Avatar

→ in
Tools    





there's a frog in my snake oil


Avatar (3D)

Complete bastard to rate this, or asses my feelings on it. I enjoyed it, got swept up in parts, but lord it had a lot of weak elements. Elements that would normally lessen my enjoyment a lot more (but mainly didn't, thanks to the novelties of the new tech). Elements that will probably become more pertinent the more the 3D & CGI aspects date.

The 3D itself worked best in scenes like the initial 'dragon' flight, and making the background flora of this alien world seem even realer. Areas where depth wasn't distracting, but a complement. It felt forced and gimmicky at some earlier points tho - forced when fake-seeming defocusing was used (the mic-stand during Sully's logs, for example), & tacky somehow at others (an early stereotype-clash between Weaver & Ribisi made me feel like I was watching a Mark Hamill vid shoehorned into a Wing Commander game. Like low-denominator tat relying on presentation-novelty to elevate it).

The rest of my reservations centre around the 'native green alien' issues & plot. I was slightly uncomfortable with the melange of Native Indian allegory, African-sounding accents & bestial bodies at first. You wend your way into it, thanks to the Sully/Neytiri relationship being affably, if 'avatistically', done ('scuse pun). It's also smoothed over by the worship of all things biological in the film, making 'bestial' the desirable, but that in itself took such an extreme stance as to be risible. I'm a greeny myself, but if the film wants to present a completely idealised version of all things 'eco' (life-systems as Godhead, capable of everything artifical tech can do, but with none of the downsides etc) they should totally embrace the fantasy, not bring us back with cheap Iraq jabs & front-and-centre US-'cleansing'-guilt. (PS, I think both the latter are fine in theory, but didn't work as a whole here). Unless Cameron really thinks trees can compute the storing of souls, it's tipped beyond the silly. (In defence of green-angles here, nature does inspire huge swathes of our novel tech, and is capable of truly miraculous things - from stressed trees sharing nutrients via underground symbiotes to us hairless monkeys mimicking evo-tricks to make a better optic fibre cable - and piping around mind-bending images like these. Cameroon's presentation of guided benevolence destroyed by human rapaciousness is too either/or to reflect those realities though).

There are lots of other quibbles (communications working in the tech-interrupting 'vortex' zone. Prison-break nerds not getting spotted by security. Etc etc.). But hell, in the here and now, this was a blast to watch, and much of the silliness and predictability was still well executed, and made for a streamlined ride.

---

(The minuses are almost place-holders for how my estimation might dip as the novelty of the tech advances wear off)
__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here



there's a frog in my snake oil
It's more important than good, I think, but perhaps that isn't a distinction that everyone feels we should make.
It does feel a bit like a game-changer doesn't it. I think that adds a certain frisson to the affair while watching - another feeling of 'difference' to override the staid & frayed aspects.

Talking of it's importance/impact, i couldn't helping thinking that this tech is gonna get used for porn the minute it becomes widely available (hey, there are historical precedents ). I immediately thought of the denizens of Second Life, who's strange world of sexual predilections and non-human fantasies is probably frothing now at the thought of it. And those are the kinda guys who'd dedicate the time & effort to push the tech to its best semi-pro possibilities. The ardour of aficionados and that. (And I'm not sure exactly how healthy that level of escapism/reality-bending ends up being).

I also got the feeling that we'd tip-toed further into the world of artificial sense-immersion, and in a way that doesn't necessarily engage the critical faculties . It didn't feel like a definitive leap, but certainly we've stuck our toes in some new technical waters.



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.
Honestly, I'm not sure. I definitely think our generally lowered expectations towards motion capture contribute to how impressive we find the performances, but they seemed fine even aside from that.

What actually bums me out is that I'm pretty sure Robert Zemeckis is going to get passed over a bit here. Obviously Beowulf wasn't the technical achievement that Avatar is, but I think it's the first film to demonstrate that motion capture is, in fact, capable of rendering emotions ("emotion capture"? ) believably.

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?
I give almost all films a pass when it comes to the "good guys win" predictability, simply because we have no choice. I admire a film with the guts to go the other route, but I can't really fault a film for having the baddies lose. So I'll certainly excuse both Star Trek and Avatar for that.

I'm thinking more the steps along the way. This may just be me, but it really seemed like every single turn of the story was telegraphed, as detailed in my spoiler-tag-wrapped bit a couple posts back. I'm especially aghast with the whole good guy does bad thing/is won over/is exposed/redeems self thing, which is the basis of pretty much every romantic comedy ever made. I'm not sure if I could call one type of plot the least creative, but if I had to, I might put that at the top of the list. Though I admit it would have some competition from the good guy gets famous/alienates friends/redeems self trope.

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'll give you the interconnected thing (kinda spoiler-y, but not too bad, I suppose); I liked that idea. But that just made it all the more frustrating when it took it to such extreme lengths and didn't explore it much. It's funny, but to me this particular plot point was a good idea with poor execution, whereas I found the rest of the film to be the exact opposite.

The linking thing...well, I dunno. At first I kinda liked it, but then it occurred to me that it's just a literal representation of all the symbolic things the film was trying to say. Actually, now that I think more about it, that sums of the film pretty well for me: I think a smarter film is content with metaphors, while Avatar beats us over the head with its agenda by making everything literal. So, instead of nature being like an interconnected thing, it actually is. Instead of man (well, Na'vi) and beast having a symbiotic bond metaphorically, they have one biologically. It's like having a character destroy a relationship and then literally having them burn a physical bridge while walking away, just to make sure we get the point.

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.
Hmm, I'm actually not sure what you mean here, but I'll take a stab:

WARNING: "Avatar" spoilers below
Do you mean Sigourney Weaver's character dying, or the Chief-dude? Or both? Or Michelle Rodriguez playing...well...the same character she always plays?

