So I went to the midnight screening of the 3D Imax Experience. And wow, it was worth every penny. I'll say off the bat that that story, as many have said, isn't really new, though maybe with a couple twists. Having said that, it's also not really a turnoff, given that you can't swing a dead cat in Hollywood without hitting a recycled plot, and that doesn't automatically make a movie bad. It depends on what the new take on an old plot does.
Visually it's unlike anything I've ever seen before. The 3D was incredibly impressive. About 20 minutes in, I forgot I was wearing the glasses (goggles might be a better term, they were huge). There wasn't any blur at all from wearing them, the screen was crystal clear. And it was unlike any 3D I've seen. Rather than just having things pop out at you for the hell of it, just because they can, it really did add depth in some very impressive ways to a lot of stunning scenes. That, and the Alice in Wonderland 3D trailer was frigging scary with the Cheshire Cat divebombing me. Really though, it was worth the extra few bucks to get it with 3D, it's come a long, long way, and I can't emphasize enough how impressive and seamless it felt.
In general it was a top notch CGI infested blockbuster.
Spoilers
The story was pretty much Pocahontas (a la Disney), but the love story took a serious backseat role to the overarching plot of the Na'vi vs. the humans. It was much more a subplot. What I thought was the coolest twist, that I hadn't really seen before, was the whole interaction between the Na'vi and their surroundings. It was like they all had built-in uplinks to jack into any plant or animal around them to share experiences, commands, knowledge, etc; like the planet was a huge biological computer, and the forest was a fiber optic network. That's a pretty interesting twist in a way too, as technology is often depicted as being evil, or an instrument of evil, and here we have a biological version of the exact same thing that we do, but it's neither good nor evil, it just is. And really, you see how having or not having powerful technology is pretty immaterial. It's all about what you do with it.
In that sense, this isn't a story about technology at all. It's two things: A commentary on imperialism, and a discussion of humanity. The debate wasn't really between "oh we have to save this precious unique culture because unique cultures are inherently valuable," and "dude, let's get them pricey rocks!"
It was about scientific understanding. Personally I think two of the biggest factors that define humanity are conquest and the search for understanding. We're explorers for the sake of exploration, and we go to space because it's next on the list, but we also dominate. Avatar was a clash between the desire to dominate, and the search for understanding, for scientific exploration.
I think framing it that way gives a lot more depth than the simple "humans with guns are bad, nature is better." That binary is there, but for me, it's very much the framework for a much more fundamental argument.
/Spoilers
Anyway, I really liked it, and if I can scrape the money together, I'd like to go see it again. I can't imagine seeing it in anything other than 3D now. Cameron really made it come alive.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
(I'm just going to copy and paste my recent facebook status about the movie.)
quote: (Vadon) watched Avatar tonight on a spur of a moment decision. It was great, but what astounded him was the commentary of the crowd at the end. It wasn't about the sharp critique of militarism and capitalism, the parallels to the genocides of indigenous peoples, or the save the earth message. No, they talked about how awesome those "dragons" would be as mounts in World of Warcraft. <Sigh>
In other words, it was great even if predictable. I didn't see it in 3D, but I could tell that it was meant for 3D. If it's possible, given Lyrhawn's approval, I'd recommend that as well. It was spectacular in 2D, but some of the scenes were a bit... strange? I'm not a cinematography person, so I can't describe specifically what was off about them, but there was something there.
That's not to say it should be a deal breaker by any means. Go and see it. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:the commentary of the crowd at the end. It wasn't about the sharp critique of militarism and capitalism, the parallels to the genocides of indigenous peoples, or the save the earth message. No, they talked about how awesome those "dragons" would be as mounts in World of Warcraft.
I don't get it. of course they were going to talk about the dragons. typically people talk about how awesome a movie was after watching an awesome movie. just because some guys didn't launch audibly into thoughtful social-environmental commentary right there in the theater just after having watched a wicked cool piece of blockbuster entertainment doesn't mean they didn't catch the moral lesson that Avatar punched into their faces over the course of the film, or that they don't appreciate it or think there's any value to it.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:the commentary of the crowd at the end. It wasn't about the sharp critique of militarism and capitalism, the parallels to the genocides of indigenous peoples, or the save the earth message. No, they talked about how awesome those "dragons" would be as mounts in World of Warcraft.
I don't get it. of course they were going to talk about the dragons. typically people talk about how awesome a movie was after watching an awesome movie. just because some guys didn't launch audibly into thoughtful social-environmental commentary right there in the theater just after having watched a wicked cool piece of blockbuster entertainment doesn't mean they didn't catch the moral lesson that Avatar punched into their faces over the course of the film, or that they don't appreciate it or think there's any value to it.
It was supposed to be mostly in humor. Most of my friends are big gamers and that would be a selling point for them. My other friends are big fans of 'message' movies. I guess it didn't come off correctly in text. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
haha. it is probably the <sigh>
and unfortunately for your friends, the conversion of those dragons into wow's ancient and cartoonish graphics would render them about as interesting as everyone else's protodrake.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
[ December 18, 2009, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Mr. Y (Member # 11590) on :
I saw the 2D version two days ago, on December 16th (which happens to be my birthday; it was a gift to myself). I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. It certainly didn't feel like at lasted well over two hours and that is something very rare to me. I intend to watch it again in the 3D version, but most likely I'll wait a while to do so (or just go and see a few other movies in between).
I won't comment on plotlines and the re-hashing thereof, because I don't consider myself a movie critic.
All I can say is, that it was as good as I expected after watching the trailer earlier this year.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I saw it in 3D. AMAZING. I've never seen a movie with an alien species where my consciousness of the CGI fades away- it was that seamless. I predict that just about every special effects award at the Oscars is going to go to Avatar.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think we're going to see a best 3D Movie category in the coming years. Choosing when and how to add the 3D element is an aspect of artistry I think. They didn't just throw stuff at the screen like TV shows and movies used to do, just for shock value. It was very much there just for depth, to make it seem like we were looking through a window instead of a TV screen. It wasn't too much, which it easily could have been.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I've heard it's "Dances with Smurfs" instead of Dances With Wolves. I'm really looking forward to watching it for the visual experience. A Bug's Life was revolutionary in it's time as well...for the visual experience.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Unless the Smurfs went to war with Gargamel and hunted and killed Azrael, the only similarity is that they're both blue.
Not a compelling comparison.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Unless the Navi went to war with a local villain.... An outside military man moves into the population of natives and changes sides..? Dances With Wolves is more appropriate in this scenario. He joins the benevolent green natives in opposition to the evil militant invaders in search of a new energy source.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I thoroughly recommend the 3D, in fact I'm a bit sad that some of you saw it without it.
I can't imagine many action movies will be made soon that aren't 3D, as it added so much to the experience.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I can't watch 3D movies. My left eye goes blurry and I get a headache. I also found in Bolt that I had trouble seeing the entire screen at once. I could focus on individual layers of depth, but not all of them.
