Avatar: A Bad Thread

[Alondro]

Well, I looked up details about that upcoming James Cameron movie "Avatar".

I'm rather less than impressed.  It's a typical cliche sci-fi standard story about evil greedy humans invading a planet for minerals.  Hmm, are they also after Vespene Gas?  

Guy gets involved in project to infiltrate aliens, finds hot alien babe, decides to help alien babe and her people, da-de-doo.

The only twist is that the human guy is using a hybrid body.  Other than that, it's a very proto-typical Disney-version "Pocahantas" love story that doesn't offer much in the way of anything new, or even credible from a basic science standpoint.  It makes no sense at all to waste the resources it takes for interstellar travel to go mine minerals.  Even if you decided you wanted those minerals in that start system vs any other system (pretty much any system with habitable terrestrial planets will have the same elemental proportions) you could get them very cheaply by just mining asteroids in the system, with no fear of infectious alien diseases or having to wipe out all indiginous life on the planet.  You do that second part because it's fun, not for profit.  

Plus, it goes the route of touting itself almost exclusively on its special effects.  Which means it's a distraction from the weak plot.

[Sofox]

Yeah, I'm not sure how good this movie will be. But given that James Cameron is involved, I have to give it a shot. He's made some of my favourite movies of all time and I've loved every movie of his I've seen. Watching Terminator 3 after Terminator 2 just shows how far ahead of most of Hollywood he is; or was, I will admit the 12 year gap since his last movie is making me a tad wary.

Still, his taste in movies seems to link up with mine a lot of the time. It'll be fun to see if there's an "elevator" scene in the next movie.

[Alondro]

On the opposite side, a big hat's off to the makers of "Paranormal Activity", who have proven beyond any wisp of doubt that it doesn't take $100 million to make a movie good.

They did it with $15,000!  Take that Hollow-wood!

It also demonstrated that I was right in my thinking that a "Ghost Hunters"-esque type of docu-fiction with just the right use of creepy and shocking happenings would become a blockbuster in the right hands. 

[Kafzeil]

I'm getting the feeling, in terms of reaction, that Avatar will be Titanic all over again. It'll get lots of praise in threatres, both from critics and audiences, awards up the wazoo, then after a few months it finally sees DVD release and people hate due to an overrelaince on spectacle and posssibly a cliched at best, painful at worst romance plot. basically, it'll be THE It Film for a few months before nobody will admit to liking it.

Cameron actually tried getting this film off the ground right after Titanic, but due a combation of factors such as the fact the technology for the animation needed to be invented during production, Cameron's own temper, ego, and general asshattery during the Infamous production of Titanic, which lead to an already expensive film being made late to release, and severely overbudget, and Cameron's admitting Avatar would need an even bigger budget then Titanic, well, nobody wanted to shell out the money.

Cameron's lucky Titanic did so insnaely well, or he'd have never directed  anotehr movie again.

[bill]

On the opposite side, a big hat's off to the makers of "Paranormal Activity", who have proven beyond any wisp of doubt that it doesn't take $100 million to make a movie good.

They did it with $15,000!  Take that Hollow-wood!

They proved that a $15,000 movie would make money, not that it would be good 

[Sofox]

Cameron's lucky Titanic did so insnaely well, or he'd have never directed  anotehr movie again.

Yeah, luck! Because we all know if a movie grosses $1.8 billion worldwide it's just a sheer fluke!

Look, I know some people don't like the movie, but that was a given due to the sheer amount of people who watched it.

[Kafzeil]

Cameron's lucky Titanic did so insnaely well, or he'd have never directed  anotehr movie again.

Yeah, luck! Because we all know if a movie grosses $1.8 billion worldwide it's just a sheer fluke!

Look, I know some people don't like the movie, but that was a given due to the sheer amount of people who watched it.

The movie also cost $200 Million to make, and it was considered grossly overbudget. And again, the movie was late to theatres.

That was less a stattement on Titantic's quality, but more on producers refusing finace a movie from someone like Cameron. He falt out refused to revise scenes or cut many of them out for budgetary purposes. He pracically assaulted an executive who suggested so.

The Fact that Avatar is finally seeing daylight after 12 years of Delelopment Hell hopefully means Cameron had to eat some humble pie so the producers would talk to him again.

[Janus Whitefurr]

Cameron's lucky Titanic did so insnaely well, or he'd have never directed  anotehr movie again.

Yeah, luck! Because we all know if a movie grosses $1.8 billion worldwide it's just a sheer fluke!

Look, I know some people don't like the movie, but that was a given due to the sheer amount of people who watched it.

The movie also cost $200 Million to make, and it was considered grossly overbudget. And again, the movie was late to theatres.

That was less a stattement on Titantic's quality, but more on producers refusing finace a movie from someone like Cameron. He falt out refused to revise scenes or cut many of them out for budgetary purposes. He pracically assaulted an executive who suggested so.

The Fact that Avatar is finally seeing daylight after 12 years of Delelopment Hell hopefully means Cameron had to eat some humble pie so the producers would talk to him again.

