Avatar: A Bad Thread

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

... I saw the original, does that help?

[GabrielsThoughts]

I've seen previews for movies with the same narrative as Avatar released in 2009

http://starseeker.com/2009-movies/battle-for-tera-2009/

although one has to admit the whole idea that Americans or whitie mac whiteface  is out to steal the natural resources of the  poor defenseless savage or primitive race of sentient beings has been done to death. I blame Disney's  Pocahontas for having the bar dropped so low on this narrative. However, I'm sure Avatar is going to be more visually stimulating than Jim Henson's The Dark Crystal  if not as well written... for the record I though The Dark Crystal was super boring at parts but then again I first saw it when I was seven or eight  and again as an adult a few years ago so you can draw your own conclusions.

[ShadesFox]

It really was the whole 'humans are assholes' element that turned me off. Really, can't we have an original plot? Maybe the humans did not initially recognize they were sentient and then there was a diplomatic kerfluffle leading to every one shooting everyone else?  Something a bit more, well, plausable.

[Alondro]

I think this review pretty much parallels what I've been saying.

Pretty to look at, but only skin deep

So, yeah.  Great visuals, but for the amount of money spent and 15 years in the making, you'd think they could get better writing and acting. 

But I'm sure it'll make a mint anyway, cuz most people today are only interested in flashy things that are environmentally friendly and make America look bad. 

By the way, as I thought, the bad old military-industrial complex IS after a non-existant super-rare mineral found ONLY on this planet (and not in any asteroids in the system which would be much more easily extractable with interstellar-level technology).  The name of this mineral: unobtainium.     Good lord, whose brilliant idea was that?

But I shall have to watch it because my aunt wants me to.  She didn't like "Paranormal Activity" (I did) and so I suppose I owe her to go watch this.    So in a few weeks I'll deliver a full review.

I'm sure I'll find a few of the creatures interesting... but only for evil things I can do with vore.   

[ChaosMageX]

The name of this mineral: unobtainium.    Good lord, whose brilliant idea was that?

Heh, that reminds me of when I came up with a power source crystal for one of my own attempts at world building.  I called it "Extremium".  Needless to say that name didn't go over so well with others in the role-playing forum I was in.

[Sunblink]

I think I'm going to go see this movie. I'm gonna admit that I was one of the people who completely bought nearly bought the ultimately-disproved "THIS MOVIE HAS A 500 MILLION PRICE TAG" rumors, so I started paying attention to the trailers and hype and advertisements.

Actually, now that I keep looking over the stills of all these incredible scenes, I think I'm becoming genuinely enthusiastic about the film, and not just because I'm feeling irrationally charitable. Even if it ends up being a shallow sparklefest, I might enjoy it anyway. It'll probably be less of a Tear Jerker than Where the Wild Things Are or Up, two movies I have yet to see, so it'll give me a reason to visit the theaters.

Plus, goddamn, the effects look amazing. This is... oh god, beautiful.

Heh, that reminds me of when I came up with a power source crystal for one of my own attempts at world building.  I called it "Extremium".  Needless to say that name didn't go over so well with others in the role-playing forum I was in.

Uhhhh no offense, but I can probably see why it got such a poor reception.

Although if I tried to name a mineral I think I'd fail pretty hard. The sad thing is I'll probably need to do that eventually when stealing real-world metals and minerals stops working in the face of fantasy world improbabilities. My Chemistry teacher would be very disappointed with me.

[bill]

I think this review pretty much parallels what I've been saying.

Pretty to look at, but only skin deep

Yeah, that's definitely a James Cameron movie.

Roger Ebert gave it 4 stars, and wrote the most accurate thing about Cameron that I've read; that nobody knows how to spend $300 million better than he does.

[Janus Whitefurr]

This just convinces me to go see it more, because I know that it'll at the bare minimum it'll be enjoyable. Not every movie has to be deep and intelligent and philosophical to be a good film. Unless you're a critic, cinema viewing shouldn't be an "oh my god I must tell the world how this movie can/will/did suck" experience, it should be for -entertainment- damnit.

