So let's assume I'm not going to be impressed by pretty images alone. Because I won't be.
Is it actually good as a film too, or is it basically two and a half hours of CGI wank?
The story kind of blows and the characters are flat. It also slams you over the head with its technology is bad and natives are awesome message.
this is exactly what i was afraid this movie was going to be. i still intend to go see it, because i still really love cgi wanks when i get to see them on gigantic screens and i love glowy shit, but i can somehow let my hopes get up for this movie after it started getting so many good reviews. kind of bummed that the plot is turning out to be 'hey this is how you do sci-fi, right'
So let's assume I'm not going to be impressed by pretty images alone. Because I won't be.
Is it actually good as a film too, or is it basically two and a half hours of CGI wank?
The story kind of blows and the characters are flat. It also slams you over the head with its technology is bad and natives are awesome message.
Really ironic given that a white guy is using cutting edge technology and shoving it down the faces of everyone, everywhere on the globe.
Unobtainium is a facetious term for any extremely rare, costly, or physically impossible material needed to fulfill a given design for a given application.
In other words, whoosh.
Exactly. Avatar is supposed to be teh seriouz bidnezz, but the McGuffin has a joke name.
Edit: You know what did nature vs. technology well? Princess Mononoke. Both sides had benefits and drawbacks.
James Cameron is a douche. This is yet another variation on "white guilt" which is really a lot like Nice Guy (tm) syndrome, where people act like paragons of compassion mostly because there's some tangential benefit, i.e them letting everyone know they're not down with what they're country was built on and please pay to see a movie that showcases how progressive they are. It's a really good way to string together your cinematic jerkoff without having to write a real story about real people.
Except it's pretty much just as racist to put noble savages on a pedestal because it oversimplifies complex issues.
I'll still see it 'cause it looks cool but the story stinks of heavy handed preachiness. Maybe I should take an ipod.
Unobtainium is a facetious term for any extremely rare, costly, or physically impossible material needed to fulfill a given design for a given application.
In other words, whoosh.
Exactly. Avatar is supposed to be teh seriouz bidnezz, but the McGuffin has a joke name.
Edit: You know what did nature vs. technology well? Princess Mononoke. Both sides had benefits and drawbacks.
So let's assume I'm not going to be impressed by pretty images alone. Because I won't be.
Is it actually good as a film too, or is it basically two and a half hours of CGI wank?
The story kind of blows and the characters are flat. It also slams you over the head with its technology is bad and natives are awesome message.
I thought the message was more in the spirit of "Yo, don't be cunts" which, as I see it, is a message that is only inane because of the fact that it is fruitless to try to get into people's heads. Natives are many things, but they have a history of leaving others, including the fucktards who whine about Hollywood being mean to corporations (I am not implying that you are that kind of person), well alone. Which, when I think about it, is the kind of behavior people who value independence and liberty (rather than use those concepts as backdrops to their own self-congratulatory puppet shows) should respect.
I loved the movie for its visuals and imaginative world-building, but like most I wasn't shook enough by much else. It's a great ride that spits in the eye of the kind of politics most people outside of think-tanks already loathe intensely - I think that if the movie had done more to paint a picture that studies the origins and fundamental conflicts that cause the kind of war we saw in the movies (rather than just spend time at the battlefront and showing the proper, and sadly not analogous, conclusion) it would have more impact.
But it's a very awesome movie, magnitudes more interesting and worthy of a screen than most movies of the year. Also, Cameron needs more Hollywood clout so he can go make the Alita movie. So go to it. IN THREE DEE.
Side note: I now have a good definition of Objectivists and Libertarians - the former have basically succeeded in becoming so contrarian they can honestly root for the Colonel when watching Avatar, while the latter merely make sardonic and dismissive complaints about Cameron and Hollywood while desperately wishing that they one day can become as blunt and inane as the Obejctivists.
i'm choosing to believe that the plot and characterization in this movie is so one-dimensional and ham-fisted because cameron is doing sci-fi for people who don't give a shit about sci-fi and therefore is totally alright with putting forward the most derivative plot ever
Unobtainium is a facetious term for any extremely rare, costly, or physically impossible material needed to fulfill a given design for a given application.