Regardless, I honestly didn't think of any of those as terribly brave. There were lots of ancillary characters and they all seemed pretty expendable to me. All the main characters survive. I'm with you on Whedon, and I like that he understands the importance of making the peril he puts his characters in real from time to time, but I really don't think Cameron took any chances here. Maybe everyone else was more attached to these second-tier characters than I was, though?


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.
Hmm, that's an interesting thought. I admit, I didn't approach it this way. I tend to think that effects compensate for weaknesses in other areas, and I adjust my expectations accordingly. But I can see how someone could have the opposite expectation in this instance.

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.
This honestly surprises me a little. I think Avatar definitely has the ambition to be, if not a thinking man's film, certainly a thought-provoking one. I could be wrong, but it is interesting that we had such different impressions about its goals. The production feels sufficiently self-righteous that I think it thinks it's making some profound points. But we've definitely strayed into Conjecture Land here.

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.
Again, this is very interesting, because I've never thought of Cameron as the Michael Bay/action-and-effects type. I think Terminator 2: Judgment Day was very thought-provoking, for example, and I thought The Abyss was fascinating and methodical. Difference of opinion, I suppose.

That said, I have to disagree with the idea that Avatar isn't trying to make real-world comparisons. I think it is, and I think it's tremendously clumsy about it. The comparisons to American history are very obvious, of course, but there are several deliberate parallels with the Iraq war; for example, the phrase "shock and awe" seems to have survived 150 years in the future. I kind of agree with you anyway, because the film's all over the place with its politics and can't really decide what point it wants to make, but I think that's a sign that it's simply confused.

And, of course, the environmental agenda is impossible to miss.

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.
Diff'rent strokes, for sure. But does this mean you'd have rated it lower if you'd expected it to be more intelligent/original/whatever? Is it a genuinely good film, or is it only good if accompanied by the caveat that you can't expect much from it?

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.
Aye, it is. Which annoys me to no end.

I don't think blockbusters get much of a pass, though. Sure, they make money; bad films make money all the time, and it doesn't really bother me. Not everyone takes film all that seriously, and being casual about it is a perfectly valid way to consume it. But I take it for granted that just about everyone here is a different kind of moviegoer, and that we're all aware of what movies can be, to the point at which we don't often tolerate the ones that fail to live up to the inherent potential of the medium.

This is why I think, for example, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen can make over $400 million domestically with a mere 20% on the Tomatometer. What I'm getting at is that they get a pass from people who expect little out of their films, but not from most of the people who watch films seriously, either as a profession or as a hobby.

To bring it back around to the original topic: I'm not surprised that Avatar is doing well, or that most people like it. I'm surprised that most MoFos like it, because we all tend to expect more.

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.
The fact that the voiceover wasn't a major piece of the film, actually, is one of the things that I think makes it so bad. It was fairly sporadic and completely unnecessary. As for how bad it was when it was used; I'll have to see it again, but I distinctly remembers lines like "I had to take it to the next level," which sounds like something out of Bring It On 3.

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.
Aye, this is what it all comes down to; how much we forgive the almost univerally-acknowledged shortcomings in light of the almost universally-acknowledged technical prowess.

I think Golgot's point is a pretty good one; it's so obvious that we've all failed to make it: how much are we going to enjoy this movie in a few years? Even if you like it now, going in with low expectations and relatively blown away by the technology, will it have any kind of staying power?

Anyway, I was going to see it this weekend, but weather got in the way, so next weekend is more likely. Pretty determined to see it in 2-D before it leaves theaters, though.



there's a frog in my snake oil
Originally Posted by Yoda
I think Golgot's point is a pretty good one; it's so obvious that we've all failed to make it
Hey, stop belittling my genius for stating the obvious



It does feel a bit like a game-changer doesn't it. I think that adds a certain frisson to the affair while watching - another feeling of 'difference' to override the staid & frayed aspects.

Talking of it's importance/impact, i couldn't helping thinking that this tech is gonna get used for porn the minute it becomes widely available (hey, there are historical precedents ). I immediately thought of the denizens of Second Life, who's strange world of sexual predilections and non-human fantasies is probably frothing now at the thought of it. And those are the kinda guys who'd dedicate the time & effort to push the tech to its best semi-pro possibilities. The ardour of aficionados and that. (And I'm not sure exactly how healthy that level of escapism/reality-bending ends up being).

I also got the feeling that we'd tip-toed further into the world of artificial sense-immersion, and in a way that doesn't necessarily engage the critical faculties . It didn't feel like a definitive leap, but certainly we've stuck our toes in some new technical waters.
Yeah, I think so. While I still think Beowulf is the first to the party, Avatar is more of a cultural event, and therefore is more of a turning point in terms of (probably) generating further investment for the many uses you describe. In my review of Beowulf over two years I mentioned that the film had gotten away with depicting things that would've resulted in an R if it were genuine live action, and how meaningless the distinction was becoming:

If you didn't know you were watching a PG-13 movie, you probably wouldn't have guessed it. Zemeckis seems to have pulled a fast one on the MPAA, who have allowed a good deal of violence and yes, even nudity, to escape an R-rating, presumably because it's technically animated. Such distinctions are nearly meaningless at this level of technological precision, however, and we're surely headed for a serious debate as to whether or not reality and photorealism should be treated any differently from a ratings standpoint.
Avatar definitely figures to bring this issue to the fore. Whatever seedier uses the technology figures to have, low-budget filmmakers are going to benefit in the end, I expect. But unlike certain types of effects, I think these are still a very long way off from being viable outside of nine-figure productions. I don't think it'll be the way it was with, say, Jurassic Park, where a mere decade later decent CGI was finding its way into high B-level productions or being done out of people's homes.



