|
On December 27 2009 11:35 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2009 11:31 fAnTaCy wrote:On December 27 2009 09:21 darktreb wrote:
My advice to viewers:
You have to see this movie in 3D because it is simply unbelievable. You don't need to "turn off" your criticism-center of your brain but just don't let it deprive you of what is an awe-inspiring experience. You don't watch an incredible sunset or go sit on the beach on a perfect day for surprises. You do it because it is an amazing feeling even if you know what you're getting yourself into.
Again, you don't have to turn off your brain, but for your own sake try to alter the way you're looking at this movie because otherwise you're just some dude watching a magnificent sunset and going "this is how it looks every time". You're not wrong, but that wasn't the point, and you just deprived yourself of what could have been an incredibly enjoyable 2 1/2 hours. In the end, you're the only person who loses if that happens.
After watching the movie I felt like I was actually on their planet, doing a tour in some magical invisible floating contraption for 2 1/2 hours. I've never even come close to actually feeling "I was actually there doing a tour" for any other movie - it's always been "it looked fantastic but I saw it on a screen".
QFT this is what people need to do not go to find what is wrong with a movie and waste then ten bucks because your spending time looking at the negative parts of the movie rather than enjoying the movie for what it is the story and characters and dialog are all terrible, you really do have to turn off your brain to enjoy it. if it was more mindless action and about an hour shorter i would have enjoyed it for what it was, but i was bored out of my mind
I disagree! All I can say is you don't know how to enjoy film. Go back to watching your.... grindhouse/killbill tarantino flicks, you, YOU!!!!!
Edit: On second thought, I'm gonna go watch some tarantino flicks now. 
|
On December 27 2009 11:35 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2009 11:31 fAnTaCy wrote:On December 27 2009 09:21 darktreb wrote:
My advice to viewers:
You have to see this movie in 3D because it is simply unbelievable. You don't need to "turn off" your criticism-center of your brain but just don't let it deprive you of what is an awe-inspiring experience. You don't watch an incredible sunset or go sit on the beach on a perfect day for surprises. You do it because it is an amazing feeling even if you know what you're getting yourself into.
Again, you don't have to turn off your brain, but for your own sake try to alter the way you're looking at this movie because otherwise you're just some dude watching a magnificent sunset and going "this is how it looks every time". You're not wrong, but that wasn't the point, and you just deprived yourself of what could have been an incredibly enjoyable 2 1/2 hours. In the end, you're the only person who loses if that happens.
After watching the movie I felt like I was actually on their planet, doing a tour in some magical invisible floating contraption for 2 1/2 hours. I've never even come close to actually feeling "I was actually there doing a tour" for any other movie - it's always been "it looked fantastic but I saw it on a screen".
QFT this is what people need to do not go to find what is wrong with a movie and waste then ten bucks because your spending time looking at the negative parts of the movie rather than enjoying the movie for what it is the story and characters and dialog are all terrible, you really do have to turn off your brain to enjoy it. if it was more mindless action and about an hour shorter i would have enjoyed it for what it was, but i was bored out of my mind
what makes action "mindless" when it's meant to save an entire world?
|
Just got out of the theater.
Needless to say, the special effects alone are worth the trip. The first half of the film is very captivating, just exploring through the new world (graphics!). Though, there probably was a good half hour when I sat in my seat and waited impatiently for the final battle.
The battle though... damn impressive.
|
On December 27 2009 10:40 Shauni wrote:
I just came home from seeing it and I must say it was pretty disgusting.
Very suggestive about the political views of the director and the whole environmentalism thing. Masks it as entertainment and 'visual orgasms' while still maintains a good deal of repulsive propaganda. It has clearly succeeded because 90% of all reviews do not even talk about the politics in the movie - and I don't think it's just because the themes are so simplistic.
Black and white, good vs evil. Why do these blockbusters rarely portray things in a grayscale? It feels as if they try to make the audience relate to the characters in a stronger sense than how it works in reality*. Basically 'audience members! you're idiots! we'll tell you to like this character and hate this character so that you'll know how to enjoy the movie!'