In other words, whoosh.
Exactly. Avatar is supposed to be teh seriouz bidnezz, but the McGuffin has a joke name.
Edit: You know what did nature vs. technology well? Princess Mononoke. Both sides had benefits and drawbacks.
I need to go rebuy that movie, I lost my copy. Hope it's on blu-ray.
i'm choosing to believe that the plot and characterization in this movie is so one-dimensional and ham-fisted because cameron is doing sci-fi for people who don't give a shit about sci-fi and therefore is totally alright with putting forward the most derivative plot ever
Or it's because James Cameron writes shitty crowd exploitation movies
On a scale of 1-10, with "10" being "exactly as over-the-top and physics-defying," to what extent does the action in Avatar resemble the action in Final Fantasy: Advent Children?
Because I didn't like that movie at all. I like more subdued, believable action.
Unobtainium is a facetious term for any extremely rare, costly, or physically impossible material needed to fulfill a given design for a given application.
In other words, whoosh.
Exactly. Avatar is supposed to be teh seriouz bidnezz, but the McGuffin has a joke name.
Whoosh referring to everyone missing the point. The term was used as a tongue-in-cheek nickname for the material because it was impossible to obtain anywhere else, it wasn't actually named that.
Unobtainium is also used for materials that are practical and really exist, but are difficult to get. For example, during the development and service period of the SR-71 Blackbird spy plane, engineers working for Lockheed Corporation at the Skunk Works used the term unobtainium as a dysphemism for titanium. This was not because of the radical decision to use the untried new material, but because at the time the Soviets were cornering the market in this material and were careful not to allow the American military to get hold of it.
I think just based on the number of eyeballs that will see this, regardless of how effectively the story was employed, it's going to be turned into a political football by tuesday.
I think he didn't mean to smash together Dances with Wolves and ALIENS, but on a story level, he just really isn't that creative at all, and has compensated by convincing himself subtle tweaks of a story constitute massive overhauls, like a DJ convincing himself he's a composer.
The comparisons with Star Wars are pretty apt, honestly: Star Wars was an overlong movie with a simple story, poorly written, saved by the fact the imagery in it was, at the time, easily the best looking thing ever put on screen. People aren't MAKING the comparison with that in mind, but it definitely fits. The main difference is that Lucas knew he was a shitty writer, passed his final draft off to friends who could sort of polish the turd, and tried to economize his time as much as possible. Cameron thinks he's a pretty good writer, has nobody editing him, and likes to sprawl as much as possible.
to what extent does the action in Avatar resemble the action in Final Fantasy: Advent Children?
None. The movies don't really compare at all. Advent Children doesn't look anywhere near as good and was directed very poorly.
That's why there was so much backlash against Titanic, too. Won lots of awards and made a lot of money when it was in theaters, but after a few years everyone realized that it was a pretty trite love story occurring on a giant special effect.
edit: I believe the 3D doesn't suck because the entire film was filmed in 3D, so there's no "going back to add 3D" in. When shit is redone to be 3D you typically have a relatively flat 3D experience with a few elements popping out of the screen. if the whole thing is 3D then the effect actually lends depth to the entire scene. But I haven't seen Avatar yet.
That's why there was so much backlash against Titanic, too. Won lots of awards and made a lot of money when it was in theaters, but after a few years everyone realized that it was a pretty trite love story occurring on a giant special effect.
Oh not just that but Jack is just a walking ego wank. The guy is perfect in every respect, and the rich people are giant douches to the core.
