My thoughts on "Avatar"

Recommended Videos

Mike Fang

New member
Mar 20, 2008
458
0
0
Okay, this may come off as rather ill-informed, since I admit right up front that I've not seen the movie Avatar, but that's because I feel that from everything I've seen from trailers, heard in a review from The Escapist and heard from others who have seen it, I really don't need to go see the movie to get the major gist of it. And what I've heard has convinced me that while I may enjoy the movie visually, I would be inwardly groaning at the plot, hence I'm not going to waste my money on it.

Since I haven't seen the film I can't really spoil anything, but I will warn you I'm about to lay out the basics of the plot as I've heard it; of course it's nothing you probably haven't already guessed if you've seen more than two commercials for the thing. So here's the basic premise: humanity has developed interplanetary travel and has discovered a planet with a mineral that's highly valuable. But there's a native population on the planet who, naturally, are like space elves in that they live in harmony with nature.

So it should be no shock to anybody with at least a high school education that this movie is about the evil human beings (in particular the military) who want to rape the environment for its resources and the brave tribal aliens who try to stop them. God, I am so sick of Hollywood's liberal agenda. To these people the military has no positive qualities ever and there's no such thing as responsible, eco-friendly industry. It makes me want to puke.

Now I've heard praise heaped on Avatar for its visuals and I will admit, what I've seen has been visually impressive. Even knowing a lot of it is CG doesn't take away from the amazing detail they've put into it. But as a writer, visuals aren't enough for me. If the characters' behavior is unbelievable, their dialogue hackneyed and forced, or the overall plot unappealing, I'm not going to be impressed.

Two things seem incredibly ironic to me here. This movie, from all accounts, has a plot with the usual liberal environmental agenda, and liberals are known for saying they don't like extremes or absolutes. And yet when you bring up things like the military or industry, they seem convinced that it's all bad; how extreme and absolute is THAT?

The other thing that strikes me as ironic is who made this movie. Avatar was produced by 20th Century FOX. That's right; the same Fox corporation owned by Rupert Murdoch, the man so many have painted as a right-wing, conservative anti-Christ, MADE A MOVIE WITH A PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL MESSAGE BEHIND IT. But do you think he or Fox will get any credit for this? I wouldn't bet on it.

Now before anyone gets any thoughts about me, seeing as how I'm conservative myself, I just want to make it clear that I think protecting the environment is a good thing. As a reporter, I'm on the environmental beat, and I think that a lot of the efforts people make that I report on are great. I cover student groups planting beach grasses to help stabilize shorelines, environmental groups helping build oyster reefs to bring back the oyster populations and help clean the water, and other sorts of efforts of that nature. Personally I think its a good idea to protect the environment and to avoid harming it.

However, I do see the need to take advantage of natural resources. But I think it should be done responsibly. Harvest trees for lumber, but remember to plant new ones after that's done. Use eco-friendly pesticides to protect crops. Conduct mining operations that do as little damage to the surface ground as possible.

Now, with that out of the way, one last thought. Some people may think its easy to rail on typical political agenda plots without suggesting a solution. But I actually have an idea for what they COULD have done in Avatar to make it a little more politically balanced. It's simple; the protagonist would have been placed in his alien hybrid body and told to gather data on the Na'vi so they could try to find a way to find a diplomatic solution to the problem. The plan could have succeeded, and humans and the na'vi could have begun making plans to cooperate and coexist. But extremists on both sides, military fanatics on one and na'vi xenophobes on the other, wouldn't approve of the peaceful cooperation and would start doing everything possible to destroy the peace and engage in an all-out war between their races. Hence it would be up to the heroes of both races to find a way to stop the warmongers on both sides before peaceful coexistence between the two was shattered.

Now that would have been a movie I would've paid to see.
 

Flying Dagger

New member
Apr 14, 2009
1,344
0
0
not space-elves, nightcrawler elves.
i'm fairly sure they aren't the military, they are just mercenaries, there's a line "the shareholders don't like the negative press of killing the indigenous, but they like it more then a negative quarter"

though how you can take seriously a corporation who's sole goal is mining "unobtainium" i'm not quite sure.

also, i highly doubt Rupert Murdoch had any doing with the film. he's the head of the company that runs the company that funded the production of the film. he's not the director.

and a final statement - the story is crap, predictable, and most of the scenery will remind you of somewhere you saw it before, but it's still a film that will take your breath away.
not seeing it on your grounds is like not going to see the pyramids because you disapprove of the way they were built
 

manythings

New member
Nov 7, 2009
3,296
0
0
Well I saw it today and it's a case of you having to weigh "Do I want to watch a fun, great looking movie with pretty awesome action and one of the most spirefully determined villains ever (Seriously this guy could take on skynet)" and "Do I want to talk about a movie I haven't seen based on third hand opinions that people weigh out in advance to sound smart and observant because people will usually change their opinion based on press rather than a change of perception".

