All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
James Cameron's imagination has finally been unleashed, without limits or restrictions. Avatar is easily one of the year's best films and Cameron's best since Aliens. A truly astounding accomplishment, visually stunning with strong performances and a well-thought out plot. Hollywood has earned it's future and more importantly, Cameron has proven that he still does it like no one else.
Everyone knows the story, so I'll skip to the good stuff. The visuals are completely flawless, as far as I could see. They were convincing enough at any rate to totally suck me into the world of Pandora and the Na'vi, the inhabitants of the alien world. This is no mere tribe of movie aliens, this is a complete culture. They have their own language, rituals, mannerisms, traditions and religion. Cameron and his team have imbued their world with detail not seen since Tolkein. And this is ultimately what makes the rest of the film so successful. I believed in this race and their struggle and the story and characters were more appealing for it. The animation effects made old movie conventions fresh and believable again.
The action sequences are pretty stunning in this film, with set-ups and payoffs that feel like what we used to get when people still actually tried when making an action film. The whole motif of nature against machine that runs through the film really makes for some interesting action scenes, which are more than just explosions and movement and noise. They have a rhythm and a flow, a kind of logical sense that we only find in the great action films.
And what is more, the film is completely unbelievable looking. Every frame and shot is packed with detail and wonder that the entire thing seems to move too fast. Cameron doesn't dwell on the details of the world, he simply shows it and continues his story the way Lucas did with the original Star Wars all those years ago. There are scenes of great wonder and beauty that just move by, but there are also some that pause a moment and allow the characters (and us) to truly absorb this world that is so completely different from our own. The cinematography and the animation effects are married perfectly and the result is truly remarkable.
If the film has a shortcoming it is that there simply isn't enough time spent in this world, which is a strange statement to make for a film that is almost three hours long but it is the truth. I wanted to see more of Pandora's jungles and forests, I wanted to know more about the plants and the life and what their relationship is to each other. Rather than sequels exactly, I want to see a series of documentaries in the style of the BBC's Planet Earth extravaganza, only about this world: Planet Pandora, narrated by Richard Attenborough. That would truly be awe-inspiring.
I guess I could go on and on about this movie for a long time. I imagine the feeling I had walking away from this film is the same feeling people had walking away from Star Wars, and the comparison is not inappropriate. Although their stories are completely different, I am certain their legacies will be similar. Hollywood has a future now, and Avatar is just the beginning. This is a film that delivers on all its promises, giving us a deeply rich and enjoyable film as well as an intimate character study and one hell of a roller coaster ride. Everyone should experience this film for themselves.
I've just finished seeing Avatar not more than 15 minutes ago.
Spent £8.50 on the ticket, 80pence on the 3D glasses and this is the first time 3D actually meant 3D. I had a choice to see the 2D or 3D version, but why bother with 2D?
This film is totally for the IMAX although I didn't try that cinema, your local will do. I'm thinking of going to the IMAX to try this film again.
I'm ususally a sit near the back type of person. This film should be seen near the front so that the edges of the film aren't seen.
I too like Matt think this film is truly beautiful. A host of new animals and plants dominate scenes and each time I was drawn to a weird and wonderful creation, other animals or plants would pass me by. I especially liked the night scenes.
I don't think this film will spawn sequels but as ever the film leaves it open for the next chapter.
Despite what Matt say about these Aliens, I saw comparisons with African tribes.
P.S.
Slight correction, Sir David Attenborough would narrate and I would agree this would be cool to see. Maybe as an extra on the dvd.
If this film has toys ready to buy I can see them snapped up for Christmas.
Well. Anyone who has ever read one of my reviews of a movie I liked knows that I tend to over exaggerate about how good the movie is. Not this time.
This is the best movie I've ever seen. There. I said it. The special effects are not great. They are perfect. You never once look at something and think "damn, those are some good special effects". You never even notice them. Why? Because you simply can't tell what is real and what isn't. It's fair for you all to think I'm exaggerating... but that is only because you have yet to see this masterpiece.
And contrary to what some critics are saying, the story does not play second fiddle to the effects. Cameron has crafted the most believable alien world ever put on film. Star Wars has nothing on Avatar. Not going to go into details about the story and characters. Don't wanna ruin the many surprises to be had.
Next up... the action. Micheal Bay should honestly consider retirement. This is how action should be. Thrilling and intense, not overly loud and jarring. The end sequence alone is the exciting battle sequence I've ever seen.
Acting is all top notch. Sam Worthington will be remembered for his role as Jake Sully, much like his co-star Weaver will always be remembered for her role as Ellen Ripley from the Alien series.
Okay. I've preached about whats good. So what's bad? Nothing. You would have to be one jaded pessimist to find a flaw in this film. Alright. Review's done. See the movie now!
The story itself is so-and-so, nothing groundbreaking, but the visuals are simply breathtaking. Whether it holds up in 2D is another question and I'm not sure how great this movie's replay value is but...DAMN! In 3D, this movie kicks ass.
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
Rob, the film is very re-watchable. Just saw it again last night and I've already got plans to see it again on Monday! Can't wait!
Oh, and quick tip about the Avatar video game. Don't bother. At least not until it has dropped to 20$. It's interesting and there are a lot of really cool ideas at work, but it seems like it was rushed out to release with the film. Such a shame. Still, worth a rental for the curious.
The story itself is so-and-so, nothing groundbreaking, but the visuals are simply breathtaking. Whether it holds up in 2D is another question and I'm not sure how great this movie's replay value is but...DAMN! In 3D, this movie kicks ass.
It definitely holds up. I've seen it in both versions now and it still fucking rocks.
It definitely holds up. I've seen it in both versions now and it still fucking rocks.
That's good to hear, Matt.
I've had time now to completely digest the movie and will try to offer up my review of the film.
Like I mentioned earlier, visually, this movie is mindblowingly beautiful. I watched it in 3D and, regardless of what Matt says, I have doubts about how it holds up in 2D. Primarily because the movie is long - longer than it had to be, I feel - but I was okay with that because Pandora in 3D is worth it.
But when you strip the CGI away, when you peel the layers off and you get to the core story...it's - not disappointing - but underwelming. The problem is that it's so unoriginal. This is Dances with Wolves in space with a touch of The Matrix and operation Iraqi freedom. That's pretty much all it is. You have the bad guys (and they're really bad, I mean, the shade of grey does not exist in this movie, all is black or white. You're either sugar-coated good or mustache-twirling bad - it's that unsubtle)...what was I saying?
Oh, yeah, the bad guys need the Na'vis land because they're sitting on top of a huge cluster of oil - I mean unobtaininum. The Na'vis don't want to move - obviously - so the humans bring in George Bush - I mean Stephen Lang - and he starts a...did I hear him right? A Shock & Awe campaign?
While all of this is going on, Kevin Costner - I mean Sam Worthington's character falls in love with the Na'vi's way of life and - very not-surprisingly - one of the natives and sides with them and they go off and have a big battle (which was awesome by the way).
If you have seen Dances with Wolves or, idunno, the trailer to Avatar, then you don't really need to sit through the first 2h20m to figure out what's going on. Just come in for the final 20 minutes and enjoy the big battle - and mark my words, you will be entertained.
I'm not bashing this movie cos' I was entertained throughout, but - from a story standpoint - it was not as good as I had hope. The packaging though was un-fucking-believable.
Definitely not the best Cameron movie ever - that titlebelt is still wrapped around the waist of The Abyss - but definitely not the worst either.
My .02.
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
I have to back up what everyone else has been saying. A truly awe inspiring film.
I've seen mixed reviews and as is so often the case, it only makes me think less of the critics because it's clear that they have no concept about what they are talking about.
It's a beautiful work of art, absolutely breathtaking.
It has been a great year for Sci-Fi, with Avatar and District 9 being two of the best films I've seen in years.
The Na'vi are beautifully realised. The trailers for the film were less than inspiring imo, it looked like Fern Gully, but their realisation in the film is a work of genius. The planet absolutely feels real and alive. And the Na'vi are beautiful, they feel alive and there is a palpable sense of sexuality in the air.
Rob is technically correct in what he says about the story-line, but the genius of the film is underneath the mechanics. All the cliches and story points are there, but they are over-ridden by sheer vitality of the film.
This film shows why the Heroes Journey template works. At its best it has the ability to speak to our racial identity as humans, that's why it is Universal, it looks at who were are and who we should be.
It is a staggering achievement, marrying technical excellence with a true heart.
In terms of legacy: I don't think it has the legs of a Star Wars, simply because the story is too small to expand upon.
Star Wars created an entire Universe, filled with millions of Star systems and an infinite variety of species and characters. It's grown beyond its life as a film and taken on a vast life of its own, practically creating a new Religion. It follows a time frame never witnessed in any other creation, following stories set over thousands of years and through whole characters life times.
There are already over 200 novels (with another 40 before 2013 on the way) and 30 years worth of comic literature and the sheer depth of that universe continues to amaze.
It's possible to tell any story whatsoever in the Star Wars Universe because the scope of it is as vast as the Universe itself.
What it has done is raise the bar on a more specific level. No world has been created in such microscopic detail.
Like others, I'd love to spend more time there.
You have to see this film at the Cinema in 3D. It would be tantamount to sacrilege to not see it as it was intended to be seen.
If you are anything like me, you'll want to go and see it again.
A beautiful film that restores faith in what looks a jaded industry at times.
James Cameron IS a genius and I hope we don't have to wait so long to see his next film. There simply aren't enough filmmakers who can make films of this magnitude.
It was like a remake of Battle for Endor but they swaped the Ewoks for blue cats.
I totally agree with Rob on this one.
The visuals and 3D is worth the watch alone.
Now all I need is a National Geographic documentry on the ecology of Pandora and how it evolved into the wild life it is in the movie and what it evolved from.
. Now all I need is a National Geographic documentry on the ecology of Pandora and how it evolved into the wild life it is in the movie and what it evolved from.
This would be extremely cool...The next step is Pandora as a Eco-Tourist destination...Who wouldn't want to spend a weekend in the glow in the dark forest?
Maybe not a perfect movie, but certainly the best I've seen thus far...
A must, must, MUST see, well worth the extra 3 bucks for the 3D...It's more a depth effect and it looks fantastic...There are no arrows or squished out eyeballs that fly out towards the audience. Definitely has to be experienced on the big screen as well...
Zoe Saldana is the hottest blue monkey lemur creature...ever.
Failure is only the opportunity to begin again more intelligently - Dove Chocolate Wrapper
Let's be fair, what can be said that has not yet been said. The thought in mind when I left the 2D version was that Cameron is a genius, plain and simple; however, is this really one of the best movies of recent times? A stretch. The visuals and groundbreaking nature of the movie are the true selling points. The story was engaging and yet it was nowhere near the sheer power of 'Terminator', for me. The thing that most people left with was that film has moved into a new age, visually. When I finished watching 'Terminator', there was a wealth of various themes that can be applied, a real resonance, but where was this in 'Avatar'?The notion of an avatar, a vessel was fertile ground for something very meaty, but it just wasn't there for Mr. Allen.
Good film, but the suffocating hype and proclamations of it being one of the best in the last x years really misleads, IMO.
Let's be fair, what can be said that has not yet been said. The thought in mind when I left the 2D version was that Cameron is a genius, plain and simple; however, is this really one of the best movies of recent times? A stretch. The visuals and groundbreaking nature of the movie are the true selling points. The story was engaging and yet it was nowhere near the sheer power of 'Terminator', for me. The thing that most people left with was that film has moved into a new age, visually. When I finished watching 'Terminator', there was a wealth of various themes that can be applied, a real resonance, but where was this in 'Avatar'?The notion of an avatar, a vessel was fertile ground for something very meaty, but it just wasn't there for Mr. Allen.
Good film, but the suffocating hype and proclamations of it being one of the best in the last x years really misleads, IMO.
Andrew
Each to their own as always.
You had a similar reaction to District 9 as I recall.
When people throw around the term, "the best film in years", it tends to raise expectations and they can harm your viewing experience. That's why I always ignore reviews until I've seen the film myself.
The professional reviews of the film have been quite mixed. Generally favourable, but nothing like the publics reaction, which for me is the real test of a film.
Personally, when I got to the Cinema this is exactly the type of experience I crave. I want to be taken to places I've never seen before and this film did that in a way not previously seen.
For me there have been very few truly great films made by the Hollywood system over the last 10 or twenty years. Most of the films that have really moved me have been smaller style pictures.
This film was like a return to the age of Speilberg and Lucas (and of course Cameron) when they matched huge action with genuine heart, whilst it also pushed 3D technology and CGI to new heights.
As far as the resonance that you spoke of; The themes in it are as powerful and as important as they've ever been. A look at humanity and what we have lost in our never ending quest for money at the expense of our spiritual connection to our planet and each other.
Personally I don't think there is any greater, or more pertinent theme possible.
You had a similar reaction to District 9 as I recall.
When people throw around the term, "the best film in years", it tends to raise expectations and they can harm your viewing experience. That's why I always ignore reviews until I've seen the film myself.
The professional reviews of the film have been quite mixed. Generally favourable, but nothing like the publics reaction, which for me is the real test of a film.
Personally, when I got to the Cinema this is exactly the type of experience I crave. I want to be taken to places I've never seen before and this film did that in a way not previously seen.
For me there have been very few truly great films made by the Hollywood system over the last 10 or twenty years. Most of the films that have really moved me have been smaller style pictures.
This film was like a return to the age of Speilberg and Lucas (and of course Cameron) when they matched huge action with genuine heart, whilst it also pushed 3D technology and CGI to new heights.
As far as the resonance that you spoke of; The themes in it are as powerful and as important as they've ever been. A look at humanity and what we have lost in our never ending quest for money at the expense of our spiritual connection to our planet and each other.
Personally I don't think there is any greater, or more pertinent theme possible.
Hello there, dec. Aye, 'District 9' and 'Avatar' both disappointed to a degree, yes. It's just that the hype feels disproportionate to the quality, but I do believe both are good films. 'Inglorious Basterds' is more to my taste, for example.
Nice summary of the themes explored, but I don't know, it was just too there, y'know, less subtlety and that's why it didn't resonate with me. Cameron felt far subtler with 'Terminator', but it's all personal opinion, so all good.
Hello there, dec. Aye, 'District 9' and 'Avatar' both disappointed to a degree, yes. It's just that the hype feels disproportionate to the quality, but I do believe both are good films. 'Inglorious Basterds' is more to my taste, for example.
Nice summary of the themes explored, but I don't know, it was just too there, y'know, less subtlety and that's why it didn't resonate with me. Cameron felt far subtler with 'Terminator', but it's all personal opinion, so all good.
Hope you're well.
Andrew
Fair enough.
Personally I don't know how you can even compare Avatar to something like Basterds. One is a Cinematic milestone, the other is a throwaway spaghetti western. I do understand people have different tastes, but on an objective level as possible...I'm not sure they are really even in the same league.
You've mentioned the hype thing again and I think that is playing a part in your appreciation. I also think that you missed a beat by seeing it in 2D. The film was designed to immerse you in an alien world and unless you see it in the state it was intended, I don't think you are doing it justice.
I do understand what you are saying about Terminator. Star Wars, The Terminator, Aliens and Jaws were my favourite films growing up as a kid, and all these years later, they are still my favourite films now.
For me nothing has really come close to those films in a long time. T2 was all the way back in 91. That was a great film, but I preferred the dark menace of the original personally.
So, for me, it's indicative of the situation when you compare Avatar to Terminator.
The mega-blockbuster only came about with Jaws. People forget how that film changed the whole thinking of the Industry. It made the B-Movies into the A-movies.
At that time people were talking about the death of the Cinema because of television and it was films like Jaws and later ET that brought them back in their droves. We're at a similar point now and Avatar is the first film that genuinely has to be seen on the biggest 3D screen possible. It makes Cinema exciting again.
There is something special about the huge blockbusters that only the huge corporations can create and the last twenty years of them haven't been that great. LOTR was the best of a bad bunch. That was a technical marvel and shot on an epic scale, but it was based on a 100 year old story and that showed at times (the third book was poor) , plus it was a slightly underwhelming adaption in some places for me, on an emotional level. Aragorn wasn't regal or inspiring enough (that guy from Brookside was a better king), Boromir and Faramir were both critically under-developed in the Theatre cut etc.
Still great films though.
Aside from that I'm struggling:
X-Men, Iron Man and the Dark Knight are decent examples of the Superhero films that have been popular. The Dark Knight was a good film, but nowhere near the standard that people said it was for me. Batman's voice threw me out of the film whenever he spoke, the story was disjointed and lacked tension. The love interest was annoying. The transformation of two-face was unconvincing, his death a travesty. 80% great, 20% crap film for me and it's the 20% that has stuck with me.
The Harry Potters are OK, fun films, nothing more. I, Robot was a decent flick.
The Micheal Bay films are ususally fun, but without even a semblance of human interest.
When you look at the major blockbuster type films that have been released the past 20 years, you can see why District 9 and Avatar are so highly rated.
As I said at the time, D9 was the first film that gave me hope that someone could actually better Star Wars. The demise of Spielberg and Lucas and the absence of Cameron left a void of Directors who could direct truly epic, original films.
Now Cameron is back and has shown that he hasn't lost his touch as well.
Personally, for once, I think the hype is justified.
James Cameron has re-established himself as the absolute Master and Blomkamp looks to be the first Director since the late 70's with the ability to marry imagination, vision with raw power.
