people who love nature in a pining-for-better-times sort of way. People who see nature as a victim (rather than themselves, as LF speculates). Of course, I might be wrong. But it's certainly a powerful meme in our modern culture that we're destroying the planet. And comments made here seem to back up the impression that this is a factor in being able to get something out of the movie.

[Worm of Despite]

It seems to me, psychologically, that those who like Avatar feel more victimized than those who don't like it. This is sometimes called mass hysteria or cultism. Jim Jones did it too. Now it's James Cameron's turn.

I think it's dangerous psychoanalyzing people based on their movie tastes, but I can see what you're saying. It certainly makes more sense than lumping people into "love nature--love Avatar," and "hate nature--hate Avatar" categories.

Oh yeah; I'm not making individual psychological profiles. Just saying that, on the macro level, I seem to see a high degree of defensiveness from 'Tar fans, often easily regressing to name-calling (I can cite two examples here) or that we who don't like it are snobbish and somehow ignorant of the other parts of the film that doesn’t include plot. It's a similar attitude displayed by Star Wars junkies, who think the fact Greedo shot first was a more terrible event than the Holocaust.

If I were to engage in the psychoanalsis that I just said was dangerous, I'd say that Avatar appeals to people who love nature in a pining-for-better-times sort of way. People who see nature as a victim (rather than themselves, as LF speculates).

I'm not saying people like Avatar because they feel like victims--rather--they're acting like victims once the Hindu cow of their film is attacked. I'm more than sure people liked Avatar for as many different reasons as there was people who viewed it.

[Zarathustra]

It's a similar attitude displayed by Star Wars junkies, who think the fact Greedo shot first was a more terrible event than the Holocaust.

At least it's a criticism that goes to the heart of one of the main characters, rather than the visual effects or the minutiae of geek trivia. Solo shot first, damnit. That's the way it will always be in my mind.

But the Holocaust is much worse than PC revisionism.

[Worm of Despite]

But the Holocaust is much worse than PC revisionism.

Most definitely. I was simply using that contrast to highlight the ridiculous fervor of some movie fans.

[Cagliostro]

Well, it's all aesthetics, and no one's view is any more correct than any one elses. I ended up liking it more than I thought I would, as I figured it was one of those big action films that I don't get too excited about these days, but that I could enjoy the 3-D gimmick. There were several bits I found hokey, several over the top moments that didn't sit well with me, and groanably bad dialogue here and there. However, there were also several very good moments littered throughout that I tend to describe as the "Spielberg awe and wonder" moments; i.e. the dragon flying, the first time the main character gets into his new body, etc.
To me, the conflict seemed a bit tired, as I'm sure the big evils in Tron and Legend would seem to me if they were to come out today (both of which movies I have a fondness for, but recognize they are mostly flash and little substance). Does that make me a snob? Possibly. But I think it might also be because I have a lot more movies under my belt than I had back when I hailed Tron at the time as my favorite movie ever.
But saying that also discounts that there are certain things that touch us in ways we cannot typically explain. We all find "truth" in the strangest places. So for me, I find it in things like Amelie, Joe Vs. the Volcano and the Fisher King, and you'll find it in things I may not be able to relate to. That's kinda how aesthetics works - something that appeals to the heart or the head or in rarer instances, both.

[Tjol]

The world's going to sh*t at the moment ...

Avatar was joy to me... To me it's a beautiful, wonderful delight.

Sorry about the brutal edit of your post, but these two statements are the ones that stood out to me the most. You decry the world, and praise a pretty bland movie, imo. I don't think the world is going to shit. I think movies are going to shit, and Avatar is a prime example of this. The world is just fine. Pretty awesome, actually. But there's lots of money to be made off the belief that it's going to shit. This movie seems to be pretty popular with people who think this way.

I enjoyed the movie because it was sparkly, as I've said before. I think storywise, it's vague, uses the various prototypes already in place, but as a consequence is enjoyable, kind of in the same ways people compared Star Wars with Errol Flynn(sp?) movies. Nothing original, nothing specific, just simple fun.

I'm of a mixed mind when it comes to the world. I will say that the world is changing, but I thought everyone left of center by definition thought a changing world is inherently an improving world. Curious contradiction for those who see Avatar as a green politics call to action... I see Avatar differently each time, soley because my mind's creative enough to do so. I think next time I see Avatar, it will in fact be about rural rednecks defending their property rights from the encroaching armies of politicians and bureacrats looking for more things to take rather than ask for.

[Rigel]

OK, that's a bit disingenuous, but what the he**

Here's the real post:
The Value of Ideas, by Scott Adams

My Google Alert recently picked up a lot of chatter on the Internet about a rumored Dilbert movie in the works. The rumor is ahead of the reality, as the project hasn't been funded, and there isn't yet a director, writer, or actor signed on. But I was fascinated by the reactions of the many movie web sites that weighed in with their opinions on whether it was a good idea to create a Dilbert movie.

What?

Evaluating whether an idea is good enough for a movie is a bit like an automobile expert saying a certain brand of car doesn't taste good. It's absurd. You can only hold the opinion that a particular movie concept is a good or bad idea if you don't understand what a movie is or what an idea is.

For example, here's the world's worst idea for a movie: Titanic. It did okay at the box office.

Movies are good or bad because of execution, not concept. Even outside of the movie realm, ideas generally have no economic value whatsoever, except in rare cases such as when a patent is issued. And even in those cases it's the patent law that creates the value, not the ideas.

The self-appointed movie critics went on to point out that Office Space was already a movie, so there was no room left in the universe for a Dilbert movie. That's a bit like saying there's no point in creating a romantic comedy because someone already did that one. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of what a movie is.

I've long been fascinated by the common human illusion that ideas can be sorted into good and bad, when all experience shows this not to be the case. We could play the game all day long where I describe a simply terrible idea and then tell you about the people who got rich implementing it just right. Let's try a few...

How about a comic strip that is literally a bunch of stick figures? It will be called XKCD and have no discernable characters. Done! It's the most viewed comic on the Internet.

How about a movie about two gay cowboys? Done! Academy Award!

How about a comedic TV show about a Nazi concentration camp? Done! It was called Hogan's Heroes and was a hit in its time.

How about a Broadway musical about a bunch of frickin' cats? Done!

You'd be hard pressed to come up with an idea so bad that it couldn't succeed with the right execution. And it would be even harder to imagine a great idea that couldn't fail if the execution were left to morons.

Ideas are worthless. Execution is everything.

OK, really that's the main point of this.

---

Now I'm going to rant about Avatar.

This is exactly why I'm OK with Dances with Wolves yet I hated Avatar. I honestly don't care if either is original (neither one is). I care about whether the dialogue is good, whether the acting is moving, and whether the plot draws me in. Avatar did none of these things. Dances with Wolves did all of them.

And for the record, I hated Pocahontas, too.

[Cagliostro]

Ferngully?