I chose the first one cause it's a great movie to see with people on a huge screen. Not sure how much of a difference the 3D made because I haven't seen it in "3-1"D.
 

TheLastCylon

New member
Apr 14, 2009
1,423
0
0
Mike Fang said:
Okay, this may come off as rather ill-informed, since I admit right up front that I've not seen the movie Avatar
And let me stop you there. I really don't care what you say after this. There is no way you can experience an almost 3 hour movie by just watching trailers and reviews, and then start critiquing it about it's so called "liberal bias".

Anyways, you're thinking too much about it. It's a movie for christ's sake. About blue people. How come I've never seen so much political focused hate towards, y'know, actually politically motivated movies?
 

Xanadu84

New member
Apr 9, 2008
2,946
0
0
Granted there is some environmental themes going on, but I think that the whole Iraq war allegory was much stronger then the environmental themes. While the, say, Princess Mononoke/Ferngully/"can't we all just get along?" thing works in other movies, I think the political agenda driving the movie was more, "We should get out of Iraq". Hence, you have the big bad cooperate interest on one hand, and the people from the same place who don't want to rip apart a culture and there families on the other, and then the indigenous people stuck in the middle. Ill certainly agree it was a bit heavy handed, and lacking in subtlety, but I still liked the movie. It was wild and imaginative, it struck the right emotional chords, the Bad Guys 1 dimensional nature just emphasized the likable characters more...and now we know that any alien world named Pandora will inevitably contain an abundance of annoying, dog like things. And this is important information.
 

Acaroid

New member
Aug 11, 2008
863
0
0
Mike Fang said:
Okay, this may come off as rather ill-informed, since I admit right up front that I've not seen the movie Avatar, but that's because I feel that from everything I've seen from trailers, heard in a review from The Escapist and heard from others who have seen it, I really don't need to go see the movie to get the major gist of it. And what I've heard has convinced me that while I may enjoy the movie visually, I would be inwardly groaning at the plot, hence I'm not going to waste my money on it.

Since I haven't seen the film I can't really spoil anything, but I will warn you I'm about to lay out the basics of the plot as I've heard it; of course it's nothing you probably haven't already guessed if you've seen more than two commercials for the thing. So here's the basic premise: humanity has developed interplanetary travel and has discovered a planet with a mineral that's highly valuable. But there's a native population on the planet who, naturally, are like space elves in that they live in harmony with nature.

So it should be no shock to anybody with at least a high school education that this movie is about the evil human beings (in particular the military) who want to rape the environment for its resources and the brave tribal aliens who try to stop them. God, I am so sick of Hollywood's liberal agenda. To these people the military has no positive qualities ever and there's no such thing as responsible, eco-friendly industry. It makes me want to puke.

Now I've heard praise heaped on Avatar for its visuals and I will admit, what I've seen has been visually impressive. Even knowing a lot of it is CG doesn't take away from the amazing detail they've put into it. But as a writer, visuals aren't enough for me. If the characters' behavior is unbelievable, their dialogue hackneyed and forced, or the overall plot unappealing, I'm not going to be impressed.

Two things seem incredibly ironic to me here. This movie, from all accounts, has a plot with the usual liberal environmental agenda, and liberals are known for saying they don't like extremes or absolutes. And yet when you bring up things like the military or industry, they seem convinced that it's all bad; how extreme and absolute is THAT?

The other thing that strikes me as ironic is who made this movie. Avatar was produced by 20th Century FOX. That's right; the same Fox corporation owned by Rupert Murdoch, the man so many have painted as a right-wing, conservative anti-Christ, MADE A MOVIE WITH A PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL MESSAGE BEHIND IT. But do you think he or Fox will get any credit for this? I wouldn't bet on it.

Now before anyone gets any thoughts about me, seeing as how I'm conservative myself, I just want to make it clear that I think protecting the environment is a good thing. As a reporter, I'm on the environmental beat, and I think that a lot of the efforts people make that I report on are great. I cover student groups planting beach grasses to help stabilize shorelines, environmental groups helping build oyster reefs to bring back the oyster populations and help clean the water, and other sorts of efforts of that nature. Personally I think its a good idea to protect the environment and to avoid harming it.

However, I do see the need to take advantage of natural resources. But I think it should be done responsibly. Harvest trees for lumber, but remember to plant new ones after that's done. Use eco-friendly pesticides to protect crops. Conduct mining operations that do as little damage to the surface ground as possible.

