Avatar - James Cameron Returns! (Spoilers in thread, obviously!)

Dude, seriously: I will buy your tickets if only so you can give an opinion on something you've actually SEEN. You remind me of the Catholic Church picketing Kevin Smith's Dogma before it had even been released and they only had a fraction of an idea of what it was about.

While some of your points may be valid it still stands that you haven't seen the bloody movie!

Chamber005 said:
I'm pretty sure I asked a question regarding its value compared to the movies I mentioned. I didn't compare it to those movies, I'm asking what people here feel, comparing it to the movies listed.

Seeing Avatar isn't high on my list of things to do in a week, but I am interested in the divide between all the people caught up in the effects and general "awe" and the people who are citing its routine story and flat characters as reasons for dismissing it as simply another CGI spectacle.
Click to expand...
 
Saw it a second time with my pops on friday at 3pm. It was just as good as the first viewing and It was sold out. And If my dad goes to the movies to see anything, it must be special. The last movie he saw at a theater was Platoon.
 
Batutta said:
At risk of getting political, Avatar's wild popularity is probably a case of the right story being told in the right way at the right time. Star Wars came out in the late 70's and re-packaged the political struggles of the 60's (rebellion against authority) into a simple, archetypal hero myth that resonated with audiences, young and old. Add to that an audio-visual experience people had never had seen before and it became a cultural phenomenon. Avatar repackaged the political struggles of this past decade (the corporate/military industrial complex vs resource bearing indigenous populations) into a simple, archetypal hero myth, and told it with an audio visual experience people had never seen before...Or maybe people are just suckers for awesome eye candy, I don't know.
Click to expand...

I don't think a story about "resource bearing indigenous" people's land getting taken by force is very timely at all. Environmentalism is one thing, but the plight of an indigenous people (unless you're talking specifically about genocide for reasons of religion or race) is a story that's happened hundreds of years ago with much more vigor (or, decimation) than anything that's happened in the last 10 years -- and many stories, big and small, have been told about those struggles. If we're talking about speciesism (e.g. animals are not of equal importance to people), there could be an argument for that, but even then we're just talking about people becoming aware of their speciesism -- it's been much, much worse in times past.

Star Wars was far less political than it was mythological. Anything that's ever been written about Star Wars A New Hope talks specifically on how it was decisively different from all the drab political cinema that was around in the post-Vietnam era. Star Wars was a big breath of fresh air.

Again though, only time will tell if Avatar really matters to the next generation. If fifteen years from now people are arguing it's STORY'S and CHARACTER'S importance to cinema and culture the way people argue about Star Wars, Blade Runner, Close Encounters, etc. then it will have proved itself.

But I wouldn't be surprised if 15 years from now a lot of people still like Aliens or T2 or Titanic better than they liked Avatar. Once everyone is doing effects equal to or better than Avatar, it might only continue to be relevant as a step up in effects animation and not much else.
 
Chamber005 said:
I don't think a story about "resource bearing indigenous" people's land getting taken by force is very timely at all. Environmentalism is one thing, but the plight of an indigenous people (unless you're talking specifically about genocide for reasons of religion or race) is a story that's happened hundreds of years ago with much more vigor (or, decimation) than anything that's happened in the last 10 years -- and many stories, big and small, have been told about those struggles. If we're talking about speciesism (e.g. animals are not of equal importance to people), there could be an argument for that, but even then we're just talking about people becoming aware of their speciesism -- it's been much, much worse in times past.

Star Wars was far less political than it was mythological. Anything that's ever been written about Star Wars A New Hope talks specifically on how it was decisively different from all the drab political cinema that was around in the post-Vietnam era. Star Wars was a big breath of fresh air.
Click to expand...

I can't really get into this without opening a giant can of worms. All I'll say is that Star Wars wasn't overtly political, which is the secret of its success. People don't like political messages shoved down their throats. Star Wars took the political concerns of the era and buried it under layers and layers of fantasy mythology and reduced it to a reassuring tale of good vs evil, but if you drill down it's there to uncover. Same with Avatar. Science fiction and fantasy at its best lets us examine human, political and societal issues in a way that's not inflammatory, because those issues are taken out of their current context and placed in a different, fantastical setting. For the sake of this thread I don't think we should elaborate any further on wether or not a story about "resource bearing indigenous" people's land getting taken by force is very timely.
 