I'd take artistic vision over executive meddling anyday, at least in some movies where it's shown to be an epic detriment to the actual WORK.

[Turnsky]

y'know what amuses me overall?

people slamming a movie before even giving it a chance, inversely this also works for praise, as well.

such strong opinions are best reserved when one has seen the movie in its entirety.

whether gushing it, or condemning it, makes no difference to me, i want to see this movie simply because it seems so thoroughly thought out, and i shall form my own opinions about it.

Truth be told, Avatar is Cameron's creative baby, and not the detritus squeezings of some hollywood exec. Like it or not, this'll prolly be his magnum opus.

12 years? Cameron's become big enough and scary enough to nudge producers to see things his way.

for once, it's an -original- movie.. not based off some historical event, book, game, sparkle-vampires, future event, or any other media for that matter. Folks say the plot is cliche? name one thing that isn't these days.

I swear folks can't see the forest for the trees these days.

[Kipiru]

I agree with Turnsky on this one- you are trying to condamn a movie that hasn't even been released yet, over the fact that it's director is one of The Best of all time and has produced The Best movie of all time worldwide(TITANIC still holds a truckfull of records). So Cameron stands up to his ideas even if they go overbudget- he has certainly prooven himself right to do so. So what seem to be the problem. Some people actually sound as if they are scared viewers will like this movie and like it a lot.

[Sofox]

Come to think of it, yeah? Why the animosity for a movie that no one has seen yet?
Is it just a fear of the overemphasis of big budgets over good story? Is it because people are reacting to the hype? Is it because people didn't like Titanic and don't want a repeat of the hype that was around at the time?

And come one Kafzeil, you should know that it's weak to go ad hominem against Cameron. It's almost a stereotype that truly creative artists are temperamental and strong in their vision, many great movies have gone over budget, and to be honest, rushing a movie for a specific release date has caused a lot of movies to become a lot worse (Spiderman 3 for example).
So yeah, interpersonal skills are important and diplomacy with people who you are working with is vital and Cameron may have learned a lot in the past few years, but why do you feel so strongly that that should be the case?

[Sicill]

Yes, it to would be nice to see the movie before rating it as either good or bad.
My major qualm is that the plot sounded far too much like "Dances With Wolves" to me. Which, admittedly, wasn't a terrible movie.

[Kafzeil]

Let's consider fellow directors peter Jackson, Ridley Scott, and Steven Spielberg. All of them try to get there projects done on budget and on time, and none would have assaulted an exec for telling them to reconsider shooting a few expensive scenes. And getting a movie done on time gives it a chance of release. The Longer a movie gets past it's intended the release date, the higher the chance of somebody just axing it mid-production. And besides, the Superman films were doomed the moment Richard Donner was forced off the project. All that goofy, groan-worthy humour in Superman II? Lester's fault.

Personally, my beef with Cameron right now has a lot to due with A) The Movie's Hype Machine, and B) the fact that release info has been somewhat underwhelming. the movie's plot seems fairly cliche but it's being hyped as the next Jurassic Park, but with nothing to show for it. The special effects look good, but not THIS WILL CHANGE FILM FOREVER level of good. It looks like an Okay Movie trying to act like a Revolutionary Movie.

Truth be told I probably will see this movie since there's dick all to see December of this year, but I don't expect much of Avatar.

[Sofox]

Personally I think you're taking the wrong approach to this.
I mean sure, it's unavoidable to have an opinion of a movie before you see it, maybe even mentioning it in the right context is understandable. But letting that opinion influence your emotions? Venting your frustration at a director you don't even know (incidentally Alfred Hitchcock was strong minded about how his movies should go, and often his movies went over schedule)?

[Alondro]

Peter Sellers was also very demanding and could get very nasty at times.  He'd also demand re-takes of scenes dozens of times (sometimes more!) until he was satisfied he had the timing right.

I don't have any opinion of Cameron personally.  I just think that this movie is being way over-rated already and from what I've seen it consists of a very cliche plot that many old sci-fi series used frequently (Dr. Who, for instance, had a number of episodes with bad ol humans raping a planet of primitive aliens for minerals or energy).

And let's face it, "Independence Day" showed how it'd really be done.  You want the resources of a planet?  Kill everything on it that can even shake a fist at you.  The whole avatar project in the movie doesn't make any sense as it's been presented, unless the plot has a whole bunch of details we've not been informed of.  I can think of one way it could work:  the avatar project was to be used by a moderate government to coax the aliens into letting human mine the planet, but then there was a coux and a violent military dictator seized power and wants to strip-mine and steamroll every planet in range to fuel his mad quest for a galactic empire.  That'd work, and it fits human nature and historical fact perfectly.  It's what crazy military dictators do.   

[bill]

you really shouldn't go into a Cameron movie expecting anything but an entirely cliched plot bolstered by spectacular action sequences. I mean, Terminator 2 is completely cringe-worthy if you're watching it for the story, or the dialogue, but it's so goddamn well put together that it doesn't even matter. Cameron's all about aesthetics, and this one looks like it could be really, really good.