Add to that all the movies that use that obnoxious shakey cam and the ones that shoot scenes in near darkness, and it's getting to where I can't see what's happening in a lot of them.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I actually have the opposite opinion many people do about 3D (there seems to be a growing "praise" for movies that do not "shove the 3d in your face" but rather use it in "subtle ways to add layers."
Until we reach the point where 3D does not require glasses that are even slightly annoying to wear (I already wear glasses which magnifies the bulk and the slight headache that I get), if I'm going to go through the trouble to wear an extra set of thick glasses for a movie, I want the 3D to be awesome and in my face. Minor "depth" is interesting from an artistic perspective but not worth a headache.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I saw it yesterday with Mrs. BB and my brother we all liked it tremendously. Unfortunately the projector had some sort of glitch that caused the screen to flicker while you were wearing the glasses. Eventually I got immersed enough in the movie that I just mentally ignored it. Fortunately, they gave me a free movie ticket for another time because of my trouble. I'm already going to see it again so I'm still excited.
Now some gripes.
*spoilers
I wish they had setup a scene where the Nav'is ability to transfer consciousness into another body permanently had been established. Something like transferring a soul into an animal's container because the person who was dying was still needed. It just seemed kinda random that when Sigourney Weaver got shot, the Navi just happened to have a way for her to perhaps escape death. It would have felt more natural if they had already established that the Navi could do what they did.
Further, that would have also made the fact they aren't spooked by aliens running around in bodies like theirs more plausible. Now granted we don't have a complete telling of their culture in the movie, but the fact they know aliens are somehow running around in bodies that look like them and haven't completely wigged out (well I mean there is the part where he is called a demon and almost gets his throat slit) is pretty astonishing.
Finally, I wish they could have explained how right as Jake is dying, his wife somehow knew to go into the container and save the one body in there. I mean granted the Navi probably know in essence that the Avatars are bodies like theirs being controlled by another body somewhere else, but there was no obvious connection between Jake and his Avatar at that scene, I mean was she told that Jake's container was right there? If so, why did it take her awhile to actually go to the container and look for him while he's dying? I mean Cameron is smart enough, to have Sigourney Weaver simply mention the machine on the end is the least glitchy, and that sets up the scene at the end over an hour later where the Colonel destroys the other and doesn't have time to destroy Jakes. I love keeping the plot air tight with things like that, and Cameron is very good at it. I feel like just a few tiny things could have been ironed out and it would have felt that much better. Then again, maybe it was just the flickering that was making me grumpy.
Quick kudos, THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for having the bad guy play the video back where the protagonist hasn't completely converted, but that not leading to all his human friends abandoning him. I'm sick of that plot device.
/spoilers
Last little gripe, Sam Worthington's Australian accent poked out a few times, especially when he was making his video blogs. Cameron is famous for doing a zillion takes to get perfection, I think he could have had Sam say his voice overs just a few more times to iron out those words.
Fantastic movie though, I wouldn't say it was the best movie EVAR, but I will say the boundaries of what is possible to show on film have been pushed even further. My respect for Mr. Cameron remains intact and indeed expanded. I'm going to see it again just because there was so much to see, I'm sure I'll notice other things the second time around.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I enjoyed the film, but that enjoyment was tempered by its extreme predictability. I just watched it 24m ago, and thinking back, I can't recall a single time I was surprised.
Now, I've most likely ingested lots more science-fiction and historical fiction stories, as well as actual science (by a slight margin) and actual history (by a less slight margin) than the 'average moviegoer' (whatever that means), so it takes a pretty good surprise to get me in a movie. But this film didn't have any, which for such a highly anticipated James Cameron film that was 160m long was a disappointment.
It was a cautionary tale, but that's about all it was. The characters were almost caricatures. You've got warmongering xenophobic mercenary colonel guy, you've got money-grubbing 'it's not my fault' corporate guy, you've got passionate, concerned scientist lady, and you've got thoughtful yet decisive, powerful conflicted hero guy. And you've got peaceful, innocent, but fearsome-when-roused good guys on one side, and unlikeable, imperialistic, warmongering guilty bad guys on the other.
Maybe it's just rooting for my guys, but I would've liked some explanation of why we (the human beings) were so bad. It was hinted at in the film, and I read between the lines - it was a corporate mission, and thus not representative of humanity as a whole, and with money as the total bottom line and, in fact, the only line. And then in the end of the film we're told that Earth is 'dying', explaining the desperation that fueled this mission. But in the film all that was said was 'this rock is really valuable', and the economy is bad back on Earth.
Why exactly was some corporation put in charge of interacting with another race of people for all of humanity? How was it that virtually all of the human population on the ground were willing, even eager war criminals? Why couldn't this corporation set down and built a base next to another, less valuable mineral site but easier to get at? You drill for oil in Texas before you go looking in friggin' Siberia, after all, and they've got an entire planet to dig.
I can imagine the answers to some of these questions, and the answer to the others is implicit (especially the one about nearly everyone being a war criminal-the corporation presumably selected for employees that would be unlikely to worry about that), but still, for a 160m film, they could've done a better job. Instead they chose to spend lots and lots of time on visual effects, which admittedly were spectacular.
For me, I'd peg the film at 6/10, maybe 7/10.
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Further, that would have also made the fact they aren't spooked by aliens running around in bodies like theirs more plausible. Now granted we don't have a complete telling of their culture in the movie, but the fact they know aliens are somehow running around in bodies that look like them and haven't completely wigged out (well I mean there is the part where he is called a demon and almost gets his throat slit) is pretty astonishing.
You have to keep in mind the Avatar program was running for quite a while. It doesn't say how long, but it does mention Grace's (Sigourney Weaver's) school and shows pictures. Those were from before Jake landed on Pandora. And since it seems all/most of the "high ranking" Na'vi have been taught English, it can be assumed that they were taught other things as well.
Anyway, my point is that by the time Jake Sully landed in their laps the whole Avatar concept was not new to them. There might have been some kind of 'WTF?!" when the first Avatars started showing up, but that wasn't the focus of the movie.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Unless the Smurfs went to war with Gargamel and hunted and killed Azrael, the only similarity is that they're both blue.
Not a compelling comparison.
I think the comparsion (to Dances with Wolves) is apt, actually. I saw this posted somewhere (spoilers, of course):
quote:[John Smith/Kevin Costner/Tom Cruise/Jake Sully] arrives with greedy imperialist [European/American/Earth] forces to exploit the natural resources and fight off the oh-so-savage [Native Americans/samurai/aliens]. But what's this! Our hero, [John Smith/Kevin Costner/Tom Cruise/Jake Sully] falls in with the [Native Americans/samurai/aliens] and discovers that the [Native Americans/aliens] aren't savage at all, but are a wise civilisation living in harmony with the natural world that the greedy imperialist [Europeans/Americans/Earthlings] are there to pillage. He learns to [paint with all the colours of the wind/dance with wolves/be the baddest samurai of them all/ride pterodactyls] and commune with nature. Also, he bangs the chief's daughter. Having seen the error of his greedy imperialist [European/American/Earth] ways, he switches allegiances - and because he is now better at being a [Native American/samurai/alien] than the [Native Americans/samurai/aliens] themselves, they make him their leader, so he can help them fight off the greedy imperialist [European/American/Earth] forces and preserve their simpler, more harmonious way of life.
