Avatar and why I like it! [Archive]

Hobbs

04-13-2010, 07:22 PM

Okay, kinda old, but bear with me. I'm posting because the conversation came up, once again and I wanted somewhere to vent. I hope that's all right.

Now then, I was defending one of my favorite movies of 2010, Avatar from a friend who was bashing it; using all the same arguments "over the top/pretentious/etc."

I like Avatar because it gives avenue for discussion when there wouldn't have been previously. A lot of people have derogatorily called it "Dancing with Smurfs," and I actually want to expand on that idea. You see, for no matter how good Dances with Wolves was, you won't get the regual Joe Blow to see it. However, you throw in cool visual effects and explosions, and people flock en masse to see it. I think it actually opens up a dialogue for discussion about Native American rights [of which I support] and the rights of indigenous peoples concerning their land.

smileyeagle1021

04-13-2010, 07:29 PM

Not to mention it also touches on issues of what the real measure of "progress" is. That it's not always a new freeway or a new high rise, but the more important things in life that measure progress.

Plaidman

04-13-2010, 08:00 PM

I havent seen it on principal. Everyone of my friends/family/coworkers/customers seen it. However, not a single one could even remember a name, or anything that happened in the movie. I'd ask who was their favorite character.

"Uh..."

What's the point of the movie?

"Uh... stuff happens... and people come.. and... uh. They fight..."

At which point I just roll my eyes.

"But it sooooooooooooooo pretty!"

Yeah. Sorry. I'm not the kind of person who watchs or reads or looks at something because its pretty. I've learn along time ago, that most people just watch and love stuff that is pretty, no matter how shallow it is. I'm pretty sure some one could make a movie, with nonstop sex, mass murdering of children. Rampant drug abuse, and every horrid idea in world, and people will PRAISE it with all their heart if it looks pretty. So yeah, no. Not going to watch it. Ever.

Wingates_Hellsing

04-13-2010, 08:16 PM

I'm with Plaidman on this in that most people I've spoken with like it just because it's pretty flying the the face of it's incredibly ham-handed (read: shoddy) story telling.

As far as opening an avenue of discussion, I quite simply don't care for such avenues. Most often it's about the movie and it's awesome messages, not the real life analogues it's supposed to be representing. To top it all off, each of those arguments almost always polarizes to the point where both sides are just spewing venom at each other and their opinions on the movie.

Beyond being insulting to be handed an 'artful' movie to 'get us talking' about something, I don't think it actually helps. It divorces us from the real world that we should be talking about. Did the indigenous people get fucked over? yeah, and the people that did it were wrong, no question. But reparations aren't the answer. One group is given a hand out for things that didn't happen to them and the other is punished for things they didn't do. They may be our ancestors, but we aren't them.

But none of that in any way applies to Avatar. It's a fictional world around which we have fictional arguments. The most tangible connection to the real world is a vague set of beliefs that cross over and what we end up with is a bunch of people with one more reason to believe what they already did.

There's more than one measure of progress. Individuality and Society, Technology and Nature. They aren't better or worse, just different. Because of this it isn't about which one is right, but which one's right for you. You want to build factories and skyscrapers? fine, do that. Want to live in a tree-house and hunt boars with a stick? fine, do that. None of it gives anyone the right to impress it on others. We've got the best standards of living in history, and a fuckload of nice things. Every scrap of it is the product of nature with the influence of technology, to have any of it, we need both. That should have been Avatar's message, "show 'em both some love". But it wasn't, it was "we're right and pure and perfect and they're evil and disgusting and wrong" heard that anywhere else?

AdminAssistant

04-13-2010, 11:09 PM

I also haven't seen it on principle, because James Cameron is a no-talent egotistical prick. "King of the world" my ass (and I loved it when he lost to his ex-wife for both Best Director and Best Picture Oscars). Or, as I've said many times before, including here, if taking a well-worn plot and adding in a bunch of special effects is Oscar worthy, then we have to go back and give George Lucas at least one.

But to the point...I don't believe in dumbing down an art form to bring in the masses. I oppose it in theatre, and I oppose it in film. I oppose it in theatre because, in a struggling economy, many companies are throwing their mission statement to the wind and rehashing Rogers and Hammerstein musicals or *gag* bringing in a Broadway tour instead of doing something new, original, or that has actual meaning. You may say South Pacific has a great message about war and interfering with a native culture, and I'll say it's incredibly outdated and racist (as are many of R&H's musicals, come to think of it).

Avatar was not about a message. It was about putting out a big blockbuster movie that would make Mr. Cameron a lot...a lot of money.

smileyeagle1021

04-14-2010, 02:47 AM

Avatar was not about a message. It was about putting out a big blockbuster movie that would make Mr. Cameron a lot...a lot of money.

doesn't mean he didn't put a message in by mistake ;)

Hobbs

04-14-2010, 02:54 AM

What did his ex-wife do?

AdminAssistant

04-14-2010, 03:57 AM

What did his ex-wife do?

The Hurt Locker...and she also became the first woman to win an Oscar for Best Director. :D (About damn time, too)

Hobbs

04-14-2010, 04:12 AM

The Hurt Locker...and she also became the first woman to win an Oscar for Best Director. :D (About damn time, too)
Oh. Honestly, not too enthused to see it.

Talon

04-14-2010, 04:27 AM

*Cringes*
Charging rant-cannons for a long salvo.

First let me say I enjoyed Avatar, but even I can see this wasn't Cameron's best work. Story and dialogue were not bad. Not great, but adequate. (EDIT: Oops, that shouldn't have said "not adequate")

However, not a single one could even remember a name, or anything that happened in the movie. I'd ask who was their favorite character.

"Uh..."

What's the point of the movie?

"Uh... stuff happens... and people come.. and... uh. They fight..."

At which point I just roll my eyes.

"But it sooooooooooooooo pretty!"

