Avatar

→ in
Tools    





Its the first time I have seen a film in 3D, i consider it the best film of the year next to District 9. The film had everything including a new language created by a PHD from Cambridge. The military guy was cool with those long scars, the race of Na'vi were clever, the excellent idea to have on a foreign planet a foreign race that can be viewed by humans inside a machine added plenty to the overall movie ride. Apart from one minor detail in the way the military enlists the help of Jake to keep tabs on the Na'vi, and show exactly hot to get at the Unobtainium, (stupid name btw), I was impressed by what 300 million can do.

Another thing that I liked was that movies in 2D can be slow and boring regardless of how well the plot has been developed or thought out. One particularly satisfying thing about the 3D version is how well the characters looked and felt through it. I begun to wonder on how many more dimensions Cameron had tapped due to opening a new setting to the audiences serviced by a 3D world and 3D plot... I also like to think that I can see aspects in 2D movies that other people cant see, and by having everyone in the movie thinking and watching with the glasses on, opened my eyes to the possibilities of the technology. I took the glasses home and looked at myself in the mirror and asked myself the question... ARE YOU DRUNK?



AVATAR

The film Avatar has finally been released this month after being in development since 1994. I have not seen it yet, but I have read about it and discussed it with several people who have. This prose-poem tries to encapsulate some of my initial thoughts on this blockbuster, its initial reception and some of its meaning.

James Cameron, who wrote, produced and directed the film, stated in an interview that an avatar is: “an incarnation of one of the Hindu gods taking a flesh form." In this film, though, avatar has more to do with human technology in the future being capable of injecting a human's intelligence into a remotely located body, a biological body. "It's not an avatar in the sense of just existing as ones and zeroes in cyberspace,” said Cameron; “it's actually a physical body." The great student of myth, Joseph Campbell(1), should have been at the premier in London on 10 December 2009. I wonder what he would have said.

Composer James Horner scored the film, his third collaboration with Cameron after Aliens and Titanic. A field guide of 224 pages for the film's fictional setting of the planet of Pandora was released by Harper Entertainment just five weeks ago. The guide was entitled Avatar: A Confidential Report on the Biological and Social History of Pandora. With an estimated $310 million to produce and $150 million for marketing, the film has already generated positive reviews from film critics. Roger Ebert, one of the more prestigious of film critics, wrote: “An extraordinary film: Avatar is not simply sensational entertainment, although it is that. It's a technical breakthrough."-Ron Price with thanks to Wikipedia, 30 December 2009.

Like viewing Star Wars back in ’77
some said/an obvious script with an
earnestness & corniness/part of what
makes it absorbing/said another/Gives
you a world, a place/worth visiting/eh?
Alive with action/a soundtrack that pops
with robust sci-fi music shoot-'em-ups...

A mild critique of American militarism
and industrialism.....yes the military are
pure evil........the Pandoran tribespeople
are nature-loving, eco-harmonious//wise
Braveheart smurf warriors. Received....
nominations for the Critics' Choice Awards
of the Broadcast Film Critics Association &
on and on go the recommendations for the..
best this and that and everything else. What
do you think of all this Joseph Campbell???
You said we all have to work our own myth(1)
in our pentapolar, multicultural-dimensional
world with endless phantoms of our wrongly
informed imagination, with our tangled fears,
our pundits of error ill-equipped to interpret a
social commotion tearing our world apart and
at play on our planetizing-globalizing planet.(2)

(1)Google Joseph Campbell for some contemporary insights into the individualized myth we all have to work out in our postmodern world.
(2)The Prophet-Founder of the Bahá'í Faith, Bahá'u'lláh, has been presented as an avatar in India beginning, arguably, in the 1960s. With only 1000 Baha’is in India in 1960 to more than 2 million by the year 2010. Baha’u’llah has been associated with the kalkin avatar who, according to a major Hindu holy text, will appear at the end of the kali yuga, one of the four main stages of history, for the purpose of reestablishing an era of righteousness. There are many examples of what one might call a quasi-cross-cultural messianistic approach to Bahá'í teaching in India.

This approach has included: (a) emphasizing the figures of Buddha and Krishna as past Manifestations of God or avatars; (b) making references to Hindu scriptures such as the Bhagavad Gita, (c) the substitution of Sanskrit-based terminology for Arabic and Persian where possible; for example, Bhagavan Baha for Bahá'u'lláh, (d) the incorporation in both song and literature of Hindu holy spots, hero-figures and poetic images and (e) using heavily Sanskritized-Hindi translations of Baha'i scriptures and prayers.

