My problem with its storyline is not it's simplicity, it's the lack of imagination especially when set within a science fiction universe that bothers me (among other things).
For example, I can understand wanting to have a group of people that are more nature-based, but what I cannot give a free pass is the lackadaisical way in which they implemented said people group. You can have a "nature people" without failing back on the old Native American schtick. It's just strikes me as lazy...and mundane, though in talking to Lynx he brought up a good point about audiences being able to readily relate to something they can recognize. I just think that is not a good enough defense for a movie that ultimately brings nothing new to the table. Imagine if the aliens in Aliens had just been your stereotypical "Greys." It doesn't mean the movie would have sucked, but it definitely would have lost a lot of staying power.
Another disappoint was Pandora itself; the planet being just an outsized Earth jungle with some bizarre plants and animals thrown in. Even further nearly all the animals were based off your typical Earth archtypes. Look we have horses! But wait for it....they are ALIEN horses!
These few examples (and others) aren't reasons why I think the movie sucked. They are simply reasons why I think Avatar was a completely "normal," thus mediocre, movie with really, really good special effects (and the innovative technologies that come with them).
How do you have "nature people" without them being essentially Native Americans - killing when necessary, being one with the planet, etc? I mean, what are we talking here - they get dressed up in 3-piece suits and live in gigantic mansions crafted from 4 strategically-placed and grown trees?
Nature people can be more than just Native Americans. Every other continent has their group or groups to use as historical examples. Cameron had his pick but instead made Dances with Smurfs.
How do you have "nature people" without them being essentially Native Americans - killing when necessary, being one with the planet, etc? I mean, what are we talking here - they get dressed up in 3-piece suits and live in gigantic mansions crafted from 4 strategically-placed and grown trees?
Okay, this fits well into my point which is this; there have been plenty of people groups here on earth that have been "nature oriented" and have not been Native American. Just because the most readily available example of a "nature oriented" people for U.S. citizens happens to be the Native Americans doesn't mean that they are the only ones we can use to represent said ideas (especially in science fiction). For instance, what about the beaker people of Western Europe (2400 – 1800 BC), surely they were just as nature oriented as any Native America tribe.
Sorry, I digress. So let's just throw out some examples of fictional alien races who would need to rely on the land (kill when necessary, blahblahblah) and not be Space Indians.
1. The 'Navi' are an amorphous, sentient race of beings who feed by dissolving living plant life. They work a careful balance with letting things live/die because their racial memories are stored in a planet-wide network of plants. In this way they cannot eat too much, but they must eat enough to stay alive. When the humans come to mine the ore they upset the balance not only wiping out memories but also causing literal starvation. Instead of using bows and arrows or other 'native' tools they morph their bodies into whatever form they need to accomplish the job.
2. The 'Navi' themselves are not sentient. They are grown from the life-force of the planet to act as a caretaking race. In this way the 'Navi' care about nature because they actually are nature. I.E., if the trees die, they die too.
3. The planet of Pandora is a single living entity which has grown around a wormhole to an alternate universe where cthulu has been bound since the beginning of time. When any plant life is destroyed it weakens the strength of Pandora which leads to seepages in the fabric of time. Slowly entire chunks of Pandora begin to dissolve into nothingness. Great shafts of darkness plunging down to the core of Pandora begin to dot the landscape. The 'Navi' work tirelessly to stop the humans from destroying Pandora (and as a result the universe), and though they don't like to kill the only way to stop these seepages or holes is to sacrifice 'Navi' and human alike to the life force of the planet.
Non of these incredibly crappy scenarios I made up require the 'Navi' to be Native Americans, yet they still share similar traits to Native Americans.
You... still haven't seen it, unless I've missed something. Aren't you not allowed to make that judgment?
I think one can make basic judgments about characters without seeing the films. Just because I haven't wasted my cash and time to sit through a film doesn't mean I'm not familiar with the characters. I've seen the trailers. I've read commentary. In case you missed it, the movie has been heavily marketed. It's hard to overlook it when every TV break has a commercial for the film or a related product (action figures, happy meal toys, etc.).