The whole fact that a 10 year old could have written the manuscript didn't bother me that much, except that the dialogues felt predictable. I would expect this kind of shit in a decent game, say, Mass Effect or Dragon Age. Simplistic american-styled plot without any provocative or memorable aspects. But the same thing for a movie? And a movie that everyone seem to rate "10/10 FUCKING MOVIE OF THE CENTURY?"
And if the movie is told in 'visuals', why the fuck do they insist on the stupid dialogue?
I grasped the whole concept, the world, the characters and would have thought it was an okay fantasy movie if it wasn't for all these embarrassing flaws.
It was pretty bad, but not total shit. I was captivated the by Avatar the same way I'm captivated by stupid but funny comedies. I'm just aggravated by how people can enjoy this so much when it doesn't even try to be slightly intelligent.
5/10 or so.
*yes I know it is fiction but I don't know why Hollywood still sticks to this simplified concept of reality in most of their blockbusters.
Don't know what you mean by american-styled plot but this review may have just lowered my IQ. I know critical thinking is hard for some people but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try.
|
On December 27 2009 11:16 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2009 10:56 Shauni wrote:
It becomes a political view when it is suggestive and do not just portray the things 'as they are' in the movie. Environmentalism is definitely a part of political ideology. It doesn't matter if 99% of the world population agrees with the underlying morals of the movie, in fact, it just makes things more disgusting as it shows how easy it is to manipulate and reach out to the audience. Don't you think the movie came in a very timely fashion as it recently became popular to 'care' about the environment in USA (and other countries)? yah this is obviously a plot to make people care about the environment.... Seriously did I miss something?
You did miss something. He's not talking about whether the political message is right or wrong (and even if he were, there's a difference between protecting the environment and supporting the environmentalist movement -- a distinction most people either don't know or choose to ignore), but rather the overt nature of it and how it is timed in a way that is rather shameless and can easily be interpreted as either a) an effort to capitalize on enviornmentalism or b) an effort to promote specific environmental policy, or c) both of the above. This is what Shauni is saying.
Bear in mind, I haven't seen the movie yet so I am not judging the movie, only Shauni's posts and the posts of others. Rather, I'm open-minded when it comes to understanding cultural impact and I'm cynical regarding the motivations of others. And I think Shauni raises a very valid point that I will pay attention to when I see the movie.
That said, I have a bad feeling I'll be horribly disappointed. The last film to get hyped like this was The Dark Knight and I actually didn't much like it. Other than a few "joker moments" that can be summed up in a 10 minute Youtube video, it was a rather mundane movie comprised of fundamentally uninteresting characters (other than the joker) with an anvilicious message. I missed the palpable tension one should have when witnessing a Batman/Joker face-off. And while I liked the plot development of Two-Face, he felt like almost like an afterthought, a joke of a villain. Maybe I would have liked it more if it wasn't so hyped (my expectations going in were really high), but it just wasn't the insta-10/10 that everyone said it was. And I suspect this movie will be the same. All hype with no delivery. People being swept away by something new and different, but no deeper appeal either from an intellectual or a characterization standpoint to truly draw me in. That's what I'm predicting. Hopefully I'll be wrong.
|
On December 27 2009 11:55 Mortality wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2009 11:16 Archerofaiur wrote:On December 27 2009 10:56 Shauni wrote:
It becomes a political view when it is suggestive and do not just portray the things 'as they are' in the movie. Environmentalism is definitely a part of political ideology. It doesn't matter if 99% of the world population agrees with the underlying morals of the movie, in fact, it just makes things more disgusting as it shows how easy it is to manipulate and reach out to the audience. Don't you think the movie came in a very timely fashion as it recently became popular to 'care' about the environment in USA (and other countries)? yah this is obviously a plot to make people care about the environment.... Seriously did I miss something? You did miss something. He's not talking about whether the political message is right or wrong (and even if he were, there's a difference between protecting the environment and supporting the environmentalist movement -- a distinction most people either don't know or choose to ignore), but rather the overt nature of it and how it is timed in a way that is rather shameless and can easily be interpreted as either a) an effort to capitalize on enviornmentalism or b) an effort to promote specific environmental policy, or c) both of the above. This is what Shauni is saying.
lol if your going to make that arguement your going to have to explain how james cameron is making a "environmentalist movement" statement and not a "protecting the enviroment" statement. Also Shauni is going to have to provide evidence where Avatar is promoting a "specific environmental policy". I for one didnt hear a whole lot of talk about CO2 emissions.