Now, with that out of the way, one last thought. Some people may think its easy to rail on typical political agenda plots without suggesting a solution. But I actually have an idea for what they COULD have done in Avatar to make it a little more politically balanced. It's simple; the protagonist would have been placed in his alien hybrid body and told to gather data on the Na'vi so they could try to find a way to find a diplomatic solution to the problem. The plan could have succeeded, and humans and the na'vi could have begun making plans to cooperate and coexist. But extremists on both sides, military fanatics on one and na'vi xenophobes on the other, wouldn't approve of the peaceful cooperation and would start doing everything possible to destroy the peace and engage in an all-out war between their races. Hence it would be up to the heroes of both races to find a way to stop the warmongers on both sides before peaceful coexistence between the two was shattered.

Now that would have been a movie I would've paid to see.
You should really move this to the political thread, because that is what it is... LITTLE of what you said is about the movie and more your anti liberal, pro military, la de da post hidden in something to do with avatar.
 

Flying Dagger

New member
Apr 14, 2009
1,344
0
0
teh_pwning_dude said:
Avatar seemed like a horrid movie with empty story, unlikeable characters, wafer-thin hippy crap "message" that a 12 year old could disect and nothing that could make anyone THINK despite all this goddamn hype.

Specisl effects mean jack crap. I'm not impressed one bit.
have you actually seen the movie?

manythings said:
Well I saw it today and it's a case of you having to weigh "Do I want to watch a fun, great looking movie with pretty awesome action and one of the most spirefully determined villains ever (Seriously this guy could take on skynet)" and "Do I want to talk about a movie I haven't seen based on third hand opinions that people weigh out in advance to sound smart and observant because people will usually change their opinion based on press rather than a change of perception".

I chose the first one cause it's a great movie to see with people on a huge screen. Not sure how much of a difference the 3D made because I haven't seen it in "3-1"D.
the 3D was awesome, though towards the end my eyes hurt, and i have very young eyes, and they kept using it just because it was there, when it really wasn't needed, just to get a flinch out of the audience.
 

THAC0

New member
Aug 12, 2009
631
0
0
Mike Fang said:
Okay, this may come off as rather ill-informed, since I admit right up front that I've not seen the movie Avatar,
I just sort of skimmed after this, i had really stopped caring.

Mike Fang said:
The other thing that strikes me as ironic is who made this movie. Avatar was produced by 20th Century FOX. That's right; the same Fox corporation owned by Rupert Murdoch, the man so many have painted as a right-wing, conservative anti-Christ, MADE A MOVIE WITH A PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL MESSAGE BEHIND IT. But do you think he or Fox will get any credit for this? I wouldn't bet on it.
the upper case text caught my attention here. Yeah, the evil Fox corporation went in for making some money off of a film made by one of the best directors out there. Not really a surprise.

Mike Fang said:
Now before anyone gets any thoughts about me, seeing as how I'm conservative myself,
I had already guessed that.


Mike Fang said:
Now, with that out of the way, one last thought. Some people may think its easy to rail on typical political agenda plots without suggesting a solution. But I actually have an idea for what they COULD have done in Avatar to make it a little more politically balanced. It's simple; the protagonist would have been placed in his alien hybrid body and told to gather data on the Na'vi so they could try to find a way to find a diplomatic solution to the problem. The plan could have succeeded, and humans and the na'vi could have begun making plans to cooperate and coexist. But extremists on both sides, military fanatics on one and na'vi xenophobes on the other, wouldn't approve of the peaceful cooperation and would start doing everything possible to destroy the peace and engage in an all-out war between their races. Hence it would be up to the heroes of both races to find a way to stop the warmongers on both sides before peaceful coexistence between the two was shattered.

Now that would have been a movie I would've paid to see.
I have a degree in American history, and got to watch a lot of news broadcasts and read a lot of newspapers and quotes about the civil rights movement. You know which side was always railing against extremists on both sides? the segregationist. that was just a more PC way of saying it.

Its kinda hard to have an extreme reaction to an invader taking your natural resources. diplomacy is fine, but it doesn't happen if one side is more powerful than the other, that is just the way humans are.
 

GrandAm

New member
Aug 8, 2009
272
0
0
Your last paragraph describing what you would like to see instead of what you heard....