Fantastic visuals. My mind was blown. But as Rakeesh said, old old old plot, and it was recognizable from the trailers. I kept thinking that if we can make alien avatars we could possibly make human ones, and hoped that might come up at some point, just for a change in pace.
quote:It was a cautionary tale, but that's about all it was. The characters were almost caricatures. You've got warmongering xenophobic mercenary colonel guy, you've got money-grubbing 'it's not my fault' corporate guy, you've got passionate, concerned scientist lady, and you've got thoughtful yet decisive, powerful conflicted hero guy. And you've got peaceful, innocent, but fearsome-when-roused good guys on one side, and unlikeable, imperialistic, warmongering guilty bad guys on the other.
This bugged me, too. The general (did he have a name? Did he need one?) made some really inexplicably bad decisions over the course of the film.
*
So, does anyone else think James Cameron was deliberately going for 9/11 imagery when the tree came down?
--j_k
[ December 21, 2009, 01:54 AM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
James Tiberius Kirk: Just a nitpick. *spoilers*
Tom Cruise does not bang the chiefs daughter, it's the chief's sister, who was married to the man Cruise kills. Further he isn't a better samurai than the others, he achieves a tie with their arguably best swordsman. And in the final battle he doesn't lead the troops into battle, he shares some strategies that the head samurai decides he likes.
Lastly, Cruise is portrayed from the very beginning as somebody who deplores his own country, and is very sympathetic to other races.
In Dances With Wolves, it isn't the chief's daughter, it's the holy man's (another person is the chief's) adopted daughter.
In Dances With Wolves and The Last Samurai, they end up losing to imperialism. In Dances With Wolves Costner is able to flee with his wife, and in Samurai, Cruise simply survives to see the end of a way of life.
I think Pocahontas is by far the best comparison to Avatar.
/spoilers
But other than that, I agree the comparisons are still a useful ones. It's a general story that has been told many times.
As for 9/11 imagery, probably, but with the added message that *spoilers The Navi tree took alot more abuse before falling down then both our towers combined. /spoilers.
Just a nitpick indeed!
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
A friend of mine made a great observation last night after we saw the movie. He said, "It's basically fern Gully on an alien planet"
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Yeah, I'd been hearing that one as well and think it's by far the most direct comparison. (I actually kinda liked "Dances with Smurfs" though).
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I thumbed through it and I dont really feel like reading all of it, seeing as it is a bit childish to label something rascist because you can (much like the sexism in Whedonverse discussions a while back) if someone who is not white is not the leader or is being reprimanded its rascist. If someone who is not white is the leader, its still rascist due to white guilt and white people are only allowing things to seem like the non white person earned the position. How about this, the movie was about the natural human compulsion to elplore, dominate, wipe clean and then abuse until further notice. The urge to control others for your own profit is far from a "whites only" trait.
Also, completely unnecessary attack on Will Smith at the end.
And now about the movie, I had never seen something in REAL3D before and Im hooked. The first helicopter landing in the forest is particularly stuck in my mind, and after a while I realized that I had stopped noticing the 3D effect in lieu of enjoying the movie and it overall visual experience. The biology was interesting especially as it could be thought out rationally, it makes me think about the marsupials of Australia with all these differant animals evolving from one central creature keeping a physical trait unique to that land mass.
If you intend on seeing it, I implore you to see it in 3D, or else your not watching the movie as it was intended.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I thumbed through it and I dont really feel like reading all of it, seeing as it is a bit childish to label something rascist because you can (much like the sexism in Whedonverse discussions a while back) if someone who is not white is not the leader or is being reprimanded its rascist. If someone who is not white is the leader, its still rascist due to white guilt and white people are only allowing things to seem like the non white person earned the position.
I didn't particularly like its preachy tone either, but I think you should read the whole article.
[edit] Also:
quote:If you intend on seeing it, I implore you to see it in 3D, or else your not watching the movie as it was intended.
agreed. We saw it in IMAX 3D. Technology made this movie.
--j_k
[ December 21, 2009, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I liked Avatar. It wasn't great, but it was a worthwhile experience.
I also think the article is surprisingly good.
quote:These are movies about white guilt. Our main white characters realize that they are complicit in a system which is destroying aliens, AKA people of color - their cultures, their habitats, and their populations. The whites realize this when they begin to assimilate into the "alien" cultures and see things from a new perspective. To purge their overwhelming sense of guilt, they switch sides, become "race traitors," and fight against their old comrades. But then they go beyond assimilation and become leaders of the people they once oppressed. This is the essence of the white guilt fantasy, laid bare. It's not just a wish to be absolved of the crimes whites have committed against people of color; it's not just a wish to join the side of moral justice in battle. It's a wish to lead people of color from the inside rather than from the (oppressive, white) outside...When whites fantasize about becoming other races, it's only fun if they can blithely ignore the fundamental experience of being an oppressed racial group. Which is that you are oppressed, and nobody will let you be a leader of anything.
I wonder if the opposite of these kinds of movies are the ones like "V"
I also wonder where Farscape fits in.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Yeah, I especially liked that passage too. It kinda explains a bit including why I've never quite understood the appeal of that basic story arc in any of the four incarnations that was posted by JTK
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
One thing about the article, though, is that I don't remember in Dances with Wolves that the white guy whose name I can't remember actually becomes the leader of the tribe-he does, however, become the guy in charge of advising on how to deal with whites. In that story, at least, the white guy becomes an actual member of the alien society.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I thumbed through it and I dont really feel like reading all of it, seeing as it is a bit childish to label something rascist because you can (much like the sexism in Whedonverse discussions a while back) if someone who is not white is not the leader or is being reprimanded its rascist. If someone who is not white is the leader, its still rascist due to white guilt and white people are only allowing things to seem like the non white person earned the position. How about this, the movie was about the natural human compulsion to elplore, dominate, wipe clean and then abuse until further notice. The urge to control others for your own profit is far from a "whites only" trait.
Also, completely unnecessary attack on Will Smith at the end.
I have no idea what you mean by "attack on Will Smith." It's a simple acknowledgement that Will Smith is one of a small number of black actors who get to regularly star in mainstream "white" movies (that is, movies that do not predominantly star non-white actors and do not make any particular deal about race one way or another). It was actually noted somewhere else on the internet that simply casting Smith as the main character would have alleviated any particular racial emphasis the of the movie and probably made it more money to boot.
I also don't think the article's point was that Avatar was "racist" per se. I mean, it is, but on a different level than "white people are better than black/tan or blue alien people." I think the description of the "white guilt fantasy" is pretty accurate (if it isn't, do you have an alternate explanation for the prevalence of the particular set of tropes the article ascribes it to?). I don't think it's unreasonable for white people to like to imagine they'd act differently in a time of racial oppression (even if the fact is they probably wouldn't).