What I did hear was a timeless message that ive been hearing since I saw The Jungle Book at age 6.
|
Well I dont ever let someone else tell me if the movie is good or not. Anyone remember The Fifth Element? One of my friends was advertising how terrible of a movie it was. I almost decided to take his advice, until I said screw it and went and saw it anyway. It actually ended up as a really good movie imo. Everyone has diffirent tastes. There will NEVER be a movie that EVERYONE likes. Take Transformers, most people liked it, others (who act like they are mentally superior by using big words and talking about their own personal deepness) didnt like it. Same as this movie, its entertainment people, nothing more or less.
|
On December 27 2009 12:08 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2009 11:55 Mortality wrote:On December 27 2009 11:16 Archerofaiur wrote:On December 27 2009 10:56 Shauni wrote:
It becomes a political view when it is suggestive and do not just portray the things 'as they are' in the movie. Environmentalism is definitely a part of political ideology. It doesn't matter if 99% of the world population agrees with the underlying morals of the movie, in fact, it just makes things more disgusting as it shows how easy it is to manipulate and reach out to the audience. Don't you think the movie came in a very timely fashion as it recently became popular to 'care' about the environment in USA (and other countries)? yah this is obviously a plot to make people care about the environment.... Seriously did I miss something? You did miss something. He's not talking about whether the political message is right or wrong (and even if he were, there's a difference between protecting the environment and supporting the environmentalist movement -- a distinction most people either don't know or choose to ignore), but rather the overt nature of it and how it is timed in a way that is rather shameless and can easily be interpreted as either a) an effort to capitalize on enviornmentalism or b) an effort to promote specific environmental policy, or c) both of the above. This is what Shauni is saying. lol if your going to make that arguement your going to have to explain how james cameron is making a "environmentalist movement" statement and not a "protecting the enviroment" statement. Also Shauni is going to have to provide evidence where Avatar is promoting a "specific environmental policy". I for one didnt hear a whole lot of talk about CO2 emissions. What I did hear was a timeless message that ive been hearing since I saw The Jungle Book at age 6.
Yes I like the way you put that. The movie does have a more "protect the enviroment" feel to it rather than the other.
|
On December 27 2009 11:41 keepITup wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2009 11:35 jalstar wrote:On December 27 2009 11:31 fAnTaCy wrote:On December 27 2009 09:21 darktreb wrote:
My advice to viewers:
You have to see this movie in 3D because it is simply unbelievable. You don't need to "turn off" your criticism-center of your brain but just don't let it deprive you of what is an awe-inspiring experience. You don't watch an incredible sunset or go sit on the beach on a perfect day for surprises. You do it because it is an amazing feeling even if you know what you're getting yourself into.
Again, you don't have to turn off your brain, but for your own sake try to alter the way you're looking at this movie because otherwise you're just some dude watching a magnificent sunset and going "this is how it looks every time". You're not wrong, but that wasn't the point, and you just deprived yourself of what could have been an incredibly enjoyable 2 1/2 hours. In the end, you're the only person who loses if that happens.
After watching the movie I felt like I was actually on their planet, doing a tour in some magical invisible floating contraption for 2 1/2 hours. I've never even come close to actually feeling "I was actually there doing a tour" for any other movie - it's always been "it looked fantastic but I saw it on a screen".