Last edited:
Batutta said:
I can't really get into this without opening a giant can of worms. All I'll say is that Star Wars wasn't overtly political, which is the secret of its success. People don't like political messages shoved down their throats. Star Wars took the political concerns of the era and buried it under layers and layers of fantasy mythology and reduced it to a reassuring tale of good vs evil, but if you drill down it's there to uncover. Same with Avatar. Science fiction and fantasy at its best lets us examine human, political and societal issues in a way that's not inflammatory, because those issues are taken out of their current context and placed in a different, fantastical setting. For the sake of this thread I don't think we should elaborate any further on wether or not a story about "resource bearing indigenous" people's land getting taken by force is very timely.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, though to my last comment I am curious if you felt Avatar regards indigenous people or if it regards indigenous species (not literally, but thematically). Did the government perceive them as a type of humanoid (though potentially a lower form of humanoid) or did they perceive the inhabitants of Pandora as animals? If it's the latter, its theme then lends itself moreso to a dialog on speciesism not, say, racism.
 
Chamber005 said:
Fair enough, though to my last comment I am curious if you felt Avatar regards indigenous people or if it regards indigenous species (not literally, but thematically). Did the government perceive them as a type of humanoid (though potentially a lower form of humanoid) or did they perceive the inhabitants of Pandora as animals? If it's the latter, its theme then lends itself moreso to a dialog on speciesism not, say, racism.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I got too specific. I think what's resonating with Avatar is the broader theme of corporate/military greed versus the rights of individuals.
 
Batutta said:
I hope he doesn't go that route, other than the Lord of the Rings films (which is just one big story), the back to back thing hasn't worked out great for others; The Back to the Future sequels, The Matrix sequels, the Pirates sequels.
Click to expand...

I hope so to, partly because I want to see what he can do with a mega budget 3D adaptation of Battle Angel Alita. Although, of all the filmmakers out there, Cameron and Peter Jackson are about the only two I trust to deliver proper sequels using this back-to-back type of production method.

Lately I've actually been thinking about how great a 2-movie series can be. How awesome was Kill Bill vol. 1 + 2, Alien + Aliens, Terminator + T2, and Batman Begins + The Dark Knight? Those all worked out very well as complete stories that didn't/don't require a third chapter. Obviously studios make more money with a trilogy than with a duology, but I think that it would work better for a lot of films to whittle down the best stuff to two films instead of three.

A good example would be the Matrix sequels. They could've condensed a lot of the necessary plot elements from Reloaded and Revolutions into a more exciting single film of 2.5 to 3 hours running time. I do think they did something pretty brilliant with The Animatrix, in that it complemented the films by being able to introduce new characters or focus on secondary characters and expand the world of the films.

I think that could be the new way to do things. Make the first film. If it is successful, make a really great sequel as well as a tie-in. What would this tie-in be? Something like The Animatrix or maybe a limited miniseries exploring an off-shoot storyline or new characters that would air on TV and then come out on DVD and Blu-ray around the time the sequel is debuting in the theater. Great special effects and production value can now be done for live action TV (examples: Band of Brothers, Lost, Fringe, Battlestar Galactica).

Now of course, cases like Lord of the Rings, Star Wars (original trilogy), Dune novels, Harry Potter, Bourne series, etc. need more than one or two films to play out their long narratives in a satisfying manner.
 
Chamber005 said:
Did the government perceive them as a type of humanoid (though potentially a lower form of humanoid) or did they perceive the inhabitants of Pandora as animals? If it's the latter, its theme then lends itself moreso to a dialog on speciesism not, say, racism.
Click to expand...

It sort of works on both levels. Some of the human characters in the film view them as genuine individuals in the way you would separate a human from an animal, while other humans in the film call them "blue monkeys".

Now, if they looked like octopi or giant alien birds or something that would fall into the uncanny valley, then it might've been more about speciesism. But the fact that the Na'vi are humanoid and similar enough to humans for many of the characters as well as the audience to sympathize with them, it seems to cover both. Although the way the story plays out, racism seems to be the primary theme in this regard.
 
I think one of the big success of Avatar is that the world it takes you (Pandora - The Na'vi's Pandora) is rendered plain and simple as a very appealing place. One of those places that you wish really existed, just because it would be a so very very cool experience. And the movie takes you there.