Avatar has put the major studio flicks of the last 20 years in a box marked obsolete.
too much mother nature shit quite frankly. some of it seemed very hokey. plus did anybody else think sigorney weaver kinda sucked? her acting skills seemed a little out of touch...
however, awesome battle scenes and the scenery was beyond beautiful. very imaginitive and the 3D just blew me away.
the story was just okay. nothing special. plus i didnt like the ending.
This Pandora place was talked up in the film as a real hell hole. And yet it's all so pretty and harmless most of the time.
Any why are all these characters telling me what's going every five bleedin' minutes?
The battle just beofre the end tied a lot of stuff up nicely though. Best bit by far.
Most of the creatures were great. But there was something definitely plasticky about those Navi and their movements.
Unobtanium? Is someone taking the piss?
It's too long, too bleeding' nice and far too stereotypical. Some of the dialogue is clunkier than some of my old cars.
Sigourney Weaver rarely disappoints but her dialogue was bad even she couldn't save it. Sam Worthington is Australian. Sadly his accent can't stop reflecting. Another take James? No, will that do?
Sadly disappointing for me. I watched 2012 afterwards. The plot is hopeless, the dialogue so cliched it hurts and the characters are cut out. However the effects and the action and the pace are amazing. Especially after Avatar.
Don't get me wrong, this has some brilliant bits and often shows flashes of genius. But the dull kids films parts kill the good stuff. It needs at least half an hour trimming and will someone please fix that dialogue? It sucks like a dog.
This Pandora place was talked up in the film as a real hell hole. And yet it's all so pretty and harmless most of the time.
Any why are all these characters telling me what's going every five bleedin' minutes?
The battle just beofre the end tied a lot of stuff up nicely though. Best bit by far.
Most of the creatures were great. But there was something definitely plasticky about those Navi and their movements.
Unobtanium? Is someone taking the piss?
It's too long, too bleeding' nice and far too stereotypical. Some of the dialogue is clunkier than some of my old cars.
Sigourney Weaver rarely disappoints but her dialogue was bad even she couldn't save it. Sam Worthington is Australian. Sadly his accent can't stop reflecting. Another take James? No, will that do?
Sadly disappointing for me. I watched 2012 afterwards. The plot is hopeless, the dialogue so cliched it hurts and the characters are cut out. However the effects and the action and the pace are amazing. Especially after Avatar.
Don't get me wrong, this has some brilliant bits and often shows flashes of genius. But the dull kids films parts kill the good stuff. It needs at least half an hour trimming and will someone please fix that dialogue? It sucks like a dog.
Ren
Did you watch it in 2D or 3D?
Ah, just saw on another thread that you intended to see it in 2D. That explains your reaction.
Cameron has spent the last 14 years creating new Cameras just to shoot the film in the way it was intended. The 3D is critical to the film, it's not just a gimmick.
It's about experiencing the alien world as a participant, rather than as a voyeur.
I can't stress enough just how important it is that people watch Avatar in the way it was meant to be seen. The genius of the film is not in the story, it is in the completeness of the vision of the world. If you watch it in 2D, you are missing out on 70% of the experience. The CGI looks worse and all the little touches that make it such an experience will be missed out on.
AVATAR has to be watched on an IMAX screen in 3D.
Wartching it in 2D is like judging sculptures by looking at photographs.
I've seen a couple of things in 3D but I hate losing the light, and wearing glasses, and paying extra.
So Dec, it was 2D.
Hey, I'm sure it is. But if you're saying it don't work in 2D then something else is wrong. What, I missed out cos the spears don't come at me?
For each their own. I've gotta see it again so I'll try 3D. I'm open minded. However, I don't think much is gonna change. Unless I'm completely wrong it's way too long and half of that dialogue sounds like it was knocked up by nerds high on sugar.
The detractors have convinced me. It sounds like it's just another soulless Hollywood event movie. I'm not seeing it. I don't really like the genre anyway.
Chris, you will regret not seeing it in 3D, at the cinema.
I beg you, for your sake, please - see - this - film.
RV, sorry you didn't like it... there will never be a film some people won't dislike. Does that make sense? I hope so.
Chris, don't say no just by a few people saying they don't like it. At least watch the trailer to get a feel for it. Sure, it doesn't have all the EMOTION, but it's a step in the right direction.
I've seen a couple of things in 3D but I hate losing the light, and wearing glasses, and paying extra.
So Dec, it was 2D.
Hey, I'm sure it is. But if you're saying it don't work in 2D then something else is wrong. What, I missed out cos the spears don't come at me?
For each their own. I've gotta see it again so I'll try 3D. I'm open minded. However, I don't think much is gonna change. Unless I'm completely wrong it's way too long and half of that dialogue sounds like it was knocked up by nerds high on sugar.
3D won't fix the slightly clunky dialogue.
However if you compare the reaction of those that have seen it in 3D to those that have seen it in 2D, the difference in opinion is enormous.
Almost everyone that saw it in 3D loved it, almost everyone that saw it in 2D thought it was just OK.
In 3D you'd happily spend another hour or so just walking round the world staring at the plants, in 2D the pace seems to drag. That's just the impression I get from what people have said.
It's probably too late for you to get the buzz you would have done because the novlety will have worn off, but for those that haven't seen it, they have to see it in 3D.
It's crazy to not go and see the film that has been made with the express intention of starting a 3D revolution, in 3D.
I see what you mean re: 'Avatar' being a shift towards the more epic, or dare I say fanboy genre again, but to me - at least from a economic stance, not artistic - the Twilight series is more akin to the longevity going forward visited with the likes of 'Star Wars', and this reflects an evolution in cinema goers. The two Twilight movies have made close to a billion bucks, and with two more in the pipeline, who knows what it will eventually pull in. Sure, artistically, 'Avatar' represents a director-led film, where imagination knows no bounds, and that's good for a certain segment of cinema goers.
I don't think 'IB' and 'Avatar' can be compared on a genre level, but both are works of art, and designed to entertain, so in that respect, they are comparable. The reason that I prefer the likes of 'IB' to 'Avatar' is because they feel more character-led to me - not necessarily the case, of course - and things like 'Avatar' or 'LOTR' feel less people-focused. It's about a fictional world, and it's hard for me to relate to that, so I search for some theme that sticks with me for real-life application, which is what I achieved with 'Terminator'. Much of my joy with film is finding something within it that hits me, and in lieu of that, it must be entertaining and 'Avatar' only partially satisfied that need.
On the 3D point, I was unable to get a seat, which was a shame - when I get to see 3D, then I will post more thoughts to ascertain whether the experience changed what I took from it.
Ren, you devil! I saw your comment on 'District 9', but am stripped for time, so yes, I am alive and shacked up in Singapore now for maybe a while - interviewing for a job with a small production company here mid-Jan, so my travel plans changed 'cos of a... girl, yes, those pesky inconveniences! Hope you're well, mate.
Skirted up and on the arm too. Well done. Keep it up.
Me? Devil? That's one of the nicer things I've been called over the festive (aka arsed) period.
You interviewing, or being interviewed? Either way, congrats there fella. My best to you.
As for the Avatar and all that 3D business, I'm sure it does look better in 3D. But those bits in the base and on the ship aren't gonna be improved one iota by it. There's a lot of them.
I don't get why it's so long, why the dialogue is poor in parts and why they left the name Unobtanium in. That is just taking the piss. What, we not supposed to take the plot serious or what then?
$230 million dollars. 12 Years in the pipeline. The director who made Terminator, Terminator 2 and Aliens. No wonder I expected a lot.
Shame James didn't deliver. And if it don't work in 2D for someone like me then all that fancy gizmos (and that is all it is) of 3D tricks and flash and bells just ain't gonna improve it, anywhere near enough.
Hey, I'll watch it again, in 3D if poss. I just hope it works a LOT better the second time.
Just got back from the 3D showing. I won't comment on the CGI. Anyone who saw the movie knows the score.
The characters were a pleasant surprise. They were all by the numbers and recycled but they were recycled from Aliens so who cares? I was perfectly happy to see those characters again. The plot? I wouldn't call it so-so. It kept me intrigued and entertained. But come on, you guys. Fern Gully.
The standout was the universe itself. Superb. It reminded me of Halo as far as the color schemes and landscapes were concerned but it was much more intricate and inherently alien. I loved the flora and founa, especially the banshees. Frankly, the humanoids interested me the least although I was happy to see the cutesy "blue cat people" angle was a non issue.
The action was pretty intense, especially in 3D. This was the first 3D movie I've seen and I have to say it was a one-of-a-kind experience.
The only thing I didn't like about the movie was the portrayal of the natives vs. the corporation. There was no real commentary so to speak but whenever there was, it was one-sided, black-and-white and had no subtlety. "Unobtainium?"
Visually, the movie was an undeniable breakthrough and as a Blockbuster action flick, it was Hollywood at its best. Big-budget popcorn fun without being too dumb. That said, Avatar hasn't changed how I look at movies and didn't blow me away. Honestly, I can't say whether or not it's overrated because frankly, it's pretty far removed from my overall tastes.
Saw Avatar a few days ago and I can agree with what most people have said here; this is groundbreaking stuff, and the special effects are flawless. Let's hope Battle Angel is as good. It's a shame this film took so long to make because I would have loved a sequel.
Just saw it. A blast for the show. A must see in a theatre. But it just looked "Pocahuntas" meets "Aliens" to me. A bit disappointed regarding the script. EVERYTHING was too much predictable.
My wife decided that she wanted to see it, so I had to see it too. I thought it was a good action film. The CGI didn't really blow me away because I've grown up watching special effects improve every few years, so it I guess I've come to expect it. The thing I was most impressed by was that James Cameron wrote the script, developed the groundbreaking CGI and directed the film.
As far as the take home message goes, I think it’ll convince a few more people to vote green, so that's a good thing. All in all it was better than I thought it would be and worth seeing IMO.
Finally saw it yesterday. Of course, I saw it in 3D.
I thought it was truly amazing, epic, and mind blowing. I also really enjoyed the story and the characters. It worked on every level, IMO.
Really not sure how anyone can say they didn't enjoy it or that it was a disappointment. I really don't get it.
If yuo haven't seen it yet, get your ass into a 3D theater and see it with an open mind. Yes, it is a long film, and yes, it could probably be trimmed in places, but I'm glad it was released exactly the way it was.
It's a masterpiece and is truly desrving of being the #1 WW Box Office draw of all time.
Yup, I actually checked my cell phone to see what time it was halfway through, and I never do that.
I went into this movie as fresh as possible too. Being that I work at a trailer house, I always see all the previews for movies before they come out, and I felt like I didn't want to do that with this one; especially when it was receiving such hype early on. So I avoided everything: trailers, tv spots, plot descriptions, reviews, everything. I don't think I've ever seen a movie that fresh, outside of someone handing me an unknown movie and saying "Here, watch this."
But yeah, totally underwhelmed by it in almost every respect.
OK, then. I respect your opinion. I'm just surprised by it. I was very moved by pretty much everything in the movie...mostly the characters, believe it or not. I thought the Navi were all great, and very fleshed out.
Of course, the visuals, IMO were truly astounding, and the 3D flawless.
OK, then. I respect your opinion. I'm just surprised by it. I was very moved by pretty much everything in the movie...mostly the characters, believe it or not. I thought the Navi were all great, and very fleshed out.
Of course, the visuals, IMO were truly astounding, and the 3D flawless.
I agree totally.
I've seen it twice now. 2nd time I did notice a few more dodgy lines, but for some reason the emotion of it hit me even harder than the first time.
It's a truly great film, I'm not sure what more people can ask from a film TBH.
Just watching them fly off the mountain on those ptaerodactyl type things was worth the admission fee.
Yup, I actually checked my cell phone to see what time it was halfway through, and I never do that.
I went into this movie as fresh as possible too. Being that I work at a trailer house, I always see all the previews for movies before they come out, and I felt like I didn't want to do that with this one; especially when it was receiving such hype early on. So I avoided everything: trailers, tv spots, plot descriptions, reviews, everything. I don't think I've ever seen a movie that fresh, outside of someone handing me an unknown movie and saying "Here, watch this."
But yeah, totally underwhelmed by it in almost every respect.
Dressel, you where underwhelmed by the special effects!? What the hell did you expect? To be able to smell and feel the Navi!?! You must be underwhelmed by most movies...
I saw it in 3-D. When it didn't feel like a ride at Universal Studios, it felt like a first person video game and I was just watching cut-scenes awaiting my chance to play.
Quoted from Splatter Boy
Dressel, you where underwhelmed by the special effects!? What the hell did you expect? To be able to smell and feel the Navi!?! You must be underwhelmed by most movies...
Special effects can only take a movie so far. It needs to be supplemented with proper storytelling, well-developed characters, good acting, and well-written dialogue. I actually remember, when I saw the plantlife light up for the 2nd or 3rd time (two hours in) thinking "I remember when I initially thought that was cool."
Yup, I actually checked my cell phone to see what time it was halfway through, and I never do that.
I went into this movie as fresh as possible too. Being that I work at a trailer house, I always see all the previews for movies before they come out, and I felt like I didn't want to do that with this one; especially when it was receiving such hype early on. So I avoided everything: trailers, tv spots, plot descriptions, reviews, everything. I don't think I've ever seen a movie that fresh, outside of someone handing me an unknown movie and saying "Here, watch this."
But yeah, totally underwhelmed by it in almost every respect.
I think it's a matter of our own perception and not that something is over-the-top awesome or not.
We have to accept the fact that just like looking at a still piece of art work, some of us are going to connect on certain levels and others of us less brilliant and perceptive are going to be going "WTF they see in that"?
I have mixed feelings on Avatar. It wasn't really so much a character movie, although I felt extremely moved to tears by some scenes. That's a fact. So something was going on there and I will need to see it again to figure that out.
The effects? Well, I'm not a big effects person. Remember, I'm the one who doesn't watch where she's going; so it's not the visuals that are so apparent really. Having said that though, I recognize what a beautiful piece of moving artwork this was.
I feel that this movie is truthfully about "man" in his most ugly form, "us" breaching natural laws and despoiling the natural balance.
It's truly a very beautiful movie, but to really connect with it, I think we need to be on that frequency. Most of us, sadly, are still too reckless even with ourselves to care about the greater nature of things. We and our UNevolved natures can't grasp what it means to appreciate life's intricate balance.
We have to accept the fact that just like looking at a still piece of art work, some of us are going to connect on certain levels and others of us less brilliant and perceptive are going to be going "WTF they see in that"?
It's truly a very beautiful movie, but to really connect with it, I think we need to be on that frequency. Most of us, sadly, are still too reckless even with ourselves to care about the greater nature of things. We and our UNevolved natures can't grasp what it means to appreciate life's intricate balance.
This is giving people who didn't like it absolutely no credit at all, which seems kind of unfair to me.
This is giving people who didn't like it absolutely no credit at all, which seems kind of unfair to me.
Agree with Dres here. To be fair to Sandra however, I assume she was being slightly facetious with her comments? I've always considered her an intelligent and thoughtful person. It's clearly absurd to suggest a like or dislike for the movie represents an appreciation, or not, of said matter.
Agree with Dres here. To be fair to Sandra however, I assume she was being slightly facetious with her comments? I've always considered her an intelligent and thoughtful person. It's clearly absurd to suggest a like or dislike for the movie represents an appreciation, or not, of said matter.
Andrew
Perhaps she could have phrased it less confrontationally, but I do think she has a point.
A large part of the film revolves around stimulating us to feel the sense of connection with Pandora/Nature. If you are not a particularly "spiritual" type person, you might not appreciate it in the same way that those who are would.
Same way a guy who really likes cars will probably get more out of the Fast and the Furious than I would (or do).
I think certain films, and Avatar may not necessarily be one, do require the audience to have a high level appreciation of certain things. One of my favourite films ,Youth without Youth, is fairly indecipherable without some knowledge of Eastern mysticism amongst other things. I reckon that the majority of people who would watch that would hate it, but it's a great film, just very demanding on the audience.
Special effects can only take a movie so far. It needs to be supplemented with proper storytelling, well-developed characters, good acting, and well-written dialogue. I actually remember, when I saw the plantlife light up for the 2nd or 3rd time (two hours in) thinking "I remember when I initially thought that was cool."
So you were underwhelmed by the story, not the special effects. The special effects were absolutely amazing, and it was backed up by a decent enough story to make it a little bit more than the mindless popcorn films that come out over the summer.
I hate it when people blame a film's lack of a good story on the special effects. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the effects. The film was written over a decade ago, and so before all the special effects came into play, the story still sucked.
So you were underwhelmed by the story, not the special effects. The special effects were absolutely amazing, and it was backed up by a decent enough story to make it a little bit more than the mindless popcorn films that come out over the summer.
I hate it when people blame a film's lack of a good story on the special effects. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the effects. The film was written over a decade ago, and so before all the special effects came into play, the story still sucked.
No, I'm pretty sure I was underwhelmed by the special effects too.
I'm done with this. I think arguing with "Avatar" fans has been one of the most aggravating film experiences of my life. I actually had one guy tell me that the film as "nearly beyond criticism". I'm sorry, no film is "nearly beyond criticism", and "Avatar" definitely is not.
Agree with Dres here. To be fair to Sandra however, I assume she was being slightly facetious with her comments? I've always considered her an intelligent and thoughtful person. It's clearly absurd to suggest a like or dislike for the movie represents an appreciation, or not, of said matter.