Depends on why you think 3D sucks. Does it give you a headache? Do the glasses sit weird on your head? Do you spend the entire time going "Gimmick gimmick gimmick gimmick gimmick THERE YOU GO TOOK YOU LONG ENOUGH TO POKE ME IN THE EYE WITH SOMETHING DIRECTOR-MAN fuck you and your gimmick gimmick gimmick gimmick"
If you appreciated the 3D in Coraline and UP, this employs it even better. It looks like objects really inhabiting the depth of field, as opposed to, as another critic put it "2D cardboard standups in front of a diorama." Maybe this defeats the purpose, but by that final 40 minutes, I kinda forgot I was even watching it in 3D. To me, that says it succeeded at being totally immersive. To others, they might think "Well, then why even do it in 3D?"
Side note: I now have a good definition of Objectivists and Libertarians - the former have basically succeeded in becoming so contrarian they can honestly root for the Colonel when watching Avatar, while the latter merely make sardonic and dismissive complaints about Cameron and Hollywood while desperately wishing that they one day can become as blunt and inane as the Obejctivists.
Or you could just not reduce entire ideologies to convenient caricatures that support your views based on the worst traits of the worst members of that ideology you've ever seen.
I think 3D sucks because it doesn't add anything, viscerally or artistically, to a film.
Seeing an explosion is one thing but when the flames leap off the screen it feels odd. Like a theme park ride as opposed to a film where a character is in close proximity to an explosion.
Not sure whether I'll bother seeing this film now. I didn't really care about the whole "evil megacorp menaces gaia-worshipping savages" thing because it's just a lazy plot cliche and can easily be handled without being preachy. But all the detailed reviews I've read say that the film is one big sermon on behalf of American liberalism. Is it really all that explicit, or do you actually have to go looking for the message (beyond the "noble savages yay" thing)?
Movies where the White man bonds with the local non-Whites and ends up fighting against his former White allies:
The Mission
The Last Samurai
Dances with Wolves
Movies where the White man bonds with the local non-Whites and ends up fighting other non-Whites:
Medicine Man
Seven Years in Tibet
The latest Rambo movie
Movies where the White man bonds with local Whites and ends up fighting non-Whites:
Uh .... Birth of a Nation?
Isn't there that Steven Segal film where he kills all the dudes working for an evil american oil megacorp on behalf of the oppressed...Inuits? Or something like that. That's off the top of my head ofc.
Pretty sure Segal's supposed to be one of them, there. Also, if you've not read it yet, maybe give Ebert's review a glance, it's what sold me on the movie.
Not sure whether I'll bother seeing this film now. I didn't really care about the whole "evil megacorp menaces gaia-worshipping savages" thing because it's just a lazy plot cliche and can easily be handled without being preachy. But all the detailed reviews I've read say that the film is one big sermon on behalf of American liberalism. Is it really all that explicit, or do you actually have to go looking for the message (beyond the "noble savages yay" thing)?
It's Cameron, so it's very explicit. he's not subtle in the slightest. You won't have to look for it, he's gonna nail it to the end of a 2x4 and swing it at your head like Joe Don Baker. What makes it tolerable is that it's so cardboard, and the story it's buried in is so bland, rote and GOOFY, that whatever weight that would have made it truly angering and incisive is blown away by the sound and fury of the imagery.
You'll only get as mad as it as you make yourself, because the story on its own is so thin that it's printed on hallmark stock.
Side note: I now have a good definition of Objectivists and Libertarians - the former have basically succeeded in becoming so contrarian they can honestly root for the Colonel when watching Avatar, while the latter merely make sardonic and dismissive complaints about Cameron and Hollywood while desperately wishing that they one day can become as blunt and inane as the Obejctivists.
Or you could just not reduce entire ideologies to convenient caricatures that support your views based on the worst traits of the worst members of that ideology you've ever seen.
Just a thought.
Bring me a libertarian who isn't a sad, complementary reaction to the kind of equally tiring left-winger who says things like "When small countries attack it's terrorism, when big countries attack it's a conflict."