Yeah I wouldn't consider that a ringing endorsement either. But if you'd talked to me, I definitely could have named a hands-down favourite character. Trudy, the real hero of the movie, followed closely by Dr. Grace. Would that have changed your mind?

Actually, don't change your mind. I don't think it's a good idea to let other people decide what you're going to watch. But "not watching on principle" sounds rather pretentious to me.

I also haven't seen it on principle, because James Cameron is a no-talent egotistical prick.

This annoyed me to no end.
Yes Cameron's egotistical, do you suppose that makes him an anomaly in Hollywood? The man's personality flaws have nothing to do with his craft. I can acknowledge Orson Scott Card as a good writer, even if I think the man's a batshit-crazy bible-belting homophobic bigot.

No-talent? Have you even watched Aliens, Terminator 2, or The Abyss? Are you aware that each of those titles got a respective 100%, 98%, and 85% approval rating from Rottentomatoes.com. Between them, they won a total of 7 Oscars. I don't see how you can consider these the works of someone with no talent. Or do you just not like sci-fi action movies in general?

(and I loved it when he lost to his ex-wife for both Best Director and Best Picture Oscars).

Did you actually see the movies that won the Oscars, and can say why you thought they deserved to win? Or are you just glad that someone besides Cameron won? If so, I'd like to know what's the source of all this vitriol for someone you've presumably never met.

Actually I would agree that Avatar is not Oscar material. District-9 was a much better movie in terms of story, and definitely more deserving of awards.

Avatar was not about a message. It was about putting out a big blockbuster movie that would make Mr. Cameron a lot...a lot of money.

Why would he? Cameron's already made his fortune. If he was acting on some compulsion to make even more money that he already couldn't count, he wouldn't have dropped below the ocean for 12 years. I would argue that Avatar was first and foremost about developing and showcasing new filming technology.

I also don't like "dumbing-down" art for the sake of the masses. Hell I started writing fanfiction because I was sick to death of stupid movies about robots turning on people. (Yes I, Robot and Matrix prequel vignettes, I'm talking to you :mad:) Maybe I'm being pretentious here, but I cringe at the thought of how badly a Hollywood director would mangle my story. But Avatar wasn't bad. The story and dialogue was adequate. That's my take and I'm sticking to it.

crashhelmet

04-14-2010, 07:29 AM

I am an avid movie buff. Watching movies is one of my favorite hobbies and my personal collection is ginormous.

I was hesitant on seeing Avatar at first, only because of everything that I had heard about it. Call it a rehashing of Pocahontas, Dancing With Wolves, Ferngully, etc etc etc. I was bored one day and decided to go see it. I'm glad I did.

Cons
Unoriginal Story - It's the same rehashed storyline we've seen time and time again. Main character befriends the "enemy," falls in love, realizes he's really the bad guy, betrays his people, and becomes the hero.

Predictable - Unoriginal story makes it predictable off the bat. Plot points half way through the movie give away the ending.

Writing - Simplistic dialog. "Unobtanium"??? Seriously??? You couldn't think of a better word/name for an ore you were having trouble obtaining????

Pros
Special FX - Definitely not the best thing about this movie, in my opinion, but I'll get it out of the way. It is a contributing factor to it though. It doesn't matter if you see this in 3D or not, the special fx are outstanding. The world the created from top to bottom is magnificent. What I really enjoyed about it was you don't see the green screen "halo" around the actors like you do in some films (SW: Ep3 for example)

Captivating - This is what i think is the best part of the film. You get sucked into this movie and into their world so much that you don't realize the movie is almost 3 hours long (162 minutes). The movie is slow when it needs to be slow and fast when it needs to be fast. You forget that this movie is unoriginal. You look past the "unobtanium" and minimal script. This movie does what it was designed to do. To entertain you and take your mind off of the rest of the world and place it into theirs.

The Cast - For as minimal a script as it is, the actors all play very well off each other. I won't say that there wasn't anyone that could've done better. I just don't think they needed to cast it any differently. I don't think anyone was wrong for the role they had. They fit/defined their characters perfectly.

For what it's worth, I'd recommend going to see it in the theatres where you can grasp everything as it should be. It will still be enjoyable and entertaining at home, but the visual and aural experience form a theatre will make it much more so.

CH

AdminAssistant

04-14-2010, 02:05 PM

This annoyed me to no end.
Yes Cameron's egotistical, do you suppose that makes him an anomaly in Hollywood?

No-talent? Have you even watched Aliens, Terminator 2, or The Abyss? Are you aware that each of those titles got a respective 100%, 98%, and 85% approval rating from Rottentomatoes.com. Between them, they won a total of 7 Oscars. I don't see how you can consider these the works of someone with no talent. Or do you just not like sci-fi action movies in general?

Did you actually see the movies that won the Oscars, and can say why you thought they deserved to win? Or are you just glad that someone besides Cameron won? If so, I'd like to know what's the source of all this vitriol for someone you've presumably never met.

No, Cameron being egotistical does not make him an anomaly. But when he can't put it aside and fake some humbleness during a speech, that makes him a jackass.

I've seen Aliens. It was ok, but I wasn't blown away by it. I'm not a huge sci-fi fan, I'll admit. Maybe Cameron just has a thing with weak screenplays.

And, no, I saw neither The Hurt Locker or Avatar. But I was thrilled for a) a woman to win Best Director and b) a smaller film to beat out the "oooohhh, preeeeetttyyyy". Truth be told, I really wanted Tarantino to win for Inglourious Basterds, but he will forever suffer from the "It's not Pulp Fiction" Syndrome.

The Cast - For as minimal a script as it is, the actors all play very well off each other. I won't say that there wasn't anyone that could've done better. I just don't think they needed to cast it any differently. I don't think anyone was wrong for the role they had. They fit/defined their characters perfectly.

My issue here is...how can you tell? With the blue folks, they're all CGI. All of the facial expressions and nuances you expect in fine film acting....what, "It's okay, we'll fix it in post"?