Andrew
Thanks Andrew. I wasn't joking, but I was talking more about myself than anybody else and speaking in very general terms.
I think the word that upset Dressel is the use of UNevolved.
If you go back and read what I posted, you might see that I'm aiming that at myself and those who didn't get the full glow expressed by some others. I received sparks, like I said, where I was truly amazed and moved, but not completely.
We're all in different states at different times and it's all a matter of relativity.
From my own personal experience, I know that just because I didn't favor something back in 19-seventy something, it doesn't mean I don't now.
Why?
So yes, I didn't mean it as any kind of put down. I feel that we are all evolving and we've all been on one path or another and will be on new paths sooner or later and see things in a new way.
I remember Syd Field tells a story like this in his book. I think he was referring to the movie Chinatown, but I would have to dip into the book again.
But initially, he saw it, and I think he said he had been coming down with a flu or something, plus it had been a hard week.... whatever,
But our perception is always changing. And also, I think that we move forward, and then drop back a little into lower states.
That's my take anyways,
But irregardless. Dressel, I'm very sorry if I made you think that I was being unfair.
Unfortunately, I was unable to see this in 3-d. However, I liked it overall, and I didn't mind that the plot was basically Dances with Wolves and Ferngully. I was amazed by the visuals and the world that was created. I wished they showed more of the world. The Navi felt so real, and they were so detailed I could even tell the race of the actors that were playing the Navi.
I'll preface my comments by saying that Sci Fi/Fantasy are not really my favorite genre of movies, so no, this was not the best movie I've ever seen. That said, it was an enjoyable watch and I would recommend it if only for the fact that it is a visually stunning movie. I also think it's a tremendous accomplishment by Cameron to ahve literally created this entire world. I envy the creativity honestly.
On the other hand, as others have pointed out, it really is Dances With Wolves set in the future and to be honest, after going to such great lengths to create this amazing world I was more than a little disappointed by this. I mean there were literally scenes that were almost taken directly from Dances With Wolves. I thought that was a little cheap and at times had trouble getting past it.
Also, to each his own, but at times I felt that the cheese was laid on way too thick. But again, everyone is going to bring a different POV into the film. Also, I felt like they could have cut at least 20-25 minutes off of the film and still had a good flick.
In closing, as I said, fantasy/sci fi is not really my thing, but for my money, I think I'd take any of the LOTR triology over AVATAR. This is not to say that this wasn't a really good movie and an amazing accomplishment, but at the end of the day I'm hard pressed to say that this is the greatest movie ever made.
Let me pull you out of retirement real fast. Name a movie of which the special effects didn't underwhelm you? Yes, I'm calling you out.
Jurassic Park?
And seriously, calm down. It's just a movie.
EDIT: For a more recent example, I'd say "District 9" as well. I use "Jurassic Park" as my go-to example, just because the effects were so amazing for its time and still hold up.
Jurassic Park, though an amazing film, can't even step in the ring with Avatar in a battle of Special Effects. I'll give you District 9 and call this little skirmish a draw. Well played Dressel.
I just saw on Boxofficemojo that Avatar is only about $6M from overtaking Titanic as the No. 1 most grossing movie of all time world wide - so I guess the record will be broken..well, today probably.
I wonder if Cameron gets gross or net points on his movies.
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
Wow. $552 million domestic on the strength of $36 million in its 6th weekend at number one. Another 2 weeks or so and it'll shatter Titanic's domestic record of $600 million.
It's not welcome when your every post is beating it into the ground. We get it Dressel, you didn't like Avatar. You're a rebel.
Beating it into the ground? I take it you've never come across an internet troll. Those guys beat their dislike of films into the ground, and they're not nice about it. Have I been unreasonable in my objections towards "Avatar"? No. I've backed-up my reasoning and haven't been dickish about it. Perhaps you might have found the FAIL post a little much, but I have friends who loved "Avatar" that found it "amusing". Which is what it is.
Still, you post something like that on a thread were the majority of the posters have enjoyed the movie, then you get mad when decadence tried to stick up for the movie? It just seems like you're looking for an argument.
You're right. I forgot a healthy sense of humor wasn't welcome when discussing "Avatar".
Chill out man.
I couldn't care less if you spend an hour every day screaming Baltis-like obscenties about it. I didn't direct or write it and even if I did, you'd be entitled to your opinion.
I was just pointing out that you can do it for every film going.
I couldn't care less if you spend an hour every day screaming Baltis-like obscenties about it. I didn't direct or write it and even if I did, you'd be entitled to your opinion.
I was just pointing out that you can do it for every film going.
Woah, comparing me to Baltis....not cool.
I think what I noticed between what you linked to and what I did was that mine was a lot more specific, and so I found that more amusing. But yeah, I'm not looking to fight. I think arguing on internet message boards is a pretty big waste of time (see previous Religion thread as an example).
I think what I noticed between what you linked to and what I did was that mine was a lot more specific, and so I found that more amusing. But yeah, I'm not looking to fight. I think arguing on internet message boards is a pretty big waste of time (see previous Religion thread as an example).
I haven't actually posted my thoughts on this film so far, but I will say this: while I enjoyed it, and found the level of technology on display to be very impressive, I don't think it's a worthy winner of this year's Best Picture Oscar, which it is being tipped for. Titanic is widely regarded as one of the most undeserving winners of all-time...I'd say Avatar would slot into that category, too. The numbers are impressive, but strip away the techno-wizardry and what have you got left?
An impressive technical feat, yes. An enjoyable movie-going experience, certainly. But the best film of the year? Quite simply, no. I've been banging The Hurt Locker's drum ever since it came out, and I'm still banging it now. It's not as technologically advanced, but it's a better film. So is Up in the Air. It just wouldn't be right if it won. Give Cameron Best Director - he has, after all, been working on this movie for 12 years. But give Best Picture to a more worthy winner.
I haven't actually posted my thoughts on this film so far, but I will say this: while I enjoyed it, and found the level of technology on display to be very impressive, I don't think it's a worthy winner of this year's Best Picture Oscar, which it is being tipped for. Titanic is widely regarded as one of the most undeserving winners of all-time...I'd say Avatar would slot into that category, too. The numbers are impressive, but strip away the techno-wizardry and what have you got left?
An impressive technical feat, yes. An enjoyable movie-going experience, certainly. But the best film of the year? Quite simply, no. I've been banging The Hurt Locker's drum ever since it came out, and I'm still banging it now. It's not as technologically advanced, but it's a better film. So is Up in the Air. It just wouldn't be right if it won. Give Cameron Best Director - he has, after all, been working on this movie for 12 years. But give Best Picture to a more worthy winner.
Disagree entirely.
Hurt Locker was an intense film, a very good war film, but it was more than a little silly.
It perverted the truth to make a more intense film and it was a good example of how to make suspenseful and tense scenes, but an Oscar winning war film needs to be a little more realistic in my opinion.
They blow up bombs with C4, they don't send guys out with pen knives to do it.......
The scene with the SAS when they run away is perhaps the most absurd in filmmaking history.
I also think judging Avatar by stripping it of what made it so good is unfair.
Strip away the intensity of Hurt Locker and what are you left with? A completely unrealistic film that breaks all military protocol and sense.
That's not to say that I didn't enjoy it, because I did. However when dealing with real world subjects I think the Production team has a reponsibility to deal with the material more intelligently.
I think Avatar should and will win Best Picture. Better than Precious, right? As much as I'd like Inglourious Basterds to win, I think it was too disjointed a film to bare the title Best Picture and all that entails. I think IG had a lot more to offer than Avatar (or at least it suited my tastes a lot more) but Avatar was a much more focused and consistent film. Sounds like Best Picture to me.
I still get bummed out when certain films get awarded Oscars over others but I'm starting to get less and less pissed off. Let's face it. It's not the Palm D'Or. The Oscars are what they are. You can't always count on them to make the right decision or even a good decision.
That said, while I liked Avatar, I can't believe how much people consistently brush off the Pocahontas and Fern Gully comparisons (Dances with Wolves isn't a sufficient comparison). It's more than just a template. Avatar featured scenes with a native placing the protagonist's hand on a tree, a giant bulldozer mowing down a forest full of tiny (in comparison) creatures, the protagonist climbing onto said bulldozer in an attempt to stop it and a scene with natives huddled around a giant glowing tree. These scenes aren't part of the "Hero's Journey" template. They're imagery are practically exclusive to Fern Gully.
Not trying to start an argument. It took Cameron over a decade to make the film. Lots of stuff came out in that time. Pocahontas is a classic story. Maybe the similarities are deliberate. The Pandora universe is his own so put him on a pedestal if you like. But you can't deny the countless parallels between the other two films. They're facts, plain and simple. I doubt any fans will care if Avatar does indeed win the Oscar.
I think Avatar should and will win Best Picture. Better than Precious, right? As much as I'd like Inglourious Basterds to win, I think it was too disjointed a film to bare the title Best Picture and all that entails. I think IG had a lot more to offer than Avatar (or at least it suited my tastes a lot more) but Avatar was a much more focused and consistent film. Sounds like Best Picture to me.
I still get bummed out when certain films get awarded Oscars over others but I'm starting to get less and less pissed off. Let's face it. It's not the Palm D'Or. The Oscars are what they are. You can't always count on them to make the right decision or even a good decision.
That said, while I liked Avatar, I can't believe how much people consistently brush off the Pocahontas and Fern Gully comparisons (Dances with Wolves isn't a sufficient comparison). It's more than just a template. Avatar featured scenes with a native placing the protagonist's hand on a tree, a giant bulldozer mowing down a forest full of tiny (in comparison) creatures, the protagonist climbing onto said bulldozer in an attempt to stop it and a scene with natives huddled around a giant glowing tree. These scenes aren't part of the "Hero's Journey" template. They're imagery are practically exclusive to Fern Gully.
Not trying to start an argument. It took Cameron over a decade to make the film. Lots of stuff came out in that time. Pocahontas is a classic story. Maybe the similarities are deliberate. The Pandora universe is his own so put him on a pedestal if you like. But you can't deny the countless parallels between the other two films. They're facts, plain and simple. I doubt any fans will care if Avatar does indeed win the Oscar.
I don't think anyone is brushing them off as such or at least denying them, and obviously a lot of what you have said is directed towards what I said, it's just feels irrelevant.
It felt like a very different film to Pocahontas and Fern Gulley, even if some of the specific visuals were of the same type or even the same. I even commented that it looked just like Fern Gulley on the rumours page on here before I saw it...
I've said many times that the genius of the film was not the story, it was the way it immersed you in a fully realised Alien World. Neither of the animated films you mentioned could do that.
Avatar was a genuine cinematic experience and it was so good at what it did well that no-one really cares about what it may have resembled in the past. It just got swept away in the sheer grandeur and brilliance of the setting.
I have a question for you: would you buy it on DVD? And I don't mean if you had a state-of-the-art HDTV 3D, surround sound, home cinema system with Blu-Ray costing thousands of pounds. Your average guy, the one with the standard system - would he buy it? And if he did, would it be a waste of his time?
Just seems to me that while I totally agree that it was "a genuine cinematic experience", that is in fact almost ALL it is. It's not a film that you could really watch at home. Seeing it on a huge 3D screen was undoubtedly an awesome experience, but if it's not an experience you can possibly recreate, if it's something that loses a lot of its value when you take away all the expensive technology it takes to enable you to fully enjoy it, then doesn't that work against its fundamental value as a movie?
That's what I feel, anyway. If it does win, people who didn't catch it at the cinema will buy the DVD when it comes out, put it on at home, watch it, and go, "What was all the fuss about?" A truly great film shouldn't require a certain set of screening conditions, IMO.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it. It wasn't a disappointment. But I do think it was more a brilliant cinematic experience than actually a brilliant motion picture.
I've said many times that the genius of the film was not the story, it was the way it immersed you in a fully realised Alien World. Neither of the animated films you mentioned could do that.
Avatar was a genuine cinematic experience and it was so good at what it did well that no-one really cares about what it may have resembled in the past. It just got swept away in the sheer grandeur and brilliance of the setting.
Don't agree. Frankly, I just couldn't ignore the Fern Gully similarities. The films are more similar than any other two, right down to the glowing mushrooms. I got over it though. It's not like I hated Fern Gully. I loved the amount of stuff that was recycled from Aliens too. James Cameron knows what he's doing. I never felt like he was leaching off other's material.
That's just me though and of course this isn't a subject that can be debated objectively. I'm not a CGI guy. Occasionally, I am impressed. Avatar and King Kong both did. But I've never been as impressed as anyone else and the "wow" factor wares off me quick. I was over Avatar by the next day. I liked it. I really did. I thought I'd hate it and there wasn't a moment where I felt like I might. It's just not what I look for in films.
I have a question for you: would you buy it on DVD? And I don't mean if you had a state-of-the-art HDTV 3D, surround sound, home cinema system with Blu-Ray costing thousands of pounds. Your average guy, the one with the standard system - would he buy it? And if he did, would it be a waste of his time?
Just seems to me that while I totally agree that it was "a genuine cinematic experience", that is in fact almost ALL it is. It's not a film that you could really watch at home. Seeing it on a huge 3D screen was undoubtedly an awesome experience, but if it's not an experience you can possibly recreate, if it's something that loses a lot of its value when you take away all the expensive technology it takes to enable you to fully enjoy it, then doesn't that work against its fundamental value as a movie?
That's what I feel, anyway. If it does win, people who didn't catch it at the cinema will buy the DVD when it comes out, put it on at home, watch it, and go, "What was all the fuss about?" A truly great film shouldn't require a certain set of screening conditions, IMO.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it. It wasn't a disappointment. But I do think it was more a brilliant cinematic experience than actually a brilliant motion picture.
I wouldn't buy it on DVD, but I'm sure I'll watch it again on the little screen at some point, just to remind myself of the experience.
As for what defines "a truly great film", that's up to you to decide. Do I think a truly great film has to work on the small screen? It's an interesting question, but I would say no.
Is the Mona Lisa as good in a photograph as it is in real life?
Avatar was specifically designed to work as a 3D, large scale presentation.
With home entertainment becoming increasingly sophisticated it's important that film evolves and keeps cinema alive. Avatar was a bold step in that direction.
Avatar was specifically designed to work as a 3D, large scale presentation.
With home entertainment becoming increasingly sophisticated it's important that film evolves and keeps cinema alive. Avatar was a bold step in that direction.
That quite nicely sums up what the movie achieved, and we all agree on that. The story is the sticking point, and quite simply some enjoyed it, some didn't.
Don't agree. Frankly, I just couldn't ignore the Fern Gully similarities. The films are more similar than any other two, right down to the glowing mushrooms. I got over it though. It's not like I hated Fern Gully. I loved the amount of stuff that was recycled from Aliens too. James Cameron knows what he's doing. I never felt like he was leaching off other's material.
That's just me though and of course this isn't a subject that can be debated objectively. I'm not a CGI guy. Occasionally, I am impressed. Avatar and King Kong both did. But I've never been as impressed as anyone else and the "wow" factor wears off me quick. I was over Avatar by the next day. I liked it. I really did. I thought I'd hate it and there wasn't a moment where I felt like I might. It's just not what I look for in films.
Each to their own. There are films some consider all-time classics that I consider downright poor.
With the CGI, for me it wasn't about how good it looked. It just totally immersed me and I was just totally sucked into a totally different way of living for a short time.
It just connected with me and in a way that no other film has ever done in truth. It went beyond the usual excitement of a good story, it was the closest thing to a genuine experience I've had in the cinema.
I'm really looking forward to where they can take this technology. I'm already thinking about how I'd use it in horror films and such.
I hope that a film is released that is able to connect with the people who didn't enjoy it that much, in the way that it worked for me, because it was just a totally novel experience.
Can't stop me that easy, Andrew. I'm actually as much interested in film criticism and theory as I am in film-making; if I can't write 'em, hopefully I'm going to make a career writing ABOUT 'em. It's great talking about films on here with intelligent, knowledgable people (I include you in that).
As for what defines "a truly great film", that's up to you to decide. Do I think a truly great film has to work on the small screen? It's an interesting question, but I would say no.
Is the Mona Lisa as good in a photograph as it is in real life?
Ah, but that comparison doesn't hold up, because of the differences between the two media. There's only ONE Mona Lisa. Whether you're buying a photograph (by which I assume you just mean a standard-size), or buying a canvas print, it is impossible to fully appreciate an artwork until you've actually seen it. Film isn't like that - you're not watching the original, you're watching a replica. Film is, in fact, a medium of replication. Therefore, the two media are so different that you can't actually compare them like that; any replica of a painting will lose an essence of the original, whereas by your logic I'd have to go back to the original stock that Cameron shot Avatar on in order to 'fully' appreciate it. I know you know that, but I just want to point that out because on the surface it seemed like a very astute analogy!
I also want to pick up on the other point you made. It's not about it being 'small screen vs. big screen'. Would Avatar have been a better film if it was shown on a screen a mile high? No (I know that's a rather pointless question, but hopefully you see what I mean). I was talking about a specific set of technological conditions that Avatar requires in order to be viewed properly. If, as I did a couple of nights ago, you watch The Godfather on DVD on a 15-inch, standard-definition laptop screen, you'll enjoy it just as much as if you watched it on Blu-Ray on a 52-inch HD plasma flatscreen TV. To me, it's not about whether a film works on a small screen. A truly great film should work regardless of how you watch it.
