Avatar: A Bad Thread

[GabrielsThoughts]

I like James Cameron's other works, Aliens, Titanic, Dark Angel, and the first two Terminator movies all piqued my interest and evoked an emotional responses from me that were not disgust and disappointment. AVATAR provides nothing that piques my interest since it is essentially a remake of  Fern-gully down to the glowing connection with nature. It also borrows elements from Dinotopia, those that have seen  Dinotopia know to what I am referring. In addition to a bastardized form of the Pocahontas narrative. Had I never seen Fern Gully and Dinotopia, the movie would have been more enjoyable, more visually impressive, and less predictable.

Avatar is an excellent movie for environmentalists,  children, and early teenagers. It does an excellent job farming a future generation of military personnel...In fact, I don't think I've seen a movie before where I could actually argue that it was an attempt at  Hedgmonic brainwashing other than Transformers II. Politically, I am anti socialist and feel environmentalisim truly has nothing to do with saving the environment so much as using the problems of the environment to  disguise political views that are adversarial.

As far as the so called energy crisis. Plants, water, and animals are all renewable resources. The alternatives to fossil fuels that  are currently available are Hydroelectric power, Photovoltaic (solar) power, Wind energy, Kinetic energy capture, Geothermal energy, Methane capture from landfills and farm manure... and these are just the ones I know about that have been around for more than a century. Granted none of these provide the same oomph as fossil fuels,or *gasp* Nuclear power, but they are existing alternatives. And, while time consuming  one can purchase a solar powered MP3 player  and solar battery chargers for your laptop,  should the need arise. Water can be desalinized and pulled from the moisture in the air, and while I realize it takes energy to desalinize or pull water from the air, it is still possible. Additionally, a majority of the earths oxygen comes from algae, while trees and plants do clean the air but do not provide the amount of oxygen necessary to sustain the environment . Secondly, (in the United States at least) for every tree that is cut down three are usually planted in their place, and they are harvested every five to  ten years. Arguments that owls and other animals that have been put on the endangered species list can't have babies in trees that are less than a century old have been disproved...Repeatedly. Therefore while I acknowledge there are problems with the environment. There are a lot of very smart people that have actually found solutions to those problems.

[Alondro]

Think Europe driving out the Native Americans and the Industrial Revolution. It's not something we as humans haven't done already.

Native Americans are also human... OR DON'T YOU THINK SO YOU EVIL RACIST YOU!!!

STONE THE INFIDEL!!!   *is without sin and thus gets to cast lots of stones!*   

And now a serious note:  The Native Americans lost.  The Na-vi would've lost too if this had any shred of realism to it.  Arrows and spears vs guns and bombs = no contest.

[Rakala]

And now a serious note:  The Native Americans lost.  The Na-vi would've lost too if this had any shred of realism to it.  Arrows and spears vs guns and bombs = no contest.

However arrows and spears+wrath of all nature vs guns and bombs is a bit more fair.

[Janus Whitefurr]

The Na-vi would've lost too if this had any shred of realism to it.  Arrows and spears vs guns and bombs = no contest.

Man, it's a good thing most people know the genre is called science... y'know... fiction.

*group hugs ooklah and Rakala for not being ranters too.  *

[superluser]

Avatar is an excellent movie for environmentalists,  children, and early teenagers. It does an excellent job farming a future generation of military personnel...In fact, I don't think I've seen a movie before where I could actually argue that it was an attempt at  Hedgmonic brainwashing other than Transformers II. Politically, I am anti socialist and feel environmentalisim truly has nothing to do with saving the environment so much as using the problems of the environment to  disguise political views that are adversarial.

I, too, am anti-socialist.  I also have a bit of a survivalist bent, so I'm pretty much aligned with the environmentalists.  Making sure that you use sustainable (and not just renewable) energy means that you are able to produce energy more efficiently and independently.  In the case of survivalists, you're producing it independently of the gubbermint or the power companies, but in the case of power companies, you're usually producing it independently of theocratic dictatorships or other companies that want to squeeze you as much as they can.  The less carbon we waste, the less we have to buy (whether or not we wanted that carbon in the first place).  The more we recycle, or better yet, reuse, the less money we have to give to companies that run dictatorshops(*), the less we have to give to our own government, and the more we get to keep for living a higher-class lifestyle, or investing in whatever we want.