QFT this is what people need to do not go to find what is wrong with a movie and waste then ten bucks because your spending time looking at the negative parts of the movie rather than enjoying the movie for what it is the story and characters and dialog are all terrible, you really do have to turn off your brain to enjoy it. if it was more mindless action and about an hour shorter i would have enjoyed it for what it was, but i was bored out of my mind what makes action "mindless" when it's meant to save an entire world?
because the world tree did get destroyed, and yet everyone still lived happily ever after. the humans weren't planning to kill all the navi until jake switched sides and the humans doubled in stereotypical hollywood evil levels
|
On December 27 2009 12:24 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2009 11:41 keepITup wrote:On December 27 2009 11:35 jalstar wrote:On December 27 2009 11:31 fAnTaCy wrote:On December 27 2009 09:21 darktreb wrote:
My advice to viewers:
You have to see this movie in 3D because it is simply unbelievable. You don't need to "turn off" your criticism-center of your brain but just don't let it deprive you of what is an awe-inspiring experience. You don't watch an incredible sunset or go sit on the beach on a perfect day for surprises. You do it because it is an amazing feeling even if you know what you're getting yourself into.
Again, you don't have to turn off your brain, but for your own sake try to alter the way you're looking at this movie because otherwise you're just some dude watching a magnificent sunset and going "this is how it looks every time". You're not wrong, but that wasn't the point, and you just deprived yourself of what could have been an incredibly enjoyable 2 1/2 hours. In the end, you're the only person who loses if that happens.
After watching the movie I felt like I was actually on their planet, doing a tour in some magical invisible floating contraption for 2 1/2 hours. I've never even come close to actually feeling "I was actually there doing a tour" for any other movie - it's always been "it looked fantastic but I saw it on a screen".
QFT this is what people need to do not go to find what is wrong with a movie and waste then ten bucks because your spending time looking at the negative parts of the movie rather than enjoying the movie for what it is the story and characters and dialog are all terrible, you really do have to turn off your brain to enjoy it. if it was more mindless action and about an hour shorter i would have enjoyed it for what it was, but i was bored out of my mind what makes action "mindless" when it's meant to save an entire world? because the world tree did get destroyed, and yet everyone still lived happily ever after. the humans weren't planning to kill all the navi until jake switched sides and the humans doubled in stereotypical hollywood evil levels
no, the humans weren't planning on killing all the navi per se until jake switched, but if all the navi had an "accident" while the humans strip mined pandora for unobtanium, i don't think it would have bothered the corporation one bit
im not sure about the doubling in evil bit, i felt like if i had been a hired merc. on a hostile alien planet and thought my life was on the line, i would pull the trigger too. maybe even make a scary face when i did it :D
|
On December 27 2009 12:19 DyEnasTy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2009 12:08 Archerofaiur wrote:On December 27 2009 11:55 Mortality wrote:On December 27 2009 11:16 Archerofaiur wrote:On December 27 2009 10:56 Shauni wrote:
It becomes a political view when it is suggestive and do not just portray the things 'as they are' in the movie. Environmentalism is definitely a part of political ideology. It doesn't matter if 99% of the world population agrees with the underlying morals of the movie, in fact, it just makes things more disgusting as it shows how easy it is to manipulate and reach out to the audience. Don't you think the movie came in a very timely fashion as it recently became popular to 'care' about the environment in USA (and other countries)? yah this is obviously a plot to make people care about the environment.... Seriously did I miss something? You did miss something. He's not talking about whether the political message is right or wrong (and even if he were, there's a difference between protecting the environment and supporting the environmentalist movement -- a distinction most people either don't know or choose to ignore), but rather the overt nature of it and how it is timed in a way that is rather shameless and can easily be interpreted as either a) an effort to capitalize on enviornmentalism or b) an effort to promote specific environmental policy, or c) both of the above. This is what Shauni is saying. lol if your going to make that arguement your going to have to explain how james cameron is making a "environmentalist movement" statement and not a "protecting the enviroment" statement. Also Shauni is going to have to provide evidence where Avatar is promoting a "specific environmental policy". I for one didnt hear a whole lot of talk about CO2 emissions. What I did hear was a timeless message that ive been hearing since I saw The Jungle Book at age 6. Yes I like the way you put that. The movie does have a more "protect the enviroment" feel to it rather than the other.