I saw the movie. I don't want to give any spoilers here, so I suggest you see the movie based on what you have written here. While everything you have heard is for the most part accurate, there are things left out for simplification from whatever source you have drawn your conclusions from. The things you mentioned you would like to have seen, happened more in that film than what you have heard of. In fact the whole Avatar program (according to the movie) was designed for diplomacy. Is it still Dances With Smurfs. Sure. But everything you describe they at least touched on it, if not flat out explored it. There will be dialogue that causes a rolling of the eyes based on cliche' or predictiblity. But it still works in the context of this movie. Not original, but functions. If you saw Transformers 2 you may as well see this. T2 had no plot and I hated it. Avatar at least has a funtional if not predictible plot.

Just my opinion
 

Mr.Pandah

Pandah Extremist
Jul 20, 2008
3,967
0
0
As someone else has already said, I stopped reading after you said "I didn't see the movie."

Really...? You really think you have any sort of knowledge based on a movie that you haven't even watched? I couldn't bother to read your post, but I have some views on it.

It sucks.

See how it works?
 

Azure-Supernova

La-li-lu-le-lo!
Aug 5, 2009
3,024
0
0
This is just another thread stating the same thing. I'm bored of this now. Story is recycled, paints humanity evil, BUT SFX are good. Blah blah blah...

Also I find your version of the movie a bit blah. I don't pay to see politically balanced movies, that would just... no...
 

Flying Dagger

New member
Apr 14, 2009
1,344
0
0
teh_pwning_dude said:
Flying Dagger said:
have you actually seen the movie?
No, that's why I said "seemed". I've gotten that from a trailer and a few magazine articles.
first off, the word "seemed" does not denote the fact you haven't seen it at all, just means that is the way the film came across to you, making me fully justified in questioning it.
the acting is good enough and the characters are strong enough to make the bad plot work, the action is fantastic and the world is immersive, right up to the point you see something and think "hey, i know that from somewhere"
Though maybe i'm less likely to dismiss something out of hand. something that has enough 5 star ratings to fill up an entire tv screen during the adverts. thats kind of a spoiler that the film may just be fantastic.
 

Mike Fang

New member
Mar 20, 2008
458
0
0
Flying Dagger said:
not space-elves, nightcrawler elves.
i'm fairly sure they aren't the military, they are just mercenaries, there's a line "the shareholders don't like the negative press of killing the indigenous, but they like it more then a negative quarter"

though how you can take seriously a corporation who's sole goal is mining "unobtainium" i'm not quite sure.

also, i highly doubt Rupert Murdoch had any doing with the film. he's the head of the company that runs the company that funded the production of the film. he's not the director.

and a final statement - the story is crap, predictable, and most of the scenery will remind you of somewhere you saw it before, but it's still a film that will take your breath away.
not seeing it on your grounds is like not going to see the pyramids because you disapprove of the way they were built
So, the story's bad and the scenery isn't anything special, yet it will still take my breath away? Right. OH, and there's a difference between seeing the pyramids in person and looking at a postcard. The biggest difference between seeing scenes of a movie in theaters and seeing the same scenes on tv is the size.

Fanusc101 said:
And let me stop you there. I really don't care what you say after this. There is no way you can experience an almost 3 hour movie by just watching trailers and reviews, and then start critiquing it about it's so called "liberal bias".

Anyways, you're thinking too much about it. It's a movie for christ's sake. About blue people. How come I've never seen so much political focused hate towards, y'know, actually politically motivated movies?
For someone who doesn't care what I have to say, you certainly have plenty to say about it. Oh, and then you immediately say I'm making a big deal over nothing. That's logical; I don't have the knowledge to start criticizing something that's not important.

Acaroid said:
You should really move this to the political thread, because that is what it is... LITTLE of what you said is about the movie and more your anti liberal, pro military, la de da post hidden in something to do with avatar.
Uh, what I'm criticizing here is what the movie plot does, which admittedly is a reflection on many similar movies. Also, I never said anything pro-military or anti-liberal.
 

Flying Dagger

New member
Apr 14, 2009
1,344
0
0
Mike Fang said:
So, the story's bad and the scenery isn't anything special, yet it will still take my breath away? Right. OH, and there's a difference between seeing the pyramids in person and looking at a postcard. The biggest difference between seeing scenes of a movie in theaters and seeing the same scenes on tv is the size.
the scenery being rehashed from, among other things, Roger Deans prog rock covers: http://io9.com/5426120/did-prog-rocks-greatest-artist-inspire-avatar-all-signs-point-to-yes/gallery/ (my dads, but i still know them) does not make it bad at all, it makes it awesome.

and as for mixing my metaphor - the sight of the pyramids isn't what you go for, you go for the whole package, with the clime, the people there, the atmosphere at the place, and the awe of the spectacle.
just as the plot of a film isn't why you see it, its the whole package, the world they created, the characters in it, the fantastic 3D action sequences which all come together to form a great movie.

the plots formulaic, not awful, it gets so many mentions because it is the ONLY thing that the film does not excel at.

but i thought the main point of your not seeing the film, was that the movie made the army the bad guys, which it doesn't (its the big evil corporation), so with that clarified, you should go watch the film, and decide yourself.
 