Honestly, this film will not help environmentalists because its message is so simplistic that there's no way that it can be applied to any current debate about environmental issues.  The instant someone tries to make an analogy back to this film, the response will be ``Oh, well I didn't try to commit genocide so it's not the same thing.''  And he'll have a point.  The real-world implications of recitfying environmental issues are not easy and there are many reasons why people don't want to do what needs to be done to save the environment, some straight out of Hoggish Greedly (e.g. I take long showers because I like it), some more Wendell Potter (I can't afford an electric vehicle, and even if I could, the infrastructure doesn't exist to refuel it), and some positively Johann Faust (solar power is unlikely to be efficient enough to provide adequate energy unless you use some extremely rare elements...which brings us right back to Fern Gully--or at least Congo).

As far as the so called energy crisis. Plants, water, and animals are all renewable resources.

Renewable, but not necessarily sustainable.  If you make $25,000 a year but spend $30,000 per year, your income is renewable, but you're not in a sustainable situation.

And now a serious note:  The Native Americans lost.  The Na-vi would've lost too if this had any shred of realism to it.  Arrows and spears vs guns and bombs = no contest.

The Native Americans did not lose because they used arrows and spears (or else they had funny looking spears).  This is part of what I meant about the portrayal of the Na'vi as savages being insulting to actual people who have had their land despoiled.

If it had a shred of realism to it, the Na'vi would have been smuggling and stockpiling weapons.  The Na'vi had vastly superior numbers, and even one or two intercepted arms shipments would have made short work of the space marines.


(*) companies who employ people living in repressive regimes that are propped up by the same companies.

[Alondro]

Familiarity with the weapons and tactical knowledge on their application also must be taken into account.  Unless the Na'vi had months of intensive training, the weapons would be practically useless.

As the battle is portrayed, there is no possible way they would have won in a realistic fight.

The 'wrath of nature' aspect is just silly.  Unless we're talking about massive geological or climatolgical occurrences, 'nature' just gets pushed out of the way by mankind.  Animals turn out to be very easy to kill with weapons. 

Heck, even arrows and spears can do that.  High-powered machine guns > flesh and blood.

It's even more silly than the Ewoks winning against the Imerial troops (even though they were all apparently retarded multi-generational clones, which explains why they were really lousy shots).

Meh, the entire set-up is so flawed, it's just impossible to focus on one aspect without involving all the rest.  It plays out with the plausibility of a soap opera.  There is no internal logic to the whole thing within the 'world' it exists within. 

I expect a story to at least be reasonable within its framework.  This doesn't do it at all.

Suspending one's beliefs should happen naturally in a good story.  You don't even think about doing it because you are unconsciously drawn into the world.  If you have to make yourself believe it and make excuses for the flaws you can't help but notice, then it's not a good story.

[superluser]

Familiarity with the weapons and tactical knowledge on their application also must be taken into account.  Unless the Na'vi had months of intensive training, the weapons would be practically useless.

The Na'vi were skilled hunters and warriors who knew how to fight with projectile weapons.  They had something like a 10-1 advantage, and they were firing M60s, which was a little underpowered, though not unheard of, for an antiaircraft gun.

They knew the terrain.  If they had fought smart, and been running raids and gathering weapons, they could have had a force of 2,000 Na'vi armed with M60s supported by 18,000 sporting bows and arrows vs a couple thousand space marines and maybe 100 AMP suits.  Try telling your soldiers to run into the hail of neurotoxin-tipped arrows while men to their right and left are dropping from snipers, and you'll soon realize what sort of situation you have: an entrenched native population good at hiding who can snipe their enemies off one by one while the invading force has the big guns but no clear targets and the need to make themselves large targets.  (No, an M60 isn't a sniper rifle, but the premise of remaining hidden while attacking your opponent remains the same)

The battle as it was portrayed was bunk, but the battle with some intercepted weapons on the Na'vi side was far from unwinnable.

The 'wrath of nature' aspect is just silly.  Unless we're talking about massive geological or climatolgical occurrences, 'nature' just gets pushed out of the way by mankind.  Animals turn out to be very easy to kill with weapons.

Unfortunately, the Na'vi are very hard to kill with the type of weapons they use for Earth-based animals.  That's why they brought along 50 caliber and 7.62mm weapons.  Remember when that Na'vi landed on the back of the helicopter?  Here's the gun the soldiers were firing.

[Valynth]

I have no idea why I keep reading this thread. I think I hate most of the opinions here. Maybe I'm just looking for positive comments like the few friends who have seen it and decide to, you know, NOT go on huge rantpages because it's got enviromentalist issues, or makes out humanity to be the bad guy (cliche? Sure. Crap? Not by half). It's called having fun and being entertained.

