Avatar

Post by **kevinswatch** » Thu Dec 24, 2009 3:27 am

What I'd like to know is, is this movie an accurate portrayal of Avatar's biography, or do they take a lot of creative liberties?

-jay

Post by **Orlion** » Thu Dec 24, 2009 4:27 am

Rigel wrote:
Cail wrote: Jimmy's made one fantastic movie (The Terminator), one great action film (True Lies), and a bunch of increasingly disappointing rants with impressive action sequences.
How could you possibly leave out Aliens?

That's what I gasped! In my opinion, it's a slightly better film then The Terminator (I haven't seen True Lies yet, and I take pride in not having seen Titanic).

Post by **Cail** » Thu Dec 24, 2009 3:54 pm

Rigel wrote:
Cail wrote: Jimmy's made one fantastic movie (The Terminator), one great action film (True Lies), and a bunch of increasingly disappointing rants with impressive action sequences.
How could you possibly leave out Aliens?

Great movie ruined by a squealing kid and Cameron's desire to make a Vietnam War movie in space. I can still watch Aliens, but the overbearing "tough chick" message has become stale to me.

With some judicious editing, it's still a fantastic movie.

Post by **ItisWritten** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 4:57 am

Cail wrote:Just a brief chime in here.

The story is awful. Really, really awful. Subtlety has never been Jim Cameron's strong suit, and he hasn't gotten any better with time. His simplistic message, "man/technology bad, nature good" is so heavy-handed as to make the film laugh-out-loud ridiculous. As usual, there's no actual characters, just stereotypical cutouts delivering dialogue that would make George Lucas cringe.

The effects are just unbelievable, especially in IMAX 3D, and the last 40 minutes of the film are breathtaking as long as you tune out the dialogue.

But the story's so ridiculous and full of holes that it makes it (for me anyway) a one-time viewing like Titanic was.

Jimmy's made one fantastic movie (The Terminator), one great action film (True Lies), and a bunch of increasingly disappointing rants with impressive action sequences.

I didn't see the story as awful. It's a simple plot (often predictable) with stock characters in a stunning setting. Of course, I didn't expect to be challenged by the movie, so I enjoyed myself.

I wouldn't call the story ridiculous, unless you're objecting to the soldier-goes-native, tree-hugging, esoteric aspect of it. It's obvious and overdone, but I was entertained. Maybe you're referring to the coincidences?

Spoiler

The dead twin brother of the parapalegic, ex-marine hero? The unguarded, remote unit easily purloined when one pair of soldiers could have sabotaged them and prevented the avatars from being used again?

I could offer an explanation of them, but what matters is what the viewer is prepared to swallow. It's fantastical SF, so I believe my reserve of believability should be deep.

Well, that's how I see it.

Post by **lucimay** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 11:25 am

kevinswatch wrote:What I'd like to know is, is this movie an accurate portrayal of Avatar's biography, or do they take a lot of creative liberties?

-jay

*snort*

jay, you made me snort!

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 1:08 pm

Avatar was fun. Exactly what I expected. You gotta go in knowing what it's gonna be, and you'll be fine. My son wanted to see it, so there ya go.

Orlion wrote:I haven't seen True Lies yet,

It's a lot of fun. Comedy/James Bond sorta. Definitely worth watching. But here's the only part you (that is, males) really must see:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7T2PFsWkz8&feature=related

Post by **Zarathustra** » Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:08 pm

Orlion wrote:. . . and I take pride in not having seen Titanic).

Why would you take pride in not seeing something? If you haven't seen it, you aren't in a position to judge its merits. Thus, given a position of admitted ignorance, I don't understand the pride. I can understand people watching it and not liking it, but I can't understant making up your mind about something you haven't seen.

I thought Titanic was epic and breath-taking in its scope, detail, historical accuracy, and--yes--plot.

Post by **lorin** » Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:13 pm

Zarathustra wrote: I thought Titanic was epic and breath-taking in its scope, detail, historical accuracy, and--yes--plot.

Not sure I understand all the negativity about Titanic, I enjoyed it a lot.

