My thoughts on "Avatar"

[Kimarous]

If "Avatar" has excellent graphics technology, good for it. I'm going to wait until that technology gets used for a story that deserves it. I have never, EVER cared for "romantic turncoat" stories, and that's exactly what "Avatar" is, and I have no plan on sitting through 2 hours and 40 minutes worth of that just for some pretty sparkles. And before you fanboys go on your tirade of "who cares about the story; it's all about the visuals", shove it. Just look at "Lord of the Rings" to see how warped that logic is. Besides, I have more suspension of disbelief for "Empire Strikes Back" Puppet Yoda than I do for any CG image Cameron has managed to conjure.

 

[Kollega]

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.

My thoughts on the matter. I don't really want to see all the beautifully rendered landscapes and characters and whatever, especially when plot distracts. Sorry people, but i just can't be arsed to watch 2 hours of CG (even if damn good one) and hear the morals i already know and respect.

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.

That kinda intrests me too. How do you think, does being sponsored by Fox make the moral hypocritical, or does that moral make Fox look like they don't know agenda they have in their blockbuster? Or something else entirely?

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.

And again, same here. If that was the plot, i'd actually go and see it. Bit as it stands - sorry, no. I'm not one of those people who needs to be told about industrial pollution and racism in the most Anvilicious manner possible. Because i have my own opinion on the matter, and it's like yours. We sure can use natural resources, as long as it's really efficent and minimal damage is done.

As long as you really think so, that is.

 

[Mr.Pandah]

If "Avatar" has excellent graphics technology, good for it. I'm going to wait until that technology gets used for a story that deserves it. I have never, EVER cared for "romantic turncoat" stories, and that's exactly what "Avatar" is, and I have no plan on sitting through 2 hours and 40 minutes worth of that just for some pretty sparkles. And before you fanboys go on your tirade of "who cares about the story; it's all about the visuals", shove it. Just look at "Lord of the Rings" to see how warped that logic is. Besides, I have more suspension of disbelief for "Empire Strikes Back" Puppet Yoda than I do for any CG image Cameron has managed to conjure.

I loved Puppet Yoda...far more in fact, then I ever did(or will) for the CGI Yoda in the "newer" episodes.

 

[000Ronald]

*snip goes the mik*

Ah-em. *tap tap tap* This thing on? Good.

To make a long story short; you know nothing about the movie, besides what you've been told, you don't like liberals, and you don't like conservatives. All in all, you have absolutely nothing to say about something you know nothing about. Oh, and the story could have been better.

Why? Why do you insist on wasting my valuable time? Saying...nothing. That's the worst part, you're saying nothing at all, or at the very least nothing of any consequence, and it makes me a little angry. I can almost, almost understand why, but it would have to mean you have no idea what you're doing; while that is a distinct possibility, it's not what I want.

OK, I understand that you're trying to make a point without taking a side, and that's admirable, but there's a way to do it, and you're not doing it right. What you're doing is this;

The answer is a resounding...Maybe

That pisses people off. That is exactly what you're doing. That is not how you go about these things. The big media corporations, the ones you probably resent, are successful for a reason; people like to have their opinions validated. If you have something to say, say it. If you have nothing to say, say nothing. It's just common sense.

Apologies Abound

 

[Flying Dagger]

Ever heard of context? Christ. Look, it's not my problem if you don't understand what I'm saying. Wait, it is, because you keep whinging about it.

And no, it doesn't come down to that, because you're not offering any evidence, you're offering subjective opinions just like I am, so your "authority" can go jump. Besides, you're challenging what I quite clearly said was a predictive opinion (there's that word seemed again) so where's this authority crap coming from?

I'll eat my hat if the characters are relatable. How can you be relatable when the plot doesnt even make you think? Good characters (and I still maintain they are not) doesn't make up for horrible plot; one strong support in a two-support bridge isn't good enough, you need two. The only Hollywood character I've truly related to and liked from the past year is Will Smith's bole from 7 Pounds because me manned up and offed himself at the end of the movie even after falling in love. It broke the mould and I was so damn happy for it. This doesn't even poke the damn mould.