With home entertainment becoming increasingly sophisticated it's important that film evolves and keeps cinema alive. Avatar was a bold step in that direction.
I obviously agree with you there. As an experiment, as a pioneering step toward creating a certain kind of movie-going experience, Avatar should be applauded. But that doesn't make it a great film. In fact, because its focus is so much on a certain kind of experience, that actually LIMITS its greatness.
In the 1st Academy Awards in 1929, the Academy handed out two 'Best Picture' Oscars; one for Best Picture, and another for 'Unique and Artistic Production'. The latter category has never been used in the 80 ceremonies since. In my mind, Avatar would be more deserving of that kind of award. To simply hand it the Best Picture Oscar - at the expense of other, and in my mind more deserving, films - would be to completely overlook what in my mind are pretty important, fundamental problems.
There's nothing else I can say really, it's just a matter of opinion.
In term of my Cinema viewing pleasure I much prefer movies like Avatar, Star Wars, T2 than character pieces.
I can just as easily turn round and say it is a weakness of those type of films that they don't make use of the scope of the cinema. That while good, they are just not using the cinema to its full capability.
As for more deserving films: I haven't seen any, and I've seen most of them at one festival or another or at home.
Other than District 9 nothing came close to it in the whole year.
For me those two films are the best I've seen in years and so I hope it cleans up at the Oscars.
If people applied such stringent criticism to Avatars competitors, I think we'd see a lot of fundamental problems in those as well.
EG Inglorious Basterds. It's a fun film, but it's silly, far-fetched and pointless at the end of the day.
I enjoyed watching it at Cannes, strolled the red carpet, gave Quentin a warm round of applause and then fucked off to the free bar. No-one really talked about it afterwards.
I can just as easily turn round and say it is a weakness of those type of films that they don't make use of the scope of the cinema. That while good, they are just not using the cinema to its full capability.
I could pick up on that and go on about the distinction between the work itself and the performance space in which you consume it, that the Mona Lisa (to use your comparison) would, in theory, be as good a painting if you hung it in the Louvre or in the toilet at a MacDonalds...but I think I'm starting to seem boring and argumentative.
Also, I don't really understand what's so special about the Mona Lisa anyway!
If people applied such stringent criticism to Avatars competitors, I think we'd see a lot of fundamental problems in those as well.
Oh, definitely. I don't deny that. As you say, to each his own.
EDIT: I see that today Avatar has officially become the highest-grossing film of all time. If you're top of the pile, expect people to analyse you pretty closely!
ANOTHER EDIT: this article is quite good - http://www.torontosun.com/entertainment/movies/2010/01/26/12618771.html - no idea who Michael Rechtshaffen is, but it seems I come down on the PGA side, while most of you come down on the Golden Globe side. In fact, if you're looking for a narrative in this (and as writers, when are we not?), this could be seen as a battle over what the focus of 'film' should really be. What Peter Bradshaw calls 'effect vs affect'. The Hurt Locker has assumed the role of champion of an alternative to CGI, effects-laden fare. Of course, what would be great is if there was a twist ending and something like Precious or Up in the Air won!
I could pick up on that and go on about the distinction between the work itself and the performance space in which you consume it, that the Mona Lisa (to use your comparison) would, in theory, be as good a painting if you hung it in the Louvre or in the toilet at a MacDonalds...but I think I'm starting to seem boring and argumentative.
Also, I don't really understand what's so special about the Mona Lisa anyway!
Oh, definitely. I don't deny that. As you say, to each his own.
EDIT: I see that today Avatar has officially become the highest-grossing film of all time. If you're top of the pile, expect people to analyse you pretty closely!
ANOTHER EDIT: this article is quite good - http://www.torontosun.com/entertainment/movies/2010/01/26/12618771.html - no idea who Michael Rechtshaffen is, but it seems I come down on the PGA side, while most of you come down on the Golden Globe side. In fact, if you're looking for a narrative in this (and as writers, when are we not?), this could be seen as a battle over what the focus of 'film' should really be. What Peter Bradshaw calls 'effect vs affect'. The Hurt Locker has assumed the role of champion of an alternative to CGI, effects-laden fare. Of course, what would be great is if there was a twist ending and something like Precious or Up in the Air won!
I find that last point quite ironic personally.
The Hurt Locker was straight bullshit dressed up as realism. As a narrative I thought it was appalling to the point of offensiveness.
An EOD man a better shot than the SAS. Get to fuck.
It would be a travesty if that film won over a Cinematic and historical milestone.
The Hurt Locker was straight bullshit dressed up as realism. As a narrative I thought it was appalling to the point of offensiveness.
An EOD man a better shot than the SAS. Get to fuck.
It would be a travesty if that film won over a Cinematic and historical milestone.
My cue to stop, I think. Didn't mean to ruffle anyone's feathers.
Thanks dec, it's been fun. I respect your opinion, and you're clearly an intelligent, informed person - just happen to completely disagree with you over this one, that's all! No doubt we'll have round 2 once the Oscar nominations are announced, and probably round 3 once they've picked the winners.
My cue to stop, I think. Didn't mean to ruffle anyone's feathers.
Thanks dec, it's been fun. I respect your opinion, and you're clearly an intelligent, informed person - just happen to completely disagree with you over this one, that's all! No doubt we'll have round 2 once the Oscar nominations are announced, and probably round 3 once they've picked the winners.
You've not ruffled my feathers and my outburst isn't directed at you, I'm just responding to the article.
I'm not really concerned with awards to be honest, mainly because of what that article reveals. I have a deep distrust of the way a lot of bodies seem to function and that article stinks of a fix up.
Decisions being made on political agendas, instead of on merit.
I've been following the avatar debate for a few weeks now, and thought I'd put in my two bob's worth. I haven't seen the film, don't intend to in any medium. I was interested when the trailer came out, but it showed the whole story so wasn't keen all of a sudden.
I'm still wondering why Cameron chose to make almost the whole picture CGI. Surely he could've at least had real forest scenes (like Return of the Jedi) and shoved the effects on top. To me, a film that has only a few real actors in it, and the rest is CGI, is no different to Shrek or Ice Age, or any one of the hundreds of full CGI type films.
Ok, i know some people loved avatar and some thought it over-rated; its the same with all movies I guess. One more thing: being the number one box office flick doesn't always equate to an equal quality. The same with music - 'Thriller' is far and away the best selling album of all time, but wouldn't be in any top 50 lists for the best.
Stevie, my friend, don't say that until you see the movie. The backgrounds, forests, etc. all look 100% real. You will be completely immersed in the picture...as if you were literally there.
BTW, the trailers do not give the entire movie away in any way. I was quite surprised with a whole bunch of things, both plots points and details that I found to be amazing.
See it...in 3D1 No excuse not to. You will be kicking yourself forever if you don't!
This really puts the scene where he wrestles that animal to the ground (against its will) and connects his tendrils to it into perspective.
That's exactly what I was thinking. I felt a little uncomfortable when Jake and the Na'vi joined tendrils with the animals of Pandora. It was like like they were performing some kind of sexual act with them. The deleted sex scene from the movie reinforces my feeling about it.
Thanks dec, it's been fun. I respect your opinion, and you're clearly an intelligent, informed person - just happen to completely disagree with you over this one, that's all! No doubt we'll have round 2 once the Oscar nominations are announced, and probably round 3 once they've picked the winners.
Interstingly enough, James Cameron's ex-wife Kathryn Bigelow directed of The Hurt Locker.
Finally got round to giving this baby a 3D view. More importantly, a second viewing to assess my original view on it.
The end battle scene was very enjoyable in 3D and the visual mixed with the powerful score did make this true Oscar bait, irrespective of its BO performance.
The same issues stick with me, and they relate to the heavy-handed message, and the wedged in corporate theme.
That aside, it is a good movie, and while not perfect, I do reiterate that it's a step forward for film, and evidence of Cameron's truly wonderful imagination.
Worth a second viewing in 3D if you didn't first time 'round.
I don't understand the logic behind releasing the movie now and again in November as a 3 Disc special edition with like 30 minutes more.
Frankly it was above average and nothing else. Doesn't do anything new unless being blue is something you've never saw in a film before.
It doesn't even try to hide how straight forward and dumbed down it is. It's like a Disney animated movie.
The only thing I didn't get is why they cut Norm from the film so awkwardly. You last see him get shot and wake up gasping and clutching his arm but alive and when the Colonel breaks the trailer where he and Jake are located he has just disappeared.
It was 5am when I was getting to the end so I may have missed something but if I'm right he isn't dead but awkwardly cut from the film.
Posted this in another thread already. Not sure people can handle the truth, haha! ...or at least this guy's longwinded but eloquently presented opinions. Anyway, it's funny whatever you think of the movie, so long as you have a sense of humor.
Saw Avatar on Blu Ray last week and I was surprised that it actually looked better in 2D. Some of the 3D stuff (especially the background) got a little blurry in the theater but in 2D the shit was crisp. Obvisouly the 2D lacks the cool depth stuff of the 3D but I think overall it looked better in 2D.
That being said, the story and characters are still very very weak and - for the first time with a Cameron movie - I doubt I'll be seeing it again.
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
It literally amazes me that people still say the characters and story were weak.
The characters for the most part were strong and the story was moving and "real".
With all the completely horrendous piles of steaming shit we are constantly subjected to, it amazes me that people continue to trash the #1 film of all time.
Seriously, my problem with Avatar is that it's a severely watered down knock-off of Dances With Wolves. I have no problem with movies borrowing elements from other movies, I mean, it's done all the time but when you don't even try to disguise it - and maybe more importantly - when the end result is a far inferior compared to the source material then that's when the wheels come off.
But I'm actually looking forward to Avatar II, it'll be interesting to see what movie/book it's gonna be based on.
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
Avatar was an experience at the theatre in 3d. That experience will not happen again at home and that's why I will not buy it nor watch it again. The story just isn't good enough for a 2nd watch.
Avatar was an experience at the theatre in 3d. That experience will not happen again at home and that's why I will not buy it nor watch it again. The story just isn't good enough for a 2nd watch.
Exactly! I've talked about this film at length so I'm not going to get into it again, but this was a theme park ride, not a movie. And you can't reassemble a roller coaster in your living room.
What is it about the story and characters that worked for you, Jeff? I'm genuinely curious. Avatar seems like a perfect example of what you'd be against. Cookie-cutter, by-the-numbers, dumbed down, playing it safe... take your pick. To this day, your tastes are an enigma to me and your love of Avatar only serves to muddy the waters further.
Like I said. Just curious. I did like the movie, even if it didn't "wow" me. The fact that it's the #1 movie means nothing to me though. The average movie goer might as well be huffing paint fumes as far as I'm concerned.
The characters worked for me because they came across as "real". Sure, there were some cliches in there, but it was obviously done for impact (and the fact that it's a massive Hollywood movie).
For me, it was very powerful and emotional, and I'm definitely not one who says that very often. I had tears in my eyes at several times during the movie. Although I pretty much "knew" how it would all play out in the end, I still wasn't sure, as many, many characters died violent deaths.
You know, I say this so often, and I guess it's tough for others to understand where I'm coming from, when I say this. IMO, a movie either works, or it doesn't work. And for me, it's usually very cut and dry which way it goes. This worked on virtually every level for me.
Story-wise, although it may be very similar to many, many stories and movies, it all felt very fresh to me...maybe it had alot to do with the visuals and production, but in no way did I ever feel like I was watching a reconstituted, dumbed down copy of anything else.
Don't know if this helps or not, but these are my feelings here.
I had tears in my eyes at several times during the movie.
Maybe cuz you just blew $40 to take your gal to it as I did. Seriously, Do we need fucken popcorn and ju ju bees everytime we go to the movies???
It was a visual experience for me that was unparalleled. I saw it in a brand new theater here. Digital "Christie" projectors. 3D as it should be seen.
I just didn't like the idea that man is always the antagonist in films like this. Felt an environmental message in it... Too cliche in Hollywood these days.
How the Navi were one with their world and we just consume ours. I know JC. Twas explained in the Matrix bettter.
All in all, gotta say I enjoyed the ride though. Was worth the Dinero.
Funny, James...very funny! You guys are all cracking me up today.
Nah, actually saw it by myself...not too crowded even, as I waited a few weeks after its release. No actual crying but tears for sure, more than once. Very powerful for me...maybe I agree with the message and actually am against "mankind"...I don't know. I do like rooting for the underdog, though...that's for sure.
Changing the subject here for a moment...almost done with Cabin in the Woods. What a complete pile of fucking shit! I'm appalled if this script is for real. I honestly think it's a joke being played on us by with a fake "leak" in the script. No way Whedon can actually write like this. If I didn't know better, I'd honestly say this was written by a young kid with minimal writing skills, and even less script writing talent. Absolutely terrible!
Seems like he's having to try a bit too hard to come up with things to talk about on the Avatar one. TPM one was quite informative, this is quite good in a comedic sketch show sense, but it feels like he's just made it because Avatar is famous and he doesn't really have the passion to tear it apart.
Got to say it starts to get absurdly desperate in Part 2....
A miss on this one...needs to go back to the tone of the first one.
What I've grown increasingly tired of in later years are self aggrandizing reviewers like this guy. It's not enough anymore to "just" review the movie, you now have to act out these ridiculous quasi-autoerotic rants in the hope that your fifteen minutes of fame will last sixteen minutes. Grow the fuck up.
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
What I've grown increasingly tired of in later years are self aggrandizing reviewers like this guy. It's not enough anymore to "just" review the movie, you now have to act out these ridiculous quasi-autoerotic rants in the hope that your fifteen minutes of fame will last sixteen minutes. Grow the fuck up.
Hey Sniper,
I removed the post. I wasn’t trying to piss people off. I thought it was funny. Sorry. It’s gone.
My post was not meant as a shot at you, Bre. Sorry if it came across like that. It just seem that a lot of these internet reviewers are doing it for all the wrong reasons.
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
I saw a poster in my cinema saying that Avatar will be coming back late August for another limited 3D theatrical run with extended footage. I will need to catch it this time on the big screen to see what all the fuss is about.
Watched this earlier this evening on a borrowed ( Thank God) Blu-Ray and I have to say it was well made, and had decent special effects. I cant for the life of me understand the hype, or how it cost half a trillion but maybe it was the 3D cinema effect gimmick? I dunno. Can't say I was moved by the emotional music that attempts to make you feel emotional for the sake of it. It was like watching 2012 at points.
I enjoyed it to an extent. It dragged like hell at times. Maybe I'm missing something but what makes this film so amazing? The visuals were great - the story was just damp.
All in all, I did like it, and so did those around me so that's a plus. I'd give it a 6/10. But best movie ever? Crazy talk.
Watched this earlier this evening on a borrowed ( Thank God) Blu-Ray and I have to say it was well made, and had decent special effects. I cant for the life of me understand the hype, or how it cost half a trillion but maybe it was the 3D cinema effect gimmick? I dunno. Can't say I was moved by the emotional music that attempts to make you feel emotional for the sake of it. It was like watching 2012 at points.
I enjoyed it to an extent. It dragged like hell at times. Maybe I'm missing something but what makes this film so amazing? The visuals were great - the story was just damp.
All in all, I did like it, and so did those around me so that's a plus. I'd give it a 6/10. But best movie ever? Crazy talk.
3D baby. It's half the film in 2D...just Pocahontas really.
You thought 2012 was much better than Inception? My head just exploded. Surely not?
Back on topic, Avatar is definitely returning to cinemas with unseen footage in 3D at the end of August (27th I think). Worth mentioning for the people who missed the experience first time around (like me!).
Yes, I'd have to say 2012 was much more entertaining, had much better characters and story than Inception.
The "extra" footage on Avatar will also be released on the new Blu Ray DVD that is supposedly coming out in September. They made it clear that they were going to double dip on the DVD release, but so many people just had to go out and buy the inferior version immediately. It will be shocking how many DVD's they end up selling on this. Amazing!!
No, seriously guys...it surprises me how people bash 2012 for some reason. Not only was it wildly popular and successful, but IMO, it was not only well done, but it also was exactly what it wanted to be.
Disaster flicks get a bad rap for some reason. Everyone cries cliche this and cliche that. Maybe they are one big old cliche with a bunch of cliched characters, but at least those characters have some feelings, emotions, and back story.
People are going to get the wrong idea of m e with this comment, but I remember actually being moved near the end of 2012, and really wanting the characters to survive. May have even had a few of those Avatar tears in my eyes...not 100% sure, but I did relate to many of the characters and they did work, IMO.
There wasn't a single character I liked in Inception, other than maybe the zany, cliched "master chemist" dude and the 2 minutes of Michael Caine's character. No one else had any life at all. Who the fuck were they? No clue.
I think we're kind of off topic here on the Avatar thread, huh?
I dont think anyone needs to be embarrased or ashamed in enjoying a movie. If it's your cup of tea, it's your cup of tea. I love some terrible movies and would watch them again and again over what some would consider classics.
I'm not sure what I was expecting with this - part of me didn't even like the concept to begin with which is why I never watched it in cinemas - but I did go into it expecting something spectacular given the hype. I gave it a shot with an open mind.
I wanted it to work, as I did 2012, but both seem to share similar problems. One being overlong. 2 and a half hours? Did it really need to go on that long?
I love disaster movies and I dont mind watching the world become a fire ball and cities destroyed. Part of the interest for me is actually seeing the destruction and how people would react to it and I thought Deep Impact handled it a lot better then both of these movies.