So did anyone notice that Norm's avatar was standing amongst the Na'vi in the final scene and Norm was standing near it? I was also impressed by how long the colonel could hold his breath in the poisonous atmosphere. Any way carry on with your debate.
In it's opening weekend Avatar has made back half of the production cost. Considering it's probably going to still be in theaters 2-3 months from now and future DVD/Blu-ray sales. Me thinks it's going to make back the money despite everyone's doubts.
It's still getting legs, too. Everybody that saw it in a crappy theater wants to see it in IMAX, everybody that saw it in 3D wants to see it in IMAX 3D, most people want to see it multiple times. It pulled $100 million so far in the US alone.
SPOILERS: (holy balls, didn't know we had spoiler tags. Cheers, Ryder)
Regarding Norm's Avatar - it is never implied that it died. It took some bullets to the upper left shoulder, and he awoke clutching that portion of his own body. Certainly not down for the count. If that kind of serious pain is being inflicted among the avatar, the driver would feel it as a result of the connection. That kind of pain would wake you up in an instant, so it makes sense that he'd be disconnected. Doesn't explain why he couldn't have linked back up, but he probably thought at that point he'd be a greater help in being back in the HQ. Perhaps if the physical Avatar is unconcious, reconnecting won't bring it back immediately. There are specie-specific limiations to them.
As for why the Avatar was standing there, I'm not so sure. Perhaps they were able to use their prayer to bring it back to life... but other examples of such required the drivers to become bound with their Avatar. I dunno.
END SPOILERS
Now, about Grimnoc's complaint of the 'other ways of doing it'. Like I said, the objective is to create an alien race that we as humans can relate to. That's why Cameron picked a humanoid species, and that's why they're native Americanesque. Why take that route? Why not take something completely fresh with crazy pseudo-pod arms, and a requirement to eat the earth to grow and become intelligent? I think it's simple - it is because unfamiliarity is scary to us. That's why bizarre, strange, new creatures work in roles of the enemy. Alien is a perfect example. Sure, they could use the cookie-cutter 'greys', but we know what to expect. We know how they act, what they do, how to fear them. The unknown bring fear, not comfort. When you're writing a story that involves new characters that you want your viewers to connect with and to side with, it needs to have a familiarity about it, it needs to be understood. When your film revolves around a made-up species and involves a story that sets a requirement for emotional involvment, then you need to make sure you find ways to capture the audience and get them on your side. A bizarre, new type would make this significantly difficult, though not impossible. Again, this may not be ideal for us sci-fi heads, but it appeals to a mass audience - the target audience that AVATAR is aimed towards.
BuddyJ, I really think you should give it a shot, then come to your own conclusion. I won't say I discredit your opinion in the matter, but I would find your arguments much more valid if you knew more than the marketing force behind a product. I certainly wouldn't throw around judgement on a processor based on it's media hype before I saw any real benchmark numbers, or performance tests. Trailers and commercials lend very little to the reality of the actual film.
Saw the movie last night with the wife, and let me say this upfront - I thought the movie look tuh-tarded based on the previews and the initial feedback from people I knew who'd seen a tech screening a few months ago. I really didn't expect anything but mediocrity 2 or 3 weeks ago when I was starting to see more trailers of hackneyed dialogue and flat acting.
But then positive word started to trickle out as people saw it, so I told myself not to prejudge it.
I went in with an open mind, and Cameron blew it away. This man knows action. This man knows how to weave a story, even if it's a fairly cookie-cutter one. And more than anything, he knows his filmcraft. There was not a wasted shot, there was not a bad angle, there was not a dull moment. George Lucas should take lessons from this man; the movie was everything that The Phantom Menace wasn't.
While I was blown away though, I'm fearful as well.
3D is what broke down the uncanny valley. This is a movie that is not going to hold up in 2D. As enveloped, surronded, and immersed in Pandora as I was in 3D, I cannot imagine having the same reaction in 2D. The world he brought to life in 3D would look like a Digital Blasphemy wallpaper animated in 2D. Once this leaves theaters, the experience will be diminished tenfold.