Kimaarous has the right idea, though for me it's less wasting 2 hours and 40 minutes and more spending $20 on the privilige.

the entire point of "quality of evidence" judgements are the assumptions that both are subjective, if they were not subjective, there would be no point of evaluating the quality, it would be accepted as fact.
with pretty much everyone on this thread who has gone to see the film loving it, and the fact it has got so many five star ratings, and the only people with problems with it haven't seen it, you might have noticed a pattern - they've seen it, they can say how good the film is, you haven't seen it, you can only guess.

you "maintain" that the characters are not relatable, how can you have any clue whether or not the characters are relatable, you haven't seen more then 30 seconds of the film, which i already established does not show any characterisation. it's a case of an average story told incredibly well.

IF, and it's a big if, all you care about is the overarching storyline, then it may not be for you, and in which case i feel sorry for you, because most films, TV shows, plays and books all have a pretty simple overarching storyline, and trying to judge how good any of these is by reading a plot synopsis doesn't work. the fact that reviews are needed for this kind of thing demonstrates it.

As for Will Smith in 7 pounds, wasn't he a comeplete dick in the beginning of the film? i didnt watch more then about 10 minutes because there were more interesting things going on.

 

[Kimarous]

you "maintain" that the characters are not relatable, how can you have any clue whether or not the characters are relatable, you haven't seen more then 30 seconds of the film, which i already established does not show any characterisation. it's a case of an average story told incredibly well.

To counter that, I've heard one critic say that the antagonists are so transparently evil that the only way to increase said image is to give them a twirlable black mustache and a cigarette on a stick.

Heresay, perhaps, but so is everybody else's opinion of the matter, and I hold said critic's word above everybody who is like "Ooh, look at the pretty colours! Look at the pretty colours!"

 

[Flying Dagger]

large rant pretty much only quoting and agreeing

I didn't see a political moral / message in the film.
i study politics, and work as a researcher for a politician, ignorance is not the issue.
It's more an attack on capitalism as a whole then it is an advert for environmentalism. It's less preachy then star wars.

 

[Kimarous]

large rant pretty much only quoting and agreeing

I didn't see a political moral / message in the film.
i study politics, and work as a researcher for a politician, ignorance is not the issue.
It's more an attack on capitalism as a whole then it is an advert for environmentalism. It's less preachy then star wars.

You admit to be directly tied to politicians; that alone says volumes about how blind you are to the general view of politics. Besides, it's less about "environmentalism" so much as "white guilt"... about all the atrocities caused by whites and North Americans to other cultures. If you cannot see any parallels between historical events and the story of this film, you are truly and utterly BLIND!

 

[Mike Fang]

My thoughts on the matter. I don't really want to see all the beautifully rendered landscapes and characters and whatever, especially when plot distracts.

How do you think, does being sponsored by Fox make the moral hypocritical, or does that moral make Fox look like they don't know agenda they have in their blockbuster? Or something else entirely?

If I had to choose between the first two, I'd say the latter. But I'd like to think that Fox did it in order to show it's willing to back something that has a message contrary to the majority of what it broadcasts.

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.

Okay, I admit I don't know all the details of the plot. However, from what I've gleaned from other sources, I felt I could take a stab at the general idea. Also I wouldn't say my assumptions, if they are assumptions, are personally and politically biased; my opinions, however, are.

[

*facepalm*

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

And I find it funny you seem to assume I'm "fighting" something here when all I did was express an opinion. I'm not getting on a soapbox and boycotting this thing, I'm just giving my two bits on it.

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)

Okay, so you can compromise your ideals and beliefs for the sake of your own entertainment. Hey, that's your call. Who care, why over-analyze you say? Gee, I'm just trying to read between the lines here and actually think about what's being said in various forms of media, but I guess if you're in the right of it, I'm in a minority there.