Ron Price
30 December 2009
__________________
married for 48 years, a teacher for 32, a student for 18, a writer and editor for 16, and a Baha'i for 56(in 2015)



A system of cells interlinked
Another odd yet interesting post from Mr. Price!

__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



I gotta say, I'm still pretty surprised at how many people are giving Avatar a pass here. It's interesting because usually there's some disagreement between the people who love a film and the people who don't, but in this case everyone seems to agree that the story is pretty bad, predictable, but that it's awfully nice to look at and quite detailed. The difference of opinion is whether or not to forgive the bad things because of the good ones, but there's an almost universal agreement as to what the film's strengths and weaknesses are.

It's hard for me to wrap my head around this, because a lot of the people who seem to love this film are often people who would agree wholeheartedly that stories and characters are the most important thing in any film, and the majority of MoFos aren't the type to overlook shortcomings in these areas simply because of effects. The only difference here is that people seem to find the effects so good that Avatar deserves some kind of exemption from the unwritten rules of how to make a genuinely good film.

I just can't get past the fact that anyone who's seen more than a dozen films knew how everything was going to turn out. I was able to guess the film's very last shot half an hour before it happened.

Who here wasn't sorta waiting around for all the events we knew had to take place? Like...

NOTE: I'm labeling these as spoilers to be safe, but if you haven't seen the film, don't worry; you already know all this.

WARNING: "Avatar" spoilers below
1. Jake tries his Avatar.
2. Jake runs into the Na'vi (we even know which one, specifically, he'll meet first)
3. Jake is treated as an outsider.
4. Jake slowly gains their trust.
5. Jake becomes one of them.
6. Diplomacy fails and the military wants to blow everyone up.
7. Jake is forced to choose sides.
8. The Na'vi discover Jake's complicity and banish him.
9. Jake is forced to prove his loyalty to them.
10. The Na'vi forgive Jake and together they fight off the bad guys, with a couple secondary characters dying in the process.

Nothing in this movie was surprising. Every one of us knew all the things above were going to happen. How is that not a huge black mark against a movie?

Anyway, despite all this, I'm still going to see it again, possibly this weekend, and definitely in 2-D. I agree with whoever (was it PW?) said 3-D dulls the colors. It absolutely does.



There are those who call me...Tim.
It is a strange situation isn't it? I agree with everything you've said Yoda but I still went to see it twice in as many days, enjoying it even more the second time I saw it (and to be honest I thought it was pretty damn good the first time).

About 20/30 minutes too long for my taste though.
__________________
"When I was younger, I always wanted to be somebody. Now that I'm older, I realise I should've been more specific."



I haven't seen Avatar yet so just kinda skipped through some of the posts on here... but wasn't this thread originally in the Review forum?
__________________
You never know what is enough, until you know what is more than enough.
~William Blake ~

AiSv Nv wa do hi ya do...
(Walk in Peace)




In the Beginning...
I gotta say, I'm still pretty surprised at how many people are giving Avatar a pass here. It's interesting because usually there's some disagreement between the people who love a film and the people who don't, but in this case everyone seems to agree that the story is pretty bad, predictable, but that it's awfully nice to look at and quite detailed.
I wouldn't say the story is bad. It's just... routine. It's a story that's been told countless times before. But it's solid. A lot of the characters are quite shallow, I'll admit; but a few exceptions notwithstanding, all of them are interesting. Cameron was able to get pretty rewarding performances out of Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana, at least.

The plot itself is predictable, but really, how often are we treated to something truly different these days? I thought Star Trek was just as predictable as this, but it's been largely praised despite gaping plot holes. To me, Avatar is a tighter, more lovingly-crafted story. I think perhaps the "revolutionary" visual effects - which I didn't find very revolutionary, by the way - make the story seem much simpler than it might have otherwise.

Originally Posted by Yoda
It's hard for me to wrap my head around this, because a lot of the people who seem to love this film are often people who would agree wholeheartedly that stories and characters are the most important thing in any film, and the majority of MoFos aren't the type to overlook shortcomings in these areas simply because of effects.... Nothing in this movie was surprising. Every one of us knew all the things above were going to happen. How is that not a huge black mark against a movie?
I can't speak for anyone else, but after seeing it, I didn't really feel like Avatar was all about special effects. I think we all expected it would be, probably, but the story in no way feels like an inconvenient requirement to making an effects-ridden film. I wouldn't say Cameron really tried to pen a "new" story either, but I'm kinda glad he opted for an appropriate plot instead of something revolutionary for revolutionary's sake.