Hey, stop belittling my genius for stating the obvious
Genius, indeed. From one of your countrymen: "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle."



there's a frog in my snake oil
Yeah, I think so. While I still think Beowulf is the first to the party, Avatar is more of a cultural event, and therefore is more of a turning point in terms of (probably) generating further investment for the many uses you describe. In my review of Beowulf over two years I mentioned that the film had gotten away with depicting things that would've resulted in an R if it were genuine live action, and how meaningless the distinction was becoming
Yeah, i missed Beowulf, but the violence depiction is one of the interesting 'moral' aspects of CGIs march towards (but not completely into) verisimilitude.

The hype aspect makes it difficult to gauge audience/emotive reactions with Av. I was noticing how the audience seemed to want to laugh at certain uber-tree-hugger displays in the film (or at least I'd expect them to under normal circumstances). Was it the 'shock and awe' aspect of the film's reputation that was keeping them quiet? (A juggernaut of social approbation that causes people to hesitate before questioning?) Or the wave of visual experiences et al that had generally washed over everyone, swamping short-term misgivings?

The fact that we all bought so readily into these 9ft creatures etc did make me wonder what else we could be persuaded to 'believe in' via these techniques. What other misgivings we'd subsume to be entertained and transported. (Can't wait for the first party political broadcast in 'Happy Land' 3D )

Originally Posted by Yoda
Avatar definitely figures to bring this issue to the fore. Whatever seedier uses the technology figures to have, low-budget filmmakers are going to benefit in the end, I expect. But unlike certain types of effects, I think these are still a very long way off from being viable outside of nine-figure productions. I don't think it'll be the way it was with, say, Jurassic Park, where a mere decade later decent CGI was finding its way into high B-level productions or being done out of people's homes.
Yeah, I'm wondering whether it's this exact technology/approach which will go widespread, but it seems reasonable to assume that comparable tricks and evocations will trickle down.

Originally Posted by Yoda
Genius, indeed. From one of your countrymen: "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle."
Too kind sah, although i was more looking out of my arse (to stay with the metaphor) - looking to the past. A lot of Cameron's tech-experiments have lost some of their lustre with time. The Abyss's water creature, Terminator 2's liquid baddie, the Titanic Titanic. They don't knock you into 'suspended disbelief land' so effortlessly these days. I figure this one will lose some sway in that sense too.



In the Beginning...
What actually bums me out is that I'm pretty sure Robert Zemeckis is going to get passed over a bit here. Obviously Beowulf wasn't the technical achievement that Avatar is, but I think it's the first film to demonstrate that motion capture is, in fact, capable of rendering emotions ("emotion capture"? ) believably.
A new word for the glossary, perhaps?

I missed Beowulf. Is it worth seeing for the motion capture? You're right about Zemeckis pushing harder for motion capture usage than Cameron in recent years, though I'm just wondering if he has surpassed his wooden, glossy-eyed characters in The Polar Express. The renderings are flawless, but there has always been a disconnect between where the digital form and the live actor are supposed to meet. Avatar struggled with this too, usually when it came to minor characters, but the main characters all seemed to "be there," as it were.

Originally Posted by Yoda
I'm thinking more the steps along the way. This may just be me, but it really seemed like every single turn of the story was telegraphed, as detailed in my spoiler-tag-wrapped bit a couple posts back. I'm especially aghast with the whole good guy does bad thing/is won over/is exposed/redeems self thing, which is the basis of pretty much every romantic comedy ever made. I'm not sure if I could call one type of plot the least creative, but if I had to, I might put that at the top of the list. Though I admit it would have some competition from the good guy gets famous/alienates friends/redeems self trope.
We could probably do this all day, though. Sure, if we look at Kaufman, Lynch, Cronenberg, Anderson, etc., those conventional plot formulas tend to vanish. But on the whole - and certainly when it concerns a theatrical filmmaker like Cameron - those standards tend to stick. You and I both know it's because films are more marketable when they fit an already-established niche. Sure, they get tired eventually. But I think zedlen's point is well taken: Avatar has got enough small details going for it that the larger formula seems fresher than it really is. And again, for me, stellar production value, rewarding performances, and engaging details go a long way... even when I'm getting fed a familiar plot.

Originally Posted by Yoda
I'll give you the interconnected thing (kinda spoiler-y, but not too bad, I suppose); I liked that idea. But that just made it all the more frustrating when it took it to such extreme lengths and didn't explore it much. It's funny, but to me this particular plot point was a good idea with poor execution, whereas I found the rest of the film to be the exact opposite.
If anything, I think it came too late. It seemed like Jake Sully would have learned this truth well before he did, but I guess the timing was helpful to the plot considering what begins to transpire immediately after. I would like to have seen the idea explored too, but that would have likely changed the focus of the film considerably.

Originally Posted by Yoda
The linking thing...well, I dunno. At first I kinda liked it, but then it occurred to me that it's just a literal representation of all the symbolic things the film was trying to say. Actually, now that I think more about it, that sums of the film pretty well for me: I think a smarter film is content with metaphors, while Avatar beats us over the head with its agenda by making everything literal. So, instead of nature being like an interconnected thing, it actually is. Instead of man (well, Na'vi) and beast having a symbiotic bond metaphorically, they have one biologically. It's like having a character destroy a relationship and then literally having them burn a physical bridge while walking away, just to make sure we get the point.
Eh, I don't know if it's that harsh, but your point is well-made. I guess it just didn't bother me. Rather than having an implied connection, I liked the detail of the symbiotic biology: interesting visually, and ultimately appropriate to the story. (It's also a nice fantasy for those of us who sometimes wish we could directly connect with the natural world. )

Originally Posted by Yoda
Hmm, I'm actually not sure what you mean here, but I'll take a stab:

[spoilers="Avatar"]Do you mean Sigourney Weaver's character dying, or the Chief-dude? Or both? Or Michelle Rodriguez playing...well...the same character she always plays?
Actually, I was talking more about...