I am not very impressed with my summary there, but my experience with libertarians suggests they are either somewhat detached bowtie-wearing scrubs who desperately try to put a spit-shine to the legacies of Reagan and Thatcher (despite the harm they did to people who don't fall in the demographies right-wingers care for) or glibertarians who feel clever for using the word "Goracle", use the "Econ 101" approach to all issues and desperately rub up to any famous person who is a libertarian in the same way that many gamers desperately clamor for "recognition" and "representation". Objectivists are just disgusting fucks.
None of that really has shit to do with Avatar, but I guess it's a decent example of how this movie is going to be very easily turned into a political football.
Unobtainium is a facetious term for any extremely rare, costly, or physically impossible material needed to fulfill a given design for a given application.
In other words, whoosh.
Exactly. Avatar is supposed to be teh seriouz bidnezz, but the McGuffin has a joke name.
Whoosh referring to everyone missing the point. The term was used as a tongue-in-cheek nickname for the material because it was impossible to obtain anywhere else, it wasn't actually named that.
Unobtainium is also used for materials that are practical and really exist, but are difficult to get. For example, during the development and service period of the SR-71 Blackbird spy plane, engineers working for Lockheed Corporation at the Skunk Works used the term unobtainium as a dysphemism for titanium. This was not because of the radical decision to use the untried new material, but because at the time the Soviets were cornering the market in this material and were careful not to allow the American military to get hold of it.
But they knew they were saying it as a joke, since the substance already had a very common name. In Avatar, Unobtanium is teh seriouz bidnezz.
None of that really has shit to do with Avatar, but I guess it's a decent example of how this movie is going to be very easily turned into a political football.
I was tempted. Those other guys were complaining about "White man's burden" in a very seductive manner, and we can all agree that they have a history of brief, non-committed and quite non-selective political grousing.
Re: unobtanium, scientists have been known to name things whimsically and self-referentially. Scientists are not exactly a "Serious business" bunch.
True, but if the "unobtanium" joke is old now, it would be positively creaky 150 years from now. I'd rather they did something new and creative, like naming it after the 23rd Century's equivalent of Stephen Colbert.
Not sure whether I'll bother seeing this film now. I didn't really care about the whole "evil megacorp menaces gaia-worshipping savages" thing because it's just a lazy plot cliche and can easily be handled without being preachy. But all the detailed reviews I've read say that the film is one big sermon on behalf of American liberalism. Is it really all that explicit, or do you actually have to go looking for the message (beyond the "noble savages yay" thing)?
It's Cameron, so it's very explicit. he's not subtle in the slightest. You won't have to look for it, he's gonna nail it to the end of a 2x4 and swing it at your head like Joe Don Baker. What makes it tolerable is that it's so cardboard, and the story it's buried in is so bland, rote and GOOFY, that whatever weight that would have made it truly angering and incisive is blown away by the sound and fury of the imagery.
You'll only get as mad as it as you make yourself, because the story on its own is so thin that it's printed on hallmark stock.
The unobtanium thing is going to be annoying solely for the fact that people will be doing this for the next 3 months
"What a dumb name!"
"But it's based in reality."
"It's still dumb."
"You're dumb."
"No U."
Regardless of whether it's a real term used by real scientists, Cameron isn't making a documentary here. He thinks he is in the first 90 minutes, but it's a work of narrative fiction. Regardless of the verisimilitude he thinks he's lending the thing by giving it that name, if the name is that distracting, you gotta change it. That's one of the beauties about fiction - if accuracy doesn't make the story you're telling play better, then fuck accuracy.
If he was making a movie about a child who saved another child from a well, and one of the kids was named Transsexxual McCockTuck, you know when the movie was made that kids name would be "Fred," or something.
Posts
this is exactly what i was afraid this movie was going to be. i still intend to go see it, because i still really love cgi wanks when i get to see them on gigantic screens and i love glowy shit, but i can somehow let my hopes get up for this movie after it started getting so many good reviews. kind of bummed that the plot is turning out to be 'hey this is how you do sci-fi, right'
Really ironic given that a white guy is using cutting edge technology and shoving it down the faces of everyone, everywhere on the globe.