Attacking zombie movies and disney movies for those reasons, hmmm...no, I don't see those as being what the writers and producers and directors of those movies want audiences to come away with. Maybe that's what you thought they did, but I didn't.

Oh, and, get over it? Allow me to respond with equal maturity.

Screw you.

You actually went through the effort of writing all of that to bash a movie you haven't actually seen?

I actually watched the movie today and was blown away. Oh! And most of the people i have seen bashing the film here on the escapist (including you) haven't seen it. I don't care how well your post is put together, anybody who bases his decision on some whiny bitches who talk about how shitte the movie is even thought they haven't actually seen it (because just assuming something is shit and then telling everybody that it is is perfectly ok! (sarcasm) ) won't get any points from me.

Thought your thread is still allot better then that other thread were the thread author more or less just said "Avatar is shitte, lol!".

M'kay, I'll say thanks for saying my thread's better than just some one-line, profane nay-saying.

But right here and now I'm going to say this about everybody who jumps on me and other people for having an opinion even though we may not have seen the movie.

I can't speak for everyone, but I've gathered information on this movie through secondary sources; people who have seen it, trailers, reviews. So I've gotten information on it from almost every type of source besides actually seeing it (save for the movie's web site). I don't deny that yes, those who have seen it are in a better position to critique it. But having gathered SOME information and having seen other movies in my time, I feel I'm not entirely unqualified to make some observations.

So, for everybody who wants to say that if you haven't seen something firsthand you don't know enough to form an opinion, I say then that nobody should debate religion if they haven't experienced a proven miracle and you can't debate politics if you haven't been at your government's legislature during a session and you can't debate what happened at any event anytime anywhere if you weren't there when it happened. See how dumb it is to say nobody can talk about anything they haven't seen with their own eyes? Some of us recognize patterns and can make educated guesses about what may have happened. Yes, it's not as reliable as being their yourself. But that doesn't mean I don't have a clue what I'm talking about, so lay off.

 

[Flying Dagger]

To counter that, I've heard one critic say that the antagonists are so transparently evil that the only way to increase said image is to give them a twirlable black mustache and a cigarette on a stick.

Heresay, perhaps, but so is everybody else's opinion of the matter, and I hold said critic's word above everybody who is like "Ooh, look at the pretty colours! Look at the pretty colours!"

the main antagonist is pretty damn evil, though he isn't a main player, sometimes you need a one dimensional enemy to create the conflict in the first place. the fact he is so one dimensional is what leads to the conflict, as he convinces his more morally inclined boss, that the decision to invade is the correct one, a decision guided by greed more then xenophobia on both of their parts.
It isn't so much a romantic turncoat, as the fact he sees that the Na'vi are as much a people as humans, as he comes to take his place amongst them, and when he clashes with the main protagonist, it is because he takes the switching of sides personally, rather then because he is evil.

there is so much more to the story then the plot synopsis, and to miss out on such a fantastic film over the idea that unlike most acclaimed critics, you'll hate it, is a terrible shame.
however it's nearing six in the morning and i'd best be off to sleep.

 

[Mike Fang]

*snip goes the mik*

Ah-em. *tap tap tap* This thing on? Good.

To make a long story short; you know nothing about the movie, besides what you've been told, you don't like liberals, and you don't like conservatives. All in all, you have absolutely nothing to say about something you know nothing about. Oh, and the story could have been better.

Why? Why do you insist on wasting my valuable time? Saying...nothing. That's the worst part, you're saying nothing at all, or at the very least nothing of any consequence, and it makes me a little angry. I can almost, almost understand why, but it would have to mean you have no idea what you're doing; while that is a distinct possibility, it's not what I want.

OK, I understand that you're trying to make a point without taking a side, and that's admirable, but there's a way to do it, and you're not doing it right. What you're doing is this;

The answer is a resounding...Maybe

That pisses people off. That is exactly what you're doing. That is not how you go about these things. The big media corporations, the ones you probably resent, are successful for a reason; people like to have their opinions validated. If you have something to say, say it. If you have nothing to say, say nothing. It's just common sense.