Post by **Orlion** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 1:56 pm

Why would you take pride in not seeing something? If you haven't seen it, you aren't in a position to judge its merits. Thus, given a position of admitted ignorance, I don't understand the pride. I can understand people watching it and not liking it, but I can't understant making up your mind about something you haven't seen.

I've also not seen an episode of American Idol, and I take great pride in that too

As far as how I can take pride in that, it's mostly that it's something unique. Not many people can say that. Also, there are some times when you look at the preview of something and know that you are not going to like it (within a 95 % confidence level). Based on my own interest, I can say that the stories of American Idol, Titanic, Avatar, and so forth are not going to interest me and that I may have a violent reaction to them (referencing American Idol, here). With Avatar, I can at least understand that I may find the visuals entertaining, I can't say the same with Titanic. As far as making up one's mind about something you haven't seen, people do that all the time... that's how we decide what to blow money on to watch in the first place.

So, yes, without watching it, I'm going to say that I'd probably not like Titanic, much like I might say that heroin would be bad for me even though I've never tried it. That is, based on other observations. I think I'm entitled to make such a choice, much how you would be perfectly in the right to refuse to see Killer Clowns From Outer Space because you would believe it to be a waste of time, even though I'd say it's a cinematic masterpiece

Post by **The Dreaming** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 4:41 pm

Fist and Faith wrote:Avatar was fun. Exactly what I expected. You gotta go in knowing what it's gonna be, and you'll be fine. My son wanted to see it, so there ya go.

Orlion wrote:I haven't seen True Lies yet,
It's a lot of fun. Comedy/James Bond sorta. Definitely worth watching. But here's the only part you (that is, males) really must see:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7T2PFsWkz8&feature=related

I agree, it's kind of an under-rated movie. It also came along before Austin Powers, when it was still pretty fresh to lampoon Bond. It's still pretty damn funny, and Paxton *almost* redeems himself for "Aliens" (but not quite). It's probably Arnold's most successful comedic performance. Just don't go in expecting too much, and it's an infectiously easy movie to enjoy. (Overall, that's how I feel about most of Camerons work.)

Post by **Zarathustra** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 8:00 pm

Orlion wrote: I've also not seen an episode of American Idol, and I take great pride in that too

Having seen American Idol, I agree with your implicit condemnation of it.

Also, there are some times when you look at the preview of something and know that you are not going to like it (within a 95 % confidence level).

Okay, fair point. Movies are marketed with the intention of getting you interested. If you're not interested, based on the marketing, you can't be blamed for taking the movie at face value of these snippets. They were, after all, supposed to be the ones that represent the movie's worth.

But I'm sure you know that a long movie (or any movie) can't be accurately captured in trailers.

With Avatar, I can at least understand that I may find the visuals entertaining, I can't say the same with Titanic.

The sinking of the Titanic is a thing of visual wonder. Ever see a traffic accident and can't help looking? That feeling of passing a few feet from pain and tragedy? Well, multiply that times 1000 and you've got the sinking of the Titanic. When the propellers come up out of the water while people are falling, screeching to their deaths into the frigid waters of the Atlantic, it is visually captivating to say the least.

As far as making up one's mind about something you haven't seen, people do that all the time... that's how we decide what to blow money on to watch in the first place.

Again, fair point. I can understand forming tentative opinions based on limited knowledge. We all have to do it. But I don't understand vitriolic or passionate opionions based on limited knowledge.

You might be surprised by this movie. After all the jostling for lifeboats in the bitter cold, after watching grown men get a place on the boats while children drowned in their beds, it was an oddly synchronous moment to exit the crowded theater out into the December cold. Waiting to file out, everyone was somber and polite. Even in the small ways that people let families exit together, without cutting anyone off, there seemed to be a sense of group mourning and appreciation for how precious life is. I don't get that experience very often while leaving a theater. It's not often that I can see thoughts of life, death, heroism, and sacrifice in the faces of those exiting with me.

Nothing at all like American Idol.