Exactly. Avatar is supposed to be teh seriouz bidnezz, but the McGuffin has a joke name.
Edit: You know what did nature vs. technology well? Princess Mononoke. Both sides had benefits and drawbacks.
But the Bobos need assuaging!
I dunno why. In theory this is my kind of movie.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Because apparently white people can only be defeated by other white people.
It's like Electro-matter! (matters bad-ass grandma)
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
I thought the message was more in the spirit of "Yo, don't be cunts" which, as I see it, is a message that is only inane because of the fact that it is fruitless to try to get into people's heads. Natives are many things, but they have a history of leaving others, including the fucktards who whine about Hollywood being mean to corporations (I am not implying that you are that kind of person), well alone. Which, when I think about it, is the kind of behavior people who value independence and liberty (rather than use those concepts as backdrops to their own self-congratulatory puppet shows) should respect.
I loved the movie for its visuals and imaginative world-building, but like most I wasn't shook enough by much else. It's a great ride that spits in the eye of the kind of politics most people outside of think-tanks already loathe intensely - I think that if the movie had done more to paint a picture that studies the origins and fundamental conflicts that cause the kind of war we saw in the movies (rather than just spend time at the battlefront and showing the proper, and sadly not analogous, conclusion) it would have more impact.
But it's a very awesome movie, magnitudes more interesting and worthy of a screen than most movies of the year. Also, Cameron needs more Hollywood clout so he can go make the Alita movie. So go to it. IN THREE DEE.
Side note: I now have a good definition of Objectivists and Libertarians - the former have basically succeeded in becoming so contrarian they can honestly root for the Colonel when watching Avatar, while the latter merely make sardonic and dismissive complaints about Cameron and Hollywood while desperately wishing that they one day can become as blunt and inane as the Obejctivists.
I need to go rebuy that movie, I lost my copy. Hope it's on blu-ray.
Or it's because James Cameron writes shitty crowd exploitation movies
Because I didn't like that movie at all. I like more subdued, believable action.
http://www.cracked.com/article/240_avatar-horribly-written-way-too-long-totally-worth-it/
I think just based on the number of eyeballs that will see this, regardless of how effectively the story was employed, it's going to be turned into a political football by tuesday.
I think he didn't mean to smash together Dances with Wolves and ALIENS, but on a story level, he just really isn't that creative at all, and has compensated by convincing himself subtle tweaks of a story constitute massive overhauls, like a DJ convincing himself he's a composer.
The comparisons with Star Wars are pretty apt, honestly: Star Wars was an overlong movie with a simple story, poorly written, saved by the fact the imagery in it was, at the time, easily the best looking thing ever put on screen. People aren't MAKING the comparison with that in mind, but it definitely fits. The main difference is that Lucas knew he was a shitty writer, passed his final draft off to friends who could sort of polish the turd, and tried to economize his time as much as possible. Cameron thinks he's a pretty good writer, has nobody editing him, and likes to sprawl as much as possible.
None. The movies don't really compare at all. Advent Children doesn't look anywhere near as good and was directed very poorly.
Geek: Remixed - A Decade's worth of ruined pop culture memories
Xbox Live - Fatboy PDX
edit: I believe the 3D doesn't suck because the entire film was filmed in 3D, so there's no "going back to add 3D" in. When shit is redone to be 3D you typically have a relatively flat 3D experience with a few elements popping out of the screen. if the whole thing is 3D then the effect actually lends depth to the entire scene. But I haven't seen Avatar yet.
Oh not just that but Jack is just a walking ego wank. The guy is perfect in every respect, and the rich people are giant douches to the core.
If you appreciated the 3D in Coraline and UP, this employs it even better. It looks like objects really inhabiting the depth of field, as opposed to, as another critic put it "2D cardboard standups in front of a diorama." Maybe this defeats the purpose, but by that final 40 minutes, I kinda forgot I was even watching it in 3D. To me, that says it succeeded at being totally immersive. To others, they might think "Well, then why even do it in 3D?"