Hobbs

04-14-2010, 04:16 PM

Rapscallion

04-14-2010, 04:48 PM

Avatar was not about a message. It was about putting out a big blockbuster movie that would make Mr. Cameron a lot...a lot of money.

I think it was about both. There was a fairly clear set of messages. The underdog can fight back and win. True love wins through. Even if a less-advanced culture (read the Middle East) has precious resources underneath their land (read oil) then it's not right to force them off their land.

Rapscallion

AdminAssistant

04-14-2010, 04:56 PM

A speech? So apparently it was for getting an award of some sort? Why be humble? If I get an award, I'll pretty much gloat...isn't an award supposed to be saying "You're awesome!"

Talon's point is still valid. Glad that he lost because you were "thrilled for a woman to win Best Director" is just as narrow-minded as a black person glad that OJ was acquitted because he was black. How can you even say one movie is better than the other if you've seen neither?

While an award is recognition of excellence, I don't see a need to be a jerk about it like, "I'm the king of the world" or "I'll make this short because I really need to pee." He didn't achieve anything he did alone - there were cinematographers, DP's, camera operators, designers, actors, producers, assistant directors, etc. etc. Humility seems to be a long lost virtue, I'm afraid.

A female Best Director was long overdue in an industry and career known for misogyny. Bigelow's win could possibly open doors for more recognition of female filmmakers, equal opportunity, etc. It is nothing like celebrating the outcome of a trial. Bigelow achieved something great, and as a feminist and a woman, it makes me happy. Progress and all that.

I'm very good at reading reviews, looking at the bios of those involved, maybe seeing a trailer, and being able to judge the quality of film, tv, etc. according to my own perceptions. I know what I like, I recognize quality, pop culture is what I do. I can say with certainty that I would not enjoy Avatar because of a widely reported thin and overused screenplay. As a believer in Aristotle's Poetics, I believe that the most important aspect of a film (play, tv show, etc.) is plot. Spectacle is last on the list. All the fancy special effects in the world don't make up for poor plot, and quite frankly, I saw Pocahontas.

I also understand that the biggest challenge of a director is dealing with actors. Coaching, giving notes, coercing the performance into the director's vision without stepping on the actor's creativity. When the majority of the actor's body is computer animated...is he even doing that work? I don't know.

Anyway, it's not my cup of tea. I really don't care one way or the other if you spend $15 on a ticket and enjoyed it. But it's not for me.

Hobbs

04-14-2010, 04:59 PM

Progress is great and all, but it's still fitting your agenda and doesn't have anything to do with the movies.

smileyeagle1021

04-14-2010, 07:59 PM

My issue here is...how can you tell? With the blue folks, they're all CGI. All of the facial expressions and nuances you expect in fine film acting....what, "It's okay, we'll fix it in post"?

Clearly someone doesn't read entertainment weekly (which I only read because it is at work and I get bored :p ). They actually did have live actors perform the roles with cameras focused on their faces then copied that into the computer. The facial expressions etc that you see on the Navi are real expressions, not computer trickery. So there was actual acting involved.

Hobbs

04-14-2010, 08:02 PM

That's how all CGI for human movement is done, actually. Even with animals (I forgot which movie) they do motion capture, so that it's a real depiction of action and movement.

AdminAssistant

04-14-2010, 08:06 PM

Clearly someone doesn't read entertainment weekly (which I only read because it is at work and I get bored :p ). They actually did have live actors perform the roles with cameras focused on their faces then copied that into the computer. The facial expressions etc that you see on the Navi are real expressions, not computer trickery. So there was actual acting involved.

Actually, I did know about that; motion capture is really common. Doesn't mean it can't be fudged or altered.

Hobbs

04-14-2010, 08:09 PM

Actually, I did know about that; motion capture is really common. Doesn't mean it can't be fudged or altered.
Faces are really common. Doesn't mean they can't be fudged or altered...oh wait...that's acting isn't it?

AdminAssistant

04-14-2010, 08:11 PM

Faces are really common. Doesn't mean they can't be fudged or altered...oh wait...that's acting isn't it?

Pardon my French, but what the hell does that even mean? Plastic surgery is acting?

I missed this:
Progress is great and all, but it's still fitting your agenda and doesn't have anything to do with the movies.

Ah, yes, my agenda for equal rights and opportunities regardless of gender (or any other reason).

Hobbs

04-14-2010, 08:23 PM

Pardon my French, but what the hell does that even mean? Plastic surgery is acting?

I missed this:

Ah, yes, my agenda for equal rights and opportunities regardless of gender (or any other reason).
Exactly. It's not "who made the better movie" but "she's a woman, and a woman's never got it, so that makes it better!"

No, I mean facial expressions are all fake in movies. They're not really crying, ya know. That doesn't make them any better/worse than a CGI reproducing the same expression.

AdminAssistant

04-14-2010, 08:29 PM

No, I mean facial expressions are all fake in movies. They're not really crying, ya know. That doesn't make them any better/worse than a CGI reproducing the same expression.

Usually, they are. Sometimes they will use eye drops or other techniques, but more often than not an actor is actually crying real tears. How said actor gets to that place is a matter of debate; method actors usually use "sense memory" or a different memory device to recall an event where they cried and then re-experience that in their bodies. (Said method actors also tend to have psychological issues from constantly recalling traumatic events.)

Hobbs

04-14-2010, 08:33 PM

THey're still not crying because of what's happening. It's still crocodile tears...

Plaidman

04-14-2010, 10:42 PM

THey're still not crying because of what's happening. It's still crocodile tears...

... Not really. They still reliving trama. Its not an act. If I think on my rape, i'll cry. I still feel the hanger. I still remember having guns shoved in my face because the robber wanted a pack of fucking newports. I still remember seeing my family slammed into the hard cement with blood splattering, police everywhere, neighbors prying and pointing, because my mom let my uncle in not knowing he just sold a bunch of meth. Those memories are still PAINFUL. Not something to turn off.

muses_nightmare

04-14-2010, 10:45 PM

Uhm, weren't the facial movements of the actors replicated for the CGI? Essentially that's the same thing as the actual actors.

