_Avatar_, directed by James Cameron

I was very surprised at how well the actors dealt with the dialogue.

I can't support the argument that the plot was bad. It was very simple, but that helped the overall movie; trying to graft psychological headfuckery onto those visuals likely would have detracted from both.

well it was bad because it was cookie-cutter

I don't like equating "bad" with "predictable". I pretty much knew exactly what was going to happen at all times but that didn't affect my enjoyment of the movie.

this will be nominated for best picture but it ain't winning it
gonna get a shit ton of technical awards though.

It should!

yeah duh

kind of love how terrible the videogame looks in comparison to the movie

if UP IN THE AIR takes Best Screenplay over this it's a crime

i definitely like Children Of Men's version of future tech but the way tech is handled in Avatar is very well done, doesn't seem as forced as Minority Report's virtual pilates.

The virtual tech was probably the most effective use of the 3D IMO.

childhood gbx was thrilled to see mecha suits

the video blogging was so horrible

vlog of the future

holy xpost

Why was it horrible? It made sense to me.

it was as corny and awkward a plot device as having every scene start with "dear diary, today was another crazy day here on pandora..."

*looks down, rubs forehead*

The videoblogging was kind of hilarious and fit entirely into the trashy science fiction I've spent the last 3 decades of my life reading; also, Jake's resigned "they're never going to leave Hometree" vlog was effective acting.

my so called av

the vlogging was super convenient for steve lang to just GUI in on some errant terminal and be all "AHA U SAID IT HERE @STARLOG 2051 etc NOW U PREPARE TO DIE" which is a common plot device in almost all the great film classics.

corny and awkward plot device

Diaries are de rigueur for any exploration story, partly because virtually every explorer in history has kept one. I guess I could see taking issue with it being video rather than written or audio, but given that we live in a world that already has video logs, I don't see why it would be out of place in the future.

how long have you all been posting on forums

i think movies that are supposed to visually innovative and stunning leaps forward in storytelling should tell the story through images and actions, not thru having the main character talk into the camera

I've been posting for years

Um, the movie was a stunning leap forward in CGI technology and how that can impact the way people present stories, not a stunning leap forward in how to tell a story, particularly since it was allegedly written when Cameron was 15 years old. I have no idea where you got "stunning leap forward in storytelling" from wrt this movie.

i'm saying it's not a stunning leap forward in storytelling - i believe i have read raves to that effect, but that is really secondary to my point

don't call it a comeback xp

slock: which is precisely why so many movies don't have voice overs or have the characters break the 4th wall?

don't get me wrong all are dirt-cheap plot devices which turn me off majorly, but i can undoubtedly forgive them in massive blockbusters.

do you hate when kirk blogs in star trek too y/n

kirk doesnt stare at the camera like hes on bloggingheads.tv

I guess you guys prefer people do their video diaries in profile or somethin.

Or off-camera for a spooky ghost effect.

i would have liked to see sully give last rites to the big baddie at the end. i mean they even foreshadowed it.

re. plot's simplicity -- in a weird way it isn't. i'm still v unclear on: do the blue people understand what avatars are? if not, how do they account for signourney wearing a crop top?

also if they're all so nice and cuddly why does the main chick almost kill terminator 4 when they first meet?

well they call them dreamwalkers and know that sigourney the human is the same entity/personality whatever as sogoruney the big blue stanford grad, so

that's... kind of impressive, really, that they understand. though it begs the question "what is the point of avatar'ing up?" if they don't need to be covert.

that said, ribisi claims they've given them medicine n shit. he is kind of right that everything is a fucking sacred site for them.

For such a big giant (sentient) planet, we're barely given a glimpse of Na'viland. It's unclear how big Pandora even is. Do we ever learn how long Earth has been meddling with Pandora (it takes five years to get there, they say - have humans been there for decades?)? Do we ever learn why they even bothered with the Avatar program, when they brought along all those hulking forest clearers and other WMD hardware just in the, oh, off chance they wanted to bulldoze the planet anyway? Do we ever learn how T4 became paraplegic? Does it matter? The movie just glosses over most of the questions/issues it opts to raise. Saving it all for the sequel, I suppose. In 4-D smell-o-vision.

narration can be used really well. in this case i thought it was sucky and felt cheap. thats all im saying.