Suffice it to say, I think a film that's simple but solid is far better than a film with plot holes, which is too often what we end up with these days. The last thing I want to do is grumble about how the writers didn't fix this or failed to explain that.

I might have known where Avatar was going, but it's like this. All roller coasters are, for the most part, the same. I know what to expect, and a few unexpected turns are certainly always welcome. But ultimately, it's the catharsis of the ride that I want. Avatar gives me that without insulting my intelligence by screwing its own story up, and it's got just enough heart to make me feel for its characters. I can't remember the last time a blockbuster did that.



Whilst I agree with Yoda's point that this film appears to be getting a pass from people, I have to ask how this 'predictability' makes it any different from Cameron's other films? Or even blockbusters in general? Obviously you could argue that being able to predict the last shot puts it out in front of other films, but isn't that really all that's seperates it?



To me the best thing about Avatar was the integration of human and graphics. It was marvelous. And I would credit the director for this.



We're going to go and see it in 2-D as well. I think it will be interesting to compare the two. 3-D vs. 2-D.
__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...



I wouldn't say the story is bad. It's just... routine. It's a story that's been told countless times before. But it's solid. A lot of the characters are quite shallow, I'll admit; but a few exceptions notwithstanding, all of them are interesting. Cameron was able to get pretty rewarding performances out of Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana, at least.
I suppose there's a difference between "bad" and "routine," but that distinction is hard to make when a film is really routine. To me, it's death when the audience knows what's coming, and is literally waiting for the film to catch up.

As for the performances; I'm having a hard time judging them. Were they actually good, or are we just impressed that they weren't all creepy and disembodied? Like most of the film, I think technical achievement is spilling over into our collective impressions of its quality as a film.

The plot itself is predictable, but really, how often are we treated to something truly different these days? I thought Star Trek was just as predictable as this, but it's been largely praised despite gaping plot holes. To me, Avatar is a tighter, more lovingly-crafted story. I think perhaps the "revolutionary" visual effects - which I didn't find very revolutionary, by the way - make the story seem much simpler than it might have otherwise.
I find it really hard to believe that anyone predicted all the twists and turns in Star Trek. I recall us talking about this a bit in another thread, though, and odds are I still owe you a reply there.

Anyway, in regards to "how often are we treated to something truly different these days?" I dunno about truly different, but how about different at all? I'm not harping on Avatar because the good guys win; technically speaking, we all know how the overwhelming majority of movies will turn out, more or less. But there are ways of getting there that can be more or less conventional. It's not just that we know where Avatar's going, it's that we know every flippin' step it's going to take to get there.

Not sure I follow why the effects would make the story seem simpler. If anything, I'd say the opposite is true; the effects are obscuring just what a retread it is.

I can't speak for anyone else, but after seeing it, I didn't really feel like Avatar was all about special effects. I think we all expected it would be, probably, but the story in no way feels like an inconvenient requirement to making an effects-ridden film. I wouldn't say Cameron really tried to pen a "new" story either, but I'm kinda glad he opted for an appropriate plot instead of something revolutionary for revolutionary's sake.
I'm not suggesting the story should have been as revolutionary as the effects, but I certainly expect something new. We're talking about inhabiting fake bodies, but the ethics and implications of this aren't really explored at all. I don't recall any time being spent on this. How about the ethics of land use and how we establish the concept of property with cultures that don't necessarily believe in it?

There are lots of interesting, complicated questions here, and Avatar isn't interested in any of them. Nature good, technology and corporations bad...oh, and please ignore the $300 million our corporate studio spent on new technology to bring you this message.

Despite all this, I would've taken predictable if it had, I dunno, great dialogue. Anything to supplement the story-by-numbers. Anything to get me from one scene to the next.

Suffice it to say, I think a film that's simple but solid is far better than a film with plot holes, which is too often what we end up with these days.
I don't think we should have to choose. If we do, then to me that makes it a mediocre film. If the highest praise we can muster is that the plot was so simplistic as to not have massive plot holes, then doesn't that demonstrate just how low the bar is being set? We're giving it credit for something which should be standard.

I might have known where Avatar was going, but it's like this. All roller coasters are, for the most part, the same. I know what to expect, and a few unexpected turns are certainly always welcome. But ultimately, it's the catharsis of the ride that I want. Avatar gives me that without insulting my intelligence by screwing its own story up, and it's got just enough heart to make me feel for its characters. I can't remember the last time a blockbuster did that.
Well, to each their own on that front. I have no problem with the occasional mindless thrill ride, but Avatar clearly thinks it's more than that, and lots of people are praising it in a way you don't usually see mere roller coaster-type films praised.