Giddi

New member
Feb 5, 2008
77
0
0
Mike Fang said:
God, I am so sick of Hollywood's liberal agenda. To these people the military has no positive qualities ever and there's no such thing as responsible, eco-friendly industry. It makes me want to puke.

Two things seem incredibly ironic to me here. This movie, from all accounts, has a plot with the usual liberal environmental agenda, and liberals are known for saying they don't like extremes or absolutes. And yet when you bring up things like the military or industry, they seem convinced that it's all bad; how extreme and absolute is THAT?
(blah blah blah)
Look, I'm a liberal, but by your reasoning I shouldn't like the show "24" because at times it (in some ways) tries to justify the use of military and torture for the greater good etc etc etc.

...but I love 24. I think it's one of the best shows on TV. Why put a political agenda on everything? See it. Don't see it. Who cares? but don't pretend this is anything other than entertainment. Why over analyse? Why pick up the pitch forks and fire and find a person responsible? Why not attack zombie films for pushing an agenda glorifying cannibalism, or disney movies for trying to convert us to a monarchy? (damn those kids wanting be become princes/princesses?!?!? they should want to be the president!!)

Get over it ;o)
 

TheLastCylon

New member
Apr 14, 2009
1,423
0
0
Mike Fang said:
Fanusc101 said:
And let me stop you there. I really don't care what you say after this. There is no way you can experience an almost 3 hour movie by just watching trailers and reviews, and then start critiquing it about it's so called "liberal bias".

Anyways, you're thinking too much about it. It's a movie for christ's sake. About blue people. How come I've never seen so much political focused hate towards, y'know, actually politically motivated movies?
For someone who doesn't care what I have to say, you certainly have plenty to say about it. Oh, and then you immediately say I'm making a big deal over nothing. That's logical; I don't have the knowledge to start criticizing something that's not important.
*facepalm*

I just really find it funny that you're spending so much time fighting against a movie you haven't actually seen.
 

Acaroid

New member
Aug 11, 2008
863
0
0
Mike Fang said:
Acaroid said:
You should really move this to the political thread, because that is what it is... LITTLE of what you said is about the movie and more your anti liberal, pro military, la de da post hidden in something to do with avatar.
Uh, what I'm criticizing here is what the movie plot does, which admittedly is a reflection on many similar movies. Also, I never said anything pro-military or anti-liberal.
But you dont know what the moive plot is because you havent seen it. I havent either, and im not about to, eI have to agree, the movie does look like a load of hogwash not worth my money. You have assumed most of the plot of the moive though, and your assumptions are mainly personally and politcally based, that sound anti-liberal and pro-military, which i dont care either way, was just an observation.
 

Flying Dagger

New member
Apr 14, 2009
1,344
0
0
teh_pwning_dude said:
Uh, no, it does denote the fact that I haven't seen it. If I had seen the full thing, I would have said that it does. There can be no more proof to be had once you have seen everything so once you have, it stops seeming and starts being.

The thing about strong acting is that it's piss easy to do a strong performance of a cardboard cut-out. If I can work out the entire plot and all the crappy-ass characters after the first time I saw the trailer (I did, by the way, because I looked it up when it comes out and found out I was right) then I honestly don't care about the acting because the characters will turn me off so much it'll just make it worse.

I don't want and immersive world full or retards, sterotypes and crappy politcal commentary; I'm sorry Mr. Fanboy but the explosions and progressive album cover art references are just not enough for me in a movie. I know I'm meant to go in there pretending to be 13 and get entertained by the wizz-bang whatever effects but the plot is just so numbing and the way everyone banged on about this "statement" the movie is making just turns me off so much it's not even worth it.
"i went to see the film earlier tonight, and it seemed like something i would have thought had a broad appeal."
the fact that sentence makes sense shows how you are wrong on the meaning of the word "seem."
the story will appeal to you when you become sympathetic to the characters. this happens due to the individual lines being well written, well performed and relatable. what a 30 second trailer entirely misses is the characterisation that creates the characters, that stops them being a random non-entity that appears in a commercial, and makes them the protaganist that you want to see win.
And i may be a fan boy, but i was dragged along to see it, and it was so damn good {/ i can't sleep because i may lose my job) that i'm sitting here arguing it at 5 in the morning.
though what it really comes down to is validity of evidence. me having seen the film, has more authority to judge it then you, who hasn't.