Post by **Orlion** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 1:59 am

Good points. Frankly, my feeling towards Titantic is that I haven't seen it yet, why bother? It's usually not meant as a judgement of its quality. At the same time, I do have some inexplicable prejudices... like any movies with Nicolas Cage in it is automatically trash in my book... I just can't stand him! Or Will Farrell... and especially Michael Cena...but I think that last one is understandable

Well, I've stirred up my ant-nest for the day, time to get back on topic: I'll probably end up seeing Avatar if I can see it with friends... but I won't go through the indignity of seeing it alone

Post by **drew** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 11:55 am

I took my kids to this movie last week.

I had no problem with it; not every film has to be deep and poignant and heart wrenching.
Nor do movies have to have you on the edge of your seat.

I'd give it a good 3 and a half stars out of 5!!

The funniest part of us going to see it, is that I thought I was taking them to see this movie.
Because it's based on a show they used to watch CALLED Avatar.
Apparently, that one doesn't come out for another six months or so!!

Stupid Dad!!!

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 12:35 pm

I can't wait for that Avatar!!!

Post by **Zarathustra** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:05 am

Saw Avatar today. I liked it. Plot didn't bother me too much, except that it was very simplistic.

Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:57 am

Zarathustra wrote:Saw Avatar today. I liked it. Plot didn't bother me too much, except that it was very simplistic.

Me too. Was mediocre. Meh.

Post by **Zarathustra** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 5:30 pm

Ok, despite my admission that the plot didn't bother me, I have a few critical words about the plot (now that the pretty visuals aren't dazzling me).

These movies about Rousseau's mythical "noble savage" are so silly, I can't believe that anyone takes the political subtext seriously. I mean, are we supposed to think this is some kind of symbolic rant about the Bush admin just because one character said, "shock and awe?" Is Unobtainium supposed to be oil? Did we blow up the Iraqi version of a giant treehome?

Well, if you're going to go that route, then which Na'vi was the mass murdering dictator who invaded his neighbors, gassed 100s of 1000s of his own people, and then defied U.N. sanctions to enrich himself while his people suffered? I must have missed that character.

This is a fairy tale. A children's story. Only in children's stories do we find races of creatures that are universally "good," or (almost) universally "evil" (except for the main character). The simplistic way that humans were depicted here is just bad story telling. It was so unambiguously one-sided that the main character (Jake Sully) didn't have one nanosecond of remorse for giving up his racial identity. His character would have benefitted tremendously from a little bit of complexity.

For instance, if the writers had shown him struggling with his decision, it would have made the story more character-driven instead of propaganda-driven. If they had shown him being reluctant at first in his desire to be Na'vi, rather than complete tree-hugger convert in a matter of weeks, it would have given him a chance to grow. But instead, we're given a character who is disliked by all the humans, who has no family, who's a cripple. Gee, I wonder which choice he'll make?

There was absolutely nothing about his decision that was hard.

All of Jake Sully's conflict had to do with other humans--particularly the main military guy. It was all external (which is strange, for a s.f. gimmick with such potential for internal conflicts). But in order to show him struggling with his decision, Cameron would have to show that humans aren't so bad after all, and that the world we've created isn't merely a capitalistic/militaristic machine. But that wouldn't have served his "message" agenda, so screw good story telling and interesting, conflicted characters.

We're all here because we discovered the complex wonder of the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. Imagine what kind of story that would have been if TC simply fell in love with Lena, waited until she could marry, then settled down to live happily ever after in the Land? That's not a story. Well, not a very good one. It is the internal conflict which makes Covenant interesting. It is his decision to not embrace the Land, despite its obvious allure, which makes us interested and want to keep reading.

And finally, we've got yet another anti-capitalist movie (that cost $300 million to make) which Big Hollywood hopes to make over a billion dollars. Nothing contradictory there! I heard that Cameron has teamed up with Burger King to market his anti-capitalist tree-hugger fairy tale. I wonder if the butchers say "thank you" every time they slaughter cows for their burgers.

And while we're on that subject . . . that whole "I'm morally superior to you because I thank the animal after I shoot it in the neck with a fucking arrow" bit is so hypocritical. Can I murder people as long as I tell them "thank you?" Can someone molest children as long as they tell them "thank you" for the sex? Come on. Being polite doesn't make you morally superior. It makes you blind to the essential violence of your act, if you think a few words can erase it or fundamentally change it.

