James Cameron's "Avatar" (grading and discussion)

It would've been very depressing. Hell, it's depressing enough it was a popular as it was.

 

Not just ONE sequel to AVATAR....
BUT... A Trilogy.....

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43559

I wonder if they will be answering any of our questions raised here...

 

Given that Cameron openly floated the idea of a sequel before the film opened, and the film has now gone on to do ... rather well, this is completely unsurprising.

The suggestion of a trilogy I think is a first (though he didn't seem to be talking as if he had just one sequel planned), but that is cool news. I have to go back to 2003 to find a franchise I was really jazzed up to go to the movies to see. Now I got this, and Star Trek, and District 9 hopefully (well, I've read some kinda sequel talks about that).

So, yeah, I'll be watching this rather eagerly and such.

 

I watched the movie and enjoyed it but did not really care much for the plot. I don't like how easily the main characters just turned on their entire race and then toward the end of the movie Humans were getting killed left and right with little regard like they were no different than any other generic "bad guys". I ended up sympathizing with the humans and wishing that the main character was going to get killed lol

Honestly who cares about a bunch of random primitive aliens? If the main character had just stuck to the original plan and kept providing intelligence, a lot of human lives could have been saved. It sounds like they already made a lot of effort trying to educate the aliens in schools, etc but were snubbed.

The funny part is that they are assuming that their offensive toward the humans toward the end means they will leave and won't come back. More likely the humans will be back but with bigger guns next time, possibly nukes.

I'd imagine the aliens life could have been enhanced quite a bit by earth technology if the aliens weren't closed minded religious fundamentalists.

 

I love the fact so many people read so much into this movie.

It's a movie, I enjoyed it, that's all I'm looknig for in a movie.

 

I would call it a sci-fi actioner long before I labeled it a romance but whatever floats your boat. I agree with Mirrorball Man that Avatar's a grab bag of all kinds of different elements.

And quite honestly if the Jake/Neytiri subplot had been an actual problem with the movie (well, besides the creepy furry scene) it would have barely even registered next to the myriad of other issues.

The book can't exist without the scifi element. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is another example.

Why is it "obvious" people are "uncomfortable" with Avatar's plot? Do you think people are "uncomfortable" with Dances With Wolves or Pocahontas?

 

Like how?

 

Turned on their entire race?

A bunch of random primitive aliens?

Made a lot of effort trying to educate the aliens in schools, but were snubbed?

Aliens life could have been enhanced by earth technology?

Closed minded religious fundamentalists?



This is a joke post, right?

 

Who cares about a bunch of random humans?

It's interesting that anti-alien sentiment, regarding a non-existent but concpetually ironclad Other (aliens, by definition are inhuman in a literal sense - our very language is against any sympathy, hence the ironic use of the word 'humane' by Quaritch) is fairly commonplace in discussing movies like this.

I have no idea how I'd react or how we should react when presented with real aliens, but in the morality plays of District 9, Avatar, and every other episode of Star Trek, the correct ethical response is fairly transparent. Empathy is not something ideally restricted to tribal bonds of my clan versus your clan behaviour, and the humans in other guises given here are expected to be considered as such.

There's going to be sequels, so we'll see.

 

I said "The Time Traveler's Wife" was IMHO more likely fantasy than Science Fiction, meaning others may judge is as Science Fiction and that would be ok. It is not however by "The Romance Writers of America" criteria - romance. By that same criteria "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" is not romance either.

Remember rule two: An Emotionally-Satisfying and Optimistic Ending: In a romance, the lovers who risk and struggle for each other and their relationship are rewarded with emotional justice and unconditional love.


FYI - The Romance Writers of America has 10,000 members and that includes probably over 90% of professional authors writing Romance.

http://www.rwanational.org/cs/home

I would say yes as those are two of the movies some people are using to beat "Avatar" over the head. I am surprised that no one has dragged out "The Battle for Terra" yet.

By the way I am the mother of grown children and rolling eyes lost all their effect on me years ago.

Brit

 

You must have loved Starship Troopers!

 

Interesting. Instead of heading back to Earth, Parker Selfridge decided to head to TrekBBS.