Apologies Abound

The hell...?

Uhhh, I distinctly said I AM a conservative. As for the rest of what you said, it sounds like jibberish. I think you're the one saying nothing here, except that you think I'm wasting your time by somehow making you respond to something you don't have to respond to.

Well if it's such a waste of your time, STOP DOING IT.

 

[Flying Dagger]

So, for everybody who wants to say that if you haven't seen something firsthand you don't know enough to form an opinion, I say then that nobody should debate religion if they haven't experienced a proven miracle and you can't debate politics if you haven't been at your government's legislature during a session and you can't debate what happened at any event anytime anywhere if you weren't there when it happened. See how dumb it is to say nobody can talk about anything they haven't seen with their own eyes? Some of us recognize patterns and can make educated guesses about what may have happened. Yes, it's not as reliable as being their yourself. But that doesn't mean I don't have a clue what I'm talking about, so lay off.

you can argue with someone who hasn't seen a miracle if you haven't seen one, but if you try arguing with someone who has you won't get anywhere.
you can try to argue politics with someone who sits in on legislature (something i regularly do, i will note with amusement - work as a political researcher in the UK) but they will be able to outshine your knowledge, and you'll come out of it worse.
you can argue about world war 2 without being there, but if you are arguing with a veteran - someone who was, you aren't going to change his mind.
just like you can argue about how you think you know what the plot of this film is, but you just get shown you don't know as much as those who do.

 

[Giddi]

Okay, so you can compromise your ideals and beliefs for the sake of your own entertainment. Hey, that's your call. Who care, why over-analyze you say? Gee, I'm just trying to read between the lines here and actually think about what's being said in various forms of media, but I guess if you're in the right of it, I'm in a minority there.

Attacking zombie movies and disney movies for those reasons, hmmm...no, I don't see those as being what the writers and producers and directors of those movies want audiences to come away with. Maybe that's what you thought they did, but I didn't.

Why is it compromise? Can I not enjoy a point of view expressed which differs from my own? Maybe I could try a better example. People who enjoy the show "Dexter" (guilty again as charged) aren't all secret serial killers with a want to exact their own justice to satisfy their urges. This isn't giving into the devil, how many people (other than you) read into every possible contrived message in every show/movie/game before they try it?
I can honestly say I don't think I could ever pull a gun on somebody but that's not going to make me hesitate to play a FPS at all.

Do I need to condone witchcraft to watch/read harry potter?

Oh, and, get over it? Allow me to respond with equal maturity.

Screw you.

Oh c'mon, at least I included a smiley face, I have another for you sir )

 

[MiracleOfSound]

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.

Art does not have to make one think in order to be enjoyable.

On topic:

Deep breath...

THEY'RE. FUCKING. MERCS.

The movie does not say the military is bad.

It says one demented idiot with military history, one sleazy businessman and a bunch of greedy mercs are bad.

 

[Flying Dagger]

[Storyline isn't all I care about, but it's such a dealbreaker when it's this bad. And thanks for ignoring what I said about quality of evidence, in that you (still) haven't given any. Tell me something that makes them relateable man.

I can maintain that because any dipshit cahracter who goes to try and kick out a race then (surprise surprise!) begins to like them and has to defend them from stupidly evil corperations will never be relateable to me. The character I always end up relating with is the grumpy guy in scene 41 who is on the phone then gets shot (not an actual reference btw.) who is listen in the credits as "guy on phone". I don't care how they're characterised, I'm judging them by their actions like I do with most people, and I know I don't like the stereotypical jerks. Story and characters are (or should be) intertwined and regardless of how good a character is made, if they do a bunch of annoying (to me) stuff, I won't like them.

And how did you miss the message? It's like a roundhouse kick to the balls from some hippy. An attack on capitalism is a message. Now I'm just confused.