I thought the best movie ever was Independence Day when I first watched it and I can still enjoy it now even though I recognize the movie has so many corny lines and plot points and is just plain ridiculous. I guess what Im trying to say is I understand why people might also enjoy this. Its pure escapism. That's what movies like this are meant to do. Take you out of the world you live in and take you into a new one.
But for me, it was just a typical disaster movie set in a different location. It was by the beats and as predictable as any of the flicks I've mentioned. Which makes me kind of negative towards this as it was presented as being "original,new, fresh".
Meh. I did enjoy it. I just dont really get the big deal over it.
I watched it on tv, but I have to say I am so tired of the standard Hollywood plot. The white, militaristic, capitalistic, clearly Americans the greedy bad guys, out to enslave native peoples and exploit the environment, and have no desire to understand anyone else's culture. Meanwhile the natives are spiritual and superior in every way. I am not even basing this criticism on political grounds. I am basing it on what in most areas is a sin in Hollywood...predictability.
I watched part of Green Zone the other day, and I had to leave the house, but what I saw surprised me as being interesting. I avoid these movies just because they are so predictable. Political diversity would really make these movies more interesting.
Here here. That's one of the reasons I couldn't stand Avatar. Believe me, I'm not far right politically (I'm basically libertarian, with a touch of "moderate' when it comes to economic issues.)
But the whole "evil white capitalists exploiting and killing the pure innocent natives" has been done to death. It's black and white, cliche and absolutely cartoony. Even worse, when it's as long as Avatar. Which was very, very, very long.
Gimme some complexity and subtly in the plot, please!!
The other side of the coin is that it remains the White guy who has to save the Natives.
Be nice if Black people could be allowed to save themselves every now and again.
Ultimately films are a bourgeois artform...they cost money to make and there main purpose is to make more money from an investment than you could in any other field.
What other field of Enterprise can turn Blair Witch's $30K into $300M?
Hollywood films are also a form of propaganda...they're actively used to push Western commercial values onto the rest of the World, hence the US giving countries like Turkey "free" access to films in Trade Agreements. There's more films that push commecialism than push altenatives to corporatism.
There's still plenty of political diversity in films, but you have to look outside the system for them and largely outside of the US where political diversity doesn't really exist....both parties are right of centre.
What happened to a film simply being 90 - 180 minutes of pure escapism entertainment?
Read whatever you must into any or all films, but watch them for what they are meant to do...entertain.
Avatar certainly did that, and if you weren't entertained, chances are good that you went in already jaded and looking for reasons not to like it.
Forget about it, dude. The movie's over a year old. People are always going to hate on it. You're probably right that some people just wanted to hate on it. I know I did. I didn't want to like the movie with the cutesy blue aliens, fruity color scheme and recycled plot that any wholesome all American family could enjoy. In fact, it's kinda asking for it, isn't it?
Well, I didn't hate it and in hindsight, I think if Avatar were the standard for popcorn flicks and not the cream of the crop, I'd be a lot happier with the industry.
But for some people, it's just not their thing. For my part, I don't like feel good movies. I like movies about misery. I don't like CGI. They churn out effects movies by the dozen. You're not going to impress me. I don't use escapism as my criteria to seek out films. The fact that I enjoyed Avatar, despite being what it is, is probably what I'd consider it's greatest triumph.
It's the biggest movie of all time. You've got more people on your side than on the other side. No worries.
My company did ad work for Avatar, and I found it pretty amusing that we weren't able to pull a single usable quote from the film. I think the best we could come up with was You're not in Kansas anymore, and that's from another film!
Seriously, how is this screenwriting board not tearing this film apart?
I am like you Wonka, more libertarian than anything. It was not my wish to turn this into a political thread, but politics is a big part of this movie and of Hollywood. My criticism of that is based on the fact that it's become completely predictable and cliche. Leftist politics have long dominated Hollywood, fine, but at least there used to be some subtlety. Now they want to make sure you get the message, no confusion.
I watched Edge of Darkness the other day. They used to just make the evil politician look and talk like a conservative. Now they actually put the (R) next to his name. And for good measure, they throw in a shot about Fox News. In a suspense movie!
People are tired of having this stuff thrown in their faces, and it keeps them away from certain types of movies. All of the movies about the Iraq war did very poorly at the box office, despite the predictable critical acclaim. That's because no one expects they will see a movie about a complex situation. They expect they will see the standard Michael Moore view of the world, crap that is as much fantasy as Avatar.
I didn't hate Avatar. I didn't hate Last Samurai, which is more of the same. They are visually beautiful movies with some solid acting. I am entertained by these movies. I am just tired of having the message thrown down my throat. God, just a little diversity of message would be nice, and a more complex understanding of the world. And since Avatar is a metaphor for our world, and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, that is included.
Once upon a time, we had cowboy and Indian movies, where the Indians were always murderous savages. Instead of evolving from that, we just exchanged hats. Now the Native Americans are noble and spiritual caretakers of the environment. The reality is natives are human like the rest of us; they warred with each other, had different cultures, and some were very exploitive of the environment with slash and burn agriculture.
Rick hits on a key point. Ever notice how you still need the white person to save the day? That's what this is really about. That's the clue to the underlying force behind this philosophy.
I'm not asking for Hollywood to become Sean Hannity Productions. We don't want that. I just would like to see more diversity of thought, and would prefer to stop having the message of a failed ideology shoved down my throat. The political agenda of Hollywood has had a stifling affect on the product. If they open up the windows and let some air in, not only we see some different kinds of movies, but good movies like Avatar will become better.
You know...I really, honestly don't have a problem with anyone liking or disliking a film. It's all personal preference, and God knows my personal preferences are far from the norm.
The problems I have with this latest wave on the thread are twofold.
First of all, I just can't see how anyone with any kind of intelligence and movie industry knowledge and insight could say that this film was "terrible", or any words like that. I literally can't see how it's possible.
There are so many literally terrible films made every year...and trust me, I see alot of them, cause alot of them happen to fall in the horror genre, and most of them are ZERO budget pieces of shit that didn't have the right to be made in the first place.
Like it, love it, dislike it, or hate it, Avatar is far from a terrible movie.
Secondly, let's understand that anyone can read anything they want into any piece of entertainment, be it on film or on paper. Critics and the like have been reading BS into everything they can get their hands on since the last Brontosaur died out.
I'm so sick and tired of hearing all this BS because it has nothing to do with anything, even if there is some semblance of truth behind the comments. It's just downright laughable and sad to me at the same time.
Symbolism may be real in many cases, but c'mon peeps, let's move on beyond it. Is everything white, good? Is everything black, bad? And is it really inferred to be so? You really think so?
And, really, who gives a shit? Why do people think things are being shoved down their throat when they're paying to see them, or at least choosing to see them, now that we're way beyond that with this example.
I see and listen to so many downright hilarious reviews from complete A-Holes who tell us what things actually mean in a movie, and how or why it's so deep...or so devious, or so whatever they deem it to be.
BULLSHIT!
Juts watch the damn movies and either like or dislike them for exactly what they are...entertainment. If it doesn't entertain you, don't watch it...do something else that does entertain you...like bitching about a war here or there or how this asshole is screwing the world and getting away with it.
Like I said, it's Avatar. Biggest movie of all time. People are gonna hate it. Some of them for no reason. Some of them for no reason other than the fact that it is the biggest movie of all time and they want to be a rebel. It's the same as hating on Stanley Kubrick as far as I'm concerned. Just trendy. People hate the shit out of Inception too. Same thing.
That's it, really. I hate the whole argument that people who don't like movies shouldn't bitch about them. The Internet wouldn't be the same without it. Might as well have some fun.
Like I said, it's Avatar. Biggest movie of all time. People are gonna hate it. Some of them for no reason. Some of them for no reason other than the fact that it is the biggest movie of all time and they want to be a rebel. It's the same as hating on Stanley Kubrick as far as I'm concerned. Just trendy. People hate the shit out of Inception too. Same thing.
That's it, really. I hate the whole argument that people who don't like movies shouldn't bitch about them. The Internet wouldn't be the same without it. Might as well have some fun.
I loved Avater. Thought Inception was a boring, souless mess and like some Kubrick films, not so much others.
Don't get me wrong. There's plenty of people out there with valid objections to Kubrick films and Inception. But there's also plenty of people without them. My cynicism meter's on high right now so I'll say the latter overshadow the former. Maybe I'll have a better reading next week.
Jeff, my film knowledge is vastly less than most people in this discussion. But certainly thematic content, symbolic messaging, and moral debate are a common part of many films. They are intended to provoke thought, and yes, discussion. Thus this thread.
Also keep in mind it's not just a matter of thumbs up or down. I liked a lot of Avatar. It's entertaining and has some cool concepts. I merely point out I am tired of the drone like political messaging in these movies, which I think weakens them. This seems like the appropriate place to mention that kind of thing.
Yes, rick, Kev, and James, it's more than fine to voice your opinion about anything, anywhere. I'm actually all for it.
But, it always does strike a chord with me when people go off on perceived ideas within something, that, usually, comes from somewhere else.
Here's a bad analogy...
So, somewhere along the line, someone came up with the notion about horror movies always killing off the sluts, perverts, and deviants, but letting the virgin survive, proving sex is bad and when you're bad, you're gonna die. You really think there's any reality to that?
How about this spin on it...
Horror movies often involve killing and teens/20 somethings. Teens and 20 somethings like to and get to fuck alot, based solely on their age and disposition in life...they do perverted things because they can. They're slutty cause they wanna be and can be. Any and all movies need a protag, and most prefer it to be a liable character, thus, in a world populated by sexed up, perverted characters, it makes sense to have your survivor be more likable...and probably have less onscreen sex.
Again, a bad example...but my point being, who gives a fuck? Horror movies are not preaching about the evils of having pre-marital sex. They're about delivering a good thrill ride, filled with jolts and scares, and lots of violence.
Jeff, Avatar is clearly meant as political commentary. It's not subtle and doesn't require any reading into. It's very transparent. We can agree with the commentary or not, but it's there.
I do fully agree with you that it's a mistake to over analyze movies, and a lot of people do that. Groundhog Day is probably a good example of that. People read all kinds of stuff into that movie.
But there are movies that do have a political message. Sometimes the message is critical to the movie, like Last Samurai, sometimes it's just thrown in there. I would prefer that political messages be kept out of movies. To the extent that political messages involve a world view, I would like to see more balance.
Yes, rick, Kev, and James, it's more than fine to voice your opinion about anything, anywhere. I'm actually all for it.
But, it always does strike a chord with me when people go off on perceived ideas within something, that, usually, comes from somewhere else.
Here's a bad analogy...
So, somewhere along the line, someone came up with the notion about horror movies always killing off the sluts, perverts, and deviants, but letting the virgin survive, proving sex is bad and when you're bad, you're gonna die. You really think there's any reality to that?
How about this spin on it...
Horror movies often involve killing and teens/20 somethings. Teens and 20 somethings like to and get to fuck alot, based solely on their age and disposition in life...they do perverted things because they can. They're slutty cause they wanna be and can be. Any and all movies need a protag, and most prefer it to be a liable character, thus, in a world populated by sexed up, perverted characters, it makes sense to have your survivor be more likable...and probably have less onscreen sex.
Again, a bad example...but my point being, who gives a fuck? Horror movies are not preaching about the evils of having pre-marital sex. They're about delivering a good thrill ride, filled with jolts and scares, and lots of violence.
No need to read anything into them at all.
Actually, there's quite a lot of psychological studies about horror films that show why people like them.
What they show is similar to what you're saying, but not quite.
The reality is that people enjoy watching characters who have traits they don't like, get hurt.
So the Christian enjoys watching the blasphemous heathen burn in flames. The strict atheist gets a secret kick out of watching the sanctimonious God-botherer get torn limb from limb.
The reason horror films have such young characters in general is because the demographic they aim for is 16-25 males. Hence what they call T & A (tits and ass etc). They know their audience.
The sex thing is not so much to do with morality, it's to do with what I just said above.
Yes, young people go out and drink and have sex....but not the demographic that watches horror films religiously. I'm a big horror fan as well...but they are aimed at the geeks...the guys who are staying in with their other mates on a weekend watching a DVD and are not out at a party.
That's why the slut gets killed off so often, and that's why the jock does as well...because the audience the studioes aim for likes to watch the hot girl that ignores him at school get chopped up and likes to get a vicarious revenge on the jock.
Each to their own and all that...if you are only looking for dumb entertainment, then that's fine. But you do the history of cinema and even horror films a massive disservice when you claim they have no relevance other than to provide thrills...some of the films have played a significant role in the progression of culture.
As a side note...I think your attitude to horror is essentially what's killed it as a going concern in the West. Not having a go here.
The studioes make the same story over and over again...group of young people go somehwere, get killed by a character with a gimmick, for no reason.
That's the standard Western horror and the genre is stagnant and all but dead commercially. Hardly any distributor will touch it now. Lionsgate is more interested in Sci-Fi from what I hear, and they were about the last doing it.
Asian horror is the only real outlet for qualtiy horror because they tell interesting stories that happen to be horrific or dark. Western horror is totally penned in by demographics.
Even Horror Literature has died. Except for a handful of zombie novels in the past year, the well is dry. Dark Fantasy (Twilight etc) is the only genre of "horror" that is thriving.
What horror in the West needs more than ever is a return to story-telling and a deeper connection to the audiences by creating stronger themes, characters and meaning.
OK, Rick, some films may have played a part in culture or whatever else you're mentioning. That's true, and that's fine.
BUT...
Most don't, most don't care to, and none NEED to.
The comments about writing a script aimed at a certain demographic makes sense, of course, but it's also not the brightest way to go about things, in reality, as it alienates the majority of all "other" demographics.
Writing stupid characters, doing stupid things is not the reason why horror movies (or any movies, for that matter) are successful, are loved, or go down in infamy as classics.
I too love horror movies, but the vast majority of them are terrible, and even laughable...in a bad way.
Films I love to offer up in such discussions (as you know) are Hostel and Wolf Creek. There may be a few examples of characters doing dumb, or unrealistic things, but neither plays into what you brought up above. Both are great examples of how one can write something that's different, unique to a degree, even, be played completely for reals, not follow tried and true structure or plot, and work on every level, including critical and financial success.
Sure, you can say there are messages within Hostel, like being out of your comfort zone is dangerous, having wild unabandoned sex leads to demise...whatever. But those themes or symbols have absolutely nothing to do with why the movie worked so well, and therefor, doesn't need to be even discussed, IMO.
It seems like the majority of the people who bring these things up are not in the "masses", cause the masses don't think like this. The masses want to be entertained. The masses want to escape their daily grind...they want to see things they don't get to see in reality (from a safe distance, as well). The masses don't even know a thing or 2 about solid structure or screenwriting. Hell, they don't even see the elephant sized plot holes and ridiculous situations...and they don't care.
Who cares about social commentary? Surely, not I. Remember, I really liked 2012, and I actually watched it again over the weekend and, lo and behold, there were once again numerous scenes and situations that had me on the verge of tears because they were well done and even though I knew the outcome, they were powerful IMO.
Crazy? Maybe, I don't know anymore. I know what works for me and I know exactly why. Same with what doesn't and why it doesn't.
Guess that's why I stand on my own mountain and have no problem with it.
No, Rick, I strongly disagree with you, especially about my attitude killing the genre.
What kills it is exactly what I hate about the genre...stupid, poor, juvenile writing, about stupid, unrealistic characters, doing stupid, unrealistic things.
I am interested to hear you say that Rick, about horror. I am not at all a student of film, but I mentioned in a post a couple weeks ago that I thought horror fans were killing horror, a bit of an irony, actually double irony. The insistence on non stop edge of your seat tension and an abundance of blood and killing limits what can be done. I'm not saying tension is not important, I'm saying you need to build plot and story too, and you have to sacrifice just a little bit of tension to do that.
Jeff, tell me if I am wrong, but I suspect what you prefer is maybe more action/suspense with elements of terror. I think the problem here is once again about defining what a genre is. Horror clearly encompasses a hugely wide range of story. And I agree, Jeff, those kinds of stories are much better off without any deeper messages, and if there are any, they should really be secondary to the story.
But I also really enjoy the movies, when they're done well, that you can watch more than once an get something different each time out of it. Where there are layers to dig under and sift through. Sometimes a great movie, like a great painting, might even be open to different interpretations than even the writer/director intended. That only adds to its value as art. And film is entertainment, but also art.
No, Kev, I prefer horror to any other genre. Action/suspense/thriller with elements of terror or horror are fine, but for me, straight out horror is always king...and always will be.
I wouldn't say it's horror fans who are particularly killing horror. It's more that the studios insist on a certain definition of horror that their market research shows to work.
It's always a chicken and egg situation though: Studios aim for a 16-35 year old demographic in general terms because stats show that's the age that goes to the cinema...but is that just because they don't make films that cater for older people?
My mum is 64 and she and her sister and a few friends like to go to the cinema but rarely have anything to go and watch. They'll catch the King's Speech, that Abba thing with Pierce Brosnan etc but often they'll look in the paper and they have no option.
It's the same with horror. Past films have succeeded with the teenagers getting wiped out, so they won't deal with films that DON'T have a group of teenagers in them.
Like you say...you end up with one film being made the whole time. They even remake the same films, based on the same story-line from the past....black christmas, Friday the 13th, Halloween etc. Young people getting chopped up, for no discernible reason.