But plenty of these movies have already been made. And throughout Hollywood, the tendency to cast white actors in lead roles is undeniable. I read an article that talked about an actual argument that took place over the casting of Will Smith as the lead in Hitch. Theretofore, it had been assumed by Hollywood that people wouldn't go to see a romantic comedy with a black lead.
Historically, Hollywood has been afraid to rock the boat about a number of things because rocking the boat means risk and risk means potentially losing millions of dollars. But they seem to particularly underestimate social change (there was a similarly huge argument of the Uhura/Kirk kiss, yet the response was overwhelmingly positive).
I think that simply casting a wider variety of demographics in lead roles, without making race or gender a big deal in those movies, would be a big improvement. If you don't think that sort of thing matters, you haven't been paying attention. Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I have already stated my opinion that the inspiration for the movie was from human nature that has been prevalent in written history from the very beggining. You can call anything and anyone racist, and whats more when the supposed rascist party goes out of thier way to include minorities and cast them in a better light they are either coddling the minorities or a sample of white guilt. So even if you cast the likes of Will Smith, Denzel Washington, Lou Diamond Phillips, Jackie Chan, Antonio Banderas, Donald Faison and Penelope Cruz your still a racist because they are all "white friendly." So how does a movie be considered as not racist? how about an all black cast, with alot of jokes refering to black culture, and any character who is not black is childishly simple and easily frustated by everyone to his/her own dismay. Guess what, I just described Soul Plane, so if your not racist go buy the movie right now and watch it. Now I guess movies like Hustle & Flow, and Black Snake Moan are incredibly bigoted toward black culture and certainly towards the American southern culture, seeing as they were both written directed and produced by Craig Brewer, he is white. Make no mistake just because he makes stories about his home region and fills his cast with black actors, in negative and positive personas, no matter what he is a white man making movies about something he knows nothing about, he must be overcome with white guilt.
The specific reason that I was chafed by the Will Smith "referance" is that calling him "white friendly" is ignoring his long and successful career. Through movies and music he has found a very large fan-base and proved himself to be very charismatic, he is a performing artist no matter what his skin color is. To say that he gets a role because white people arent afraid of him is to insult all the work he has done to build his career.
Edited the typos.
[ December 21, 2009, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: AchillesHeel ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Dude racist, not rascist.
Also Jackie Chan is a poor example for your list since he was quite vocal about disliking Hollywood for this kind of thing in his autobiography and subsequent comments like this:
quote:"It's all the same, cop from Hong Kong, cop from China. Jet Li, Chow-Yun Fat and I all face the same problem, our roles are limited," said Chan, 50, referring to other Chinese action stars who have sought roles in Hollywood movies.
"Yes, I get treated like a king over there but I'm not happy. I get frustrated when I see them doing things the wrong way but I can't say anything," he told The Straits Times in Friday's editions.
quote:I have already stated my opinion that the inspiration for the movie was from human nature that has been prevalent in written history from the very beggining. You can call anything and anyone rascist, and whats more when the supposed rascist party goes out of thier way to include minorities and cast them in a better light they are either coddling the minorities or a sample of white guilt. So even if you cast the likes of Will Smith, Denzel Washington, Lou Diamond Phillips, Jackie Chan, Antonio Banderas, Donald Faison and Penelope Cruz your still a rascist because they are all "white friendly."
..
The specific reason that I was chafed by the Will Smith "referance" is that calling him "white friendly" is ignoring his long and successful career. Through movies and music he has found a very large fan-base and proved himself to be very charismatic, he is a performing artist no matter what his skin color is. To say that he gets a role because white people arent afraid of him is to insult all the work he has done to build his career.
Achilles, I think you're inferring a lot from the text that isn't actually there. I actually went back to check -- the writer never claimed that Smith has been successful simply because he's "white friendly." She just pointed out that minorities tend not to get starring roles because it's easier for audience members to project themselves on to characters who are white -- and he's an exception to that rule. The reasons for this are an entirely different discussion altogether.
The author of one of the subquoted articles stated that Avatar is "totally racist," but no one here has made that claim.
In any case: the reason I don't like articles like the one RA linked that say "white people should/shouldn't do this," is that they tend to inspire exactly the sort of "collective racial guilt" they condemn.
--j_k
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It was indeed what you'd get if you crossed Fern Gully with Aliens and some truly astonishing film-making technology.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Frankly, I'm not worried one way or another about whether white people are suffering from collective guilt, because things are still so lopsided in our favor that A) it's not like it's causing us any actual problems (at least, not for me or anyone I know), B) there's still so much work to do in evening out the playing field that if it takes some collective guilt to motivate it, I'm not worried.
The point of the article in my mind is not that the movie encourages white collective guilt which is bad, but that it does so in a completely hypocritical way, trying to have its cake, eat it too, and ignore the CURRENT problems racial problems facing the world (one of them being a gross overrepresentation of white people among hollywood protagonists). White guilt over something that already happened and can't be undone isn't terribly useful, whereas guilt (in general) over media representation, as well as the power of corporations and raping of the environment can be channeled into current, meaningful action.
Which brings up point C) A lot of people (in various forums/comment sections, and I'm not quite clear whether Achille is among them... I wasn't sure how to interpret the comment) have been retorting "it's not about racism, it's about the environment/corporate greed/human nature/etc."
Yes. It is. Movies can be about more than one thing. And the "racist" elements are almost certainly not something Cameron consciously intended - they are merely a byproduct of widespread Hollywood policies and (probably) some ignorance on Cameron's part.
[ December 21, 2009, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: One thing about the article, though, is that I don't remember in Dances with Wolves that the white guy whose name I can't remember actually becomes the leader of the tribe-he does, however, become the guy in charge of advising on how to deal with whites. In that story, at least, the white guy becomes an actual member of the alien society.
That's not even necessarily true. Costner gives the Indians guns so they can defend themselves against another Indian tribe that is on the way. He gets captured by soldiers when he runs back to his post to retrieve his journal. He is saved by men from the tribe when he is being moved. He then decides that it will be worse for the tribe as a whole if he remains and so he leaves with his wife forever. He doesn't actually lead any battles between whites and Indians, doesn't advise them either.
If there is one theme that runs through most of Cameron's movies it's the concept of the military industrial complex co-opting legitimate scientific research and destroying everything that make us human including our lives. The only more encompassing theme I can think of is, "Science is a miracle but if we are prideful enough to believe we can control it, we will destroy ourselves."
Spoilers,
Terminator 1/2: military weaponizes AI and we get the Terminators.
The Abyss: military takes over an underwater laboratory and uses their tools to launch a nuclear weapon targeting the aliens/soviets.
Aliens: Weaponizing the aliens themselves.
The theme is about as prevalent as the dysfunctional father figure in Spielberg movies.