- Mikko
 
I dont know it was very dangerous to live there , i wouldnt want to live there.
For him it was better since he was on wheelchair in his human form.
I dont buy the love story ,it was too fast and too easy.
 
bwwd said:
I dont buy the love story ,it was too fast and too easy.
Click to expand...

But Jake was with the tribe and Neytiri for 3 months before they professed their love for each other. It doesn't need to be explained beyond that. The main point of the story is not how they fall in love.

Not every love affair has to happen over a long period of time. Personally, I think the ones that are most sweeping and dramatic are the ones that happen fast... the whole love at first sight thing.
 
Just got back from seeing this in IMAX 3D and I've got to say it kicked ass . I particularly loved that fact that Cameron did feel required to "throw things at the audience." I thought he handled the 3D aspect rather well and used it to draw you right into the picture.

This was my first viewing and I figured a 12:20 pm showing on a weekday would have plenty of empty seats. While not all seats were filled, I'd guess that perhaps 80-90% of them were.
 
Anyway it made more money than i expected ,i was a bit worried when i saw first trailer.
And still IMO avatar 3d renders arent more advanced than any ps3 pre rendered game videos around.No breakthrough in realistic rendering for movies ,but it still made the money.
I hope Cameron will go back to full live action movies and wont stay in this 3d fakiness,because the movie made over $1,000,000,000 it doesnt mean that it seamlessly connected CGI and live action ,CGI wasnt really anything i expected from the hype.It felt like dreamworks flic.You knew that animals arent talking like humans but you still watching cartoons ,the same thing.
 
Well that was interesting...

I came across the Scriptment for the movie, so I just spent the last 3 hours reading through. (And listening to the sound-track, ooh yeah..)

The movie came a long way to what we saw on the screen. Very interesting to see what changed, especially to where focus was given (in the Scriptment for example we start on Earth and see the ruins it's in); and also to see what stayed in. It was fun to read and recognize a piece that stayed into the final cut and to See what was coming.


Obviously reading, all the eye-candy of the movie theater isn't nearly as big a deal ... though it left surprisingly little to the imagination - which I think speaks very highly of the execution of the film - and the story itself actually is a good read.

The story was almost more complex, and a little more compelling; however as a film maker I could see exactly why many of the choices where made in bringing the movie to the screen. I often hear "the book was better" .. and I think to read, that's almost always true; but to watch I think the movie can also be better.



Of course, now I need to go see it a 3rd time ... next screening is in 20 minutes.. hmm...


- Mikko
 
Ive seen 1080p renders from avatar and it really isnt more impressive than ingame video from ps3.
I actually prefere some parts of cinematic filmlike trailer for assassins creed 2 than obvious 3d renders from avatar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVWhWsgHzKM&fmt=18

Maybe i had too high expectations because of the hype.
You can watch avatar and not think about 3d in the same way like you watch ice age or madagascar.Its not a problem.But those robotic suits look really not right in avatar,so gamelike.
Also avatar live action scenes with actors shot on film arent as sharp as rendered 3D scenes and it could be matched somehow IMO.In HD resolution frame its obvious difference and film scan isnt as detailed as mathematically perfect 3d render.
Does this
http://www.avatarplanet.net/wp-cont...tar_final_trailer_frame_by_frame000001133.jpg
http://www.avatarplanet.net/wp-cont...tar_final_trailer_frame_by_frame000000079.jpg

And this

http://www.avatarplanet.net/wp-cont...tar_final_trailer_frame_by_frame000001178.jpg

really look the same for you ? Just look how fake eyebrows look on 3d render and you can see that models werent so hi-poly and you can spot some subtle shape shortcuts and bump maps on 3d model.
hairs on eeyes have the same colour and looks too perfect while nature and real life isnt so perfect ,in real person photo its visible that hairs arent in the same exact black colour all around the eyes and it looks unnatural.I might be nitpicky but seriously this isnt seamless realistic CGI ever yet.
 
Last edited:
Is it completely realistic? Hell no. Is it the best CGI so far? Hell yes ;)

But I agree about the hair. Also, why are they so shiny? Real skin doesn't shine like that. And they need more wrinkles.
 
Well, if Battle Angel is his next project I would expect it to have many more real humans in it. and I'm pretty damn sure it will be in 3D which is not a problem for me.

I was reading an article online somwhere and Cameron said he wants to do a Drama with no CGI in 3D just to prove it can make the experience more enjoyable. now that I would love to see him pull off. Somehow Crash in 3D sounds a little far fetched.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top