Some of you should try it sometime.

Agreed, I didn't think of any of this stuff as I was watching it. I was simply going along for the ride. I even shed a few tears now and then in the movie. Same thing happened with District 9, everybody else looked too far into it and I just went along for the ride and enjoyed it.

On an unrelated note: Was I the only person IN THE WORLD who enjoyed District 9?

So you argument is that we should like a movie because "ooooooo shiny?"

Nah, I've heard a lot of critics praised the movie, the general consensus was that it was good though I haven't seen it so far.

critics.....  you mean people paid by the movie industry to talk about the movie industry?....  I see no conflict of interest there at all nope, never.

[superluser]

critics.....  you mean people paid by the movie industry to talk about the movie industry?....  I see no conflict of interest there at all nope, never.

No, I think he's referring to the people who are paid by companies who are losing money because people don't read newspapers anymore and instead watch TV or movies.

[Valynth]

critics.....  you mean people paid by the movie industry to talk about the movie industry?....  I see no conflict of interest there at all nope, never.

No, I think he's referring to the people who are paid by companies who are losing money because people don't read newspapers anymore and instead watch TV or movies.

who do you think pays/owns those companies?

(also:  where do you think the writing budget went?)

[bill]

critics.....  you mean people paid by the movie industry to talk about the movie industry?....  I see no conflict of interest there at all nope, never.

No, I think he's referring to the people who are paid by companies who are losing money because people don't read newspapers anymore and instead watch TV or movies.

who do you think pays/owns those companies?

newspaper companies?

i am not sure what you are asking here, but there aren't really very many newspapers owned by Big Media,  companies like Tribune and Gannett don't really do much outside of printing papers and owning the occasional local broadcaster

[Valynth]

critics.....  you mean people paid by the movie industry to talk about the movie industry?....  I see no conflict of interest there at all nope, never.

No, I think he's referring to the people who are paid by companies who are losing money because people don't read newspapers anymore and instead watch TV or movies.

who do you think pays/owns those companies?

newspaper companies?

i am not sure what you are asking here, but there aren't really very many newspapers owned by Big Media,  companies like Tribune and Gannett don't really do much outside of printing papers and owning the occasional local broadcaster

CNN, MSNBC, and Disney frown upon your shenanigans and assertions.

[bill]

I don't think any of them own newspapers



see those are profitable companies, why would they own newspapers

News Co. owns the Wall Street Journal, that's the only one I can think of

[superluser]

who do you think pays/owns those companies?

Well, Ebert and Roeper are paid by the Sun-Times Media Group, who owns several other newspapers including the Daily Telegraph and the National Post, but no TV or movie holdings.  Manohla Dargis gets paid by the New York Times Company, who own no TV or movie holdings.  Stephen Rea gets paid by Philadelphia Media Holdings who...look, I'll just pair them up from now on and you can assume that they don't hold any TV or movie companies unless I say otherwise. Ty Burr: New York Times Company, David Denby: Condé Nast Publications, Joe Neumaier: Mortimer Zuckerman, Peter Travers: Wenner Media LLC (who do jointly own a separate publication with The Walt Disney Company), Sarah Vilkomerson: Jared Kushner, Jake Coyle: Associated Press, Todd McCarthy: Reed Business Information.

On the other hand, Kurt Loder (Viacom) hated it.

[Janus Whitefurr]

So you argument is that we should like a movie because "ooooooo shiny?"

I just got back from finally seeing the movie, even with half the whinging I've seen on this board in mind. I loved the alien flora and fauna, and I loved the blatant scenery porn. Can I see some of the enviromentalist themes people are complaining about? Sure. I got Fern Gully vibes when the bulldozers showed up at Hometree. Is it a case of native entities against the big bad human military because humans are bastards, a very cliche thing? Yes. Could you call half the plot due to the predictability? Sure.

Can you still lose yourself in the movie because you are entertained? I certainly could, as could the other adults in the cinema. Now, to answer your absolutely sarcastic question about liking the 'ooh, shiny' aspect?

It may be a trite one, but that is a better mindset than analysing a movie for every problem and flaw to find something you can bitch about to everyone because you feel like your opinion is the one true thing and everyone else should listen to you because you're the loudest. I have my opinion too, and I think yours (and Alondro's, and Gabriel's) is full of whining from a bunch of people who just like to complain.

Good day, sirs.