You have to turn off a lot more than your intellect to enjoy this movie. You also have to ignore the elements of good story-telling. Luckily (for Cameron), this movie is so amazing to look at, these two things are very easy to do.

I'm not sure that's a good thing. But it wouldn't be the first time Hollywood sacrificed intellect and story for the almighty dollar. If they weren't being so hypocritical about it while they preached to us, it would be merely amusing. But that's part of the problem: Avatar is merely amusing. It is the ultimate smoke and mirror gimmick.

Post by **[Syl]** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 6:15 pm

I think this movie answered the question of the ages, namely, would the Native Americans have won if they were magic? Also, is sending light cavalry against an armored battalion supported with infantry a good idea? The answers being 'yes,' and 'yes, if you have magic.'

But hey, I'm willing to smother my brain's penchant for critical analysis for an awesome IMAX 3D experience. Which it was. Still, I think I was more emotionally moved by the Space Station trailer. And no, that wasn't just a sarcastic remark.

Post by **ParanoiA** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:09 pm

The movie is definitely awesome, and the world of Pandora has some interesting features and is well on its way to establishing a complete, believable world. But it's far from finished. It's just good enough for Hollywood.

Any character deeper than a cardboard cutout won't be found anywhere in the theatre and any plot device that has not been thoroughly tried out to the point of cliche will not be used. If you've seen any mainstream movie at all this year, you've seen the entire plot of this movie already.

For some of us it was also difficult to wade through the "noble savage" environmental message too. Somehow it's perfectly cool to hunt down and kill prey as long as you're sad about it. The moment you begin work division and start providing for whole villages of folks, suddenly hunting and killing aren't "noble" any more. I think it has to be "hard" and each person has to kill their own stuff in order to be moral. Of course, then one wonders how reading and writing, intellectual discovery, the birth of morality would even occur without a division of labor and thus a more wholesale hunting/slaughter arrangement.

If you can get past the naive, overly poetic dance of humans greedily using up their own planet's resources, only to rob from other planets - complete with the cartoonish display of brutish capitalism and laughable military glee in killing and glorious oversimplification of issues, you'll see this film says more about what Cameron thinks of military and capitalism than anything else.

Or, it might just be that these characters were designed to be partitioned too easily. This guy = bad. That guy = good. The result is a plastic character set that feels like it's preaching a childish message from an after school special.

I was able to chuck all of this aside for two viewings and loved it. The FX are top notch and 3D adds such an incredible dynamic for viewing and experiencing. I felt I had a better feel for the size and shape of things. The Na'Vi are a very sexy alien, if I can call them that. I found their story to be very interesting and was beginning to believe them. I also enjoyed the developments about the plant life, and the luminescence.

I can always tell a good movie by how many days it sticks with me. So far, Avatar is ok. I wish Hollywood would let someone have this budget that isn't afraid of a solid, original, honest story. Avatar would be stunning if the characters and plot had depth.

Post by **Rigel** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 5:45 am

I just saw this tonight, and it was almost as good as I expected it to be.

In other words, I managed to sit through the whole thing. But I definitely didn't enjoy it. The story was atrocious, the acting mediocre (despite having some great actors in it), blah blah blah it just wasn't very good. In fact, at one point I almost wanted to get up and walk out - a feeling I haven't had since watching 9, which was also an inestimable disappointment.

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.

This was also the first movie I saw in 3D, and I'm quite disappointed. I think the whole 3D thing is a fad, and unlikely to make a real change in Hollywood. After all, if 3D were really such a big game changer, than live shows would still be more popular than filmed ones. Yet, I know people who won't sit through a live showing of anything.

One more thing: I know I've made comments in the past about this being Fern Gully 2, or Dances with Wolves w/ 12' Tall Smurfs, but after seeing it tonight... ultimately, I don't care what the plot is; it's all about execution. The plot was executed poorly, and that's all it takes to kill it for me. Dances with Wolves had essentially the same plot (Cameron even going out of his way to make the natives resemble Hollywood's stereotype of Native Americans), yet it was an incredibly good movie that I can sit down and enjoy. So, while I may crack jokes about the cliches, they're not what really bother me, but rather that they were implemented so poorly.

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch

Avatar