1. i have, its unintentional and what i was actually talking about what i clarified to mike fang in my above post but its there, so whatever.
2.

Spoiler: there may be a spoiler in here somewhere.

he's sent to try and broker a peace deal, he's a crippled ex-marine who finds a new lease of life via the avatar he inhabits, he took his twin scientist brother's place on the mission after he was shot before the mission took place (the avatars are DNA linked.) not being a scientist, he approaches the Na'vi in a different way and they accept him and teach him their ways. he has no control over attack, and is manipulated into spying for the evil army general, on the promise that when he is shipped back home he can get his legs fixed, he gives that up to fight for the greater good.

3. how can i miss the message? it's set in a fantasy sci-fi world, that has little resemblence to our own, and because at the point where "lets kill them all for the profit" was suggested, i was able to determine the fact it was only a story. because in reality, we have governments who stop that kind of thing, who would put a stop to that action, and we have democracy, that would mean any government who didn't would be kicked out.
(my view on iraq was that it was to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and the oil deals were a way of recouping losses, call me naive / w.e but thats my opinion.)

 

[Kimarous]

there is so much more to the story then the plot synopsis, and to miss out on such a fantastic film over the idea that unlike most acclaimed critics, you'll hate it, is a terrible shame.

It isn't so much a simple idea so much as a rather strongly established notion. I absolutely HATE this kind of movie and no amount of padding and CG special effects will change that. "Acclaimed critics" are just as subjective as the rest of we humans, and even if they love it to death, I will still hate it death.

Besides, I still haven't seen or heard anything compelling beyond the plot symphosis (and I don't find that compelling anyway). As far as I can tell, that is just the aforementioned padding. When a 2h40m movie can effectively be summarized in a 30 second trailer, that is not exactly inspiring. If there really is "so much more", then apparently it's too insignificant to even be hinted at.

 

[Kimarous]

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.

Art does not have to make one think in order to be enjoyable.

On topic:

Deep breath...

THEY'RE. FUCKING. MERCS.

The movie does not say the military is bad.

It says one demented idiot with military history, one sleazy businessman and a bunch of greedy mercs are bad.

Mercenaries are a way to make the military look bad without pinpointing it on one particular army. Mercenaries are more or less guns-for-hire, a.k.a. A PRIVATE MILITARY! In other words, same difference. It still conveys the same message.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

The only Hollywood character I've truly related to and liked from the past year is Will Smith's bole from 7 Pounds because me manned up and offed himself at the end of the movie even after falling in love. It broke the mould and I was so damn happy for it. This doesn't even poke the damn mould.

Well thanks for fucking ruining that movie for me.

Someone who apparently requires such high intellectual ideas and intelligence in thier movie taste might normally appreciate the need for SPOILER BOXES.

 

[Flying Dagger]

there is so much more to the story then the plot synopsis, and to miss out on such a fantastic film over the idea that unlike most acclaimed critics, you'll hate it, is a terrible shame.

It isn't so much a simple idea so much as a rather strongly established notion. I absolutely HATE this kind of movie and no amount of padding and CG special effects will change that. "Acclaimed critics" are just as subjective as the rest of we humans, and even if they love it to death, I will still hate it death.

Besides, I still haven't seen or heard anything compelling beyond the plot symphosis (and I don't find that compelling anyway). As far as I can tell, that is just the aforementioned padding. When a 2h40m movie can effectively be summarized in a 30 second trailer, that is not exactly inspiring. If there really is "so much more", then apparently it's too insignificant to even be hinted at.

the only message i got from it was more along the lines of "killing people for money kind of makes you a dick"
he even says "back home i was a marine, here we are just hired guns, mercenaries, there's no camaraderie here" or something similar.
the bad overarching storyline is compensated for by being made up of lots of well written segments, if a bad story is well told, it ceases to be a bad story.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

I was going to shit on the idea of shitting on a movie without seeing it, but then I remembered Twilight.