I think I'm just a little prickled around the edges that Alondro is basically ranting that it sucks. The more I look over what he says, the more I think it's because he's a scientist and thus everything has to conform to real world logic and sense or something. (And given everyone I know despised Paranormal Activity and he liked it, it may just be a case of horrible taste! :b)

And the 'unobtainium' name for the mineral? Sounds like a nod to the fact they do this fictional mineral stuff all the time. :u

[thegayhare]

  The name of this mineral: unobtainium.     Good lord, whose brilliant idea was that?

Most likely it's the author's idea of a joke since the term unobtainium has enered the lexicon of scifi fans'

It's basicly a catch all term for any mysterious and poorly defined super materials. skriff from lary nivens ring world, or vibranuim from the marvel universe

Plus it' not like this is the first major movie to even use the term

looka the Core.  the wholeship was made litteraly of unobtainium

[ShadesFox]

A movie doesn't have to have a deep and meaningful plot to be good, but at minimum it must not have a mind jarringly bad plot. I'm not giving Avater good odds on that point.

[Alondro]

The biggest beef I have with the plot is that THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE AVATAR PROJECT AT ALL!!

They go through all this expensive BS to create the Avatars, then just seem to say, "Nah, let's just attack anyway."

That is just plain poor writing.  The Avatar project becomes nothing more than a feeble plot device to get the main character into the needed position.

I could even accept the unobtainium thing if it was well thought-out.  But it's not.  It's yet another poorly crafted plot device.

Special effects don't impress me anymore.  ANYONE with enough money these days can do it.  I need at least a plot that holds together within the context of its world setting; one that is internally logical.  

For comparison, "Paranormal Activity" did what a horror movie shoudl do at minimum.  It had some chills and thrills, and it's plot (simple as it was) was totally consistent.  They managed that with only $15,000.  My point is that for $300 million, "Avatar" should at least have had solid writing.

EDIT:  I found a review which rather exemplifies my point that the ciritcs are mysteriously making many excuses for the movie's weak plot and plot holes.

"It doesn't help that the film's premise, which sees stoneage cavemen turn into ace fighter pilots with only a week's training, is as naive as that of the 1939 serial Buck Rogers. "

Now, was this a review of "Avatar"?  It would seem to fit what happens quite perfectly.  But no!  This was a review of "Battlefield Earth", regrded as the worst movie of all time!  The critics pulled no punches and tore it to pieces!  And yet Avatar makes use of the same sort of absurdity, and it's excused. 

I really think the critics were paid off big time.

[GabrielsThoughts]

I've actually read a review wherein the reviewer said that they liked the visuals but the story was so horribly unoriginal that even southpark (in episode episode 1313) did a better job of crossing over Fern Gully and Pocahontas...

which brings up my WTF question "how can they say AVATAR advances anything  in film making if they still haven't  overcome the greatest hurdle in storytelling???

sure you hear people talking about the Triplets of Bellville, Memento,  and spirited away as being among  the few examples of originality in film making. I'd feel a whole lot better if there was something American made that could be added to the list.

[Sunblink]

which brings up my WTF question "how can they say AVATAR advances anything  in film making if they still haven't  overcome the greatest hurdle in storytelling???

I'm going to admit that even though Avatar might (probably? Still haven't seen it) not have a good grasp of storytelling, it could have set the bar higher for visual effects. It's not necessary to make a good movie, but imagine what a talented film-maker with a decent script could do with that kind of technology. BRAIN EXPLOSIOOOON. Besides, stereoscopic cameras are pretty sweet.

I probably sounded stupid and my brain is feeling very mushy but yeah. Those are my two cents.

sure you hear people talking about the Triplets of Bellville, Memento,  and spirited away as being among  the few examples of originality in film making. I'd feel a whole lot better if there was something American made that could be added to the list.

Memento is an American film. Christopher Nolan is a British-American with dual citizenship and the movie was filmed exclusively in some parts of California.

Does that make you feel better?


PS: Schindler's List, that movie was pretty awesome. And it was American. I really don't get why this subject was brought up in the first place, though.

[Alondro]

American animation companies have done some quality storywork in recent years, just not much and virtually all of it comes from Pixar.