You can make a horror film about anything. Unfortunately the studios seem to refuse to take a chance...and this even filters down to independent filmmakrs who just follow suit and make the same film again and again. The whole genre has ground to a creative halt in the West.
This is getting well off topic though. If you're interesetd in discussing horror, you should probably dig up an old thread from somewhere.
Yeah, we're way off topic here, but Rick, as you correctly said here finally, it's the studios/film makers/producers who have and are killing the genre.
There's no excuse for it, IMO. And I'll be damned if I don't keep fighting.
My last on this, since it is straying. I don't think it's just a matter of the studios killing it, and the fact that indi's do the same thing is evidence. The real horror people think that horror can only be one way. And that way inhibits plot, which scares off other potential viewers. Even the excessive gore, which is expected and even demanded by the horror freaks, tends to turn off the larger audience. And like Rick said, the senseless, motiveless killings. All this turns most people off. But it IS what the horror people want. That's why the indi's produce it.
Before the rise of slash, horror was more suitable for wider audiences. With slash it no longer is. And make no mistake, it seems that's what the horror people want. Even in my time here, it seems that about 90% of the horror people want slash, really don't even care about plot.
I will steer this back to Avatar: the politics of movies like Avatar is the one thing about Hollywood that has nothing to do with market. Unless you consider the need to impress critics, which also are all extremely Left wing. If Hollywood was focused on market when it comes to these political slants, they would recognize that they are annoying more than half the potential market. It's the one area Hollywood ignores wise marketing.
Wow - looks like I inadvertently revitalized a simmering debate here! (Can't say I'm sorry - it's pretty interesting.)
But figured I'd respond to a few of the more recent comments in the thread:
Quoted from Dreamscale
First of all, I just can't see how anyone with any kind of intelligence and movie industry knowledge and insight could say that this film was "terrible", or any words like that. I literally can't see how it's possible.
Sorry, DS - but I honestly do feel that Avatar was terrible. It was beautiful. I'll give it that - and I'm a huge fan of well done FX. A few caveats:
1) I *definitely* didn't go into it wanting to hate it.
2) Despite the fact that I have issues with the political bent of the film, that's not my reason for hating it either. I'm perfectly capable of loving a well done film that I don't idealogically agree with
3) It's not that I don't like thrill-rides, either. I'm a fan of Independence Day for it's pure entertainment value - despite the gaping plot holes.
For me, the issue with Avatar is that there wasn't a single character in it with a bit of depth or originality. The fact that I knew absolutely every single move that each character would make before they made it. The fact that I knew the end of the movie about 5 minutes into it. For me, the damned thing had no redeeming value at all, for those reasons. And the fact it went on so very, very long made it even worse.
Hey - same reason that I'm no fan of the majority of horror films out there, either (to touch on another theme in this thread.)
Sure, movies are supposed to be entertaining. But if a film's concept of entertainment is to rehash a bunch of characters and stereotypes and plots that I've seen 5 million times before, it's a waste of my money. And worse - a waste of 2 hours of my life. (Or more, in the case of Avatar.)
And frankly - the fact that stuff like that is made (or remade) is a severe insult to those scripts out there that *do* have something original or different to offer...but never get seen, due to the studios not wanting to take a chance. (Sad, because many such scripts would be money makers, if allowed to see the light of day and find their own fan base.)
IMHO (not to fan the flames or anything. Okay, maybe a little...)
My last on this, since it is straying. I don't think it's just a matter of the studios killing it, and the fact that indi's do the same thing is evidence. The real horror people think that horror can only be one way. And that way inhibits plot, which scares off other potential viewers. Even the excessive gore, which is expected and even demanded by the horror freaks, tends to turn off the larger audience. And like Rick said, the senseless, motiveless killings. All this turns most people off. But it IS what the horror people want. That's why the indi's produce it.
Before the rise of slash, horror was more suitable for wider audiences. With slash it no longer is. And make no mistake, it seems that's what the horror people want. Even in my time here, it seems that about 90% of the horror people want slash, really don't even care about plot.
I will steer this back to Avatar: the politics of movies like Avatar is the one thing about Hollywood that has nothing to do with market. Unless you consider the need to impress critics, which also are all extremely Left wing. If Hollywood was focused on market when it comes to these political slants, they would recognize that they are annoying more than half the potential market. It's the one area Hollywood ignores wise marketing.
You can't avoid politics in films though, as I said before. If you ignore it totally then it's just a film that supports the present system.
Plus...how much did Avatar take in the US and how much did it take worldwide? Us politics is all right-wing, but there is more variety in the rest of the world.
Wow - looks like I inadvertently revitalized a simmering debate here! (Can't say I'm sorry - it's pretty interesting.)
But figured I'd respond to a few of the more recent comments in the thread:
Sorry, DS - but I honestly do feel that Avatar was terrible. It was beautiful. I'll give it that - and I'm a huge fan of well done FX. A few caveats:
1) I *definitely* didn't go into it wanting to hate it.
2) Despite the fact that I have issues with the political bent of the film, that's not my reason for hating it either. I'm perfectly capable of loving a well done film that I don't idealogically agree with
3) It's not that I don't like thrill-rides, either. I'm a fan of Independence Day for it's pure entertainment value - despite the gaping plot holes.
For me, the issue with Avatar is that there wasn't a single character in it with a bit of depth or originality. The fact that I knew absolutely every single move that each character would make before they made it. The fact that I knew the end of the movie about 5 minutes into it. For me, the damned thing had no redeeming value at all, for those reasons. And the fact it went on so very, very long made it even worse.
Hey - same reason that I'm no fan of the majority of horror films out there, either (to touch on another theme in this thread.)
Sure, movies are supposed to be entertaining. But if a film's concept of entertainment is to rehash a bunch of characters and stereotypes and plots that I've seen 5 million times before, it's a waste of my money. And worse - a waste of 2 hours of my life. (Or more, in the case of Avatar.)
And frankly - the fact that stuff like that is made (or remade) is a severe insult to those scripts out there that *do* have something original or different to offer...but never get seen, due to the studios not wanting to take a chance. (Sad, because many such scripts would be money makers, if allowed to see the light of day and find their own fan base.)
IMHO (not to fan the flames or anything. Okay, maybe a little...)
You should have seen it in 3D.
You wouldn't care about the story when you've walked on Pandora. Could have spoent a month in the cinema just in the forest.
I just think the political aspect of the film is hilarious. From the very roots of the music industry, everything thrives on capitalism. Films are made to capitalize on what's popular in the market, and in turn, people buy into privately owned theater chains and open their own privately owned local theater that in turn creates jobs for locals. Because of this, companies (known as studios) are able to expand, invest, and ultimately more films which create more healthy economic growth in multiple industries (toys, video games, cinemas, food, clothes, etc) which in turn creates even MORE economic growth by providing thousands if not millions of jobs to people who otherwise would be out of work and out of homes. But because there is an executive somewhere that makes more than mister man who sweeps at the movie theater, capitalism is super evil.
Not to mention, I seriously doubt they used to hybrid energy to supply the MASSIVE amounts of power needed for multiple years in a row in order to create this film. And I also doubt they used hybrid airplanes to deliver the prints and merchandise to theaters and stores. And I seriously doubt they've torn down their houses in order to decrease their impact on nature.
It doesn't matter whether a person agrees or disagrees with the political message, the incredible amount of hypocrisy makes it all a joke.
And God knows they're not going to "capitalize" on the success of the first film and make more of them. Seriously, they got their message out. Do they really want to use that much more energy to power their massive computers and facilities and cause that much more of a negative environmental impact again??
That said...I enjoyed the film because it looks really cool and has an awesome soundtrack.
how much did Avatar take in the US and how much did it take worldwide? Us politics is all right-wing, but there is more variety in the rest of the world.
When Avatar was released, the political climate of the nation was decidedly liberal. 749,766,139 is a lot for a single nation to pour into a film. 749,766,139 for the U.S. alone compares to 2 billion for every other nation in the world combined. I'd say it's safe to say politics didn't sway too much when it came to its domestic income.
You don't need to completley overthrow capitalism to change the way we live.
We could protect our rainforests better. Have massive bio-diversity projetcs. Invest in clean energy. Reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Put our valuable resources into scientific projects that will benefit all of mankind instead of a handful of people worldwide. Move towards carbon zero housing. Stop destroying the natural habitats of our fellow creatures.
There's much better ways to live. We already have the technology.
When Avatar was released, the political climate of the nation was decidedly liberal. 749,766,139 is a lot for a single nation to pour into a film. 749,766,139 for the U.S. alone compares to 2 billion for every other nation in the world combined. I'd say it's safe to say politics didn't sway too much when it came to its domestic income.
Liberal in US terms is still right of centre in world terms.
But I agree...I don't think politics really effects films or art in general.
As for the money...of course the US is the main provider. Other than Europe, no-one else pays to watch it. The Chinese just pirate the film. A one DVD nation as the saying goes...someone buys a single copy and duplicates it for everyone else.
I know we don't need to completely overthrow it, but the film demonizes the heck out of capitalism and places the blame for all earthly problems directly onto the shoulders of white Americans. Also, I wonder what % of James Cameron's large salary has been invested...
My point isn't whether or not the environment is important, it's just that despite the messages in the film, everything about the way the film was made, the way the industry works, and the way their money is spent, is completely hypocritical.
Rick, you beat me to it, and I agree with you 100%.
I may not live the perfect life, and I'm you're not going to see me driving a SmartCar, but I want I am all for saving animals and ecosystems, and I realize things could and should be different.
Hopefully, we get the message soon and do what has to be done...just let me keep driving my comfy BIG SUV!!!!
OK, Wonka...that's all fine and cool...and I understand that we all have our own opinions and no opinions are incorrect.
BUT...
I don't understand how something can be "beautiful" but terrible in the same breath. The 2 don't go hand in hand with me at all.
Hey DS -
True - each to his own (and it's all well and good, either way.)
But - just to clarify - I don't see the discrepancy in what I wrote. Visually, I tip my hand to the technical CG mastery in Avatar (and Rick - you're right: it probably would have been GORGEOUS in 3d.)
But just because I think a movie is pretty, doesn't mean I think it works as a movie.
Because a film is a lot more than a bunch of pretty visuals. Or even terrific visuals.
What makes a film worthy (IMHO) is the synergy between visual excellence, plot and acting.
If anything of these are absolute crap, then the rest is...well, absolute crap.
Would I kiss the feet of the FX artists that made Avatar possible? Damn Skippy (as my best friend would say.)
But the film itself? 2+ hours of cliche, pathetically cardboard storytelling that I'll never get back.
(Guess I should learn to be more subtle about my opinion, huh?)
OK, Wonka...that's all fine and cool...and I understand that we all have our own opinions and no opinions are incorrect.
BUT...
I don't understand how something can be "beautiful" but terrible in the same breath. The 2 don't go hand in hand with me at all.
I can take a terrible picture of a beautiful person. A terrible singer can sing a beautifully written song. A screenwriter can write the most technically well written dialogue and action paragraphs on earth and still write a bad story.
It is very easy for something to be beautiful and terrible at the same time.
The thing about Avatar is that even before you have a story, you have a top director using the latest technology and a huge budget to create a 3d world of another planet. That alone is going to bring a huge audience, before the story.
I was excited to see Avatar. Then I was turned off when I saw a trailer online and I knew it was going to be more political/ideological indoctrination. I was like, man, give it a break Hollywood.
Not too surprising, I guess. Much of that ideology is built on fantasy, just like Hollywood.
You see, because of its ideological blinders, Hollywood misses the great debates that could be the source of great movie making. Let's take Iraq.
The Bush people led the US to war on Iraq because 1) they understood in the era of mass weapons of terror, even small nations are a threat to large ones; 2) the believed that oppressive regimes and lack of liberty in the Middle East is the major source of those motivated to terror; 3) we had the opportunity to do in Iraq what we did in Germany and Japan after WW II, that is create stable democracies that become a source for peace and freedom in the world; 4) we legal and moral justification to war with Iraq, who was in violation of the UN agreement ending the first war; and 5) Iraq was doable on the cheap(compared to other wars historically).
My skepticism from the outset was that stable democracy could be created here. No need to risk offending people going into that too much, but this is a tribal area, not a people with one culture like in Germany or Japan.
I also knew that this notion that the Iraqis would see us as liberators is a naive misunderstanding of human nature. No matter how well behaved the troops were, no matter how generous, they would be seen as foreign conquerers.
All of this creates a great opportunity for movies! And yes, that would include the inevitable misbehavior of troops in some cases, human nature being what it is.
This notion of war for oil or war for empire is a fantasy. It has not even the slightest basis in reality. None. The oil was a factor because it was seen as a way of rebuilding the country. Do people think this is like some video game and we took the oil? Silly. And an American empire? Please. Open a history book for God's sake if you want to know how empire's act.
So when Hollywood makes movies about Iraq where this is the premise, it is a missed opportunity to make a film about a complex issue filled with real intrigue. And it misinforms a very gullible public. Sorry if I hate that, but I do.
I know we don't need to completely overthrow it, but the film demonizes the heck out of capitalism and places the blame for all earthly problems directly onto the shoulders of white Americans. Also, I wonder what % of James Cameron's large salary has been invested...
My point isn't whether or not the environment is important, it's just that despite the messages in the film, everything about the way the film was made, the way the industry works, and the way their money is spent, is completely hypocritical.
I know what you're saying.
TBF I don't think most people would identify the bad guys as "White America" as such...it's an Amercian film so you naturally expect US actors. In many ways it would have been weirder to have different nationalities as the bad guys as it would then be seen to be making a point about their nations...basically better to stick to your own and have good guys and bad guys from the same place...the good guys were White Americans as well.
So it makes it about the issues rather than nationality or race...colonialsim and corporate greed vs living harmoniously with each otehr and the planet.
Wonka and Elmer...listen...I do understand where you're coming from. I really do.
BUT...(you like how I keep writing like this...or hate it?)
A movie is an experience that we pay for to be entertained...maybe that entertainment is merely visual, but it's still entertainment, cause we can't get it anywhere else.
Elmer, yeah, you're right in a weird way...things can be beautiful and terrible at the same time, but, IMO, that doesn't pertain to movies, at least not this one.
You can order an entree at a restaurant and it can arrive looking "beautiful", but taste terrible - different animal completely.
A person can be very beautiful, but a picture of them can be terrible - different beast completely again.
A movie that's beautiful to the point that Avatar was cannot be terrible, because if nothing else, you enjoyed "looking" at it...as it was beautiful.
If you didn't see it on the big screen, in 3D, you missed out monstrously. You really did.
I highly doubt anyone is saying what a grand story and plot was put together. It didn't need to be. It didn't intend on re-inventing any wheels. It didn't care of it offered cliche characters. It didn't give a fuck if it was a story we've all seen time and time again.
It worked. It was beautiful. It was cutting edge. It's something we may never see again in terms of success and innovation.
It's not terrible in any way and using that word is just flatout wrong IMO, especially with all the fucking dreck that Hollywood and the Indies throw out on a weekly basis.
The thing about Avatar is that even before you have a story, you have a top director using the latest technology and a huge budget to create a 3d world of another planet. That alone is going to bring a huge audience, before the story.
I was excited to see Avatar. Then I was turned off when I saw a trailer online and I knew it was going to be more political/ideological indoctrination. I was like, man, give it a break Hollywood.
Not too surprising, I guess. Much of that ideology is built on fantasy, just like Hollywood.
You see, because of its ideological blinders, Hollywood misses the great debates that could be the source of great movie making. Let's take Iraq.
The Bush people led the US to war on Iraq because 1) they understood in the era of mass weapons of terror, even small nations are a threat to large ones; 2) the believed that oppressive regimes and lack of liberty in the Middle East is the major source of those motivated to terror; 3) we had the opportunity to do in Iraq what we did in Germany and Japan after WW II, that is create stable democracies that become a source for peace and freedom in the world; 4) we legal and moral justification to war with Iraq, who was in violation of the UN agreement ending the first war; and 5) Iraq was doable on the cheap(compared to other wars historically).
My skepticism from the outset was that stable democracy could be created here. No need to risk offending people going into that too much, but this is a tribal area, not a people with one culture like in Germany or Japan.
I also knew that this notion that the Iraqis would see us as liberators is a naive misunderstanding of human nature. No matter how well behaved the troops were, no matter how generous, they would be seen as foreign conquerers.
All of this creates a great opportunity for movies! And yes, that would include the inevitable misbehavior of troops in some cases, human nature being what it is.
This notion of war for oil or war for empire is a fantasy. It has not even the slightest basis in reality. None. The oil was a factor because it was seen as a way of rebuilding the country. Do people think this is like some video game and we took the oil? Silly. And an American empire? Please. Open a history book for God's sake if you want to know how empire's act.
So when Hollywood makes movies about Iraq where this is the premise, it is a missed opportunity to make a film about a complex issue filled with real intrigue. And it misinforms a very gullible public. Sorry if I hate that, but I do.
You don't still believe all that, do you?
We're in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and plans are already on the table for Iran and Syria.
Maybe it's oil (protecting the right to trade barrels in dollars, not the substance itself..Saddam was going to start trading oil in Euro's and Iran, Libya, North Korea agreed to follow suit...that would have ended the US's magic chequebook overnight).
Maybe it's a simple strategic move to get within blasting distance of Russia and China because they're pushing for a currency war, stockpiling US dollars and buying commodities like they're going out of fashion...they're going to push for a new currency based on the value of Gold which will end the power of the Western nations whose wealth is built on fiat currency.