I mean, as far as I can tell we all agree that the story is predictable and unoriginal, we all agree that the voiceover narration is downright bad, and we all agree that the film's agenda is transparent and fairly simplistic. It seems odd to me that we can't also agree, given all that, that it's a mediocre film. It's more important than good, I think, but perhaps that isn't a distinction that everyone feels we should make.



Avatar is a movie worth watching on the theather
the story is simplistic, predictable, but Cameron makes
you get in to the story and feel bad for waths happening
to the Navis.

Even though the story is not original you get in to it,
i think Cameron wanted it to be this way so it can be
easily understood and liked by the masses from children
to adults.

Ray



In the Beginning...
I suppose there's a difference between "bad" and "routine," but that distinction is hard to make when a film is really routine. To me, it's death when the audience knows what's coming, and is literally waiting for the film to catch up.
Maybe, but I never felt like I was waiting for the film to catch up. I guess I just had a relaxed experience. I let the film unfold in front of me, rather than trying to outguess it at every turn. The pacing of the film really allowed that to happen; there were frequent moments of rest, where the ambience of the film's characters and environments took over.

Originally Posted by Yoda
As for the performances; I'm having a hard time judging them. Were they actually good, or are we just impressed that they weren't all creepy and disembodied? Like most of the film, I think technical achievement is spilling over into our collective impressions of its quality as a film.
Nah, I disagree. Zoe Saldana's performance, I'll argue, was a tremendously inspired one despite her digital character. She did seem real, yes, but all of her dialogue and emotional ticks - which were motion-captured from the actress herself - were full of conviction and devotion to the character.

As far as Sam Worthington goes, I thought his performance was actually much better outside his avatar. He's an expressive guy in his own simple way, and with him there's always a genuine, underlying sense of heart. But hey, that's me. Maybe you thought differently.

Originally Posted by Yoda
I find it really hard to believe that anyone predicted all the twists and turns in Star Trek.
I wouldn't say we could have easily predicted how things were going to happen, but I don't think it was too difficult to see what Nero was after, the result of the "final battle," etc. I mean, really? Was Star Trek all that original?

Originally Posted by Yoda
Anyway, in regards to "how often are we treated to something truly different these days?" I dunno about truly different, but how about different at all? I'm not harping on Avatar because the good guys win; technically speaking, we all know how the overwhelming majority of movies will turn out, more or less. But there are ways of getting there that can be more or less conventional. It's not just that we know where Avatar's going, it's that we know every flippin' step it's going to take to get there.
Admittedly, I wouldn't say I knew every step it was going to take. And even when I did, I never felt like I was smarter or better than James Cameron. I just know how these films generally go. I will say, too, that I found some genuinely interesting concepts in the film: the literal and figurative implications of controlling an "avatar;" the partnership of a Na'Vi and his flying dragon-bird thing; the explanation of Eywa as one large, interconnected planetary organism. Nothing was very fleshed out or groundbreaking, but what can I say? For close to three hours, I was sufficiently entertained.

I also rather appreciate when a writer is courageous enough to step out of the status quo, even for a minute, and make things happen in the story that are cataclysmic or irrevocable. Anyone who saw Avatar knows what I'm talking about. Too often in films something is in danger, but at the last second, it's spared. Avatar does this to an extent in its finale, but it's also got the balls enough to follow through on the danger and despair it promises. Maybe not enough to change the formula - good guys win, bad guys lose - but that was a given already. Even Joss "Wash Murderer" Whedon couldn't stop himself from giving the Serenity the W.

Originally Posted by Yoda
Not sure I follow why the effects would make the story seem simpler. If anything, I'd say the opposite is true; the effects are obscuring just what a retread it is.
I probably should have said "in terms of the film's expectations." For such an expensive film with revolutionary visual effects, you'd think the story would also follow suit. Maybe some of us did, I don't know. I really wasn't expecting much, but I can see how the simplicity of the story could stand out if somebody was expecting the whole package to be one for the books.

Originally Posted by Yoda
I'm not suggesting the story should have been as revolutionary as the effects, but I certainly expect something new. We're talking about inhabiting fake bodies, but the ethics and implications of this aren't really explored at all. I don't recall any time being spent on this. How about the ethics of land use and how we establish the concept of property with cultures that don't necessarily believe in it?
True, true. All good things. But I guess it's all about what you want the film to be. I don't think Avatar, at any stage of production, was intended to be a thinking man's film. I'd have loved if it was, but I can tolerate the final product because they stuck to their guns and did it well.