Their film "Ratatouille" was the first CGI film I ever watched that made me forget I was watching CGI, because the story and characters were so engaging.  Not to mention the CG animation was incredible and far more detailed than I'd even imagined possible.  In fact, I'd have to say their next film "Wall-E" was actually a bit of a step backward in animation.  Maybe "Ratatouille" was just a wee bit too much of a budget-buster.  

But again, it was the STORY that made "Ratatouille" special.  It could have been in any type of animation and the writing and originality would have carried it easily.

I've heard so much of the 'special effects bonanza' crap these past few years.  I was over it before it began, really.  Sure special effects and CGI look better and better all the time, but they should never be the entire foundation of the film.  And I'm sure may of the critics are simply going along with the trend siple because it's James Cameron.  Had Uwe Boll been the writer and director instead, I'm sure it would've been ripped as hard as fart from a fat guy who ate too many burritos!  

EDIT:  Dude, look what this guy did for a couple hundred bucks (course it was in Ecuador or something like that, I'm sure that's like a billion or something there..    )  Giant robot aliens blowing stuff up!  See, special effects don't impress me anymore.  Anybody with the right computer programs and art and technical know-how can do it.  PLOT and STORY are much harder to get right.  You can't make up for a lack of talent in that area with CGI.

[Sofox]

Well, I went to watch Avatar the other night, and I have to say, I really enjoyed it.

You have to suspend your belief in a few places, but it's worth it to have a good time.

By the way, Alondro, thanks. If it wasn't for you I probably wouldn't have watched it. But because you started this topic, you kept the movie on my mind, made me think of how much I like Cameron movies, caused me to keep track of when the movie was being released, and when people started talking about details I realised I had to see it before the spoilers started comming in. I guess this sort of buzz and chatter around a movie that gets people curious about it is just what marketing executives want.

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

Funny, there were parts that did remind me of Fern Gully, at one moment I was trying to remember whether the main character had been seen spraypainting any red Xs.
As for Gears of War, never played that game, but I did get the same sort of feeling and technologies I get from a lot of sci fi video games and The Matrix Revolultions (which is an example of how NOT to do a special effects laden movie). Then again, those things were taking heavy inspiration from Cameron movies in the first place so it's all cyclical.

[ooklah]

I just got back from Avatar, and I was loving it. Right up to the point where the projector brain-wrapped; vaporized the film and they couldn't fix it. Then they gave us refunds and a free pass. So I don't know how it ends yet, I'm sure I could take some educated guesses, but I don't want to. I want to finish seeing the thing.

which brings up my WTF question "how can they say AVATAR advances anything  in film making if they still haven't  overcome the greatest hurdle in storytelling???

I'm going to admit that even though Avatar might (probably? Still haven't seen it) not have a good grasp of storytelling, it could have set the bar higher for visual effects. It's not necessary to make a good movie, but imagine what a talented film-maker with a decent script could do with that kind of technology. BRAIN EXPLOSIOOOON. Besides, stereoscopic cameras are pretty sweet.

Yes it did. So very much so. And very few movies in the last several years have decent story telling.  Not sure it's quite so fair to single just one out of so many. This one just has a lot more shiney in it. Or is it just because it has James Cameron on the label?

[Kafzeil]

My cheif complaint with the movie might b ethe handling off the Na'vi. I have yet to see the movie, but currently all the pre-release stuff leaves me with the impression they'll be SO much better then those EVIL and RACIST humans. I'm gettinga vibe they'll be like Paoloani ELves: SMug, condensing, and making me wish to seem to get crushed by the very EMpire they oppose. Nearly everything I've ehard pre-release about the Na'vi is how much better they are then humans.  I have always hated when Humanity is presented as "Inferior to another fictional species. Tolkien's ELves get a pass, mostly because while they say they're superior, they really eff'd up Middle Earth.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

My cheif complaint with the movie might b ethe handling off the Na'vi. I have yet to see the movie, but currently all the pre-release stuff leaves me with the impression they'll be SO much better then those EVIL and RACIST humans. I'm gettinga vibe they'll be like Paoloani ELves: SMug, condensing, and making me wish to seem to get crushed by the very EMpire they oppose. Nearly everything I've ehard pre-release about the Na'vi is how much better they are then humans.  I have always hated when Humanity is presented as "Inferior to another fictional species. Tolkien's ELves get a pass, mostly because while they say they're superior, they really eff'd up Middle Earth.