----
edit: I don't agree that the true form of racial guilt in these Whites manifests itself as a need to not just become one with the oppressed race but to lead them.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm open to alternate explanations, but there has to be SOME reason that these movies keep getting made. I actually can't think of that many of the top of my head where the white guy becomes a leader (which I consider a good thing, since that was the only real objectionable part IMO) but it's still a pretty clear archetype that must have some basis.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
SPOILER
To stray from the race issue, was anyone else pissed when Michelle Rodriguez died? she had to be my favorite (if minor and largely unrepresented) character, they could have atleast given us a better look at her Na'vi adorned chopper.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I'm open to alternate explanations, but there has to be SOME reason that these movies keep getting made. I actually can't think of that many of the top of my head where the white guy becomes a leader (which I consider a good thing, since that was the only real objectionable part IMO) but it's still a pretty clear archetype that must have some basis.
But we don't have enough case studies. I think Dances with Wolves doesn't actually work as the White guy does *not* become a leader. He even marries another white woman. He leaves the people.
Tom Cruise does *not* become the leader of the Samurai, he becomes absolutely loyal to the leader of the Samurai rebellion and rides into battle with him. You could perhaps argue that with all the samurai dead and only Cruise alive to return to the village that perhaps he becomes a leader. He stays with the people.
In Pocahantas John Smith doesn't become the leader of the "savages" either. He simply jumps in front of a gun that was firing at the leader. He leaves the people so that he can get medical attention.
In Fern Gully, Zak helps fight Hexxus, but he isn't the one who leads the troops or defeats the bad guy. He is returned to his normal size at the end and says goodbye to Crysta. He leaves the people.
In Avatar Jake permanently becomes one of the Navi, and likely the next chief. He stays with the people.
There just isn't enough consistency in the plot elements for me to say, "There's too many movies like this..." I feel like these critics are you using "lazy memory" where they vaguely recall those movies and think, "Wasn't the white guy always the leader in those movies? I remember Kevin Costner fighting white people, Tom Cruise riding into battle, and I see Sam Worthington leading the troops so yes yes they are all the same."
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Oh God, I just realized how screwed up the history of Newton Knight and his rebellion against the confederacy during the Civil War is gonne be once Hollywood finds out. I wonder if anyone would claim that a movie about the infamous freedom fighter would be considered "white guilt" seeing as his second marriage was to the slave and mother of his cousins children. I hope the entertainment industry never ruins that bit of history too.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I didn't spell this out well enough, but I mentioned that I realized most times the guy in question doesn't necessarily become a leader. Which does help to eliminate the "white guy fantasy about become leader of natives" element, but I don't think it eliminates the "white guy fantasizes about having done the right thing in times of extreme racial tension," which is the part that stems more from the White Guilt thing.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
It does seem interesting to me if you cross-compare film tropes between cultures. What you would think is the equivalent trope ("Chinese guy fantasizes about having done the right thing in times of extreme racial tension") is almost completely missing from Hong Kong cinema.
The closest parallel that comes to my mind is "Rich/powerful/arrogant guy becomes poor/powerless/humble in order to achieve enlightenment/humility and fights back to his original place."
So the article does help explain the appeal of the trope for me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Cameron wrote this stuff something like 14 years ago. Given the half-life of originality in what we can effectively market to movie audiences, I'm surprised it wasn't even more reliant on war-worn tropes than it was.
Posted by BFD (Member # 12243) on :
Avatar rips off Speaker for the Dead.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
SPOILERY STUFF
I was relieved that they did not show them entwining tentacles as part of their mating; I was sure that was where that was heading and it would've been an eyeroller for me.
The visual effects were stunning and that was enough for me. I saw it in 3D and will probably return to see the IMAX version. I don't necessarily mind a predictable plot (I enjoy lots of romantic comedies, for example), but I did get a bit bored and irritated with the same old PC message being rammed down my throat. Primitive cultures are pure, wise and noble and the developed world (especially the Americans) are epitomized by the brutish Colonel. Yadda yadda.
I have to admit that I was fidgeting in my seat and well aware of the length of it by the end, but part of that has to do with the fact that I'm always bored by the combat scenes. I absolutely loved the pterodactyl flying scenes. That's the main reason I want to go see it in IMAX. And I thought the actors did a good job.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:These are movies about white guilt.
If you look only at well-known American blockbuster movies, its easy to make this argument sound reasonable because most well-known American blockbuster movies are made by white people. However, a quick look at stories from other cultures or times makes it rather obvious that this plotline is common across many different cultures, and is thus not unique to people feeling "white guilt".
One could even look at the Bible: Moses was brought up in royal Egyptian culture, but when he is cast out, he ends up becoming leader of the Hebrew people and leads them to freedom against the much more powerful Egyptians he once called his family. This story, true or false, was considered powerful long long before any "white guilt" ever existed - and yet it follows essentially the same course that the author of this article is speaking of.
So, I'd think we'd have to conclude the "hero leaves dominant culture to join minority culture and ends up leading the fight against the dominant culture" plot stems from something a lot more fundamental and universal than simply "white guilt".
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I'm open to alternate explanations, but there has to be SOME reason that these movies keep getting made. I actually can't think of that many of the top of my head where the white guy becomes a leader (which I consider a good thing, since that was the only real objectionable part IMO) but it's still a pretty clear archetype that must have some basis.
Simple- this is a trope older than films, radio, or books. As much as Hollywood can and does cynically exploit the literary device, it continues to be used because it is highly appealing to audiences, readers, etc.
Basically I think it is appealing to writers because it enables them to explore an "alien" way of life through the eyes of someone the audience can relate to. The work is ostensibly about glorifying a native (read: "real" or "authentic") culture and deriding the social alienation of the dominant culture which has lost touch with the natural world. Even better if the hero has been himself damaged in some way specifically by modern society, and can only be healed by the more naturalistic lifestyle of the native culture.
The damaged hero going native is almost universal:
Tom Cruise in The Last Samurai is an alcoholic, and stops drinking as he explores Bushido.
Kevin Costner in Dances with Wolves nearly loses a leg in the civil war, and comes away from the experience traumatized, and seeking solitude from the insanity of the war, only to find his place in a native culture.
The main character in Avatar is paralyzed on duty in the marines.
Add to this that eventually the vanity or ethnocentrism of the audience is eventually served by the representative hero teaching the natives something of value, and leading them against their oppressors, establishing that should he so choose, a person of the dominant culture is worthy of understanding and being master of any other culture as well. Generally transgressors in the other direction, people of the native culture who serve the dominant culture, are villains and cowards with pretensions of sophistication. Cultural transgression is only rewarded when a member of the dominant class humbles himself to learn from the natives, yet retains his natural superiority.
Ultimately I think the various expressions of this trope in modern times, perhaps dating back to Robinson Crusoe and its ilk, are morality tales about protestant work ethic. The hero's duty is to learn from the natives and use their tools to save them, but to remain himself morally superior, and the only truly complex and dynamic character in the story.
So it's not really racism, I think, it's just a road to a story that appeals to a large audience.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think Tresopax's point about Moses is interesting. If people can find a few more older (pre-European dominance) examples I may change my position.