There's no way the US is going to allow China to simply take control of the world...it goes against the very grain of what America considers itself to be. Your collective egos couldn't take it.
Anyway it's certainly not as simple as just going in for the good of Iraq. No way, there's a long term plan for the Middle East...whatever that may be.
As for the Empire thing...they looked at the British model and saw the only flaw...that they tried to hold it with military might. Instead the US basically guarantees the protection of countries in exchange for certain rights. Us troops are in almost every country of the world. If it's not an Empire it's not far off.
We're in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and plans are already on the table for Iran and Syria.
Maybe it's oil (protecting the right to trade barrels in dollars, not the substance itself..Saddam was going to start trading oil in Euro's and Iran, Libya, North Korea agreed to follow suit...that would have ended the US's magic chequebook overnight).
Maybe it's a simple strategic move to get within blasting distance of Russia and China because they're pushing for a currency war, stockpiling US dollars and buying commodities like they're going out of fashion...they're going to push for a new currency based on the value of Gold which will end the power of the Western nations whose wealth is built on fiat currency.
There's no way the US is going to allow China to simply take control of the world...it goes against the very grain of what America considers itself to be. Your collective egos couldn't take it.
Anyway it's certainly not as simple as just going in for the good of Iraq. No way, there's a long term plan for the Middle East...whatever that may be.
As for the Empire thing...they looked at the British model and saw the only flaw...that they tried to hold it with military might. Instead the US basically guarantees the protection of countries in exchange for certain rights. Us troops are in almost every country of the world. If it's not an Empire it's not far off.
I agree, I just think it's hilarious that people were calling for the impeachment of Bush and calling him a war criminal, but when Obama does the same thing in Libya, they're blind to it. "Oh, he's a humanitarian hero."
I agree, I just think it's hilarious that people were calling for the impeachment of Bush and calling him a war criminal, but when Obama does the same thing in Libya, they're blind to it. "Oh, he's a humanitarian hero."
People, including many people worldwide, were desperate for a different kind of leadership and just seemed to assume he'd be the guy. People just lap up the whole "change" thing...change is a neutral word..you can have bad change just as much as good, but voters love that kind of thing. "We're going to move forward!" "Time for change". Just meaningless phrases that sound like you've got the best plan ever.
I think the problem is that people still think Presidents and Prime Ministers run the world. In a global village with multi-national companies who are unaccountable to anyone and exist indefinitely, it's silly to think temporary administrations have any real say in what goes on.
Political leaders can maybe fiddle with a few tax issues or pass a few laws about health care, education, but the long term strategies are in other hands.
I have not know you long Rick, but I always read your posts and welcome your thoughts because they are invariably interesting and thoughtful. In the area of film, they are also inherently sensible.
In this area, all I can really do is encourage you to 1) keep absorbing relevant facts, as I know you do; 2) try to weed out the stuff that's out there that is not credible, which I am not confident you do as well as you need to; and 3) try to weigh all this without emotion.
Your comments always suggest a very powerful current of anti Americanism on an emotional level. I would just hope that you don't let that color your thoughts to the point where you can't think things through clearly.
Let's start with the oil. America owns quite a bit of it within our own borders. The less of it that is on the world market, the more it is worth, at least for those that own those wells. Texas skyscrapers grew like weeds in the early 80s when OPEC started their embargos. Keeping Iraq closed, as it was, was good for business if you owned oil wells.
This notion of getting within blasting distance of Russia or China is pure fantasy. I'm sorry. I mean that respectfully. Let's assume the US wanted to attack those nations. It would never ever never have the manpower. And we are talking nuclear powers. The only way for the US to attack them is with our own nukes, destroy them. And that would be done with ICBMS, long range bombers, and subs stationed close by. Iraq would be useless. This isn't a game of Risk.
If you put aside the idea of American egos, do you really prefer Chinese power? You will be making films for the state then. China is not a free country. They just arrested an artist today for his revolutionary work.
But that aside, the US is not going to invade China for many reasons. One, it could not. They have over a billion people! We're having trouble with Afghanistan for God's sake!
As far as there being a long term plan for the Middle East. Rick, this conspiracy stuff is better left to movies. The simple fact is that large conspiracies are not really possible. We're not smart enough. Why do you think who is in power changes so much? Why do you think so much fails, whether its the economy, wars, or disaster relief? Human organizations are rife with petty ambitions and other inefficiencies. Planning doesn't work. That is the fundamental lesson of the 20th century. And conspiracies are just secret planning.
Americans are parochial, don't know much about the outside world, and they say bombastic things all the time, like 'we're number one at this or that.' It must annoy the crap out of people outside the US!
But America is not an empire, not a country bent on conquest. The world is a much better place with the influence of first the British Empire and then American power. China and India will take their place on the stage soon. But America will not go away. I will tell you why, and one word sums it up: freedom. Freedom means in the long run people will still want to come here, with their ideas, their energy, their dreams. That is the source of American power.
People said Japan would overtake. No one says that now. Japan is free, but it's culture is closed, and essentially its doors are.
China's growth will grind to a halt soon. It is not built on freedom. It is built on exploiting hard working people, but they will want their share at some point.
India...could be a different story. They could be the future.
The key for the US is to retain 18th century liberalism, built on liberty, law, and property values. 19th century marxist liberalism, which is what the Left is today, will be the only thing the bring the US down, as it has brought every system down it has exercised power in.
Back to Hollywood: I think you will see a BIG change in the next 20 years. Leftist leanings will not die, but I think more diversity will come. You know why? Because Indians and Chinese and others who come here, and other similar free places, really see the value in these things. That's why I LOVE immigration. Most of these people that have struggled and overcome laugh at modern liberalism. And they will change the film industry, both by their direct contributions, and by their effect as an audience.
I know I didn't change your mind, but if we both at least keep an open mind hopefully the truth will prevail! Enjoyed your post though, as always.
Wow! Seems like some serious debating broke out while I was away. The recent developments don't concern me so I'll respond to what started it all off.
Quoted from Dreamscale
Yes, rick, Kev, and James, it's more than fine to voice your opinion about anything, anywhere. I'm actually all for it.
But, it always does strike a chord with me when people go off on perceived ideas within something, that, usually, comes from somewhere else.
Here's a bad analogy...
So, somewhere along the line, someone came up with the notion about horror movies always killing off the sluts, perverts, and deviants, but letting the virgin survive, proving sex is bad and when you're bad, you're gonna die. You really think there's any reality to that?
How about this spin on it...
Horror movies often involve killing and teens/20 somethings. Teens and 20 somethings like to and get to fuck alot, based solely on their age and disposition in life...they do perverted things because they can. They're slutty cause they wanna be and can be. Any and all movies need a protag, and most prefer it to be a liable character, thus, in a world populated by sexed up, perverted characters, it makes sense to have your survivor be more likable...and probably have less onscreen sex.
Again, a bad example...but my point being, who gives a fuck? Horror movies are not preaching about the evils of having pre-marital sex. They're about delivering a good thrill ride, filled with jolts and scares, and lots of violence.
No need to read anything into them at all.
First off, I hate that template for horror movies. Whether its moral propaganda or marketing, I don't care. They're tedious cliches to sit through and more often than not, cheap writing, no matter how many academic essays you can squeeze out of it.
Second, I'm the one paying for the movie. I'm the one whose putting up those 1-2 1/2 hours of my life. I can expect or read into whatever the fuck I want, whether it's necessary or not. The average joe who's trying to escape the daily grind can enjoy the movie all he wants. Or get stuffed. Either one. I couldn't care less. They're not me and if I'm going to shovel out $10+ at the theater, I expect more than just pretty visuals and if I'm not satisfied, why should I have to appreciate anyone else's standards for entertainment. I just wasted my time and my money.
And for the record, I'm not part of this political debate. Your horror movie analogy might apply to me but your overall point does not. But if it did... see above.
I have not know you long Rick, but I always read your posts and welcome your thoughts because they are invariably interesting and thoughtful. In the area of film, they are also inherently sensible.
In this area, all I can really do is encourage you to 1) keep absorbing relevant facts, as I know you do; 2) try to weed out the stuff that's out there that is not credible, which I am not confident you do as well as you need to; and 3) try to weigh all this without emotion.
Your comments always suggest a very powerful current of anti Americanism on an emotional level. I would just hope that you don't let that color your thoughts to the point where you can't think things through clearly.
Let's start with the oil. America owns quite a bit of it within our own borders. The less of it that is on the world market, the more it is worth, at least for those that own those wells. Texas skyscrapers grew like weeds in the early 80s when OPEC started their embargos. Keeping Iraq closed, as it was, was good for business if you owned oil wells.
This notion of getting within blasting distance of Russia or China is pure fantasy. I'm sorry. I mean that respectfully. Let's assume the US wanted to attack those nations. It would never ever never have the manpower. And we are talking nuclear powers. The only way for the US to attack them is with our own nukes, destroy them. And that would be done with ICBMS, long range bombers, and subs stationed close by. Iraq would be useless. This isn't a game of Risk.
If you put aside the idea of American egos, do you really prefer Chinese power? You will be making films for the state then. China is not a free country. They just arrested an artist today for his revolutionary work.
But that aside, the US is not going to invade China for many reasons. One, it could not. They have over a billion people! We're having trouble with Afghanistan for God's sake!
As far as there being a long term plan for the Middle East. Rick, this conspiracy stuff is better left to movies. The simple fact is that large conspiracies are not really possible. We're not smart enough. Why do you think who is in power changes so much? Why do you think so much fails, whether its the economy, wars, or disaster relief? Human organizations are rife with petty ambitions and other inefficiencies. Planning doesn't work. That is the fundamental lesson of the 20th century. And conspiracies are just secret planning.
Americans are parochial, don't know much about the outside world, and they say bombastic things all the time, like 'we're number one at this or that.' It must annoy the crap out of people outside the US!
But America is not an empire, not a country bent on conquest. The world is a much better place with the influence of first the British Empire and then American power. China and India will take their place on the stage soon. But America will not go away. I will tell you why, and one word sums it up: freedom. Freedom means in the long run people will still want to come here, with their ideas, their energy, their dreams. That is the source of American power.
People said Japan would overtake. No one says that now. Japan is free, but it's culture is closed, and essentially its doors are.
China's growth will grind to a halt soon. It is not built on freedom. It is built on exploiting hard working people, but they will want their share at some point.
India...could be a different story. They could be the future.
The key for the US is to retain 18th century liberalism, built on liberty, law, and property values. 19th century marxist liberalism, which is what the Left is today, will be the only thing the bring the US down, as it has brought every system down it has exercised power in.
Back to Hollywood: I think you will see a BIG change in the next 20 years. Leftist leanings will not die, but I think more diversity will come. You know why? Because Indians and Chinese and others who come here, and other similar free places, really see the value in these things. That's why I LOVE immigration. Most of these people that have struggled and overcome laugh at modern liberalism. And they will change the film industry, both by their direct contributions, and by their effect as an audience.
I know I didn't change your mind, but if we both at least keep an open mind hopefully the truth will prevail! Enjoyed your post though, as always.
As I said nothing to do with oil as a substance, but possibly to do with the dollar as the currency for oil. Every time a barrel of oil is traded in the world it has to be done in dollars. That notion ensures the US a continual income. Saddam was apparently going to start trading in Euros. Others would have followed suit. It could have bankrupted the US pretty much overnight.
The fact is the Western Nations are in three Middle Eastern countries and they are already "selling" conflict with Iran.
There is a long term goal for the Middle East. Don't know what it is, but it's not a conspiracy theory, just an obvious fact.
You seem to have missed my point about China. I'm not suggesting for a minute they are going to invade.
China and the US are gearing up for a currency war. Every dollar that is spent in China, the Chinese are keeping. They are also stockpiling gold and other commodities.
The G20 countries are in "discussion" about the situation, but the West has nothing to offer the Chinese...they have everything they need.
The Chinese want to repalce the US Dollar with the Yuan as the reserve currency:
That's their long term strategy...and gives them control of the world if they pull it off.
Western money is mythical. It is fiat money. The Chinese, Russians and Indians want to create a "hard" currency based on the value of Gold. In the West money is loaned out by the likes of J P Morgan to the value of 100 times the value of one piece of gold. (By law it should be a maximum of 24 times).
Russian and Chinese Banks are full to the brim with Gold. Western money is all electronic.
In response the West needs some leverage over China.
That much is established fact.
The rest is speculative, I agree, but as far as I'm concerned there was never any justification for going into Iraq. I knew, as did millions of other people in Europe that they had no WMD's. Even people in the administration knew (a guy called David Kelly was hounded to his death for saying the document had been sexed up).
So once you realise the obvious fact that they were no threat, you have to look for the real reason for going there (not so much as a Gameboy...Hans Blix UN Weapons Inspector). The only weapons they had were the ones our respective nations had sold to them to fight the Iranians.
Look at a world map..Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan represent a singular line of supply from Turkey (an ally Nation) to the border of China. With the oil in those countries, you've got a perfect supply line to get the Allied Military onto the borders of China.
They would never invade, but Politics is about leverage. Build a load of missiles pointing into China, or just threaten to and you have some political sway.
With Allied Nations surrounding them with their Navies, you've got a perfect theatre for war. Russia and China basically a sitting target to continuous bombardment.
You then say we'll remove the Military bases/missiles from the Middle East in exchange for a compromise over the currency issue. Normal service is resumed.
A bit like the Cuban Missile crisis. US puts long range Nuclear missiles in the UK, Turkey etc pointing at USSR, US tries to overthrow Cuban Government, USSR puts Nuclear missiles in Cuba in response. After secret talks they get rid of them all...back to the status quo. It's like a constant game of Chess.
Now as I say, it's speculative, but the history of the world shows that Nations are continually looking to get strategic advantage over their rivals.
This isn't a question of being anti-American, the very notion of that is absurd to me. It's just a recognition that countries have their own agendas...and they are hardly EVER about freedom. Money, power, strategic advantage maybe.
Britain, the US, France, Russia and China are the biggest arms dealers in the world. The Bank of England controls places like the Cayman Islands (all the officials are appointed directly by the Queen) and this is where Blood Diamonds, drugs money etc that is used to fund wars ends up. Wars are funded by different groups with their own agendas. The West support rebels opposed to their "enemies", the Saudi's support Islamist groups, the Chinese supply the group they want in power in places like Sudan, the West arm the other side....such is the merry go round of real world Politik.
BTW it's rarely been Marxism that has brought down left-leaning countries...often it's been the active involvement of the United States. Look at Nicaragua etc.
The US and their allies have removed perfectly legitimate democracies when it has suited its agenda. This is a matter of historical fact. So when people start talking about freedom and democracy...have a look between the lines. It's something else they want.
As for the Hollywood thing. Ask yourself why it is that you feel so threatened by a different political point of view. Almost all American films glorify capitalism...Elmer makes a good point that their very nature is an exercise in capitalism. When you say you want to see more diversity..what you are actually saying is that you want to see LESS. You want films to be even more right-wing than they already are...which is very.
For every Avatar there are about 3,000 capitalist films because that's the default position of the art form.
There's not been political diversity in US films for decades. There's not even political diversity in US politics...of the entire spectrum of Political thought from the Extreme Left to Extreme right, political discourse in the US inhabits just a tiny segment to the Centre right.
A good thing to do is to use the Freedom of Information Act to request info on episodes of US history..Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Cuban missile Crisis etc. See for yourself what the CIA was up to. (You can probably do this online). Then look up what the Politicians said in PUBLIC at the time. The differences between the official media version and the truth are HUGE. Do this for the UK as well and MI6. ...try and get as many versions as your language skills will allow for.
The President will come out and condemn someone like Pinochet in Chile for Human Rights Abuse whilst secretly funding his operations behind the scenes.
That's the way the real world works. Anyone who believes anything their leaders say...whatever country they are from...is a fool.
Ok, I will start with Hollywood, since that is relevant to the thread.
Hollywood is capitalist to the core. It is a commercial enterprise, and with big studios there is a huge capital investment. So it looks to find new markets(Turkey) and expand older markets. If it doesn't make money, people lose their jobs.
And yet as an art form it has become dominated by left leaning thinking. I don't think I can expend much energy arguing that point. There are certain cultural institutions that lean strongly left: universities, journalism, literature, and yes, film. Now, if one draws the center line way to the left, then almost anything looks "right wing". The fact is there is no official drawing of this line, so no real way to settle it.
If one tends to break the world down this way: the world consists of oppressors and the oppressed, that is the Left view, and common to movies. Exploiters verse the exploited, as in Avatar. This is just one way of breaking it down, but it is a big them in the arts world.
Now, to your view of the global situation. It is very intelligent and well thought out. I think this is what is leading you astray. You are using kind of a game like view of the world. It's very much how the world worked in 19th Century Europe. You had well developed nation states that were run by their aristocracies and were playing a game of empire.
But this has little bearing on the world today. Countries act in their interests, yes. But within democratic countries there are factions battling for power. And their power is based on local politics, not global machinations. In most cases the people making the decisions could care less about the US long term position. They just want to get elected and reelected.
Certainly that is the case in the US. You may thing both parties are the same, but is a misreading of the situation, though an understandable one. Here's what happens in a two party system: the electorate over time becomes more or less evenly split. So either side needs some votes from the other to win. So when they run against each other, they run to the center. That makes them look almost alike. But before they run against each other, they have to win their party's nomination. During that time, they have to appeal to their base, which means they run left or right, depending on the party.