To be fair, Tolkien's elves didn't wander round saying they were superior. They just were. And they felt it their duty to help the people less well off than they were, as a whole, which meant they weren't being smug and superior - don't get me wrong, there were exceptions, and overall they did have a "we're better than you" mindset, but they weren't using it as a club, they were more subtle about it.

Also, it wasn't so much the elves as the wizards, particularly the ones that went bad. At least, in the bit I read. I can't say I remember much of the Silmarillion, it was that boring...

[Corgatha Taldorthar]

The elves in the Simirillion were definitely not "good" in any sense of the word (or, at least the Noldor who went over to fight Morgoth, who are the focus of much of the work.)

Powerful, yes, but good? Not really. Tolkien's own letters regarding the main trilogy knock on the elves for being too inwardly focused, having the will to fight the shadow in their own backyards, but not the gumption to do much for Arda as a whole, even though they're more connected to the earth than humans are. (As they don't die, per se, only physically reincarnate somewhere else)

A lot of why Men inherit middle earth at the end, and the elves pass over, I think has to do with it being men who stood up and fought against the Shadow at the last test.



Ok, I'm done threadjacking

[Sunblink]

American animation companies have done some quality storywork in recent years, just not much and virtually all of it comes from Pixar.

Oh god, Alondro, I second this so freaking hard.

Pixar brofist!

Their film "Ratatouille" was the first CGI film I ever watched that made me forget I was watching CGI, because the story and characters were so engaging.  Not to mention the CG animation was incredible and far more detailed than I'd even imagined possible.  In fact, I'd have to say their next film "Wall-E" was actually a bit of a step backward in animation.  Maybe "Ratatouille" was just a wee bit too much of a budget-buster.  

I liked Ratatouille a lot, but it wasn't my favorite Pixar movie. However, I totally see where you're coming from. I just admit that I would rank Wall-E over Ratatouille.

My favorite Pixar movie is definitely The Incredibles but I haven't seen it in forever. I need to excavate it from the irradiated mass of garbage and filth that is my room. No Radroach will stop me!

But again, it was the STORY that made "Ratatouille" special.  It could have been in any type of animation and the writing and originality would have carried it easily.

This, this, this. Although there have been instances of certain movies completely botching it despite having extraordinary premises, so originality alone can't save a film.

Also I approved of almost everything in the rest of your post, Alondro. STOP MAKING ME AGREE WITH YOU

[GabrielsThoughts]

I don't like the promotion of  the message that old ideas are inherently corrupt, nor do I like the message that it's okay to just discard your body if it's not 100%.   I also didn't like the environmentalist B.S. "THERE AREN'T ENOUGH  RESOURCES TO SHARE, WE KILLED OUR PLANET AND NOW WE'RE GONNA KILL YOURS TOO WHEEEEEEEEE!"

All I have to say about environmentalism is if you don't have a solution that benefits humanity, and to a lesser extent all other life forms on the planet, and would sooner waste YOUR resources to promote an  ideology that humanity is inferior to all other lifeforms in the  universe, while still withholding any discoveries of solutions to the problems you so delinquently focus on  , then quit complaining about the problem and step out of the way so that  the people with actual solutions can fix the problem instead of having to fight against Morons from both camps.

[Sofox]

You know, I don't get why Gab and Kaf are against aspects of this movie when they haven't even seen how the aspects are portrayed. In all fairness, why are you forming opinions of things you haven't seen?
The movie never pushes the environmentalism in our face, I mean I suppose the message is there, but it's an integral part of the premise so it would be kinda hard to avoid no matter how you spin the story.
The Navi never pretend to be superior to humans or anything, they just have their own ways of doing this as any civilisation would. They barely know enough of humans to have any opinion on their lifestyles in the first place.
Also, the humans aren't projected as evil. The Avatar program in the first place shows how willing the humans were to being on good terms with the natives and not be seen as being violent. Nobody wants to kill anyone, there's just no reason to kill for the sake of it. Unfortunately as circumstances unfold... well, watch the movie and you can see for yourself.
Finally, Gab, the resource the humans are trying to get isn't vital to their survival or anything, it's just worth a heck of a lot of money. That's where the money to fund the entire operation comes from (and it definitely wouldn't be cheap).