Orincono's post mostly confuses me though - almost everything he says supports my original statement. Saying "The damaged hero going native is almost universal" and then citing three movies made by white Americans within the past 15 years isn't very compelling, especially when all three movies were already discussed at length here.
And then there's:
quote:Add to this that eventually the vanity or ethnocentrism of the audience is eventually served by the representative hero teaching the natives something of value, and leading them against their oppressors, establishing that should he so choose, a person of the dominant culture is worthy of understanding and being master of any other culture as well. Generally transgressors in the other direction, people of the native culture who serve the dominant culture, are villains and cowards with pretensions of sophistication. Cultural transgression is only rewarded when a member of the dominant class humbles himself to learn from the natives, yet retains his natural superiority.
Ultimately I think the various expressions of this trope in modern times, perhaps dating back to Robinson Crusoe and its ilk, are morality tales about protestant work ethic. The hero's duty is to learn from the natives and use their tools to save them, but to remain himself morally superior, and the only truly complex and dynamic character in the story.
immediately followed by:
quote:So it's not really racism, I think, it's just a road to a story that appeals to a large audience.
Bwuh? You just went into detail about how the main character, who is from the dominant culture, is clearly depicted as more fully developed and is appealing the ethnocentrism of the (presumably) primary audience. That's pretty much by definition racist.
If 90% of my audience is white and I make a bunch of movies where white people are heroes and black people are villains because I know that will sell, that is racism. Not hiring black waiters because you're afraid it'll drive away your primarily white clients, that's racism. You can hide behind market forces and business sense but that fact is, by doing so, you are encouraging a broken system and dealing continuous damage to the minority group and the only way it'll stop is if the people making the economic decisions stop doing it.
Now, telling a story about foreign people through the eyes of a character of the dominant culture of your target audience... that's a literary technique, designed to introduce a society bit by bit so the reader has time to absorb it without throwing it all at them at once. By itself that technique is not racist. And Avatar is the only movie I can actually think of where the white guy literally becomes the savior (Maybe El Dorado? Except in that one the main characters literally end up with nothing and the El Dorado-ians don't have a very "noble-savage" vibe at all).
So I'm not concerned that this type of movie is particularly bad (although in the case of Avatar it was very simplistic, mediocre storytelling). But I do think white guilt plays into their prominence in the past few decades. I don't think the Moses story quite counts, because Moses actually WAS Hebrew, and the part of the story where he's Egyptian is less than a page long.
Mucus pointed out that in China, the equivalent trope is "rich guy because poor and is humbled before eventually getting back his wealth." I'm curious if anyone else can think of non-European examples. My suspicion is there are elements of the trope that ARE universal (in particular the basic gist of "arrogant guy being humbled and then becoming a good person"), but the specific motif of "dominant culture raping a native culture and natural world for resources, until one guy realizes they're wrong" is something that emerged after the rise of Europe as a world power.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
(Technically, Hong Kong cinema. I'm much much less familiar with mainland cinema, though I suspect that relatively the difference would still be more or less true.)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Bwuh? You just went into detail about how the main character, who is from the dominant culture, is clearly depicted as more fully developed and is appealing the ethnocentrism of the (presumably) primary audience. That's pretty much by definition racist.
If 90% of my audience is white and I make a bunch of movies where white people are heroes and black people are villains because I know that will sell, that is racism.
Well, we're just using two different definitions of racism. If your definition of racism is the act of catering to ethnocentrism, then yes, it's racist. But to define my own terms, racism is the belief that racial characteristics in human populations go beyond superficial variations, and that races are therefore definitively useful in characterizing individuals in relation to each other, based on that concept of race.
So, for instance, I don't find the gratuitous use of the "N-word" to be racist in and of itself, because I think the term "racist" has been misappropriated to be more closely synonymous with "non-PC." Ostensibly PC language is meant to reflect non-racist attitudes, but in actual fact PC language can and is as easily used to advocate deeply racist ideas as non-PC language.
So, I don't think these particular movies advocate the actual racial superiority of white people, but I believe they are ethnocentric in the cultural sense. Basically, that the cultures of white European descended westerners are inherently superior, and that these cultures are represented through race as more a matter of convenience and common practice. White = Western European = Cultural Apex. Does that explain what I was trying to say? I should have been clearer in my terms.
Thinking of it now, I think it's entirely possible that I'm wrong, and that this *is* in fact based in good old fashioned racism, but I think overall, and in the longer run, cultural superiority is the message that is appealing to audiences, rather than racial supremacy. Just ask one or two of our resident conservatives what they think about hispanics or blacks, and they will (and have) talked about all the black and hispanic people they know and like who conform as closely as possible to the dominant culture, and are "whitewashed" for lack of a better term. To them, it is a condemnation of ethnic minorities that racial or cultural transgression (being "white washed") is a source of animosity among minority groups. Rejection of the mainstream culture is seen as a defect, and incomplete transgression, such as with racially mixed people or foreigners of more recent extraction embracing American culture, is seen as affectation, and a sign of low self image and feelings of inferiority or weakness, or a lack of real identity. I think *most* of that is about culture, and race is the visible supertext for it.
quote: And Avatar is the only movie I can actually think of where the white guy literally becomes the savior (Maybe El Dorado? Except in that one the main characters literally end up with nothing and the El Dorado-ians don't have a very "noble-savage" vibe at all).
The Passion of the Christ (a little different)
Medicine Man (closer)
The Last Samurai (bingo)
Pocahontas (ohhhh man)
Many episodes of McGuyver, Quantum Leap, and Star Trek,
Dances With Wolves (purdy much)
Gran Torino (complete with self-sacrifice)
And let's not even mention Speaker for the Dead (not a movie, but a clear example of the device)
Just a few off the top of my head, all with varying degrees of the trope, granted. The fantasy of inhabiting a native culture for a short while, and then quickly rising to lead that culture beyond its former potential is stock standard in Hollywood, and for that matter outside of Hollywood as well. It's appealing to the mainstream for obvious reasons. As you can see from the list, the formula can be worked from all sorts of angles.
[ December 31, 2009, 05:24 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Spoilers of course. * * * * * * * *
Saw it. Really liked it, despite the 3D headache.
I was expecting the story, no real surprises there. I actually found a lot more depth to Sigourney Weaver's character than I expected at first sight.
They set her up as the botanist who cares more about plants than people, so to see her genuine affection for the kids in her school and her respect for the Nav'i people was refreshing. She also was a scientist with some brains in areas beyond her own expertise. She was smart enough to have a backup site for her research further away from the corporate control.
Also, thank you Cameron for NOT having the marine completely fluent in Nav'i in three months. Yes, he could communicate, but when he needed to really get something across he used a translator. (I know that was more about letting the audience hear his stirring speech in English first, but I still was happy.)
All in all, it was better than I expected. Yes, it was chock full o' tropes, but few movies aren't these days. It was still deliriously gorgeous to watch, and had a few other redeeming factors that made it worth the money to see in the theater.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Bwuh? You just went into detail about how the main character, who is from the dominant culture, is clearly depicted as more fully developed and is appealing the ethnocentrism of the (presumably) primary audience. That's pretty much by definition racist.
