_Avatar_, directed by James Cameron

lol that's exactly what i said to some ilxors irl last night iirc

It's not about character any more than The Thin Red Line is. It's about bugs and birds and animals and civilization and war.

― The Hood Won't Jump (Eazy), Monday, 21 December 2009 03:45 (55 minutes ago) Permalink

TTRL is very character-driven. I don't follow you here.

the problem is that this film's ideas about animals and civilization & war are dishonest & juvenile & not well considered

seriously with all the animals six-legged the na'vi happen to be the only tetrapods? i call bullshit!

;-)

I'm amused when I run across (not here fortunately) editorials gushing about how District 9 was so much superior to this. Umm guys, *both* movies are obvious, hamfisted, and regressive.

District 9 seemed to be way more confused as to what it was about. But of course that makes it a much more interesting movie.

To be clear: I meant that D9 is interesting because it is more contradictory and complex, not because being confused is interesting in itself.

the problem is that this film's ideas about animals and civilization & war are dishonest & juvenile & not well considered

― deej, Sunday, December 20, 2009 8:43 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

i don't think so, no more so than star wars is "dishonest & juvenile" about good & evil & the harmonies of the cosmos. it presents a fair portrait of certain realities, and also a fantasy about how things ought to be, how evil might be defeated. the fundamental messages about the sanctity of life & the value of a compassionate sense of interconnection - and about the way humans excuse their own greed & arrogance - were, i thought, right on. i'd go so far as to consider it an honest and thoughtful adventure film, though one intentionally aimed at young people & a "family audience".

i'll defend the characters, too. stephen lang as quaritch & zoe saldana as smurfette were especially vivid & memorable, and it's true that these were the film's most colorful and exaggerated characters - and that the rest were relatively bland. but i don't see that as a fault. though he was not an especially colorful presence, sam worthington was excellent as sully. i empathized with and liked the character, and would call it a quietly soulful performance rather than a bland one. human-sully's low presence, emotional fragility and weakness/disability became extremely poignant in the film's final act. (thinking of the emphasis of the physical differences between quaritch and sully in sully's "dark night of the soul" moment, and on neytiri's cradling of sully's tiny body.)

http://www.soulstrut.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/NO.gif

well okay then

http://i38.tinypic.com/21oymab.gif

i don't think so, no more so than star wars is "dishonest & juvenile" about good & evil & the harmonies of the cosmos. it presents a fair portrait of certain realities, and also a fantasy about how things ought to be, how evil might be defeated. the fundamental messages about the sanctity of life & the value of a compassionate sense of interconnection - and about the way humans excuse their own greed & arrogance - were, i thought, right on. i'd go so far as to consider it an honest and thoughtful adventure film, though one intentionally aimed at young people & a "family audience".

― a dimension that can only be accessed through self-immolation (contenderizer), Monday, December 21, 2009 12:53 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

it doesnt present a fair portrait at all:

1) its not 'fair' to draw parallels w/ this world, as if you're saying something about the state of this world, and then have those dilemmas resolved by 'god.'

2) i think its pretty dishonest to set up a framework w/ an ostensible nature/tradition vs. technology/progress fight, then undercut any meaning it could have or significance by giving the guys on the side of 'nature' a bunch of guns and not allowing them to use nature to fight. how are you gonna give the na'vi guns?? if this is a grand dramatic battle between two opposing philosophies you cant have the forces of 'nature' cheating like that! those guns were developed by the forces of progress & industrialization & mining. the na'vi should have fought w/ the tools at their disposal -- im not just mad that they dont explain how they even get these guns in the first place, but that by using them the story undercuts the idea that these are not just two warring groups randomly thrown together, but that there are philosophies underlining this battle.

3) why does the main character become their leader & convince them to martyr themselves? what did he think he was doing for them, and what was the purpose of their fight? its set up like hes got some grand plan, and instead he throws them all at a bunch of guys armed with missiles and guns, where they're torn to shreds (the only way the ending could be 'happy' was that god had to interfere!)

4) He displays this battle in a dishonest fashion -- suddenly, arrows are piercing cockpit windows, and theres a point at which the battle shows one person getting arrowed for everyone one person getting shot, as if the pitched battle is 'close' at first, and despite bravery they are barely overcome ... this is so manipulative considering the framework the film sets up. i dont care if theyre eight feet tall riding six-legged horses, a bunch of dudes with machine guns are going to just annihilate them.