[Sofox]

Nah, I've heard a lot of critics praised the movie, the general consensus was that it was good though I haven't seen it so far.

critics.....  you mean people paid by the movie industry to talk about the movie industry?....  I see no conflict of interest there at all nope, never.

I meant one Irish radio reviewer, one guy on That Guy With the Glasses (though I don't go to the site anymore), and I may have heard something on Kotaku/Gawker but I forget.

You know, the hate for this movie doesn't make sense. You can tell from pretty early on that it isn't going to be an in depth examination of the effect of resource hunting on indigenous populations, so I just sat back and enjoyed it for what it is.

And there is a lot to enjoy. Cameron is a skilled director, he knows how to frame shots, progress the story, give enough humour to a situation to make the characters sound human if they're getting too serious. He's got an extremely strong visual talent, and it's not just a case of throwing SFX together like with many other directors, he knows how to construct scenes and experiences that really have an emotive impact on the viewer. When the Titanic split it half, you could feel the sense of panic and the enormity of the event, when the T-1000 kept coming with all the shots just leaving holes in it that quickly closed, you had that feeling of something unstoppable where everything you never seemed to be enough.
Avatar may be a bit weaker in comparison to some of his other offerings, but the power of his directing is there. In the lush alien landscapes, in the amazing flora and fauna (making it seem a bit more like a fantasy movie then sci-fi), in the narrative that, while clichéd, is strongly put to us as we get to feel this alien culture and their ways. The action sequences, from the big battles to smaller aspects like when the protagonist is finding his flying steed or learning other ways of the people, are all very well choreographed and bring a great sense of tension and excitement.
No one was expecting this film to be a microanalysis of a societal phenomenon. Cameron knew the sort of movie he wanted to shoot and he shot it. Could it have been better in places? Maybe, but he achieved more or less what he set out to do and the fact that many people have enjoyed this movie is a testament to that fact.

[Rakala]

So you argument is that we should like a movie because "ooooooo shiny?"

I would like to say that is a vast oversimplification which I find slightly insulting. The point wasn't the appearance, it was the movie in general. I found myself connecting with this world and it's people because when I went in I didn't think "Oh this is a remake of Dances With Wolves" or "This will have a preachy environmentalist message" because I've come to realize that there is no longer any REAL originality. Everything now is derivative of something else. If you go to a movie looking for what it is similar to and base how you enjoyed it on that you are probably going to be disappointed in movies alot. Because of this sad truth I have come to realize I have developed the skill to look and judge everything as individuals (with exceptions for sequels and series).

Zavynth, only the first part was directed to you, the rest is a general message which may apply to you.

Edit: For the MOST PART I look at things as individuals. Sometimes it's just too blatantly obvious and I will state it, but that is never a reason for disliking something to me.

[Sunblink]

It may be a trite one, but that is a better mindset than analysing a movie for every problem and flaw to find something you can bitch about to everyone because you feel like your opinion is the one true thing and everyone else should listen to you because you're the loudest. I have my opinion too, and I think yours (and Alondro's, and Gabriel's) is full of whining from a bunch of people who just like to complain.

Good day, sirs.

Gabriel bolded because goddamn ain't that the truth.

Actually, I saw more bitching in his post about environmentalism than bitching about Avatar.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Hrmph.

I was hoping to be able to stay out of this, but...

Folks. We are watching you. Do not devolve into personal abuse, because I will not take kindly to having what little Christmas spirit I have left, scuttling around in the cold, dark corners of my soul, upset by wrangling on the forum I spend my free time helping out on.

As yet, you all have not crossed that line. Yet. But you are getting close.

Take heed, and watch where you tread.

[Turnsky]

In the end, who really cares but those who have nothing else better to do?

It's a Movie, it's meant to entertain, if folks get some kind of message out of it, then whoop-de-freaking-doo.

seriously folks, those who are going on about the 'enviromental' message in the movie belong in the same box as those who didn't know the ship was going to sink in Titanic as far as i'm concerned.

I swear, all i'm getting from all of this whinging, is "tall poppy syndrome"... That is to say, folks are merely bitching about the movie because it was successful, and this is just a "reason" for them to do so.

on that note; Cheese, anyone?

[Sofox]

Yes please! Cheddar?

[Alondro]

I have now seen the movie.

And it was as expected.  Very pretty, but too hard on agenda.  VERY blatant references to America's recent wars, with VERY oversimplified stereotypes and an analogy that simply is too disparate from reality to possibly apply.

