My bro-in-law was surprised I was so taken with it, since I'm very conservation and this movie was based on liberal values. But I don't see it that way. Not to start a political argument, but I don't believe humans are responsible for global warming or that anything we do will change that. I'm not here to debate this. So let's try to stay away from the political slants. I just want everyone to know how I, personally, look at this subject so you can understand where I'm coming from. But bro-in-law didn't even go and see it for these reasons.

I just talked to another young man, and the only message he got out of it was not to destroy trees because of how it can harm the environment. I realize why it was released for home viewing on Earth Day (4/22/2010), and that it was no accident.

So, how do I see AVATAR? I see it as a people standing up for what they believe in. I see nothing wrong in living "with" nature than "against" her. I love nature, and I'm not more at peace than when I stand in a forest and can soak in the beauty surrounding me. I'd hate to see our natural places destroyed.

AVATAR revealed a world that I would love to live in as a native. I definitely wouldn't enjoy it as a human. Who wouldn't love a chance to ride one of their "horses" through their incredible forests or soar on the backs of those flying beasts (They never called them dragons, and I don't think that definition actually fits.)? That's what fantasy is all about... being able to dream of places like this and living there.

I could go on and on with this subject, but I think you folks get the idea. I'm just amazed at how many different interpretations has come from this one particular movie. I can see the liberal side of it, but I see a conservative interpretation too, and, of course, that's the one I like.

I've talked to several people about this controversial movie, and not one of them got the same thing out of it as someone else. Never have I seen a movie that has come across like this one, and maybe that's the reason for it's popularity. Sure makes me wonder.

1. It was anti military. - The military can never be wrong or there can never be a few evil people at the top? It was a private military anyways.

2. They are a bunch of tree huggers. - They had a special connection to trees beyond what humans have and were connected in a way we are not. If we as humans had that kind of connection we would probably feel the same way.

To me, AVATAR is an Andre Norton story. Almost all of her science fiction and fantasy books were about characters who did not fit into the world in which they found themselves, for one reason or another. And in every one of those stories, the characters found and became part of another world.

I submit that the character Kevin Costner played did not do this in DANCES WITH WOLVES--he didn't even marry a Native American woman, and he didn't stay and live with the tribe that had taken him in.

Mowgli (in Kipling's JUNGLE BOOK) did not stay with the animals who raised him, but went back to his own people.

I haven't seen FERN GULLY, so I can respond on that.

And John Carter in PRINCESS OF MARS had no choice but to stay.

Anyway, this reminds me of a recent South Park episode, where the boys write a novel with the goal of it being so offensive and revolting to wind up being banned. Instead, their book is a hit, with everyone commenting on and debating over the deep themes in the book, asserting what they think the authors' intended even though the authors protest that their was no meaning behind the book beyond it being offensive.

I was impressed by the special effects (loved the "dragons"), but the effect that impressed me the most was how they showed Sam Worthington's legs--they really looked paralyzed: emaciated, skin-and-bones--wow!

I know that's not interpretation either. But maybe I'm just not that into "messages" in movies. Sam Goldwyn of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer movie studios is supposed to have said something along the lines of "if you want to send a message, use Western Union."

So I don't look for messages in movies per se. As I've already said, I think the movie was ABOUT finding your true place when the one you used to have is no longer available to you (Andre Norton story).

For that matter, I think Cameron's Titanic is remembered, now, for three things: (1) Taking a record amount of money to make, (2) making a record amount of money, and (3) launching the careers of Leo and Kate. Me? I thought it was okay...but I never liked it as much as A Night to Remember, which covered the same subject with greater artistic success...

"Avatar" may not have had much of a plot, but it did not put me to sleep. I could've watched another hour or two of it with no problem.

Also "Avatar" was a first when it came to special effects much like "Star Wars" was in its day. I heard because of how well "Avatar" went over that we may see 3D TV's possibly about a year from now. I have a feeling that "Avatar" will be remembered fondly by its fans 10 or even 20 years from now.

I tried the 3D effect in the movies for Up...as a glasses-wearer, trying to balance the 3D glasses over my own glasses was as awkward as it had been with the paper red-and-blue glasses from the last time the movie industry tried to inflict some whacko 3D effect on the unsuspecting populace. 3D is a fad...it'll be around but will not displace anything.

The young man who told me about seeing "Avatar" in 3D at the theatre said he has seen other 3D movies, but "Avatar" still blew him away. So I do think "Avatar" is a relatively new breakthrough in 3D technology. Of course this is just an assumption on my part. For some reason this movie is different than any that came before it. So, I don't think it's just going to blow over any time soon. JMO

It's nothing like the old 1950s 3D. The glasses were cardboard and had one red and one blue cellophane lens. And the effect wasn't that good. I've got a few pairs around somewhere. Sometimes you see one revived on TV, where you can ...I haven't seen any since I got an HD set, so I wonder how it'd look on that.

There's also the IMAX 3D process, which had a more elaborate mask-thing to cover your eyes...and also Disney's 3D theater, which looked pretty good but if you didn't keep your head level you lost the 3D effect.

The point being, the 3D of the 1950s was "the next big thing"...Warner Bros., at one point, stopped making anything but 3D movies...but, in a couple of years, it was all gone and only popped up here and there, with some movies shot in 3D never formally released in that format. This 3D fad seems the same to me, even in the movies.

3D movies won't catch on until somebody comes up with movies that don't need glasses or special equipment.

[left out a word]

I hear a lot of people, most notably a 'movie guru' at work, rant on and on about how "exquisite" the 3D is in Avatar, how they went back to see it again and again because of the 3D, and how they think the story sucks. I think this is (mostly) baloney. The hype surrounding Avatar's 3D is important to understand, so that it can be separated from more crucial issues.

Studios have been concerned for a number of years at declining movie sales. HD television and Blu-ray as well as other advances in home theatres mean it's been harder and harder to get audiences into theatres to watch films and pay premium ticket prices. 3D is the current way studios can differentiate between the cinema experience and the home-theatre experience. As a result quite a few (most?) animated films recently have been offering 3D (the actual 'technology' being irrelevant). As I see it, James Cameron's marketing about 'new 3D techniques' is largely aimed at strengthening this gimmick, so that (a) viewers who haven't yet seen a 3D movie will think 'this is different' and go see it, (b) as will viewers who have seen 3D and been underwhelmed by it, and (c) fewer viewers will stay at home waiting for the dvd/bluray release, because they'll feel they're missing out on something.

Having seen the movie once in 3D and then again in 2D, my impression is that the 3D really is a gimmick. It's nice, but it's also distracting to me (maybe due to vision issues) and the movie is immensely satisfying without it.

Rather than rehashing the same topic again, I've discussed my opinion on why Avatar has been successful beyond the 3D marketing gimmick on my blog. But at its heart my interpretation is this: Avatar is an immersive, contemporary epic fantasy. Worldbuilding abounds; the audience is drawn into a new world with its own flora and fauna and its own big problem, and they keep coming back for more of the same. Deep characters and convoluted story would risk distracting the audience from that immersion - sales suggest that there is a market for immersive fantasy just the way it is.