5) why is any parallel w/ 'differences' between groups of people undercut by allowing the main character to fully transform into a na'vi person at the end? this is a CHEAT to let the audience feel like we have a happy ending that once again undercuts any dilemma the film sets up -- its yet another dishonest resolution.

why does the main character become their leader & convince them to martyr themselves?

because he nails his INSANE MOVE

tbh i feel bad for his o.g. dragon thing, fancy getting dumped like that, barely even got to know the guy

the reason star wars works is it sets up a system where the dark side appears more powerful & is more alluring, but ends up corrupting the person who tries to use it. this isnt undercut because luke refuses to kill his father in the end; the philosophies presented in a consistent (albeit simplistic) way, and the characters' behavior reflects these philosophies.

im not even dealing w/ the second paragraph because your argument seems to be "they are memorable because they are memorable" & i just dont agree i think they are the opposite of iconic. even your writing seems pretty sheepishly defensive ("hes not bland! hes ... 'quietly soulful'!")

various deej points:

1) i don't see how the deus-ex-machina was "unfair". actually, it was set up & executed pretty honorably as such things go. and i don't see why we should be troubled that the film draws parallels to but does not exactly match real world situations. as far as i'm concerned, cameron made his socio-political points, but allowed the story to develop & conclude on its own, fantastical terms. and that's fair play.

2) i was a bit surprised by the na'vi's recourse to guns, but it made sense in character. their home had been annihilated and they were being driven to exile & possibly worse. why wouldn't they use whatever tools they had at their disposal? and i think it's pretty reasonable to assume that what few guns they did have were provided by sully @ co, from what was available in the chopper & the remote base. after all, that's who was shown using the guns for the most part - the scientists in avatar form. didn't think that the use of guns compromised the basic clash of philosophies, anyway. the two groups' philosopical/spiritual differences seemed to run much deeper than that.

3) sully became the leader because he had to, and because he's the hero protagonist. and he threw them into hopeless battle because it was all he could think to do - as it turns out he thought wrong. perhaps he hoped that more na'vi would arrive in time to overwhelm the soldiers (something the soldiers themselves seemed to fear, regardless of their seemingly superior killing tech).

4) i'm with you on the arrows-piercing-windows bit. we'd been shown previously that this was impossible, laughable. maybe range was the issue, but this should have been handled better, i'll give you that. agree also that the film "changes the frame" with regard to the power balance between the na'vi and the soldiers. early in the film, it is made clear that the na'vi are viewed by the soldiers as dangerous but eradicable. suddenly at the end, the battle is presented as an open question. this shift, however, was better explained than the suddenly pregnable cockpit glass: the "toruk makto" unified\s the local tribes, suddenly altering the balance of power.

the reason star wars works is it sets up a system where the dark side appears more powerful & is more alluring, but ends up corrupting the person who tries to use it. this isnt undercut because luke refuses to kill his father in the end; the philosophies presented in a consistent (albeit simplistic) way, and the characters' behavior reflects these philosophies.

― deej, Monday, December 21, 2009 1:01 AM (19 minutes ago) Bookmark

i actually thought that avatar did a much better job than star wars when it came to honestly communicating the appeal of the "dark side" - and in hinging an emotional payoff on the hero's choice between darkness and light. the opening of the film very effectively conveys quaritch's POV and appeal to sully. his strength and capability in comparison to sully's disability. his appeal to sully's honor, loyalty and calling, as well as to the memory of sully's more accomplished older brother. his ability to offer a return to full physical capacity, etc.

in both films, of course, we never really doubt the hero's dedication to the side of good, but i thought avatar did a great job with the appeal of darkness.

1) i don't see how the deus-ex-machina was "unfair". actually, it was set up & executed pretty honorably as such things go. and i don't see why we should be troubled that the film draws parallels to but does not exactly match real world situations. as far as i'm concerned, cameron made his socio-political points, but allowed the story to develop & conclude on its own, fantastical terms. and that's fair play.

can you tell me what those points are.

im sorry dude i just tend not to enjoy 'fantastical worlds' where the consequences don't hinge in any way on the characters' actions

the real problem with the oncoming onslaught of modernization/industrialization/white dudes taking over worlds thing is that the natural world is not a match for it. when the europeans invaded north america, guns vs. bows and arrows, they conquered. they might have lost a few battles early on, but the reality of modernization/industrialization is a dilemma of 'how do you deal with this expanding, invasive population without killing the native people or damaging the natural environment.' the film's answer to this question was, 'fight back, die, then have god save you.' it set up a huge conflict & has to cheat to resolve it in a way that makes people feel good when they leave the theater -- if it wanted to be about how invading humans are assholes, it needed to deal with the solution in a way that felt true & honest ... and it failed at this

wHICH IS SOMETHING THAT dISTRICT 9 oops caps does, despite having a different dynamic set-up.

i think yr misconstruing the film's intent & methods, deej. and i don't accept that it needs to conclude with a real-world solution to or consequence of imperialist conquest/capitalist exploitation in order to be satisfying and "true" wr2 the issues it raises. for me, the conclusion was all the more poignant and powerful for its wish-fulfillment UNreality - because in our world, native peoples have no all-powerful gaia spirit to summon for aid, and thus are all-too-easily displaced if not slaughtered outright. we know this, and the contrast between the improbably happy ending offered in the film's fantasy world and the tragic ending that so often ensues in our own is, imo, quite moving.