Also I'd just like to say that I loved Avatar. If you aren't going to see it because fantasy/sci-fi movies don't interest you, fine. But if you're refusing to see it because it's a big budget movie, you're being pretentious.

Frankly, it's just a movie. and in the end I don't give a rat's rear end whether you've seen it or not. Or whether you think it's "worthy" of whatever awards. I didn't see the Hurt Locker because to me it just looked like another straight to DVD war movie (was it even in theaters? I don't remember seeing it there). I don't like war movies, therefore I didn't watch it. I could care less about what movie wins what awards, I watch based on my interest, and yes, I Enjoyed Avatar because it was good entertainment, I could escape my life for a few hours. I don't see what's wrong with that.

Plaidman

04-14-2010, 10:53 PM

There nothing wrong with that. I just hated that, not a single person I knew who saw it, could even give me a name. Let alone what happened in the movie. Nothing, They go blank. But they just say its pretty. I like movies with plot to catch my intrest. I don't go to movies that are just glamer. Had I even gotten someone who could tell me something about the movie? I might have gone. As said, no. No-one could even give me a name, an event. Nothing. Just "So pretty...".

As for the motion capture: It may be the actors doing the beginning, but just like cover of magazines, they can easily (Or easier since its all cgi) change and move it, make imperfects, get in the right smile or growl they want to. With no say from actor.

Hobbs

04-14-2010, 11:10 PM

... Not really. They still reliving trama. Its not an act. If I think on my rape, i'll cry. I still feel the hanger. I still remember having guns shoved in my face because the robber wanted a pack of fucking newports. I still remember seeing my family slammed into the hard cement with blood splattering, police everywhere, neighbors prying and pointing, because my mom let my uncle in not knowing he just sold a bunch of meth. Those memories are still PAINFUL. Not something to turn off.

Yes, you have a right to cry about that, and I don't fault you. But the motivation of an actor/actress to cry is for one simple reason, they're getting paid.

There nothing wrong with that. I just hated that, not a single person I knew who saw it, could even give me a name. Let alone what happened in the movie. Nothing, They go blank. But they just say its pretty. I like movies with plot to catch my intrest. I don't go to movies that are just glamer. Had I even gotten someone who could tell me something about the movie? I might have gone. As said, no. No-one could even give me a name, an event. Nothing. Just "So pretty...".

As for the motion capture: It may be the actors doing the beginning, but just like cover of magazines, they can easily (Or easier since its all cgi) change and move it, make imperfects, get in the right smile or growl they want to. With no say from actor.

Scenes in movies are rarely done in one take. They do it multiple times, "Oh, you blinked, oh the light isn't right..." etc. 'Touching up' a scene in a movie isn't a product of CGI.

No offense Plaid, but your friends seem very dull. Everytime my friends and I went to see Avatar we had extensive conversations about it. One of my friends could even speak Navi.

Plaidman

04-14-2010, 11:40 PM

None of my friends are dull. We're all very unique and special. None of us were ever in a mold. Well, cept J, but that's a whole different ballpark of hatred. S is nuts. I mean that in the clincil term of both seeing/hearing things that he is on about fifty different meds and must live in a group home. Most of the time he so out of his mind that he just drools. A shame, seeing such a brilliant person turn into that. He was by far the smartest person I knew, could speak several lanages, had advance learnings in several fields. But his mental state just ... went. During the few times I can get a straight converstation out of him, its not... straight. T is about as normal as you can get. Married man. Good job. Own home. two kids. Yay. Theredheadofdoom is exdrug dealer/user. Dropped out of school. Has a kid. Married. Several medical problems at the tender age of 22. Was in jail for assult charges for a while, but the person he beat totally deserved it, so he served time with a smile. I can count on him for anything.

John did see that movie, along with the a gaggle of woman he tries to sleep with but they know the loser that is he. T saw it with family. Thereadhead saw it. I don't think S saw it, because that would be... bad.

My friends aren't dull. They are all strange, and adnormal by the masses of our stupid city. But I still love them, and would die for any of them, (and nearly had few times).

AdminAssistant

04-15-2010, 12:00 AM

... Not really. They still reliving trama.

Not every actor does it that way, of course. Many do extensive character work, or are in control of their body enough that they can turn tears on and off like a spigot. "Sense memory" and "emotion memory" are extremely dangerous, IMO. As Laurence Olivier said to Dustin Hoffman on the set of Marathon Man, "Try acting, it's much easier."

I didn't see the Hurt Locker because to me it just looked like another straight to DVD war movie (was it even in theaters? I don't remember seeing it there). I don't like war movies, therefore I didn't watch it. I could care less about what movie wins what awards, I watch based on my interest, and yes, I Enjoyed Avatar because it was good entertainment, I could escape my life for a few hours. I don't see what's wrong with that.

The Hurt Locker had a fairly limited initial release. It wasn't until awards season geared up that the movie began to get a lot of attention.

One of the primary purposes of film (theatre, television, music) is to entertain. Obviously, if you don't like war films The Hurt Locker isn't for you. I don't like effects-heavy movies with no substance, so Avatar isn't for me.

Scenes in movies are rarely done in one take. They do it multiple times, "Oh, you blinked, oh the light isn't right..." etc. 'Touching up' a scene in a movie isn't a product of CGI.

Yes, that's called editing. Manipulating an actor's features through computer animation is slightly different.

Lace Neil Singer

04-16-2010, 10:50 AM

I've seen Avatar, but not at the cinema. I have to say, I really don't see what all the hype is about. The story is cliched for one; for another, I have an aversion about movies being "Let's throw in some super special effects and then no-one will notice that the plot is cack!", tho I will watch a movie just so no-one can act as tho I don't have a right to bitch. However, I will not fork out for cinema tickets or pay in any way to see it.

jackfaire

04-20-2010, 07:15 PM

I am a mass

I am a pretentious dick.