If 90% of my audience is white and I make a bunch of movies where white people are heroes and black people are villains because I know that will sell, that is racism.
Well, we're just using two different definitions of racism. If your definition of racism is the act of catering to ethnocentrism, then yes, it's racist. But to define my own terms, racism is the belief that racial characteristics in human populations go beyond superficial variations, and that races are therefore definitively useful in characterizing individuals in relation to each other, based on that concept of race.
So, for instance, I don't find the gratuitous use of the "N-word" to be racist in and of itself, because I think the term "racist" has been misappropriated to be more closely synonymous with "non-PC." Ostensibly PC language is meant to reflect non-racist attitudes, but in actual fact PC language can and is as easily used to advocate deeply racist ideas as non-PC language.
So, I don't think these particular movies advocate the actual racial superiority of white people, but I believe they are ethnocentric in the cultural sense. Basically, that the cultures of white European descended westerners are inherently superior, and that these cultures are represented through race as more a matter of convenience and common practice. White = Western European = Cultural Apex. Does that explain what I was trying to say? I should have been clearer in my terms.
Thinking of it now, I think it's entirely possible that I'm wrong, and that this *is* in fact based in good old fashioned racism, but I think overall, and in the longer run, cultural superiority is the message that is appealing to audiences, rather than racial supremacy. Just ask one or two of our resident conservatives what they think about hispanics or blacks, and they will (and have) talked about all the black and hispanic people they know and like who conform as closely as possible to the dominant culture, and are "whitewashed" for lack of a better term. To them, it is a condemnation of ethnic minorities that racial or cultural transgression (being "white washed") is a source of animosity among minority groups. Rejection of the mainstream culture is seen as a defect, and incomplete transgression, such as with racially mixed people or foreigners of more recent extraction embracing American culture, is seen as affectation, and a sign of low self image and feelings of inferiority or weakness, or a lack of real identity.
I think you can legitimately describe ethnocentrism and racism and catering to either for economic benefit as different things, but they ultimately amount to the same thing. Our culture has made it dangerous to be "obviously" racist in the traditional sense, but that leaves us with a situation where nobody wants to be seen as even remotely racist so when you try to address problems that perfectly well intentioned white people are causing, they get all defensive and try to make the discussion about how it's not their fault or it's not technically racism instead of how to actually fix the problem.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by BFD: Avatar rips off Speaker for the Dead.
I don't really think so. Superficially, a human outsider arrives on a planet with violent, sentient beings and proceeds to understand the aliens better than the humans who were professionals in the field ever did. The outsider then takes the aliens side more thoroughly in the inevitable conflict.
The principle difference between the two works is that Card's aliens have a culture that is alien to us because of biological differences and fear of contamination prevented the Xenologers from asking the piggies how is babby fromed?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think it's nearly even that close. The Pequeninos were waiting for Ender to come. When he got there, they were willing to tell him things that they'd tell no other person, and he did understand them in a way that no one else did.
On Pandora, the Na'vi only allowed the human into their midst on a lark. They weren't waiting for a human to bridge the gap, but there is a slight similarity in that he saw things that one else did. I really think that trying to make the connection is reaching pretty far out there for a similarity that doesn't readily exist.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I was thinking more along the lines of "OMG giant talking trees that are somehow connected to non-tree-creatures!"
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I seriously doubt that Speaker for the Dead was the first book to do that. And while cool, it's not a particularly creative idea either.
I liked the movie, but didn't love it. The acting was average and D9 had more convincing cg to me. It says something when you only remember one character's name at the end, though I thought the scientist's actress did a really good job and had the best performance of the movie with the badguy coming in second.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
Hey, I can remember their names!
There was Jake Sully... And um...
Corporal Whatshisbucket Dr. Somethingorother And... Max the lab guy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I prefer:
Col. Warmonger Dr. Concerned Scientist & Technician Jealous Nerd
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*blink* "The scientist's actress?" Man. When kids today can't recognize Sigourney Weaver, that's when I feel old.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
No kidding.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Kids not recognizing Sigourney Weaver makes me think kids these days wouldn't know a good movie if Aliens dropped through the ceiling on `em. Though I suppose that's old-guy code for 'makes me feel old', heh.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Hey, I recognized Sigourney Weaver and I'm of the age generally recognized as "kids today". In fact, I was glad to see her, because I thought she gave some weight to the plot. If her character had been played by Just Another Good-Looking Actress, instead of a really excellent sensible-looking actress I think the movie would have been much sillier.
You can tell who is a good actor, because they make the trite re-trodden lines work.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I knew that she was the actress who played Ellen Ripley, but I didnt know her name.
So get off of me, old man.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The important thing is that you recognize the other super-awesome movies she's been in-such as ones where she played Ellen Ripley.
You're alright, kid. I mean, punk.
Posted by LargeTuna (Member # 10512) on :
I saw it in 3D and liked it a lot! I also thought it was one of the most predicatble movies I've ever seen. But is was still an amazing worthwhile experience anyway.
SPOILERS: . . . . Like as soon as they mentioned that someon had previousley rode the big dragon thing it was obvious Jake would at some point. And when they showed Grace being carried to the tree it was obvius Jake would be transformed in the tree as the last scene in the movie. As soon as Jake's girlfriend got flattened under the animal, it was clear at the last second she would escape and fire the bow at the angry bad guy. But I pretty much thought she would do that as soon as she got her father's bow. It didn't spoil my experience at all, but a little less forshadowing for each major even would be nice. i feel like there was even more moments i'm just not remembering this minute.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I assumed from the second I saw the preview that at some point Jake would permanently get into the Na'vi body, I just wasn't sure how.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I recognizer her as Susan Weaver Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
I didn't recognize her, but I thought she was great in the movie so I looked her up. She has an awesome name, too.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Wow, I thought I was young. But then it would be easy not to be familiar with her since she hasn't appeared in a big budget movie in around ten years. It's fairly impressive for her to even have household name recognition at her age, as most 60 year old female actresses do not. This part would never have gone to a woman of that age had it not been specifically for her working relationship with Cameron- which is really too bad, because far too many female parts go to women who either look too young, or are too inexperienced to play them. You'd think from watching most movies that there's no such thing as a healthy vibrant middle aged woman.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
She's 60?!
She looks good for her age.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
She is indeed, in fact I think she may be 61. But dude, think about it- Alien was made 31 years ago, and it's not like she looked like a kid in that movie. She's one of those rare actors that stay in a weird ageless sweet spot for a majority of their careers- sort of like Brad Pit, who has been playing characters in their early thirties for like 20 years, and he's 46.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Avatar is going to be the most profitable movie of all time.
Posted by BryanP (Member # 7772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I was thinking more along the lines of "OMG giant talking trees that are somehow connected to non-tree-creatures!"
Also, trees used as a conduit to preserve life/transfer to another body, ala Jane in Children of the Mind.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Avatar is going to be the most profitable movie of all time.