WARNING: "Avatar" spoilers below
...the destruction of the Home Tree. A lesser film would have just had it threatened, and then ultimately saved by the heroes at the last possible moment. But by following through, Avatar committed itself to an irrevocable event that, for all intents and purposes, meant the Na'Vi would be completely changed forever.

Now, I do realize that Avatar conceded this bravery and, in the finale, did exactly what I said a lesser film would do. This is largely why I docked it a bucket - I would have rather the film live with its own consequences a little more than it did. But hey, the finale was going to be epic, so something had to be at stake.

And regarding Sigourney Weaver, her character's death fed, really, the most predictable aspect of the film for me. I knew, from the moment someone said a human could become their avatar permanently, what was going to happen to Jake Sully. Regrettable, but hey... no film is perfect.


Originally Posted by Yoda
Regardless, I honestly didn't think of any of those as terribly brave. There were lots of ancillary characters and they all seemed pretty expendable to me. I'm with you on Whedon, and I like that he understands the importance of making the peril he puts his characters in real from time to time, but I really don't think Cameron took any chances here. Maybe everyone else was more attached to these second-tier characters than I was, though?
Nah, the supporting characters were pretty lame. I was hoping for some additional stuff between Neytiri and her father, but maybe we'll get some deleted stuff in the DVD? As for Whedon, this is largely why I prefer X-Men: The Last Stand to its predecessors. Whereas Singer's films unfailingly maintain the same status quo to the end as they start with, Ratner's film makes leaps that change its characters tremendously. (Of course, then it pretty much backtracks on all of them in the final moments, lol. )

Originally Posted by Yoda
This honestly surprises me a little. I think Avatar definitely has the ambition to be, if not a thinking man's film, certainly a thought-provoking one. I could be wrong, but it is interesting that we had such different impressions about its goals. The production feels sufficiently self-righteous that I think it thinks it's making some profound points. But we've definitely strayed into Conjecture Land here.
Yeah, I very much agree that Avatar, more so than any other Cameron film before it, had the chance to be a thinker of a film. It probably would have taken a much different form, narratively-speaking, which is a hard sell when you're talking about a $500 million budget.

I can't agree, however, that Avatar was trying to make any profound statements about anything. I think Cameron was after a theatrical adventure film that would gross a billion dollars, and knew that tapping into the corporate-greed-versus-environmentalism concept would probably take him there. He might think a film as large as this one has the ability to turn heads, but I really can't see how anything more than an unabated appeal to emotion for the sake of ticket sales was on anyone's agenda.

Originally Posted by Yoda
Again, this is very interesting, because I've never thought of Cameron as the Michael Bay/action-and-effects type. I think Terminator 2: Judgment Day was very thought-provoking, for example, and I thought The Abyss was fascinating and methodical. Difference of opinion, I suppose.
That's a fair point. Both films admittedly explored their own content more than Avatar did. T2 is probably his most successful film in that respect, with the machine experiencing a pretty substantive change as a result of his relationship with John Conner. But it's still an action spectacle at its core... as is Aliens... as is True Lies... as is Titanic. The man just has a greater love affair with production challenges than he does with story. In The Abyss, although the characters confront the best and worst of human nature - which is underscored for them by the aliens - I do think the film is pretty predictable and a little bit cheesy.

Originally Posted by Yoda
That said, I have to disagree with the idea that Avatar isn't trying to make real-world comparisons. I think it is, and I think it's tremendously clumsy about it. The comparisons to American history are very obvious, of course, but there are several deliberate parallels with the Iraq war; for example, the phrase "shock and awe" seems to have survived 150 years in the future. I kind of agree with you anyway, because the film's all over the place with its politics and can't really decide what point it wants to make, but I think that's a sign that it's simply confused.
Well, I said I didn't think Avatar was trying to make sound comparisons. The comparisons are most definitely there, and Cameron acknowledges that himself. I guess what I'm saying is, I don't think the film can be considered a legitimate voice in any political arena... and I think Cameron knows this too. To me, the politics of the film seem to have been used to sell tickets - nothing more. Otherwise, methinks this discussion would be far more widespread (a la The Da Vinci Code and gnosticism).

Originally Posted by Yoda
And, of course, the environmental agenda is impossible to miss.
Is it really an agenda, though? Is Cameron donating a portion of the revenue to Greenpeace? Did he speak at the recent Climate Council in Copenhagen? I think there's certainly an environmental message - respect and preserve the environment - but is anyone really opposed to that sentiment?

Originally Posted by Yoda
Diff'rent strokes, for sure. But does this mean you'd have rated it lower if you'd expected it to be more intelligent/original/whatever? Is it a genuinely good film, or is it only good if accompanied by the caveat that you can't expect much from it?
It's a genuinely good film in the same way Star Wars is a genuinely good film. Simple, formulaic, charismatic, adventure-filled, and memorable. (Note: I'm not saying Avatar is revolutionizing film like Star Wars did in the 1970s; merely that they're comparable in quality.) It doesn't approach the pantheon of films we all consider truly exceptional and original, but does it really have to? I think it's a good film because it dictated its own terms, stuck to its core, executed well, and stayed solid with many instances of brilliance.

