Avatar and why I like it!

[Hobbs]

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.

[smileyeagle1021]

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 ). 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]

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

[AdminAssistant]

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.

[Rapscallion]

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

[Hobbs]

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?

[AdminAssistant]

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"?

[crashhelmet]

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

[Talon]

*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 ) 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.

[Hobbs]

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

Oh. Honestly, not too enthused to see it.

[AdminAssistant]

What did his ex-wife do?

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

[Hobbs]

What did his ex-wife do?

[smileyeagle1021]

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

[AdminAssistant]

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.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

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?