Geek: Remixed - A Decade's worth of ruined pop culture memories
Xbox Live - Fatboy PDX
Haven't seen it, but off the top of my head I would say he brings knowledge and understanding of their enemy.
Or you could just not reduce entire ideologies to convenient caricatures that support your views based on the worst traits of the worst members of that ideology you've ever seen.
Just a thought.
Seeing an explosion is one thing but when the flames leap off the screen it feels odd. Like a theme park ride as opposed to a film where a character is in close proximity to an explosion.
Now that would be awesome.
Mr. Eko as Kwami
Johnny Depp as Wheeler
Anna Kournikova as Linka
Gong Li as Gi
Oprah Winfrey as Gaia
David Hasselhoff as Captain Planet
The Mission
The Last Samurai
Dances with Wolves
Movies where the White man bonds with the local non-Whites and ends up fighting other non-Whites:
Medicine Man
Seven Years in Tibet
The latest Rambo movie
Movies where the White man bonds with local Whites and ends up fighting non-Whites:
Uh .... Birth of a Nation?
Isn't there that Steven Segal film where he kills all the dudes working for an evil american oil megacorp on behalf of the oppressed...Inuits? Or something like that. That's off the top of my head ofc.
It's Cameron, so it's very explicit. he's not subtle in the slightest. You won't have to look for it, he's gonna nail it to the end of a 2x4 and swing it at your head like Joe Don Baker. What makes it tolerable is that it's so cardboard, and the story it's buried in is so bland, rote and GOOFY, that whatever weight that would have made it truly angering and incisive is blown away by the sound and fury of the imagery.
You'll only get as mad as it as you make yourself, because the story on its own is so thin that it's printed on hallmark stock.
Geek: Remixed - A Decade's worth of ruined pop culture memories
Xbox Live - Fatboy PDX
Bring me a libertarian who isn't a sad, complementary reaction to the kind of equally tiring left-winger who says things like "When small countries attack it's terrorism, when big countries attack it's a conflict."
I am not very impressed with my summary there, but my experience with libertarians suggests they are either somewhat detached bowtie-wearing scrubs who desperately try to put a spit-shine to the legacies of Reagan and Thatcher (despite the harm they did to people who don't fall in the demographies right-wingers care for) or glibertarians who feel clever for using the word "Goracle", use the "Econ 101" approach to all issues and desperately rub up to any famous person who is a libertarian in the same way that many gamers desperately clamor for "recognition" and "representation". Objectivists are just disgusting fucks.
Geek: Remixed - A Decade's worth of ruined pop culture memories
Xbox Live - Fatboy PDX
But they knew they were saying it as a joke, since the substance already had a very common name. In Avatar, Unobtanium is teh seriouz bidnezz.
I was tempted. Those other guys were complaining about "White man's burden" in a very seductive manner, and we can all agree that they have a history of brief, non-committed and quite non-selective political grousing.
True, but if the "unobtanium" joke is old now, it would be positively creaky 150 years from now. I'd rather they did something new and creative, like naming it after the 23rd Century's equivalent of Stephen Colbert.
Eh, that doesn't sound too bad I guess.
"What a dumb name!"
"But it's based in reality."
"It's still dumb."
"You're dumb."
"No U."
Regardless of whether it's a real term used by real scientists, Cameron isn't making a documentary here. He thinks he is in the first 90 minutes, but it's a work of narrative fiction. Regardless of the verisimilitude he thinks he's lending the thing by giving it that name, if the name is that distracting, you gotta change it. That's one of the beauties about fiction - if accuracy doesn't make the story you're telling play better, then fuck accuracy.
If he was making a movie about a child who saved another child from a well, and one of the kids was named Transsexxual McCockTuck, you know when the movie was made that kids name would be "Fred," or something.
Geek: Remixed - A Decade's worth of ruined pop culture memories
Xbox Live - Fatboy PDX