So what happens then? Where do we go from here? Do the studios get their killer app to drive theater attendance and kill movie piracy? Do movies become flashier spectacles devoid of all soul?
HOW DO WE PREVENT MICHAEL BAY FROM USING THIS TECHNOLOGY FOR EVIL???
WHAT IF THEY JOIN FORCES? THIS IS NO LAUGHING MATTER.
Hmm... You never know. It could go both ways:
1. They combine and reach critical-mass, creating a swirling vortex of suck, from which nothing could possibly escape. Not even a great movie idea.
2. They smash together, destroying the weaker portions of each other, only leaving the parts of them capable of forming a coherent shot that doesn't involve 10,000 gallons of gasoline, which then combine to form a relatively passable filmmaker that does some decent shots on the second units of relatively good movies.
Granted, I don't hold a lot of hope for scenario 2.
Linc, you're suggesting that it WILL hold up in 2D? Just clarifying...
also, I assume you're pointing at Jaws. While hardly as revolutionary as AVATAR, or any of the others mentioned, some would suggest that Jaws played a big role in integrating anamatronics.
But I suppose you're right.
Citizen Kane does belong in that list, as it revolutionized storytelling in film to a GREAT extent. It took bold new direction and risk in storytelling - especially from a cinematography standpoint. It deserves to be ranked among the best of the best in Hollywood history.
I'm only going to saw this here once, well, maybe twice. This is a tech blog/forum, I would expect there be talk about the CG and 3D experience being ground breaking, blah blah blah.
But what I really wonder if what percentage you feel the audience will take home and realize the "we are all one and connected" message.
I'm not soft, but the film's presentation broke my heart that effing idiot military leaders still exist in our society fighting for crap like greed. That a simple cancer cell is a microcosm of the war we see in front of us. Or a pesky computer virus is some hacker's attempt to make a name for him/herself (or the virus companies keeping job security). Either way...
Technology aside (is this a life forum post?) --- Is this film about survival of the fittest or survival of the most adaptive?
Honestly, I didn't walk away with it. My brother did, based on what he's said via Facebook posts, so it's definitely a case-by-case basis thing, but I just didn't get impacted by the story all that much. Almost every element of the overall plot felt like it was borrowed from somewhere or done before, which isn't a great thing to say about a film normally.
But here, that almost didn't matter. As long as the plot wasn't total shite (Star Wars prequels, Transformers, etc) and served to move the visual feast along, it was gravy.
I can only imagine what would happen if this had been around to make the Matrix, Batman Begins, the first Spiderman, Lord of the Rings, hell, Terminator 2! What's this tech going to do for movies that would be masterpieces without it?
Now, Lincoln says this movie holds up in 2D, so I'm curious to hear more from that angle.
But the story? Someone said "Take Fern Gully and throw it in a blender with Dances with Wolves," which sounds about right.
Comments
For example, I can understand wanting to have a group of people that are more nature-based, but what I cannot give a free pass is the lackadaisical way in which they implemented said people group. You can have a "nature people" without failing back on the old Native American schtick. It's just strikes me as lazy...and mundane, though in talking to Lynx he brought up a good point about audiences being able to readily relate to something they can recognize. I just think that is not a good enough defense for a movie that ultimately brings nothing new to the table. Imagine if the aliens in Aliens had just been your stereotypical "Greys." It doesn't mean the movie would have sucked, but it definitely would have lost a lot of staying power.
Another disappoint was Pandora itself; the planet being just an outsized Earth jungle with some bizarre plants and animals thrown in. Even further nearly all the animals were based off your typical Earth archtypes. Look we have horses! But wait for it....they are ALIEN horses!
These few examples (and others) aren't reasons why I think the movie sucked. They are simply reasons why I think Avatar was a completely "normal," thus mediocre, movie with really, really good special effects (and the innovative technologies that come with them).