I had the lovely pleasure to see it with Katharina, and we concluded it is a very entertaining, limbic system movie.
You gotta admit, James Cameron knows how to appeal to a large demographic. Considering the pace of Avatar's ticket sales, it will most likely at least surpass LOTR III to become the second-highest grossing movie ever. I'm not sure what I think about the two top-grossing films of all time belonging to James Cameron. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, considering that some budget projections placed the development, production and advertising costs at half a billion dollars, this movie had to make a billion dollars just to become profitable, since the studio doesn't start making a profit before the cost of the film is payed back twofold in ticket sales (theaters keep half).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm a little bit more confident. Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I thought it was excellent. I saw it twice, and loved it both times.
And I found some interesting reviews/analysis of the movie and the reception it is getting worldwide. The first is an entertaining bit of speculation. The second is a interesting analysis of the movie and our brains. The third is a political analysis coupled with a review.
quote:The Na'vi have no common morphology with the rest of the planet. Sig even comments on it in a Youtube article. Why do they exist? How is it that they speak a recognizable language, and have genes close enough to human that it's possible to MIX IN HUMAN DNA with the Na'vi? How is it that the Na'vi have built in neural interfacing equipment that can instantly domesticate the larger animals and even predators? Wouldn't evolution make such a thing impossible?
The answer is that the Na'vi aren't a natural race. Eywa made them. They're close enough to human that the humans can communicate with them and think they look cute and cuddly (Ewya may have been slightly confused here), and alien enough that they can survive in the local environment. If that wasn't enough, Eywa provided with some elevated sudo privileges, so they could take advantage of the local fauna without Eywa being directly involved.
quote:At its core, movies are about dissolution: we forget about ourselves and become one with the giant projected characters on the screen. In other words, they become our temporary avatars, so that we're inseparable from their story. (This is one of the reasons why the Avatar plot is so effective: it's really a metaphor for the act of movie-watching.*) And for a mind that's so relentlessly self-aware, I'd argue that 100 minutes of self-forgetting (as indicated by a quieting of the prefrontal cortex) is a pretty nice cognitive vacation. And Avatar, through a variety of technical mechanisms - from the astonishing special effects to the straightforward story to the use of 3-D imagery - manages to induce those "synchronized spatiotemporal patterns" to an unprecedented degree. That is what the movies are all about, and that is what Avatar delivers.
quote:As a host of critics have noted, the film offers a blatantly pro-environmental message; it portrays U.S. military contractors in a decidedly negative light; and it clearly evokes the can't-we-all-get along vibe of the 1960s counterculture. These are all messages guaranteed to alienate everyday moviegoers, so say the right-wing pundits -- and yet the film has been wholeheartedly embraced by audiences everywhere, from Mississippi to Manhattan.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Considering the quote, the last headline should be "Why DON'T Conservatives Hate...". The answer, of course, is because people are not the stupid stereotypes the writer of the article wishes they were.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Yeah, I know. He picks certain extreme conservative critics that he clearly doesn't like, but I still found the article interesting. Like this one:
quote:John Podhoretz, the Weekly Standard's film critic, called the film "blitheringly stupid; indeed, it's among the dumbest movies I've ever seen." He goes on to say: "You're going to hear a lot over the next couple of weeks about the movie's politics -- about how it's a Green epic about despoiling the environment, and an attack on the war in Iraq.... The conclusion does ask the audience to root for the defeat of American soldiers at the hands of an insurgency. So it is a deep expression of anti-Americanism -- kind of. The thing is, one would be giving Jim Cameron too much credit to take 'Avatar' -- with its ... hatred of the military and American institutions and the notion that to be human is just way uncool -- at all seriously as a political document. It's more interesting as an example of how deeply rooted these standard issue counterculture cliches in Hollywood have become by now."
The movie is very environmental/treehuggerish (I think of Fern Gully in space) and anti-corporation and anti-military. I wished that the head military man wasn't so gung-ho one-dimensional. The corporate-leader seemed to have some conflicting feelings, but didn't really act on them unless he was cornered. And it did end with the humans going back to their planet to presumably die.
Posted by Matt Schillerberg (Member # 12233) on :
I'm perplexed why people read so much into this movie.. How does this ask the audience to root for the defeat of American soldiers at the hands of an insurgency? *eye-roll*
Sometimes people just need to relax, eat popcorn and enjoy the movie.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Matt Schillerberg: I'm perplexed why people read so much into this movie.. How does this ask the audience to root for the defeat of American soldiers at the hands of an insurgency? *eye-roll*
Sometimes people just need to relax, eat popcorn and enjoy the movie.
Especially since the movie essentially states that all soldiers on Pandora are contractors working for a private corporation. While many veterans are in their ranks, they are not active duty US servicemen.
If some foreign country had super huge corporations that were doing what they do in the movie over here in the US, these commentators would say the Na'vi are taking a page from our founding father's book and banding together to evict a common enemy.
edited for grammar.
[ January 05, 2010, 11:20 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anthonie:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Avatar is going to be the most profitable movie of all time.
I had the lovely pleasure to see it with Katharina, and we concluded it is a very entertaining, limbic system movie.
You gotta admit, James Cameron knows how to appeal to a large demographic. Considering the pace of Avatar's ticket sales, it will most likely at least surpass LOTR III to become the second-highest grossing movie ever. I'm not sure what I think about the two top-grossing films of all time belonging to James Cameron.
Please note that when adjusted for inflation, Gone with the Wind is still the all-time leader. In fact, Titanic doesn't even make it in the top 5.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Does that take into account both the differences in dollar values and the differences in ticket prices? I'd think it should also take into account number of movie screens and the level of disposable income as well.
Posted by BryanP (Member # 7772) on :
quote:Originally posted by BryanP:
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I was thinking more along the lines of "OMG giant talking trees that are somehow connected to non-tree-creatures!"
Also, trees used as a conduit to preserve life/transfer to another body, ala Jane in Children of the Mind.
And this just occurred to me, but I don't believe for a second that Eywa just coincidentally sounds like aiua.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Matt Schillerberg: I'm perplexed why people read so much into this movie.. How does this ask the audience to root for the defeat of American soldiers at the hands of an insurgency? *eye-roll*
Sometimes people just need to relax, eat popcorn and enjoy the movie.
Especially since the movie essentially states that all soldiers on Pandora are contractors working for a private corporation. While many veterans are in their ranks, they are not active duty US servicemen.
If some foreign country had super huge corporations that were doing what they do in the movie over here in the US, these commentators would say the Na'vi are taking a page from our founding father's book and banding together to evict a common enemy.
edited for grammar.
Exactly. Besides, you've got examples of ex-military that go both ways (fight for both sides) by the end. Sure, one is a bit more over the top than the other, but still. (I commented to someone that if this were an anime series, some of the characters wouldn't have felt quite so exaggerated.)
What I find funny is that I saw this movie with my brother, who IS an American soldier. He's a pilot in the AF. He loved it! He certainly didn't feel like the audience was about to turn on him if he declared his profession in the middle of the theater.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)