There are obscure movies with depth and great storytelling that I love. There are movies that are shallow let's see how much stuff we can blow up that I love.

I don't judge people for liking either. There are movies I do not and cannot connect with their are other movies that touch me deeply.

There are movies that are considered deep but seem more about "see the two pretty boys make out" but doesn't really get anyone talking about the issues. Just the way it is. I don't think there is such a thing as dumbing down art.

Ghel

04-25-2010, 05:00 AM

I very much enjoyed Avatar. I just watched it tonight for the first time.

Yes, the plot is very simple and obvious. Plotwise, there's no major surprises. From what we all know of the movie industry, we can tell the entire plot from the previews.

Yes, it's very pretty. We all know that. That's one of the selling points of the movie. But it's incidental next to

The Science! Oh, yes, the science. (Ok, it's mostly science fiction, but still...) Grace is, by far, my favorite character in the movie. She may also be my favorite portrayal of a scientist in any movie (but I'll have to think on that one for a bit). It isn't simply that all life forms are interconnected. It's that the life forms have similar structures (for instance, all the "mammals" we see in the movie have two sets of forelegs, except for the Na'vi, for some reason). It's that Grace wanted to get samples of everything, even when mortally wounded. It's that the floating mountains seemed to be balanced between the gravity wells of Pandora and the neighboring planet. It's that when the tribe captured Jake the first time, they held a knife up to his "ponytail." These were the details that made the movie worth watching.

draggar

04-28-2010, 01:06 PM

Avatar was the best and worst movie I've seen in a very long time. I won't deny it's success - it's grossed what, over 2 billion worldwide so far?

The best is purely on the special effects, CGI, 3D addition, etc. Yeah, all that was incrdible to watch (in iMAX I thought it was "too much" though).

The worst was because of how predictable the story line was, a story that is not original at all (over done many times - and before in much better ways), etc..

If want to see special effects, I'll watch this.

If I want a movie with the same (or extremely similar) story, I'll go watch "Dances With Wolves", "The New World", "Apacolypto", or "Pathfinder".

I feel the same way with "Pearl Harbor" and "Tora! Tora! Tora!"

Talon

04-28-2010, 04:28 PM

If I want a movie with the same (or extremely similar) story, I'll go watch "Dances With Wolves", "The New World", "Apacolypto", or "Pathfinder".

Don't forget Princess Mononoke, which avoided the mistake of black & white humans=bad, nature=good.

muses_nightmare

04-29-2010, 12:33 AM

I just came across this from a blog my friend has started writing for recently, it's part of a review for Avatar, and I think it sums up my opinion of the storyline:

The story is not cliché, as many have written it off as. It is an archetype. The one is often mistaken for the other, even by folks who know what they're talking about. You can see this archetype employed in many, many stories, including 'Pocahontas', 'Dances with Wolves', 'District 9', 'The Last Samurai', 'Total Recall', several Disney animated films, and even in the biblical story of 'Moses'. http://trenchcoatanticritic.blogspot.com (http://trenchcoatanticritic.blogspot.com)

Just a thought.

Hobbs

04-29-2010, 12:48 AM

Nice addition, Muses. I'm surprised at how well this thread has gone, considering I pretty much abandoned it.

Anywho, she's right. A cliche is a saying, expression, idea, or element of an artistic work which has been overused to the point of losing its original meaning or effect, rendering it a stereotype.

In retrospect, an archetype is a model or abstract that is copied or emulated. It's usually a "perfect" example of a character.

Jake is several archetypes, really. ERm, I can't remember the 'names' of them, correctly, but he's been portrayed, as Muses' quote pointed out, in many movies as well as books.

smileyeagle1021

04-29-2010, 02:59 PM

The worst was because of how predictable the story line was, a story that is not original at all (over done many times - and before in much better ways), etc..

The thing about predictable story lines is that knowing how it ends doesn't spoil the ride. Some of the best murder mystery shows I've seen have seen show you the crime up front and show you the killer's face. You already know how it's going to end and who did it, but it's still fun to see the chase.
You knew that Jake would end up joining the Navi and fighting the humans (which as a side note, this wasn't a humans bad/nature good story, if anything it's a morality tale on what happens when a smaller group is forced to move to serve the needs of the larger group, not that it isn't a predictable archetype either).
The one complaint about complaints that I have the biggest problem with is the people who say that it took far too little for Jake to betray his people. As someone who would have no qualms betraying my country (this is the country after all that at the end of world war 2 liberated the concentration camps and moved anyone with a pink triangle into new prisons to finish out their rightfully imposed terms and tells me on a daily basis that because of my orientation and lack of belief in Christianity that I am inherently an inferior citizen), I can fully understand what would cause Jake to turn.
He was already betrayed by his people. He was injured in battle defending his country and his country refused to provide him the surgery to make him whole again. His brother was gunned down for a few pieces of paper. To top it off, his people were asking him to do something that he knew to be wrong. The Navi on the other hand were willing to accept him in as part of their tribe, they were above killing each other over something so trivial as money, they took care of their own. Yes, they left him to die after they found out what his original mission was, but if I was in Jake's position, I would expect no less, I would expect that I would have to re-earn their trust.
Never underestimate how easy it is for one who has been betrayed to turn betrayer.