Originally Posted by Yoda
I don't think blockbusters get much of a pass, though. Sure, they make money; bad films make money all the time, and it doesn't really bother me. Not everyone takes film all that seriously, and being casual about it is a perfectly valid way to consume it. But I take it for granted that just about everyone here is a different kind of moviegoer, and that we're all aware of what movies can be, to the point at which we don't often tolerate the ones that fail to live up to the inherent potential of the medium.
Yeah, but I think we also understand that they can't all be Oscar winners, either. There's going to be sore spots in every film. It's just the nature of the action/adventure genre. I'll admit that I won't hold Avatar to the same critical standards as I do, say, The Reader. They're just two totally different films on two totally different levels. So yeah, even I give blockbusters some slack. But whereas most blockbusters are riddled with asinine characters and plot holes, Avatar - formulaic story be damned - manages to be not only competent and complete, but pretty exciting too.

Originally Posted by Yoda
This is why I think, for example, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen can make over $400 million domestically with a mere 20% on the Tomatometer. What I'm getting at is that they get a pass from people who expect little out of their films, but not from most of the people who watch films seriously, either as a profession or as a hobby.
Well, the Transformers sequel seems to have significant problems, too. Star Trek's issues are pretty small in comparison, probably, but I still think a film with holes in the plot that are pretty evidently glossed over is negligible.

Originally Posted by Yoda
The fact that the voiceover wasn't a major piece of the film, actually, is one of the things that I think makes it so bad. It was fairly sporadic and completely unnecessary. As for how bad it was when it was used; I'll have to see it again, but I distinctly remembers lines like "I had to take it to the next level," which sounds like something out of Bring It On 3.
You could say that Linda Hamilton's voice-overs in T2 were similarly sporadic and confused. I think they worked because they narrated a bit more on the figurative side than Sam Worthington's in Avatar, but his really worked for me when they were tied to his daily task of logging videos. Toward the end, you can infer that the voice-overs are really those logs, but they do kinda fall apart because there's a long span of time where you don't even see him continuing that task. And yeah, that line was bad.

Originally Posted by Yoda
how much we forgive the almost universally-acknowledged shortcomings in light of the almost universally-acknowledged technical prowess.
Yeah, but I don't think the shortcomings hold as much weight for everyone, from film to film, and that's where it doesn't seem fair to put Avatar's failings into that box. Sure, it's simple and formulaic, but that doesn't necessarily equal a bad film in every case. You could argue that Pixar films follow the same basic formula, but they're so touching and imaginative that it really doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by Yoda
I think Golgot's point is a pretty good one; it's so obvious that we've all failed to make it: how much are we going to enjoy this movie in a few years? Even if you like it now, going in with low expectations and relatively blown away by the technology, will it have any kind of staying power?
Sure, I think it will fade. It'll become dated like anything else. I don't think anyone really considers it a seminal film, except that it made a lot of money. But I do think it's an old-fashioned adventure film that stands apart from other blockbusters because it was made largely by a filmmaker, not a studio. To me, that makes a whole lot of difference.



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Am I the only one who thinks T2's liquid villain still holds up to this day?
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews



In the Beginning...
Am I the only one who thinks T2's liquid villain still holds up to this day?
I still like the T-1000. Some of the effects are kinda hokey, and are obvious shortcuts. But when he materializes in the helicopter... wow.



Movie Forums Stage-Hand
Just saw Avatar, and it is one of a kind movie.. it made the movie very interesting that catches every movie goers attention.. this is a must see movie...



Wasn't quite sure where to put this, but, as the majority of the Avatar talk is going on here, I thought it the right place. Feel free to move it.

Avatar hit by accusations of racism

Critics claims the story of a white US Marine who saves an alien race perpetuates the "white Messiah fable" and suggests that non-whites are primitives incapable of helping themselves.

Hundreds of blogs, YouTube videos and Twitter postings have sprung up on the subject since the film's release three weeks ago, with one writer dubbing the 3-D extravaganza "a racial fantasy par excellence".

Avatar is set on a distant planet populated by the Na'vi, an eco-conscious, blue-skinned alien tribe with no understanding of modern technology. A disabled Marine, played by the Australian actor Sam Worthington, is sent to infiltrate the tribe but soon "goes native" and leads them in a defence of their homeland against the white invaders.

He also falls in love with an alien woman, who rejects a Na'vi suitor and becomes his wife. The main Na'vi characters are played by black actors, including Zoe Saldana and Laz Alonso.

David Brooks, a columnist writing in the New York Times, said: "Avatar is a racial fantasy par excellence ... It rests on the stereotype that white people are rationalist and technocratic while colonial victims are spiritual and athletic. It rests on the assumption that non-whites need the White Messiah to lead their crusades. It rests on the assumption that illiteracy is the path to grace.

"It also creates a sort of two-edged cultural imperialism. Natives can either have their history shaped by cruel imperialists or benevolent ones, but either way, they are going to be supporting actors in our journey to self-admiration."

The ruthless treatment of the Na'vi has been interpreted as a metaphor for the plight of American Indians. Brooks said Avatar followed a long tradition of "white Messiah" movies which began in the 1970s with A Man Called Horse, starring Richard Harris as an English aristocrat who is captured by a Sioux Indian tribe and becomes their leader, and which includes Kevin Costner's Dances With Wolves and the Tom Cruise film, The Last Samurai.

Robinne Lee, a black actress who appeared opposite Will Smith in the film Seven Pounds, is also among Avatar's detractors.

Likening the film to Pocahontas – "the Indian woman leads the white man into the wilderness, and he learns the way of the people and becomes the saviour" – she said: "It's really upsetting in many ways. It would be nice if we could save ourselves."