I really couldn't be bothered to worry about cheap narration when there was a GIANT FOUR EYED DRAGON FLYING IN 3D on the screen

http://www.nfb.org/images/nfb/Publications/vod/vod23_2/woman-shrugging-shoulders.gif

if UP IN THE AIR takes Best Screenplay over this it's a crime

They are in different categories; UitA is adapted from a novel. This is "original," and would lose to the oh-so "original" Quentin Tarantino if it was nominated, which it won't be.

what was the least original thing about the tarantino script, in your opinion?

Do we ever learn how long Earth has been meddling with Pandora (it takes five years to get there, they say - have humans been there for decades?)?

Not that I recall.

Do we ever learn why they even bothered with the Avatar program, when they brought along all those hulking forest clearers and other WMD hardware just in the, oh, off chance they wanted to bulldoze the planet anyway?

They were trying diplomatic means initially for PR/token "trying not to look like dicks" reasons.

Do we ever learn how T4 became paraplegic? Does it matter?

No, but considering that it happened before the events of this story it doesn't really matter. The only reason he's a paraplegic is so that he can experience the joy of walking again when he jumps into the avatar and therefore has an excuse for running around like a coked-up 3-year-old.

The movie just glosses over most of the questions/issues it opts to raise.

Most of the questions you're asking would have been irritating unnecessary padding had the movie tried to answer them and it was already 2 hr 40 min long.

So was it a Predator ship?

NED WINS LOCK THREAD

please

Well, some of those questions matter. Like, what does T4 have to lose by rebelling? What's at stake for him? For that matter, why does he begin by helping out head Marine? It's not military jurisdiction, so ... why? Just to be nice? Ex-Marine pride? If he lost his legs, say, not fighting, or in some non-war accident, then mentally it would provide extra psychological incentive for participation, I suppose.

By "matter," of course, I mean matter in making it a better movie. It was fine as is, but "OMG, it's 160 minutes long already!" is no excuse. "Lawrence of Arabia"=227, "Godfather II"=200. "Heat"=170. Etc. Each of those is far richer, both visually and narrative-wise, than "Avatar," and none feels a second too long or padded. But of course, none of them are in 3-D, either, so I suppose there's that.

this movie sucked

oh idk "Heat" seemed pretty padded and interminable to me so YMMV i guess xpost

what does T4 have to lose by rebelling? What's at stake for him?

If he doesn't help, a world and woman he has come to love get brutalized. If he does, he can't go home again. I didn't think this was particularly ambiguous or subtle.

For that matter, why does he begin by helping out head Marine?

You missed the massive "once a Marine, always a Marine" vibes the movie was bludgeoning the audience with up until he fell in love?

If he lost his legs, say, not fighting, or in some non-war accident, then mentally it would provide extra psychological incentive for participation, I suppose.

Actually I have remembered that they do say in passing how he lost his ability to walk; it was in the massive firefight the colonel mentions when they are doing their Marine bonding bit over their war injuries (I believe it was also referenced in the opening voiceover but don't remember because it wasn't very important to the story or his motivations; obviously not being able to walk does not stop him from identifying more with the Marines than the scientists).

My point in mentioning the length was that stuffing it with the things you're asking about would have served no point. Sometimes things can be taken at face-value an no everything is particularly deep or profound. The story choices in this movie are perfectly adequate for what it is; an extraordinarily pretty story about a dude who falls in love with a planet and a girl.

this movie sucked

― max, Wednesday, January 6, 2010 4:11 PM (43 minutes ago) Bookmark

qft

this movie blew lol

this movie blew lol

― mdskltr (blueski), Wednesday, January 6, 2010 11:56 AM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

otm