_Avatar_, directed by James Cameron

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

this movie blue, lol!

extraordinarily pretty story

Also, no money/family/legs is not an equal counter-balance to 12-feet tall, blue, ripped and engaged to a hot blue girlfriend in a tribe that has adopted you as family. And where the only humans with half a heart tend to show up to visit all the time, anyway. The deck, as they say, was stacked. Ergo, he had no incentive *not* to rebel. That's why he's there to begin with, in part. Nothing to lose. At least, so we presume, because there's not much to know about the guy except that for some reason Mother Pandora really likes him. (Also, of course, if he didn't rebel there wouldn't be a movie.)

why the fuck

is this movie being discussed in relation to 'Best Screenplay'

has everybody lost their fucking mind

(p.s. IN THE LOOP should be a lock for that particular award)

why the fuck

is this movie being discussed in relation to 'Best Screenplay'

because imagine the lols/wails if it wins

since when has the Oscars been a deliberate trolling exercise

.... since always???

this would take the cookie jar

why the fuck

is this movie being discussed in relation to 'Best Screenplay'

― Electric Universe (wherever that is) (acoleuthic), Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Because "best screenplay" /= "best dialogue" or even "best story"

As CRAFT, this screenplay is airtight and worthy of consideration.

efficiency is not a criterion of value. and anyway, this film is way too long to be called that. as for airtight -- no more or less than any other hollywood film released last year. 'best screenplay' *does* imply that the story is good or original (which this certainly isn't) and usually good dialogue.

i don't think it is that airtight really, but ymmv.

speaking of airtight -- how will the humans who stay on pandora survive long-term?

I guess the screenplay is pretty good by sci-fi action movie standards, but that doesn't actually make it good

it's less good than 'star trek' or 'district 9'; about level with '2012'.

"Star Trek" was way better than this, yes. I still have not managed to see "District 9" despite it being another movie I am guaranteed to love.

yeah i mean i'm on board w/avatar but screenplay come the fuck on?

it's not in the same league as district 9.

efficiency is not a criterion of value. and anyway, this film is way too long to be called that. as for airtight -- no more or less than any other hollywood film released last year.

false on both counts but I'm not gonna bother. unlike other technical categories, everyone's got an opinion about screenplay and it often does win on the basis of perceived middlebrow artiness cred but you know what: LOST IN TRANSLATION sucked.

am not really gonna dispute that. but if avatar wins best screenplay then every screenwriter in hollywood needs to slash their wrists

shittier movies have won oscars for best screenplay/picture

not every film with a cracking screenplay is middlebrow and arty fwiw