Annalee Newitz, editor-in-chief of io9.com, a sci-fi website, said: "The main white characters realise that they are complicit in a system which is destroying aliens, aka people of colour ... then go beyond assimilation and become leaders of the people they once oppressed. When will whites stop making these movies and start thinking about race in a new way?" Cameron strongly denied any racist intent. He said that his film "asks us to open our eyes and truly see others, respecting them even though they are different, in the hope that we may find a way to prevent conflict and live more harmoniously on this world. I hardly think that is a racist message."

The controversy has done little to dent Avatar's remarkable run at the box office. It took just 17 days to pass $1 billion in ticket sales – a new record – and to become the second highest grossing film of all time behind Titanic, also directed by Cameron.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/f...of-racism.html



My friend shared the same sentiments. As soon as we exited the theater his immediate reaction was that it was, "Dances with Wolves... only this time the Indians are victorious." Then again, my friend is a highly political person himself, most movies we watch become political commentaries or historical "lessons". Which I think is a fault of his because, in my opinion, politics is such a dead-end road that one wonders why anyone should even try. People can protest all they like, but as the 60's demonstrated, that got most people nowhere, and in some cases, (such as Kent State), it came at the cost of lives... for nothing. People have to live in a world where several people share several different opinions, that's just a fact of life, why get so hot and bothered by it? Whatever his reasons, they always subtract from his viewing experience, as been my experience. The movie could be great, I could be watching The Treasure of the Sierra Madre and he, (and I suppose others), can extract an anti-capitalist message from it. In the case of Avatar, I can see where people are getting that message. I in fact felt it too, but honestly its not worth "protesting" or getting flustered over. If one doesn't like it, avoid it, simple as that. Which is something I find odd about some people, (including my friend), I think he knew going into Avatar what to expect to some degree, (even I knew it was going to be somewhat "anti-white"/"imperialist"), but there are many out there who I think like to get politically flustered for reasons I'm unclear of. In my experience, (as with any Michael Moore film), if you don't like or agree with what your seeing, reading, etc. why bother to continue or watch? I don't watch Michael Moore films because I think he's full of bologna. I don't pay to see his movies, I don't buy his DVD's, I don't buy his books. If you want to really protest, just use counter-economics, stop giving the people your at odds with your money, and don't waste time to write a newspaper column.
__________________
Imagine an eye unruled by man-made laws of perspective, an eye unprejudiced by compositional logic, an eye which does not respond to the name of everything but which must know each object encountered in life through an adventure of perception. How many colors are there in a field of grass to the crawling baby unaware of 'Green'?

-Stan Brakhage



RIP www.moviejustice.com 2002-2010
I'll post my review here... and no I have not read through this thread yet, but I'm curious to see what other people think.

Avatar (2009, James Cameron)



This movie sucked. It blew. I wanted to get a giant chainsaw and go nuts on Jame's Cameron's foliage and flowers around his estate... assuming he has them. After watching this film, I'd assume he lives in a botanical center. However if I did such a thing I would be a two-dimensional and knee-jerk reactionary as the characters that inhabit this film.
To sum up the plot, it takes place 150 years in the future when mankind is colonizing other worlds because we've destroyed our own and laid waste to our nature plant life or some such thing. Sounds very original. Seems like I saw a much more profound film called Silent Running with a similar tree-friendly concept.
Anywho, mankind wants this planet because of a natural mineral/metal that litters the landscape, but in their way is a race of 15 foot-tall humanoids called the Na'vi. The na'vi don't want humans there and who can blame them. Humans don't run around pray to the blessed spirit of the forest. I digress.
The title comes from the plan to capture a na'vi, and inhabit it with the mind of a human through a pod. Don't ask, but it's a cool concept and I was digging the first half hour of the movie. It goes to complete Hell however once it turns into Dances With Wolves in space, as our protagonist (Sam Worthington) rolls his way into being a secret agent of sorts to infiltrate the Na'vi (tribe) and inform about their secrets, lifestyles, etc. You pretty much know where the film heads from here. He learns the value of the Na'vi culture, falls in love, questions his motives, betrays humanity, saves the Na'vi, and becomes one of them.
How quaint. Not only does this film suck because the message is heavy handed, but it's very sentimental and the villains twirl mustaches and the heros are glorified to the strains of the most generic music of James Horner's career. And to think, this is the man who's music made me cry in the original Land Before Time. Oh well.
A million CGI shots and sweeping landscape views and vistas with our characters engulfed by the massive and lush planet Pandora, cannot save this movie. The story sucks, the characters were boring and lacked any kind of motivation to give their actions and storyline depth.
It just blew.
I will say the visuals were impressive during a couple of the night sequences, but this film was overkill. It's difficult to believe that this movie came from the man who directed the amazing low-budget Terminator and the amazing high budget Terminator 2. Again. Oh well.

Grade: D
__________________
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below

http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201



Buy the ticket, take the ride.
I’m literally just in the door from seeing Avatar and I think I’m going to make this a pretty short and straight forward review as there’s nothing that I’ll say that many other reviewers haven’t already touched on. I was lucky enough to see it in 3-D and it was absolutely stunning. It was hard to resist reaching out in a futile attempt to touch the realistic use of special effects. I have heard that seeing it in 2-D is a waste of time and money since this glorious epic is purpose built for the third dimension but I can’t really make a solid judgement on that front for obvious reasons.

Plot wise, it was alright. Of course, it could’ve been better but I think this is a movie for admiration of cinematography and beauty than a subversive storyline. I did find myself easily disregarding names of characters and locations due to being immersed in innovative visuals. The story wasn’t emotive enough to make me cry and I didn’t laugh a whole lot either but it did effectively get it’s point across and once again cinema made me see that humans are twats who, after destroying their own world, have decided to mess with someone else’s. Dancing with Wolves and Pocahontas let us coil in shame as we witnessed an account of how the Western world wounded (to say the least) the Native Americans, Schindler's List let us observe how we turned on our own Western lifestyles so tragically because of religious and cultural hate and now Avatar is a vision of how we will possibly treat races on other planets in the future. This movie, like many others past and to come, has successfully made me ashamed to be human.