Okay, this fits well into my point which is this; there have been plenty of people groups here on earth that have been "nature oriented" and have not been Native American. Just because the most readily available example of a "nature oriented" people for U.S. citizens happens to be the Native Americans doesn't mean that they are the only ones we can use to represent said ideas (especially in science fiction). For instance, what about the beaker people of Western Europe (2400 – 1800 BC), surely they were just as nature oriented as any Native America tribe.
Sorry, I digress. So let's just throw out some examples of fictional alien races who would need to rely on the land (kill when necessary, blahblahblah) and not be Space Indians.
1. The 'Navi' are an amorphous, sentient race of beings who feed by dissolving living plant life. They work a careful balance with letting things live/die because their racial memories are stored in a planet-wide network of plants. In this way they cannot eat too much, but they must eat enough to stay alive. When the humans come to mine the ore they upset the balance not only wiping out memories but also causing literal starvation. Instead of using bows and arrows or other 'native' tools they morph their bodies into whatever form they need to accomplish the job.
2. The 'Navi' themselves are not sentient. They are grown from the life-force of the planet to act as a caretaking race. In this way the 'Navi' care about nature because they actually are nature. I.E., if the trees die, they die too.
3. The planet of Pandora is a single living entity which has grown around a wormhole to an alternate universe where cthulu has been bound since the beginning of time. When any plant life is destroyed it weakens the strength of Pandora which leads to seepages in the fabric of time. Slowly entire chunks of Pandora begin to dissolve into nothingness. Great shafts of darkness plunging down to the core of Pandora begin to dot the landscape. The 'Navi' work tirelessly to stop the humans from destroying Pandora (and as a result the universe), and though they don't like to kill the only way to stop these seepages or holes is to sacrifice 'Navi' and human alike to the life force of the planet.
Non of these incredibly crappy scenarios I made up require the 'Navi' to be Native Americans, yet they still share similar traits to Native Americans.
I think one can make basic judgments about characters without seeing the films. Just because I haven't wasted my cash and time to sit through a film doesn't mean I'm not familiar with the characters. I've seen the trailers. I've read commentary. In case you missed it, the movie has been heavily marketed. It's hard to overlook it when every TV break has a commercial for the film or a related product (action figures, happy meal toys, etc.).
Still.
In it's opening weekend Avatar has made back half of the production cost. Considering it's probably going to still be in theaters 2-3 months from now and future DVD/Blu-ray sales. Me thinks it's going to make back the money despite everyone's doubts.
I think it'll end up doing fine.
As for why the Avatar was standing there, I'm not so sure. Perhaps they were able to use their prayer to bring it back to life... but other examples of such required the drivers to become bound with their Avatar. I dunno.
END SPOILERS
Now, about Grimnoc's complaint of the 'other ways of doing it'. Like I said, the objective is to create an alien race that we as humans can relate to. That's why Cameron picked a humanoid species, and that's why they're native Americanesque. Why take that route? Why not take something completely fresh with crazy pseudo-pod arms, and a requirement to eat the earth to grow and become intelligent? I think it's simple - it is because unfamiliarity is scary to us. That's why bizarre, strange, new creatures work in roles of the enemy. Alien is a perfect example. Sure, they could use the cookie-cutter 'greys', but we know what to expect. We know how they act, what they do, how to fear them. The unknown bring fear, not comfort. When you're writing a story that involves new characters that you want your viewers to connect with and to side with, it needs to have a familiarity about it, it needs to be understood. When your film revolves around a made-up species and involves a story that sets a requirement for emotional involvment, then you need to make sure you find ways to capture the audience and get them on your side. A bizarre, new type would make this significantly difficult, though not impossible. Again, this may not be ideal for us sci-fi heads, but it appeals to a mass audience - the target audience that AVATAR is aimed towards.
BuddyJ, I really think you should give it a shot, then come to your own conclusion. I won't say I discredit your opinion in the matter, but I would find your arguments much more valid if you knew more than the marketing force behind a product. I certainly wouldn't throw around judgement on a processor based on it's media hype before I saw any real benchmark numbers, or performance tests. Trailers and commercials lend very little to the reality of the actual film.