Lace Neil Singer

04-29-2010, 05:36 PM

I still don't like it; you're not about to convince me otherwise. But then, I probably like several movies that people here think are pants. We all have our own opinions, after all. ^^

Hobbs

04-29-2010, 05:45 PM

The thing about predictable story lines is that knowing how it ends doesn't spoil the ride. Some of the best murder mystery shows I've seen have seen show you the crime up front and show you the killer's face. You already know how it's going to end and who did it, but it's still fun to see the chase.
You knew that Jake would end up joining the Navi and fighting the humans (which as a side note, this wasn't a humans bad/nature good story, if anything it's a morality tale on what happens when a smaller group is forced to move to serve the needs of the larger group, not that it isn't a predictable archetype either).
The one complaint about complaints that I have the biggest problem with is the people who say that it took far too little for Jake to betray his people. As someone who would have no qualms betraying my country (this is the country after all that at the end of world war 2 liberated the concentration camps and moved anyone with a pink triangle into new prisons to finish out their rightfully imposed terms and tells me on a daily basis that because of my orientation and lack of belief in Christianity that I am inherently an inferior citizen), I can fully understand what would cause Jake to turn.
He was already betrayed by his people. He was injured in battle defending his country and his country refused to provide him the surgery to make him whole again. His brother was gunned down for a few pieces of paper. To top it off, his people were asking him to do something that he knew to be wrong. The Navi on the other hand were willing to accept him in as part of their tribe, they were above killing each other over something so trivial as money, they took care of their own. Yes, they left him to die after they found out what his original mission was, but if I was in Jake's position, I would expect no less, I would expect that I would have to re-earn their trust.
Never underestimate how easy it is for one who has been betrayed to turn betrayer.
His country didn't kill his brother, and I don't think that the government is responsible for making a hospital do any type of non-lifesaving surgery. He just didn't have the money for it (which makes me think that, somewhere along the line, the new healthcare bill was squashed).

Nazi's killed Catholics and at one point, my people were exterminated/disenfranchised, but I serve my country proudly.

Plaidman

04-29-2010, 09:22 PM

I like chase movies. It's like Batman and Joker. You know that Joker is going to kill a bunch of people. You know that Batman is going to beat Joker up and bring him back to Arkham.

You just don't know how high the body count will be before it's over.

Wingates_Hellsing

04-29-2010, 09:37 PM

I like action flicks, you know that the heroes are going to end up shooting all the bad guys, it's just a matter of how they go about managing it :D

That said, while I do give credit where it's due (good storyline, special effects, and firearm continuity etc.) I don't pretend that a movie whose sole purpose is to entertain is somehow a marvelous philosophical lesson on current events and morality. That's what gets me about most all fanboys/girls of anything. There's a fine line between appreciation and fanboyish worship and all too many people piss all over that line when it comes to Avatar.

P.S. I always found it odd that Batman would bring whomever had escaped Arkham when they'd escaped before and likely would again later. Once someone has proven beyond all doubt that they pose a threat to everyone around them it's time to just off the fucker before more people get hurt. The moral high-ground doesn't mean much to the dead. *shrug*

Hobbs

04-29-2010, 09:41 PM

Batman doesn't kill...well, he does in Burton's version, but not in others. In fact, in the best adaptation of the franchise (imo), Batman Beyond, Bruce Wayne gives up the suit when he resorts to using a gun on a bad guy.

Some movies though, are meant (and do) teach good philosophical arguments and/or morality. Even Gene Roddenberry admitted that, as entertaining as Star Trek is, it is also a morality play; just set in space.

Plaidman

04-29-2010, 09:51 PM

Oh belive me. Batman has thought of it. One comic had a three page spread just exactly how he would torture Joker before maybe letting him die over a period of WEEKS. Not days, weeks.

He nearly did when he thought Joker killed Thomas Elliot, but Gordon stopped him. Despite all the shit Joker did, Gordon wouldn't let Batman become a murderer, because he'd then have to put every bit of manpower to get him.

When Gordon's second wife was murdered by Joker, Batman was about to stop Gordon from killing Joker. Gordon instead shot Joker in the leg. Joker shouting he was going to sue, when he got the joke. (Joker had years earlier paralized Gordon's daughter).

When Jason Todd was murdered by Joker, Batman wanted to kill him. Guess who stoped him? Superman. Looked like Joker became a freaking ambassor to the Ayatollah, and thus had freaking dipomatic immuntiy. The USA couldn't afford Batman beating Joker to death and maybe cause a war.

And yes, Barbara even pleaded with Robin and Batman. She wasn't asking them to kill all villians and such. Just Joker. Just the Joker. Nether had an answer.

When Nightwing beat Joker to death because he thought Joker killed Batman, it was Batman who came out of nowhere and revive Joker so that Nightwing wouldn't have blood on his hands.

Hell, in one comic, Joker got shot and was bleeding to death, and Batman had to rescue him, despite Gordon's pleas to let him bleed to death. Nether of them were the ones that shot him, they just wouldn't save him. Batman couldn't, because he did let Joker become bait to catch another villain, and thus that bullet was due to Batman's actions.

Anyway, the real reason no-one kills Joker? Because its been done. Joker has been killed before, and that led quite the freaking riot and world destruction as shown in Kingdom Come.

The real answer? Joker is just too cool a villain to let die.

Plaidman will retreat back to his nerd cage. Sorry.

smileyeagle1021

04-30-2010, 08:06 PM

His country didn't kill his brother, and I don't think that the government is responsible for making a hospital do any type of non-lifesaving surgery. He just didn't have the money for it (which makes me think that, somewhere along the line, the new healthcare bill was squashed).

Nazi's killed Catholics and at one point, my people were exterminated/disenfranchised, but I serve my country proudly.

No, his country didn't kill his brother, but he didn't betray his country, he betrayed "his people" or his society, and his society produced the person who did kill his brother. He was injured in combat, it's not a life saving procedure, but still one that many would say a country should provide for their wounded soldiers if it is possible. His people valued his service so little they wouldn't perform a simple surgery in repayment for him risking his life to protect theirs.

And, yes, you do serve your country honorably as a Catholic, my country won't let me serve honorably as a gay man. And, if I may be blunt, it is partly because of the Catholic church that it will be a long time before I would be able to serve my country as a gay man.