[Kafzeil]

Yes, It blindly praising the film before it's out is just as bad. If I told someone after the princess bride came out that Rob reiner would be behind one of the worst movies of the 90s?  Never assume a good Director can't make at least one stinker. And Hitchcock at least expressed some regret over the crap he put people through, especially the flat out dangerous ones.  I've yet to hear Cameron apologize to Winslet for nearly drowning on set. Or the naked thing.

Actually, ALondro, the Independence Day thing didn't work because humanity had some great tech-oh wait. These Cat People don't even have that. I guess you could just glass the Hell out of them from orbit and call it a day. None of this infiltration/sabotoeur/avatar crap. If Civ IV taught me anything,  if you have Tanks and they have spearmen, you can pretty stomp that Civilization out of existence before they catch up. Still, I'd handle Avatar's plot with the V method. You go down and tell these primative people you're here to help them and you're there friends, and you give them stuff so you can get the resources they happen to be sitting on. Then, once you have want you need, do what thou wilt to them. They'd hardly expect their benefactors to suddenly turn on them.

For the record, i felt Terminator 1 was better then T2 for one reason: Arnold talks less. 

[Alondro]

Still, I'd handle Avatar's plot with the V method. You go down and tell these primative people you're here to help them and you're there friends, and you give them stuff so you can get the resources they happen to be sitting on. Then, once you have want you need, do what thou wilt to them. They'd hardly expect their benefactors to suddenly turn on them.

So we can eat them?   

[Kafzeil]

So we can eat them?   

If they're not somehow poisonious or harmful to us, then yes. Waste not, want not.

[Caswin]

At the risk of being jumped on for posting in a thread just short of the "make a new thread for your petty question/comment" warning...

Can anyone better-acquainted with this movie identify the Na'vi in one of the Wikia links?  The one who looks like a surprised cat?  Anyone who's seen them will know who I mean.

(I didn't think Terminator 2's plot was that bad...)

[Alondro]

(I didn't think Terminator 2's plot was that bad...)

But Terminator 3's was stupid. 

[bill]

They were all stupid if you ever tried to work out the time-travel mechanics in your head (don't do this)

[Alondro]

They were all stupid if you ever tried to work out the time-travel mechanics in your head (don't do this)

Well, naturally.  The guy from the future being the father of John Conner is impossible.  It's a paradox that logically can have no beginning.  And then, if you stop Judgement Day, why would he have needed to come back in the first place?  The whole future would be automatically changed... and the universe destroyed.

Unless you buy into the whole explanation (in other sci-fi) that it creates splinter worlds with the alternate time-lines all existing in parallel.  Of course, that would seriously screw up the time-travel aspects, as you'd also have to zero in on the specific time-line's dimension. 

Meh, backwards time travel is a messy idea no matter how you look at it.  Going to the future and getting stuck there is the only way to avoid any potential paradoxes in your story.  There are a few past-future causality loop scenarios which can kinda work superficially, but in the end there are always problems in how they'd actually come to be.

That's why Dr. Who is great.  It's too fun to care about how the Earth's time-line would be ripped to shreds by this point.  But it's also fun to note that the Doctor is always very careful not to return to his previous incarnations' visits (except in cases where the future, ie 1999, was very different, which is then explained by the time-altering effects of the Doctor's actions, and the Time War).

It's so convoluted you just kinda nod your head and go with it.   

[ShadesFox]

Well, the real point of Terminator was always robots and people with absurd firepower.  Time travel was just an excuse.

Back on the subject of Avatar, I recently saw a preview that actually showed plot content!  Pretty much killed any enthusiasm I had for the movie.

[Janus Whitefurr]

Overthinkers.

[Dagardo]

I'm just content knowing that this movie isn't a live action adaptation of the Avatar anime.  Although after googling ''Avatar'' I discover that there is a movie adaptation of the afore mentioned anime, slated for release in July of 2010, see here if you're at all interested, but I digress. My mother thinks it may be good, so that'd be reason enough to go see it. I myself seem to be (somewhat) interested in this movie, so i will probably go see it we've the means to, and my mom decides to. The ''cat-like'' look of these "Na'vi" also interest me, seeing as how I've wondered what an anthro animal would look like IRL, but I shush now.

[rabid_fox]

I watched the trailer. Looks like Fern Gully meets Gears of War, which should be fúcking awesome but instead looks like arsefluff.

[Sofox]

I really love your open honest directness Rabid.

[ChaosMageX]

To attempt to hijack the thread like Dagardo tried to:

Speaking of alien invasions in the endless quest for new resources, has anyone seen the new series on ABC, known as V.  It's supposed to be a re-make a series that occurred in the 80s.  It has something to do with a Nazi allegory coming to steal Earth's resources by acting seemingly friendly and then stabbing Earth in the back at the last minute.
But no matter what, reptile aliens are cool because they're anthro lizards.

[Alondro]

I watched the trailer. Looks like Fern Gully meets Gears of War, which should be fúcking awesome but instead looks like arsefluff.

If it has a big lizard that sings a song about eating things alive, then it will be good.


*OMGVORE!!!*