[ooklah]

Saw it for a second time, this time got to see the whole movie. Still unbelievably amazing! I loved it.

Sure there's a bit of environmentalism in there. BUT I saw a lot more of history repeating itself there. Think Europe driving out the Native Americans and the Industrial Revolution. It's not something we as humans haven't done already.

[GabrielsThoughts]

because I actually have seen it, it is teh stupid. All bang and no advancement of characters save that of half-a-man.

SPOILERS: In the end of the movie the main character becomes more than a dream walker, he becomes a full Na'vi by sacrificing/killing his body because it is inferior and not as useful as his Na'vi body. Almost all the humans are kicked off the planet because the Na'vi won the battle, despite the only reason for the humans blowing up the ONE Na'vi village was to get to the "unobtainium"  that was underneath the ONE tree. And, when I say battle I mean a single battle at the end of the movie. Before that  there was also a  one sided assault on the Na'vi Village lead by General Scarface and there was a final two on one battle between scar and half-a-man and his possible wife (since I'm not clear on Na'vi customs)

The movie is essentially fern-gully with a bigger budget.    

EDIT: additionally, When I say half a man, I am referring to the wheelchair bound fellow as he is portrayed in the move, not how I actually feel about the character himself.  the movie portrays all human weakness and or suffering  as somehow making them twice as inferior as they already are.   

[superluser]

Maybe spoilers, maybe not, but I'm going to try to keep it relatively spoiler-free.

The movie is essentially fern-gully with a bigger budget.

This.  Big time.  I'm trying to decide if Parker Selfridge had more or less characterization than Hoggish Greedly from Captain Planet.  Less, I suspect, since Hoggish was the bad guy from the company. while Selfridge was just the guy from the company.

Also, can we stop with the ``zOMG primitive populations don't deserve to have their pristine lands despoiled!'' crap?  It's insulting to people who actually are having their pristine lands despoiled by calling them savages.

[Janus Whitefurr]

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.

[superluser]

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.

I never said it wasn't fun, but you had to turn your brain off in order to enjoy it.  Pretty much all of the characters were offensive stereotypes.  Not offensive to the types of people they were stereotyping, but rather offensive that the writer thought that the audience was stupid enough to need characterization this heavy handed.

Let me put this in perspective.  The colonel in this film committed genocide by destroying a tree that housed an entire clan of Na'vi because he thought it was the fastest way to get a mine built.  That's fairly hard to top in terms of...well, anything.  Give him some reason to do it, maybe. 

And I don't mind movies with environmental themes.  Just don't make them laughably oversimplified.  For example, here are some suggestions for environmental films:

King Corn, Big River, Food Inc

I'm thinking about it, and I can't come up with any good non-documentary movies that deal with environmental issues.  A Civil Action was okay, but that was based on a true story.  Genocide seems to come up pretty frequently in these films, now that I think about it.  I suspect the writers have read a little too much Upton Sinclair.  Now, if you want to know how Parker Selfridge should have been characterized, look at The Grapes of Wrath:

``We know that—all that. It's not us, it's the bank. A bank isn't like a man. Or an owner with fifty thousand acres, he isn't like a man either. That's the monster.''
``Sure,'' cried the tenant men, ``but it's our land. We measured it and broke it up. We were born on it, and we got killed on it, died on it. Even if it's no good, it's still ours. That's what makes it ours—being born on it, working it, dying on it. That makes ownership, not a paper with numbers on it.''
``We're sorry. It's not us. It's the monster. The bank isn't like a man.''
``Yes, but the bank is only made of men.''
``No, you're wrong there—quite wrong there. The bank is something else than men. It happens that every man in a bank hates what the bank does, and yet the bank does it. The bank is something more than men, I tell you. It's the monster. Men made it, but they can't control it.''

That would have made the character at least somewhat interesting.  Heck, Bishop from Aliens was more dynamic, which I think means that Cameron is getting worse as a director.

[ooklah]

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.

Finally! someone else who can just enjoy a movie without having to analysis it to death and then decide if it was supposed to be enjoyable.

[Rakala]

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?

[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.