This has positive and negative aspects compared to a multiparty system. To those who want dramatic change, they will be frustrated. The tug of war between the two parties will not easily allow that. The advantage is that you avoid the risk of extremist parties coming to power, like the Nazis did in 32.
So in European countries you will see the Green Party and other fringe parties, and they can ally with one party or another to become a factor. Because you don't see that in the US, you reach a false conclusion that there is little difference between them.
Are they both Right Wing? Well, if you're waiting for a communist revolution, I guess so. It depends where your center line is.
Planned economies, and planned societies, don't work. That really is the lesson of the 20th century, and many millions died because of that false idea. Hundreds of millions more have toiled in misery. It really saddens me to think we have not learned that lesson. Our not understanding human nature is a major cause of that, but I think the main cause will always be the kids of successful parents who come to consider themselves an elite, and think they should be allowed to design the world. Why trust the market? We're smarter, we can plan a better world, just give us the power, we'll do it for the good of everyone.
If you study planned economies in the USSR or in China, you will see clear evidence of this, and it has nothing to do with the West. Even European style socialism was a disaster.
And what about China today, you might say? A successful communist country? Mark my words, no one will be saying this about China in ten years. They have problems on the horizon that, like everything with China, are too difficult for us to comprehend.
They are growing rapidly now, but it is on the backs of cheap slave labor. They own huge amounts of US dollars, but that also means they can't afford to let the US collapse either. Their people are soon going to want a piece of the pie, and they don't know how to do that. And when they do, they will no longer have the cheap labor. Their biggest problem though, is their aging population. Demographics is going to destroy them. There won't be enough young people to support the old.
China will be a force because of its size, and because of the intelligence of its people. But as long they remain communist, they are doomed to eventual stagnation at best, and possible revolution.
India is a different story. I would look there for a future super power.
WMD in Iraq: every intelligence agency thought they were there. But you have to understand, the argument they used was a simplified version of what I explained in my other post. The idea is that the Middle East was going to be a source of terrorism, and sooner or later a WMD will get through. Whether that WMD was developed by Saddaam or someone else, didn't really matter. Iraq was an opportunity to try to create a base for democracy in the Middle East.
Something you may not have been aware of: it was around the time of the 2nd Iraq war that movies like Saving Private Ryan came out. Several books came out celebrating the "Greatest Generation," the people who fought WWII. Bushes father was a war hero, a pilot who spent several days in the Pacific Ocean. Also, when the Cold War ended, there were many thinkers who longed for a cause similar to that of their fathers. WWII became the model to aspire to. And that war ended with the successful rebuilding or Japan and Germany, which are now democratic allies.
That is the vision the neo-cons had for the middle east. And after 9/11, they were able to sell it to Bush. In their minds, we had an opportunity to do what we did in WWII, to walk in the path of their fathers.
I never trusted the idea. Sorry to say this, but I am skeptical that Islamic societies can develop into Western style democracies. Their institutions are built around the idea of submission, which is what Islam means. I hope I am wrong.
Bush and the neo cons had a more idealistic view of things. Naive in my opinion, but well intended.
You mention how the Western economies is based on paper money, and you are correct of course. The money is built on our institutions, our economic system. Any paper money is built on magic, even if backed by gold, as ours used to be. But keep in mind: war with China or Russia would destroy that system. It just won't happen. Powers that be have to much at stake in that system, if nothing else.
You're trying to connect too many dots, Rick. The world is actually much more random. It's kind of like the JFK assassination for Americans. Everyone wants to believe it was a conspiracy. It's human nature. We want to connect the dots, think we have a handle on things. But it turns out it really was just a nut acting on his own.
CIA abuses? Yes, they happened. You need to understand them in their context however. Lets look at the modern dilemma in Libya. On the one hand, Kaddafi is a brutal dictator suppressing his people. You have an opportunity to support those trying to overthrow him. But, those people trying to overthrow him are likely allied with Islamic fundamentalists, who are likely in the future to become a threat to the US. So what do you do as President? Glad it's not my job. These are hard decisions when you have to make them in real time.
One of the bigger crimes committed by the CIA was Iran in the 50s when they established the Shah. This was probably the worst thing they did, and it was motivated by a desire to keep the Soviets out. It was wrong, but you have to understand the context. Other situations have been even grayer. The sandinistas in Nicaragua were brutal. Finally, it is not that I am threatened by Hollywood's leftist fantasy view of the world. It is more that I am bored by it. Maybe in the 1920s you could argue for some of this stuff, make a case for Leftist thinking. But history since then has clearly proven those ideas to be foolish. The people espousing them are kind of antiquated, relics who haven't moved on. Sometimes they almost seem cute. But then I realize these ideas do still influence people.
But I am not for suppressing those ideas. I would just like to see more nuance. For example, the cowboys and Indians. As I said, they used to be the bad guys, then they were the good guys who did no wrong. I prefer to their culture for its strengths and weaknesses, its beautiful and its ugly. Some lived in harmony with nature, some were slash and burn. Some were peaceful, some were in fact savage killers, of whites and of other natives. There are great stories there.
Edit: I will try to make this my last post, and give you the last word if you want it. One, the mods are probably annoyed, two, I respect your opinion on this and other stuff, and I'd rather not risk creating friction. But I enjoyed the exchange!
It's a good post Kev. Obviously in the time we have available here, arguments are bound to be a little simplified.
I think we mainly agree on most points.
The key issues we would disagree on would the reasons of going into Iraq in the first place. I can't in all honesty believe that they thought Iraq had WMD's...all information available at the time dismissed that idea, so for me the real truth lies else where...whatever it may be.
The other issue we would disagree on is the importance of local politics. Although I agree with what you say, for me the decision makers are rarely elected officials. It's the people who remain behind the scenes as consultants, civil service etc that are responsible for long term policy. Elected officials as you say spend their time getting elected and re-elected. The actual long term planning is left to people who can be there permanently.
Obviously long term business/banking interests etc play a huge role in that as well, but that's another story.
I didn't know there was another Avatar. What are the rumors?
Let's take a stab, trying to stay consistent with the metaphor they are already using.
I will guess the natives begin to slowly be conquered by our "toys". They will develop a taste for video games, ipods, running hot water, sneakers and sliced bread. Factions will emerge within the natives. Some will want to return to the old ways. The Americans...oops, I mean the humans...will try to exploit this. They will take sides in a civil war to try to regain their foothold.
It seems like Avatar 2 will be underwater which would be awesome IMO. I've been fascinated by marine life ever since I was a kid. That world is as different from our terrestrial life as space is. It's also easier to burn down a forest than it is a coral reef so maybe they'll have to scale back the politics as well.
I can't speak for the story but I'm pretty sure it will be an even better film visually speaking and if it is underwater, of much greater interest to me.
I'm always surprised when people complain about Avatar being cliche. Isn't that just kinda the film climate that we're in? It's not like Avatar was an unreasonably huge success in a film market filled with unique, original, well-plotted movies. As a script, it didn't strike me as being better or worse than average at today's theatres (not that that's okay); as a film, it was a heck of a lot more interesting to watch.
As to the ideology of the of the film, well, what do you expect? Cameron is heavily involved in environmental activism, and I think it was pretty clear from the get-go what the point of the film was. The excessively obvious ideological elements in the film just display Cameron's admittedly unfortunate but entirely prudent assumption that the vast majority of people that he's trying to reach are too clueless to get the message without being hit over the head with it.
Hey Heretic. You say you're surprised, then it sounds like you agree with those of us that say the movie is too predictably political. That Avatar is so did not surprise me at all. That's what I've been saying. It's what one expects out of Hollywood. I'm just saying it's too bad.
Think of what he could have done with this world he created. He could have had conflict and rivalries between cultures and tribes on that world, representing different philosophies and attitudes. Humans could have got involved for a variety of reasons. Some just wanted the resource. But some were just trying to do what they thought was the right thing, and perhaps caused more harm. Maybe some really helped.
Cameron's view of the world is Lefty cliche: you have the noble exploited and the evil exploiters. Just like American go to war in Iraq just to steal the oil from these simple victims. If he made his world more complex, there could be a limitless number of sequel plots.
Star Wars has a simple plot as well, but at least(the original) it is not trying to make some modern political point.
I like Avatar for the experience of journeying into another world. It has a value. But it's also a dramatic waste of an opportunity. The plot is terrible. And as proof, I suggest that people are looking forward to a sequel not because of the story, but just for the 3d experience of a new world. Whereas Star Wars people wanted the story to go on.
Think of what he could have done with this world he created. He could have had conflict and rivalries between cultures and tribes on that world, representing different philosophies and attitudes. Humans could have got involved for a variety of reasons. Some just wanted the resource. But some were just trying to do what they thought was the right thing, and perhaps caused more harm. Maybe some really helped.
I don't think he could have done that though. Could Michael Bay have made such complex changes to Transformers? Verbinski with Pirates? Look at what J.J. Abrams had to turn Star Trek into to make it commercially viable. Avatar's just another blockbuster in a film climate where the only way to keep attention is constant input and the only way to convey a message is with a sledgehammer. Most films don't even bother with the message these days.
Cameron set out to make a point with the film. Whether or not you agree with his message, he successfully communicated his opinions in a way the general movie-going populace could understand. However, he still delivered a perfectly reasonable, average, fun blockbuster in my opinion. I see what you mean, that it got in the way for you, but do you think it still would have gotten in the way if you agreed with his point of view? Or if you had never really thought seriously about environmental conservation, capitalism, etc (which I think it's fair to say that a lot of youth in the last few generations haven't)?
What I am saying, Heretic, and said previously, was that while I disagree with much of his message, the problem I really have is the predictable nature of it: The Americans(humans) driven by their greedy corporate interests spend all their energy ruthlessly colonizing and exploiting native peoples, peoples that otherwise would live in wonderful harmony with nature. Yeah, ok, we get it: Americans = capitalists = the root of all that's wrong in the world.
But am I sick of the message? Yes, because I happen to know my history, and don't get it from Michael Moore. Do people have even the foggiest idea what the world would be like if these Western concepts had not developed: rule by constitutional law, private property, individual rights, and yes, capitalism and the corporation? We would all still be serfs living in filth.
Hollywood produces stuff that makes the rest of the world feel good about itself. But its real goal is to make Lefties feel good about themselves. That's what modern liberalism is all about at its heart. The result is a distorted view of reality that leads to the suffering of the innocent. Such as the peasants in the Ukraine in the 30s. They didn't fair so well under Leftist thinking.
I am an environmentalist too. A commons sense one though. And I would not wish to see native peoples exploited for a resource. But this movie is making a much larger point than that.
Did Avatar do an excellent job with its message? Yes. Absolutely. Like Oliver Stone and Michael Moore he should be proud of the false notions he puts in less informed people's heads.
If you want to teach youth about these various ideologies, fine. I am all for the spread of ideas and information. But they need to be taught the whole story. Lenin's ideas sounded like they would be pretty nice for the working man and the peasant. But read the history. These idead led to decades of misery, millions of deaths, political repression. It was just as bad under Mao. And look at what Chavez is doing. These ideas are seductive. They sound good. and they heart innocent people. And with all of the lessons of the last hundred years there's no reason for us to be walking this path again, but many want us to.
Kevin, obviously, you're a smart guy, well educated, well schooled, and well aware of history, politics, and probably lots more.
But I seriously think you're taking this way too far for no real reason.
Why are you so upset about the message here or the message that you claim Hollywood routinely spews out? How is it affecting you? Why would it affect you?
It's a movie...it's entertainment...it doesn't matter what anyone is saying here...does it really?
Oh, I'm not upset at all, Jeff. This is just jousting for me! Don't get me wrong, I believe strongly the things I am saying, but I love hearing the contrary opinions. Intellectual debate, about movies or whatever, just something to do. I stop if someone gets mad or upset.
That's cool, and I'm all for jousting, etc. I really am...
BUT...
Seriously, I just don't get it. Movies, novels, TV shows, everything...it's the way it is and it's that way for a reason.
Everyone likes rooting for the little guy...the underdog. That's really, in a nutshell, what's going on here, isn't it? Is Braveheart or Rocky any different, when you get down to it?
It's about setting up likable characters that have to overcome insurmountable odds to win...or even to survive.
"The world is full of kings and queens, who'll blind your eyes and steal your dreams, it's Heaven and Hell...Oh Well."
The masses want the little guy to win...cause the masses are the little guy.
Yes, true, and there are different ways that could be done. For example, there could have been two warring tribes on the planet, one trying to dominate and destroy the other, and humans take sides. Maybe one human civ or country sides with the "bad guys" the other with the "good guys." There are different ways of doing these things.
I understand where you're coming from. I think, all politics aside, it may break down to this then: that you found the structure (including but perhaps not limited to the ideological aspects inherent to that structure) to be overwhelmingly and distractingly formulaic, and that I found it to be comfortably so. I think that that's probably in part to do with the fact that I am more inclined to agree to some extent with that ideology than you are.
I think it's a stretch to call a technically sound, visually impressive movie that you think did a good job with its message "terrible". But that's just on paper. If you reacted that strongly to the content then of course it's reasonable to have that opinion. I have definitely had a similar reaction to movies that completely disagree with my ideology.
I can agree with that. As I said in most of my early posts, I liked a lot of the movie. I did not think it was terrible. I do disagree with the ideology behind it, so that causes problems, but it's the cliche aspect to the ideology that gives me the biggest problem,
I actually would not want my ideology transparently and shallowly displayed on the screen over and over either. I enjoy movies that stimulate thought and debate on issues from a variety of angles. Let me give you an example.
A Few Good Men. Clearly the actions taken on that military base under Jessup(I think that was his name) were wrong. And that is the position taken by the movie. But the movie is great because it displays the argument to not be cut and dry. When Jessup says that "deep down we want him on that wall," there is much truth to it. It's easy to make rules of conduct for war when you sit in seminars and conferences, but things are different when you have to work on a field of combat.
So while we root for Tom Cruise, and we cheer when Jessup goes down, and Jessup is repulsive, there is a part of us that knows Jessup is right. He was doing the things he did in order to make his men stronger, which meant less of them would die in battle.
That's what it's a great script. It shows the complexity of the issue involved, the difficulty of the moral dilemma.
There's no attempt at that in Avatar. But there easily could have been, and it would have been a more memorable movie. I am not an authority on Shakespeare by any means. But those plays do what A Few Good Men does. They explore difficult questions. They have a point of view, they grapple with moral issues, but they show that these are difficult issues, not cut and dry. And that's why they're great drama.
Movies like Avatar are just trying to hammer you with a simplistic ideology. Yes, as you say, they are effective making their point, but that's called propaganda. Who wants to see propaganda? Movies should not be propaganda, and when they do that, they lose much of their power, and are no longer really an art form.
There was a silly movie in the 80s with John Candy and Tim Hanks, I forget the name, about the peace corp. They go to some unnamed poor Asian company, and their job is to build a bridge for a little village. In the end, they come to realize the villagers don't even want the white man's bridge, and are better off without it.
This is just a comedy, but at least it wrestles with some issues. The white people mean well, in a sense, but they are really not helping, and in the end, their real motivation is the need to feel good about themselves. The point is that even in a comedy like this, the complexity of issues is recognized.
Someone with Cameron's talent and his gigantic budget is doing a movie about an alien world, I am excited to see it! Why can't he do it without including agenda ideology? You can have the issues of environmentalism explored, and even colonialism. But in this script the Americans(humans) are all greedy thug like buffoons, who think nothing of destroying worlds. They're more like silly cartoon characters.
Think about this too. Why is it a consortium of corporations mining Avatar? Why couldn't it be a mission from a dictatorship like communist China? Any idea what types of atrocities against the environment were committed by Communists China and the Soviet Union?
Here's a quick look how things really would have happened with the Na'vi. When their world was exposed to our civilization, factions would have emerged, some wanting new technology and knowledge, some wanting to preserve old ways. Humans would have had a varied approach as well. Some would have exploited for their own benefit, some would have been protective of the natives. And that in itself would be complicated. Often those with "pure" motives would have caused more harm, as in the Tom Hanks movie. And even those wanting to secure the resource would not have wanted to see wanton destruction. Most would want to see a mutually beneficial relationship develop.
Now one might interject that all of this would be too complicated for a movie. To that I point to A Few Good Men. It can be easily done if one is not creating propaganda.
what is my ideology you might wonder? Well, I want the environment protected, I place a premium on individual liberties, I believe peoples should have the right to rule themselves. I also understand that until recently, in the long span of history, the overwhelming majority of people lived in brutal conditions, with few liberties, and almost no way to rise out of their desperate conditions. So I value a system that allows us to do that, gives the maximum number of people the chance to do that.
We hopefully agree on that stuff. Here's where we probably move apart. Strong governments have a tendency to suppress individual liberty, and eventually do so in brutal fashion. ANY strong government, I don't care what the ideology. They also tend to serve the interest of the ruling class, whether that is an aristocracy or a communist politboro or huge government employee unions, and that means eventually they destroy the interests of everyone else. That means everyone else sinks back to the days of no economic opportunity.
I also understand that certain concepts are what made it possible for us to rise out of the desperate conditions we lived in for thousands of years: rule by law, property rights, liberty, and capitalism. And when we don't understand those things, we risk losing the gains we've made. Let me tell you, if we slip back into a state of desperation, it ain't gonna be good at all for the environment.
Pages: 
Author
Avatar
Logged
My scripts:
Locked Board