Anyway, I went in expecting great FX, a shit story and wooden dialogue, because I'd spent too much time on the Internet. But I'd forgotten that the Internet is a big, jaded hipster whose favorite hobby is complaining to whoever'll listen that almost nothing is sophisticated enough for him.

I loved the story, the dialogue, the acting, and the FX. I was thoroughly entertained, and I'll be seeing it again. It deserves every last one of its billion dollars.

 

You realize that the humans WERE the bad guys, right? Being that they had invaded the aliens' home planet and were destroying the aliens' sacred grounds to strip-mine their place, right?

People with emotions and compassion who see that the humans were wrong.

And an alien civilization would've been destroyed, their sacred grounds destroyed, a bioligical remarkable ecosystem destroyed, and planet the humans have no right to strip-mined.

How much history are you aware of? I'm guessing not much. The humans had no right to barge in there to "educate" the natives.

The turnover time for a mission like that is likely to be as long as a decade, it may not be worth the effort and nuking the planet may damage their ability to mine the ore they need. Also, there's going to be sequels that'll likely deal with this issue.

Yeah, those primitive colored people living in the brush in this back-water country don't know how to live. We'll just round them up and show them civilization! Those pesky red-people living in tents and wearing animal skins are so primitive, we'll just teach them how civilization works!

Dude, pick up a history book and buy a clue.

 

http://failblog.org/2010/01/10/avatar-plot-fail/

It's funny 'cause it's true.

 

At some point before the attack on the Hometree Jake said in his videolog that the aliens simply didn't need any of this, they were perfectly fine as it is.
Quality of life is a very relative term. One can be happy living on a tree and another wouldn't survive without gazillion things that surround us.

 

This is the key point that people do not realise and why many people hate the film.

We have no right whatsoever to go around the place imposing our way of life on people who just don't want it. In the case of Avatar the point is cheap because the setting is a biological paradise that simply should not be destroyed for any reason.

It is also a parallel to the last then years though. We have gone around trying to force democracy on people, but we only have it because we decided we wanted it and earned it. In the long run it will never survive in a tribal culture.

The humans in Avatar are absolutely the villains, coming to another world and essentially starting to strip mine it. There ARE more important things than all the plastic electronic shit we own, and the film is about those.

 

One of the commenters mentioned that there are only a limited number of stories that can be told. I don't believe that -- perhaps there are only a limited number of stories that succeed because they have emotional resonance with the audience. James Cameron's art lies in the telling of the story not in the premise.

 

it's a story of a situation where in reality there would be a huge grey area, but the Na'vi are "perfect" because thier world seems to be created to serve them forcing the story into a "Black and White" with of course the popular message that white people and corporations are 100% pure evil and we should all reject all forms of technology, and that humans should either reject everything or just kill themselves, there is no middle ground, technology will allways be evil, and humans will never change

 

Defensive?

I don't agree with any of that. Ironically, your argument is taking a film that has a gray area and reducing it to black and white.

The Na'vi aren't depicted as "perfect." There's jealousy, rivalry, and in their history there was clan warfare. They would've killed Sully on sight if not for the signs. They only approximate perfection in that they're part of a sentient ecosystem.

The corporation isn't depicted as "100% pure evil," it's depicted as amoral, willing to be benevolent (as in their funding of Sigourney Weaver's mission) only as long as it doesn't severely impact its bottom line. The corporate ass hole was reluctant to allow the Tree of Souls to be bombed. He only destroyed Home Tree because it was on top of the resource the company wanted.

The message wasn't that WE should reject technology, the message was that it's morally wrong to impose our way of life on other people even if it's to preserve our own. To the extent it was about us ruining our planet with corporatocracy and technology, the message could be nothing more than "don't overdo it," unless you choose to see the film's message only in black and white terms.

 

I think what they actually meant is that there are a limited number of basic plots. Depending on who you listen to the number is from one to thirty-six.

http://www.ipl.org/div/farq/plotFARQ.html

Most basic writing texts use some form of this in their instruction.

The basic plot is the frame work on which you hang your story, the diversity comes from the individual doing the hanging.

Brit