Hobbs

04-30-2010, 09:13 PM

No, his country didn't kill his brother, but he didn't betray his country, he betrayed "his people" or his society, and his society produced the person who did kill his brother. He was injured in combat, it's not a life saving procedure, but still one that many would say a country should provide for their wounded soldiers if it is possible. His people valued his service so little they wouldn't perform a simple surgery in repayment for him risking his life to protect theirs.

And, yes, you do serve your country honorably as a Catholic, my country won't let me serve honorably as a gay man. And, if I may be blunt, it is partly because of the Catholic church that it will be a long time before I would be able to serve my country as a gay man.
The Catholic Church has nothing to do with US DoD policy. The Catholic chaplain made that perfectly clear during one of my many briefings. You could serve in the Armed Forces if you wanted to, as many of your gay brothers and sisters do; but you choose to keep your hate. You chose the words "...betray my country..." which is why I assumed you meant his country betraying him and not his society.

The movies presents a dystopia from our current society; a fall from what we are, considering that his healthcare doesn't seem to par with ours.

Can you please provide citation for your claim about the concentration camps? The only ones I find point to the German government, and not the US, as the ones who did that.

smileyeagle1021

05-01-2010, 03:20 AM

The Catholic Church has nothing to do with US DoD policy. The Catholic chaplain made that perfectly clear during one of my many briefings. You could serve in the Armed Forces if you wanted to, as many of your gay brothers and sisters do; but you choose to keep your hate.

First, The Catholic church, like all churches, influence their members in how they vote... Catholics (along with most conservative Christians) vote against any politician that will even admit that gays and lesbians are decent people and not sexual deviants.
And yes, gays and lesbians serve... but they are not permitted to serve honorably. They are told they must be liars or get the fuck out.

Hobbs

05-01-2010, 03:53 AM

First, The Catholic church, like all churches, influence their members in how they vote... Catholics (along with most conservative Christians) vote against any politician that will even admit that gays and lesbians are decent people and not sexual deviants.
And yes, gays and lesbians serve... but they are not permitted to serve honorably. They are told they must be liars or get the fuck out.
It's not a lie if you don't say it.

I've never been told in Church how to vote, and I know many Catholics who don't vote the way you say they do. Catholics are far from Conservative Christians (are actually despised by the more extreme ones).

smileyeagle1021

05-01-2010, 05:44 AM

It's not a lie if you don't say it.

Ever hear of a lie of omission?
What is a gay soldier supposed to say when someone asks about why he doesn't have a girlfriend? Yes, by strict definition the person who asked has violated the "don't ask" part of don't ask don't tell, but there is no way for the gay soldier to answer in a way that isn't either 1) a lie or 2) going to raise suspicion. To date I have not heard of a single heterosexual discharged for asking someone their orientation, but I have heard of quite a few gay soldiers discharged because they had someone get too curious and outed them.

Hobbs

05-01-2010, 05:50 AM

Ever hear of a lie of omission?
What is a gay soldier supposed to say when someone asks about why he doesn't have a girlfriend? Yes, by strict definition the person who asked has violated the "don't ask" part of don't ask don't tell, but there is no way for the gay soldier to answer in a way that isn't either 1) a lie or 2) going to raise suspicion. To date I have not heard of a single heterosexual discharged for asking someone their orientation, but I have heard of quite a few gay soldiers discharged because they had someone get too curious and outed them.
It's probably because it's a much more rare occurrence, but it has happened, I can assure you. I'd prolly have to delve into endless JAG records to find it though, because that's how the military is with records. For the most part, I think it's not reported because it's not as juicy a story as, "He got kicked out for being gay! Military is teh ebil!!" I know of one case that happened as you described, because my Commandant was the reporting officer (not the one who reported it, the one it was reported to).

smileyeagle1021

05-01-2010, 08:11 AM

It's probably because it's a much more rare occurrence, but it has happened

So, it's much rarer... does that imply that the majority of the gay people discharged have voluntarily outed themselves for no other reason than for the hell of it? Yes there are some who have done it to make a political statement or because they have changed their mind about being in the military (I wouldn't be surprised if straight people haven't used that technique to get out of conflict). That leaves the rest who have been outed somehow against their will. What pray tell is the punishment for a soldier who outs a fellow soldier? Is there one? Is it ever actually used?
And also, why are gay soldiers still discharged under DADT when they are outed even if they didn't out themselves? I keep hearing that the law is only that a soldier cannot announce their orientation, if someone else announces it without the LGBT soldier's consent, why is it the LGBT soldier who is punished?

To keep the thread from moving further off topic, the point was that it was realistic just how "little" it took for Jake to turn traitor is realistic considering that people already alienated don't need much of an excuse to turn coat.

Hobbs

05-01-2010, 08:21 AM

So, it's much rarer... does that imply that the majority of the gay people discharged have voluntarily outed themselves for no other reason than for the hell of it? Yes there are some who have done it to make a political statement or because they have changed their mind about being in the military (I wouldn't be surprised if straight people haven't used that technique to get out of conflict). That leaves the rest who have been outed somehow against their will. What pray tell is the punishment for a soldier who outs a fellow soldier? Is there one? Is it ever actually used?
And also, why are gay soldiers still discharged under DADT when they are outed even if they didn't out themselves? I keep hearing that the law is only that a soldier cannot announce their orientation, if someone else announces it without the LGBT soldier's consent, why is it the LGBT soldier who is punished?

To keep the thread from moving further off topic, the point was that it was realistic just how "little" it took for Jake to turn traitor is realistic considering that people already alienated don't need much of an excuse to turn coat.
I dunno the punishment, because I've never sat in on a court-martial. I know it's not dismissal though. It is punished, as I mentioned in my previous posts. I like how you gleen over what you don't like what I say. I don't see how finding out someone is gay is finding out "against their will." You're making it sound like them military interrogates people or something.