Originally Posted by Yoda
There are lots of interesting, complicated questions here, and Avatar isn't interested in any of them. Nature good, technology and corporations bad...oh, and please ignore the $300 million our corporate studio spent on new technology to bring you this message.
Well, that's the rub, isn't it? You've certainly got a point. But for what it's worth, I'm glad to see Avatar didn't end up as just another Spider-Man 3. Again, I don't think Avatar is really trying to make sound comparisons with big business and environmentalism in the real world. It just uses those ideas to sell the emotional side of its story. You can say that's shallow, but... I mean, it's a James Cameron film. Action and special effects.

Originally Posted by Yoda
I don't think we should have to choose. If we do, then to me that makes it a mediocre film. If the highest praise we can muster is that the plot was so simplistic as to not have massive plot holes, then doesn't that demonstrate just how low the bar is being set? We're giving it credit for something which should be standard.
And yet, it so often isn't. Maybe the bar is being set drastically low, but I really believe that a film's plot - as long as it's competent and contains enough bells and whistles to keep me interested - can be simple and still satisfy. Sure, I prefer the likes of Charlie Kaufman, Steven Soderbergh, and the Coen Brothers. But with Avatar, I wanted a lush visual effects experience and a cathartic story, and I got it.

Originally Posted by Yoda
Well, to each their own on that front. I have no problem with the occasional mindless thrill ride, but Avatar clearly thinks it's more than that, and lots of people are praising it in a way you don't usually see mere roller coaster-type films praised.
On the contrary, I think blockbusters are too often tolerated. I already mentioned my problems with Star Trek. I loathe how forgiving people have been to Revenge of the Sith, which I find extremely taxing and overblown. Spider-Man 3 received a number of stellar reviews when it was released, despite the fact that it's a turd of a film. I mean, it's all subjective in the end.

Originally Posted by Yoda
I mean, as far as I can tell we all agree that the story is predictable and unoriginal, we all agree that the voiceover narration is downright bad, and we all agree that the film's agenda is transparent and fairly simplistic.
Again, I can't speak for everyone, but personally, I only agree to the first one. I didn't think the voiceover was terrible - or even a major piece of the film - and I don't think the film really has an agenda outside of being critically and commercially successful. There are connections - the film references Native Americans heavily for the Na'Vi, for example - but ultimately I think every story ends up using long-established archetypes as a model on which to operate. Rarely do you find a truly unique formula, and certainly never in a blockbuster.

Originally Posted by Yoda
It seems odd to me that we can't also agree, given all that, that it's a mediocre film. It's more important than good, I think, but perhaps that isn't a distinction that everyone feels we should make.
There are a lot of mediocre plots out there. How they're executed can really determine whether they're enjoyable or not. Avatar was executed well, with much more loving attention (and time!) than most blockbusters are afforded. To me, that goes a long way.



Even though for the most part the narrative is predictable, there are so many smaller details to like that it almost didn't bother me. I presume this film was aimed at a much younger audience for obvious reasons. So I keep thinking to myself, if I was 10 years old I would probably be blown away. Even if this is just a CGI Furn Gully I'd much rather younger generations adoring a lesser James Cameron film then some soul less action vehicle or god-forbid Twilight.
__________________






28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
I think Cameron wanted to bring old school filmmaking into the next generation of filmmaking. The film's technology and how we experienced it is the next step. I imagine what people felt while watching Avatar is what the audience felt when they first watched Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat. I won't say it had the same effect, but I think comparing audience experiences are generally around the same. (I'm sure no one ran screaming out of Avatar thinking they were going to be hit by a spaceship though, so don't argue that point).

The story itself kind of felt like a film from the 80's, with the action and all, only upgraded for a new generation of film goers. As it has been said, Cameron does action and effects very well. Heck, I enjoy his writing but I know it's not the best stuff and like I said before, I will forgive a film that is 'predictable' if it is done well, Avatar is done very well.
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews



Just watched Avatar in 2D. Wow! Just Wow!
__________________
Herr Zeller: Perhaps those who would warn you that the Anschluss is coming - and it is coming, Captain - perhaps they would get further with you by setting their words to music.
Captain von Trapp: If the Nazis take over Austria, I have no doubt, Herr Zeller, that you will be the entire trumpet section.



It was a great movies. I just loved it