But then positive word started to trickle out as people saw it, so I told myself not to prejudge it.
I went in with an open mind, and Cameron blew it away. This man knows action. This man knows how to weave a story, even if it's a fairly cookie-cutter one. And more than anything, he knows his filmcraft. There was not a wasted shot, there was not a bad angle, there was not a dull moment. George Lucas should take lessons from this man; the movie was everything that The Phantom Menace wasn't.
While I was blown away though, I'm fearful as well.
3D is what broke down the uncanny valley. This is a movie that is not going to hold up in 2D. As enveloped, surronded, and immersed in Pandora as I was in 3D, I cannot imagine having the same reaction in 2D. The world he brought to life in 3D would look like a Digital Blasphemy wallpaper animated in 2D. Once this leaves theaters, the experience will be diminished tenfold.
So what happens then? Where do we go from here? Do the studios get their killer app to drive theater attendance and kill movie piracy? Do movies become flashier spectacles devoid of all soul?
HOW DO WE PREVENT MICHAEL BAY FROM USING THIS TECHNOLOGY FOR EVIL???
Put him in a boxing ring with Uwe Boll?
Are you MAD???
WHAT IF THEY JOIN FORCES? THIS IS NO LAUGHING MATTER.
Hmm... You never know. It could go both ways:
1. They combine and reach critical-mass, creating a swirling vortex of suck, from which nothing could possibly escape. Not even a great movie idea.
2. They smash together, destroying the weaker portions of each other, only leaving the parts of them capable of forming a coherent shot that doesn't involve 10,000 gallons of gasoline, which then combine to form a relatively passable filmmaker that does some decent shots on the second units of relatively good movies.
Granted, I don't hold a lot of hope for scenario 2.
You mean you agree that it doesn't hold up in 2D, or you think it's a game-changer too?
Yeah, there is NO CG in Citizen Kane, you fools.
also, I assume you're pointing at Jaws. While hardly as revolutionary as AVATAR, or any of the others mentioned, some would suggest that Jaws played a big role in integrating anamatronics.
But I suppose you're right.
Citizen Kane does belong in that list, as it revolutionized storytelling in film to a GREAT extent. It took bold new direction and risk in storytelling - especially from a cinematography standpoint. It deserves to be ranked among the best of the best in Hollywood history.
I was joking about Kane.
TRON was definitely a game-changer. A huge leap in special effects, and way ahead of it's time.
Really? I didn't know much about its place in history, so I could only think about it in retrospect. Interesting.
But we're getting off topic...
But what I really wonder if what percentage you feel the audience will take home and realize the "we are all one and connected" message.
I'm not soft, but the film's presentation broke my heart that effing idiot military leaders still exist in our society fighting for crap like greed. That a simple cancer cell is a microcosm of the war we see in front of us. Or a pesky computer virus is some hacker's attempt to make a name for him/herself (or the virus companies keeping job security). Either way...
Technology aside (is this a life forum post?) --- Is this film about survival of the fittest or survival of the most adaptive?
Honestly, I didn't walk away with it. My brother did, based on what he's said via Facebook posts, so it's definitely a case-by-case basis thing, but I just didn't get impacted by the story all that much. Almost every element of the overall plot felt like it was borrowed from somewhere or done before, which isn't a great thing to say about a film normally.
But here, that almost didn't matter. As long as the plot wasn't total shite (Star Wars prequels, Transformers, etc) and served to move the visual feast along, it was gravy.
I can only imagine what would happen if this had been around to make the Matrix, Batman Begins, the first Spiderman, Lord of the Rings, hell, Terminator 2! What's this tech going to do for movies that would be masterpieces without it?
Now, Lincoln says this movie holds up in 2D, so I'm curious to hear more from that angle.
But the story? Someone said "Take Fern Gully and throw it in a blender with Dances with Wolves," which sounds about right.
<object width="425" height="344">
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/v1klLTb1rbE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>