The visuals are indeed impressive.  But for that amount of money, one could hardly expect less with the technological capabilities in existance today.  If you've seen "Pan's Labyrinth", you'd be amazed to find that those visuals are quite equally impressive. The difference being that the whole film couldn't be done with them given the much smaller budget.  The movements, though.  There's still something very artificial about the way CGI characters move.  I don't know what it is, but they still haven't nailed that down properly yet.  Some of the better traditional animation looks more natural than even the best CGI.  Perhaps it's because the brain expects these more 'real-looking' animals and people to move just like a real person or animal, while it fills in the gaps of a traditionally animated image it expects to move unnaturally?  I don't know, I'd need to analyze the two types side by side for a proper analysis.

The acting was rather wooden in much of the cast; oddly enough, primarily in those who were not computer animated.  They were entirely one-dimensional characters, paper cut-outs with virtually no personality. 

The movie simply was over-agendized.  It had the potential to be classic, but Cameron's personal feelings toward current events permeated every aspect of it too deeply and ruined what could have been a great piece of storytelling.  There was no subtlety at all, especially not the 'shock and awe' quote.

The plot holes could have easily been filled as well.  The floating mountains bugged the heck out of me.  Assuming that this is not itself Unobtainium (the purpose of which is indeed never explained), the corporation looking desperately for a rare element completely ignores a substance of such power it is capable of defying gravity which is just hovering right in front of them.  I simply can't overlook such a glaring oversight.  The presence of the mountains ends up being a plot device existing only as a tactical advantage for the defenders.

And the whole 'natural world-wide-web' (as I call it) is completely impossible evolutionarily.  Now, this is one thing that can be salvaged in a sequel.  There is a way to explain both this bizarre biosphere linkage and that the floating mountains didn't float away.  That would if the entire surface of the planet Well, moon, actually) was once hme to a highly advanced civilization that designed the entire thing and left the biological 'god' as a supercomputer to regulate everything.

Anyway, it's a very visually excellent movie.  It will certainly win the Oscar for special effects.  The one-sided enviro-socio-political agenda and needless plot holes cheapened it and kept it from becoming a masterpiece, in my opinion.

[Mao]

.... but too hard on agenda.  VERY blatant references to America's recent wars, with VERY oversimplified stereotypes and an analogy that simply is too disparate from reality to possibly apply.

Wait..

Wait.. let me double check this....

Did you just complain about something being very hard on an agenda, having VERY over simplified stereotypes and analogies that are incredibly disparate from reality to the point of not being possible to apply?

Teapot?  Yeah, kettle here wants to discuss your pigmentation...

[Damaris]

Mao

[Keleth]

I see what happened thar.

This retard approves of this message

[Kage]

The movements, though.  There's still something very artificial about the way CGI characters move.  I don't know what it is, but they still haven't nailed that down properly yet.  Some of the better traditional animation looks more natural than even the best CGI.  Perhaps it's because the brain expects these more 'real-looking' animals and people to move just like a real person or animal, while it fills in the gaps of a traditionally animated image it expects to move unnaturally?  I don't know, I'd need to analyze the two types side by side for a proper analysis.

*cough*  You do realize that the CGI was motion captured from the actual actors, right?   And not an IK model, which is what usually gives the somewhat fake mechanical feeling to computer animation.   I think you were seeing something there that didn't exist.

As for the plot, there were certainly some influences, but I think you're over playing it.   Cameron wrote the script 14 years ago.

[Mao]

Mao

Doot doot doot....

I <3 you too Damaris.

[Keleth]

*cough*  You do realize that the CGI was motion captured from the actual actors, right?   And not an IK model, which is what usually gives the somewhat fake mechanical feeling to computer animation.   I think you were seeing something there that didn't exist.

As for the plot, there were certainly some influences, but I think you're over playing it.   Cameron wrote the script 14 years ago.

Actually you're half correct there, when they motion capture and directly create the CG models without tweaking them, they tend to look fake. Traditional animators have the same problem when they work with film and capture/trace frame per frame.

When you capture live actors, you actually have to give them slightly extra emphasis on their movements and whatnot, as for some odd reason it still tends to look fake.

If you're not sure, check out "The Animator's Survival Guide" by Richard Williams, they go over it in depth there.

[Jasonrevall]

Im gonna see this movie anyway, cause im at war with world and im awake and im alive.

[Damaris]

Mao

Doot doot doot....

I <3 you too Damaris.

Not as much as I <3 you.  Don't tell Darkmoon