They're dismissed because, as much as you or I dislike it, it's illegal.

smileyeagle1021

05-01-2010, 12:58 PM

As to not derail the thread further, I've started a new thread on DADT and what it implies (http://www.fratching.com/showthread.php?p=53335#post53335post53335)

Hyena Dandy

05-01-2010, 01:06 PM

And as for Smiley's point about Avatar, which is rather the point of this thread, I don't think that Jake felt betrayed by his country for most of the movie, except for when they told him to do something he felt was clearly wrong. I haven't watched the movie lately, or intently, so I may be wrong, but it seems to be the country was trying to take care of him DESPITE not being able to fix his problem. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though. :3 I also think your 'his society produced the person who hurt him' thing works. I wouldn't stop being American if I was mugged, even though my 'society' produced the mugger. And even then, there are different cultures inside of one society. If I was mugged, I probably have very few cultural similarities to the mugger.

And while I disagree with why you say he wasn't quick to turn, I agree. There was nothing wrong with him being 'quick' to turn like that. Anyone with a sense of right and wrong would at least have seen what he was being told to do was wrong, and Jake seems to me someone who wouldn't stand for that. I don't know for sure, though, I really wasn't paying attention to the movie.

My impression of Avatar was that it was a good movie. Not creative, no. But good. Making something doesn't have to be completely creative. You can instead take an old idea and do it REALLY WELL. It wasn't the first film like that, it wasn't the LAST film like that. But it wasn't as bad as people seem to think just because it was like that.

Its like going to see a play. I don't go to see a production of Hamlet expecting a plot twist. I just go into it expecting to see what I know played out skillfully. And that is what Avatar gave me. A skillfully played out version of a story I already knew.

Edit: Thank you, Smiley, for creating a DADT thread, I am copypasting

AdminAssistant

05-01-2010, 04:10 PM

Its like going to see a play. I don't go to see a production of Hamlet expecting a plot twist. I just go into it expecting to see what I know played out skillfully. And that is what Avatar gave me. A skillfully played out version of a story I already knew.

I go to Hamlet expecting to see fine acting and a skillful handling of language. I go to films like Avatar expecting mediocre acting, laughable dialogue, and lots of pretty things. They are NOT similar in any way, shape, form, or fashion. :mad:

FTR, there are plenty of plays/musicals like Avatar that can be found on Broadway (*coughWickedcoughPhantomcough*).

Hyena Dandy

05-01-2010, 04:15 PM

I go to Hamlet expecting to see fine acting and a skillful handling of language. I go to films like Avatar expecting mediocre acting, laughable dialogue, and lots of pretty things. They are NOT similar in any way, shape, form, or fashion. :mad:

FTR, there are plenty of plays/musicals like Avatar that can be found on Broadway (*coughWickedcoughPhantomcough*).

You misinterpret me!

I do not go to Avatar expecting the same quality of work as Hamlet. My analogy was that, in both of them, I know exactly what to expect, and I am not hoping to see something new, I am hoping to see something old done well.

Edit: I do not know whether Avatar accomplished doing something completely expected well, because I haven't payed attention to it. But I certainly wasn't going into it expecting CREATIVITY.

jackfaire

05-01-2010, 05:05 PM

Quick question people realize that it wasn't his Country on that planet right? It was a corporation that contracted the US Military to act as mercenaries for them. It was clearly a private corporation as well since they had no government oversight to which both the scientists and the corporation had to answer. The soldiers serving there were doing so as mercenaries not as representatives of their government.

Betraying your country yes that might be difficult but betraying a corporation seriously how many of us wouldn't do that in a heartbeat?

That being said he wasn't brought there by the corporation he was brought there by the scientific consortium studying life on Pandora. Yes said consortium was funded by the corporation but that was as a feel good, "Hey look we care" ploy to get people to look the other way at what they were doing there.

BlaqueKatt

05-01-2010, 05:58 PM

Can you please provide citation for your claim about the concentration camps? The only ones I find point to the German government, and not the US, as the ones who did that.

we had at least 10 of them (http://www.pbs.org/childofcamp/history/camps.html) on US soil holding US citizens

not too up on your US history are you specifically Executive order 9066 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066)-

some 120,003 ethnic Japanese people were held in internment camps for the duration of the war. Americans of Italian and German ancestry were also targeted by these restrictions, including internment. 11,000 people of German ancestry were interned, as were 3,000 people of Italian ancestry, along with some Jewish refugees. The Jewish refugees who were interned came from Germany, and the U.S. government didn't differentiate between ethnic Jews and ethnic Germans. Some of the internees of European descent were interned only briefly, and others were held for several years beyond the end of the war.

Hobbs

05-01-2010, 06:18 PM

we had at least 10 of them (http://www.pbs.org/childofcamp/history/camps.html) on US soil holding US citizens

not too up on your US history are you specifically Executive order 9066 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066)-

some 120,003 ethnic Japanese people were held in internment camps for the duration of the war. Americans of Italian and German ancestry were also targeted by these restrictions, including internment. 11,000 people of German ancestry were interned, as were 3,000 people of Italian ancestry, along with some Jewish refugees. The Jewish refugees who were interned came from Germany, and the U.S. government didn't differentiate between ethnic Jews and ethnic Germans. Some of the internees of European descent were interned only briefly, and others were held for several years beyond the end of the war.
We're not talking about the Japanese/German internment camps. Please re-read our posts in order to understand what we are discussing. Thank you.

Racket_Man

05-02-2010, 08:00 AM

back on topic for a moment

While I loved the visuals in Avatar, it just seemed to be more of a message type of movie with a weak script questionable acting and a really cheesey predicable progression of situations/plot points. I can tell you the overall story line (used many many times over in Hollywood) but nothing else except

**** oh shinny thing *****

**** oh another shinny thing *****

and so on

I did some digging and I found a thread I posted over at CS 2 years ago saying the same thing about Happy Feet and Wall-E

http://www.customerssuck.com/board/showthread.php?t=31383&highlight=wall-e

Now I hear that Happy Feet 2 is going to be released sometime this summer. what will this version be like?