In conclusion, this is a must see just because it is the dawning of another new age of cinema. It’s a ground breaking epic and it defiantly has a better plot than James Cameron’s last real blockbuster Titanic and let’s face it, I think a lot of people went to the cinema to see that just to see the fail boat sink. He’s constantly pushing the bar and I’m keen to see what’s next, no doubt, it will be very pretty to look at.



I read the post above about racism in Avatar. In my opinion, its completely false! The movie is awesome!



I am amazed by the long list of movies this particular film reminds me of (Pocahontas, Atlantis, Princess Mononoke, Ferngully, even Highlander...). I am further astounded by the amount of bad movies this thing brings to mind. Whether they were intentionally ripping off other movies or not, this is certainly a sign of blatant unoriginality. Aside from that, it didn't even seem to try to be subtle on its "symbolism" of our society. Yet again, we get to learn how awful the white man and corporation is through an awe-inspiring, god-like film. James Cameron also doesn't miss his opportunity to wow us again with his lack of interesting/realistic dialogue and his two-dimensional characters. The visuals were pretty, yes, but when the story is this manipulative and predictable I don't think the special effects can save it.



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
I found the story served the type of film it was perfectly fine. I went in knowing nothing about it and knew what it expect. So for those who saw the trailers, who the hell did you expect?

If you were to see the film a second time, this time having already seen it so knowing FULL WELL what was going to happen. Will you still think it, to quote iluv2viddyfilms "Blew".



Sorry I took so long to reply to this! I wanted to see the film again before doing so.

I missed Beowulf. Is it worth seeing for the motion capture? You're right about Zemeckis pushing harder for motion capture usage than Cameron in recent years, though I'm just wondering if he has surpassed his wooden, glossy-eyed characters in The Polar Express. The renderings are flawless, but there has always been a disconnect between where the digital form and the live actor are supposed to meet. Avatar struggled with this too, usually when it came to minor characters, but the main characters all seemed to "be there," as it were.
Re: Beowulf. Yeah, it's actually quite good in that regard. It's not perfect, but it's light years ahead of the whole creepy-eye thing in The Polar Express. Zemeckis must've really taken those criticisms to heart.

Re: minor characters in Avatar. That's a good observation, and I think you're right. The more screen time a Na'vi had, the better their motion capture seemed to be.

We could probably do this all day, though. Sure, if we look at Kaufman, Lynch, Cronenberg, Anderson, etc., those conventional plot formulas tend to vanish. But on the whole - and certainly when it concerns a theatrical filmmaker like Cameron - those standards tend to stick. You and I both know it's because films are more marketable when they fit an already-established niche. Sure, they get tired eventually. But I think zedlen's point is well taken: Avatar has got enough small details going for it that the larger formula seems fresher than it really is. And again, for me, stellar production value, rewarding performances, and engaging details go a long way... even when I'm getting fed a familiar plot.
Well, I can certainly live with this kind of disagreement; the details were enough for you to compensate for the overall story, but just not enough for me, I suppose.

If anything, I think it came too late. It seemed like Jake Sully would have learned this truth well before he did, but I guess the timing was helpful to the plot considering what begins to transpire immediately after. I would like to have seen the idea explored too, but that would have likely changed the focus of the film considerably.

Eh, I don't know if it's that harsh, but your point is well-made. I guess it just didn't bother me. Rather than having an implied connection, I liked the detail of the symbiotic biology: interesting visually, and ultimately appropriate to the story. (It's also a nice fantasy for those of us who sometimes wish we could directly connect with the natural world. )
It is definitely interesting, and I couldn't figure out why it bothered me until I was already replying to your last post, and that's when the literal/symbolic thing hit me.


Actually, I was talking more about...

WARNING: "Avatar" spoilers below
...the destruction of the Home Tree. A lesser film would have just had it threatened, and then ultimately saved by the heroes at the last possible moment. But by following through, Avatar committed itself to an irrevocable event that, for all intents and purposes, meant the Na'Vi would be completely changed forever.

Now, I do realize that Avatar conceded this bravery and, in the finale, did exactly what I said a lesser film would do. This is largely why I docked it a bucket - I would have rather the film live with its own consequences a little more than it did. But hey, the finale was going to be epic, so something had to be at stake.

And regarding Sigourney Weaver, her character's death fed, really, the most predictable aspect of the film for me. I knew, from the moment someone said a human could become their avatar permanently, what was going to happen to Jake Sully. Regrettable, but hey... no film is perfect.
WARNING: "Avatar" spoilers below
I see what you're saying about "Hometree" (that name still cracks me up). I wasn't really surprised when it went down, but I can see how in many other films it would've been saved at the last second, instead. Though as you indicate, this kinda offsets for me given that they introduce another, MORE sacred tree, that is saved at the last minute.



Nah, the supporting characters were pretty lame. I was hoping for some additional stuff between Neytiri and her father, but maybe we'll get some deleted stuff in the DVD? As for Whedon, this is largely why I prefer X-Men: The Last Stand to its predecessors. Whereas Singer's films unfailingly maintain the same status quo to the end as they start with, Ratner's film makes leaps that change its characters tremendously. (Of course, then it pretty much backtracks on all of them in the final moments, lol. )
I'm totally with you on X-Men: The Last Stand and the chances it takes, though the cop-out at the end pretty much ruins the whole thing for me. They were really close to doing something truly gutsy. Oh well. Maybe the next film will still sorta follow-through on this stuff.