suspect that we're just never gonna see eye-to-eye on this...

i don't think so, no more so than star wars is "dishonest & juvenile" about good & evil

i must admit: lol

district 9's not a fair comparison either, as it doesn't really conclude, but simply pauses in media res. we don't know in that film's case what the ultimate resolution will be. it's perhaps implied that a big ol deus ex machina is waiting out there in space to come and rain some retributive (and, wr2 the real-world parallels raised, quite improbable) revenge down on the human overseers. but i guess we have to wait and see.

main difference i see between the two is that avatar is basically a kid's flick, and it aims to inspire (while raising some very troubling and difficult issues), while district 9 is a rather grim, brutal and despairing film made for an adult audience. therefore, there's bound to be a bit more sugar in the former, but i don't think there's anything wrong with that.

x-post ha ;)

well of course it is, but not in a contemptible way

i think yr misconstruing the film's intent & methods, deej. and i don't accept that it needs to conclude with a real-world solution to or consequence of imperialist conquest/capitalist exploitation in order to be satisfying and "true" wr2 the issues it raises. for me, the conclusion was all the more poignant and powerful for its wish-fulfillment UNreality - because in our world, native peoples have no all-powerful gaia spirit to summon for aid, and thus are all-too-easily displaced if not slaughtered outright. we know this, and the contrast between the improbably happy ending offered in the film's fantasy world and the tragic ending that so often ensues in our own is, imo, quite moving.

suspect that we're just never gonna see eye-to-eye on this...

― a dimension that can only be accessed through self-immolation (contenderizer), Monday, December 21, 2009 6:18 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

argh dude i wasnt saying it needs to have a 'real world solution' but just that if you're going to set up a system, u have to have things behave w/in that system in an honest way & i dont think this film was remotely close to doing that. i guess if yr cool with films about wish fulfillment alternate realities you can dig this, but to me it rang entirely false. i dont buy the "its powerful because instead of being tragic, it made us happy" & it feels like yr writing paragraphs of exposition to explain fairly simple ideas as if you can write your way into believing it yourself

the real problem with the oncoming onslaught of modernization/industrialization/white dudes taking over worlds thing is that the natural world is not a match for it.

Boxcutters, though...

http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/johnny-knoxville-promises-avatar-technology-in-2010-jackass-3d/

oh man a 3D Jackass might cause fainting

"We're going to take the same 3D technology James Cameron used in AVATAR and stick it up Steve O's butt."

I bet within a few years there'll be a Ronin/Bourne-type movie with this technology. Maybe the next Bond?

i hate 3d

btw can anyone confirm there are battle scenes in this scored to CARMINA BURANA? If true, how original!

So, is this worth going to in 2D? My wife insists 3D movies make her nauseated.

btw can anyone confirm there are battle scenes in this scored to CARMINA BURANA? If true, how original!

Nah, the first assault on Hometree is accompanied by Takemitsu's "A Flock Descends Into The Pentagonal Garden" and the climactic battle is some kinda Meredith Monk / Laurie Anderson mash-up.

man this movie was awesome

tbh i feel bad for his o.g. dragon thing, fancy getting dumped like that, barely even got to know the guy

― dyao know what i mean (acoleuthic), Monday, December 21, 2009 3:57 AM (8 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

A+

I will have more to say tomorrow but I gotta lol at people attacking this from the perch of the morals and ethics of star wars

han silo saving the day certainly feels more honest than rhinos, yes

this movie shouldn't be surprising at all to anyone who has seen the abyss

i hear the fifth avatar is love

general 3-d discussion thred:

3D

is the thread in 3d?

tbh i feel bad for his o.g. dragon thing, fancy getting dumped like that, barely even got to know the guy

― dyao know what i mean (acoleuthic), Monday, December 21, 2009 3:57 AM (8 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

A+

― akira goldsman (s1ocki), Monday, 21 December 2009 17:33 (28 minutes ago)

oh yeah totally that was sad. you know homeboy probably found a sweet lady dragon (or boy dragon, if that's his thing) soon after though.

i hear the fifth avatar is love

― fictional, homosexual, Baltimore hoodlum (forksclovetofu), Monday, December 21, 2009 5:42 PM (21 minutes ago) Bookmark

^ lol

So, is this worth going to in 2D? My wife insists 3D movies make her nauseated.

due to weird eye problems, i can't see 3D. i still enjoyed the movie (and actually did manage to see a tiny bit of the 3D which really tripped me out because it's never worked for me in my life)

this 3D is different from any 3D i've seen. even the glasses aren't those cheap red and blue things.

how do the new 3d glasses work if you *already wear glasses*?

they act as an avatar for your old glasses