Yeah, I very much agree that Avatar, more so than any other Cameron film before it, had the chance to be a thinker of a film. It probably would have taken a much different form, narratively-speaking, which is a hard sell when you're talking about a $500 million budget.
This is a fair point, so I should probably qualify what I'm saying by pointing out that some of this may just be circumstance. In other words, though I think it's a mediocre film, and feel pretty strongly about that fact, I don't feel strongly that it's necessarily because Cameron wrote a bad script. I think he probably did, but there was probably a lot of tugging back and forth. That said, the dude's coming off of Titanic and seems to enjoy quite a bit of creative freedom, as the movie's pretty risky even in its final version. But there are plenty of unknowns about how the process might have affected things.

I can't agree, however, that Avatar was trying to make any profound statements about anything. I think Cameron was after a theatrical adventure film that would gross a billion dollars, and knew that tapping into the corporate-greed-versus-environmentalism concept would probably take him there. He might think a film as large as this one has the ability to turn heads, but I really can't see how anything more than an unabated appeal to emotion for the sake of ticket sales was on anyone's agenda.
I don't think the two are really mutually exclusive. Dunno how profound the film think it's being, but phrases like "shock and awe" are a pretty clumsy, obvious way to try to give the film some political meaning.

If Cameron wasn't trying to make any actual points, then he's instead guilty of dropping in all sorts of tiny political jabs in a poor attempt at making it seem like it wants to. Which I guess is slightly better.

That's a fair point. Both films admittedly explored their own content more than Avatar did. T2 is probably his most successful film in that respect, with the machine experiencing a pretty substantive change as a result of his relationship with John Conner. But it's still an action spectacle at its core... as is Aliens... as is True Lies... as is Titanic. The man just has a greater love affair with production challenges than he does with story. In The Abyss, although the characters confront the best and worst of human nature - which is underscored for them by the aliens - I do think the film is pretty predictable and a little bit cheesy.
Aye, they're all action spectacles at their core, and that's cool with me. I guess I'm just used to rest of the films being fleshed out better. True Lies, for example, was really funny at points, and fairly inventive at others. Most films, as we discussed before, are pretty predictable in a larger sense, but can still keep you on your toes from moment to moment. Cameron, I think, is usually quite good at that.

Well, I said I didn't think Avatar was trying to make sound comparisons. The comparisons are most definitely there, and Cameron acknowledges that himself. I guess what I'm saying is, I don't think the film can be considered a legitimate voice in any political arena... and I think Cameron knows this too. To me, the politics of the film seem to have been used to sell tickets - nothing more. Otherwise, methinks this discussion would be far more widespread (a la The Da Vinci Code and gnosticism).
This may be true, but I don't know if tossing in half-hearted political references or similarities just to sell tickets makes me like the the film any more. I'm reminded of one character's reference to how there's "nothing green" on Earth any more.

You could say that Linda Hamilton's voice-overs in T2 were similarly sporadic and confused. I think they worked because they narrated a bit more on the figurative side than Sam Worthington's in Avatar, but his really worked for me when they were tied to his daily task of logging videos. Toward the end, you can infer that the voice-overs are really those logs, but they do kinda fall apart because there's a long span of time where you don't even see him continuing that task. And yeah, that line was bad.
I'll actually agree with that, about Hamilton's voice-overs. They were definitely too sporadic, though I think they were better written and more, well, relevant. But I could certainly live without them. I think you're dead-on about why they seem to work better, though; they're far more abstract.

Re: bad lines. There are quite a few. Roger Ebert once did a clever thing to criticize a movie: he reproduced a number of the lines with the preface "People in this movie actually say the following things:" So, with that in mind...people in Avatar actually say the following things:
  • "I'm going to kick his corporate butt."
  • "Shut your pie hole."
  • "They'll use your eyes for jujubees."
  • "...to ever face them again, I was going to have to take it to a whole new level."
  • "In cryo, you don't dream at all. It doesn't feel like six years - more like a fifth of Tequila and an ass kicking."

Sure, I think it will fade. It'll become dated like anything else. I don't think anyone really considers it a seminal film, except that it made a lot of money. But I do think it's an old-fashioned adventure film that stands apart from other blockbusters because it was made largely by a filmmaker, not a studio. To me, that makes a whole lot of difference.
I think a lot of people consider it a seminal film, unfortunately. If I thought most people who liked it just found it fairly entertaining, as you did, I probably wouldn't bother to make my case as often as I have. I hope you're right, but I'm afraid that this is gonna be, to many people, my generation's Star Wars or something.



So, anyway, as I mentioned above I finally got around to seeing Avatar a second time; in 2D, this time. Still think I've gotta go with
. There were more bad lines than I remembered, and the whole thing just felt like it was on autopilot.

The visuals are still lovely, and I enjoyed them more without the distraction of 3D. Very impressed by the subtle facial expressions...I just think we're talking about a technical achievement, and not a creative one. I draw a distinction between creativity and sheer attention to detail.

Anyway, found this the other day and thought it was pretty hysterical:




I found the story served the type of film it was perfectly fine. I went in knowing nothing about it and knew what it expect. So for those who saw the trailers, who the hell did you expect?

If you were to see the film a second time, this time having already seen it so knowing FULL WELL what was going to happen. Will you still think it, to quote iluv2viddyfilms "Blew".
I saw the trailers, reserved judgment, heard some rumblings about the story before the release, and went in expecting a very pretty but fairly predictable/simplistic story, and that's what I got. I've now seen it a second time, knowing exactly what to expect, and feel the same way.

I'm not sure why expectations should change things much, though. Knowing a film will probably be vapid doesn't excuse it for being that way, does it?