I'm not going to argue whether or not James Cameron is an active environmentalist, I'm just saying that a movie should not have 'hidden' morals in it, even if they are quite obvious ones. It doesn't even try to question either stance in the mining for cash versus protecting the nature, it just tells you that one thing is wrong and the other is not. Even in a movie about a murderer there is no point in portraying the murderer as an inherently evil person to make the audience unable to identify with him - even though it often works like this in Hollywood movies.
Yes, you are right that you could make a comparison with The Jungle Book and other nature-themed movies like Princess Mononoke and Nausciaa, but it is strange how I didn't react this strongly upon watching those movies. I think the atmosphere was more important than the message in them.
|
On December 27 2009 12:24 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2009 11:41 keepITup wrote:On December 27 2009 11:35 jalstar wrote:On December 27 2009 11:31 fAnTaCy wrote:On December 27 2009 09:21 darktreb wrote:
My advice to viewers:
You have to see this movie in 3D because it is simply unbelievable. You don't need to "turn off" your criticism-center of your brain but just don't let it deprive you of what is an awe-inspiring experience. You don't watch an incredible sunset or go sit on the beach on a perfect day for surprises. You do it because it is an amazing feeling even if you know what you're getting yourself into.
Again, you don't have to turn off your brain, but for your own sake try to alter the way you're looking at this movie because otherwise you're just some dude watching a magnificent sunset and going "this is how it looks every time". You're not wrong, but that wasn't the point, and you just deprived yourself of what could have been an incredibly enjoyable 2 1/2 hours. In the end, you're the only person who loses if that happens.
After watching the movie I felt like I was actually on their planet, doing a tour in some magical invisible floating contraption for 2 1/2 hours. I've never even come close to actually feeling "I was actually there doing a tour" for any other movie - it's always been "it looked fantastic but I saw it on a screen".
QFT this is what people need to do not go to find what is wrong with a movie and waste then ten bucks because your spending time looking at the negative parts of the movie rather than enjoying the movie for what it is the story and characters and dialog are all terrible, you really do have to turn off your brain to enjoy it. if it was more mindless action and about an hour shorter i would have enjoyed it for what it was, but i was bored out of my mind what makes action "mindless" when it's meant to save an entire world? because the world tree did get destroyed, and yet everyone still lived happily ever after. the humans weren't planning to kill all the navi until jake switched sides and the humans doubled in stereotypical hollywood evil levels
humans weren't demonized in this movie, and to call them "stereotypically" evil is evidence to your bias against this film.
if the audience wasn't viewing this from the Navi perspective, the actions of the humans could of very well be justified.
a bunch of natives are on a resource you desperately need, and won't move because they still have primitive beliefs about gods, goddesses and talking to nature.
The Navi sound like a very annoying obstacle. it's only because of the Avatars that we learn about their culture, and how their evolutionary biology is actually more advanced than anything our technology can come up with.
the general tries to smoke them out after they had already been told what was going to happen if they didn't. and only then does he return fire. we also see an example of a soldier who refuses to fire upon the natives. throughout out the movie there are clear signs that some humans know what they are dong is wrong -- but they are obviously living in desperate times, and this resource is important to economic recovery.
there's no way they could of understood what the Avatars were experiencing, and if someone told me not to chop down a tree because someone cared about it, i'd probably laugh too.
|
On December 27 2009 13:18 Shauni wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2009 12:19 DyEnasTy wrote:On December 27 2009 12:08 Archerofaiur wrote:On December 27 2009 11:55 Mortality wrote:On December 27 2009 11:16 Archerofaiur wrote:On December 27 2009 10:56 Shauni wrote:
It becomes a political view when it is suggestive and do not just portray the things 'as they are' in the movie. Environmentalism is definitely a part of political ideology. It doesn't matter if 99% of the world population agrees with the underlying morals of the movie, in fact, it just makes things more disgusting as it shows how easy it is to manipulate and reach out to the audience. Don't you think the movie came in a very timely fashion as it recently became popular to 'care' about the environment in USA (and other countries)? yah this is obviously a plot to make people care about the environment.... Seriously did I miss something? You did miss something. He's not talking about whether the political message is right or wrong (and even if he were, there's a difference between protecting the environment and supporting the environmentalist movement -- a distinction most people either don't know or choose to ignore), but rather the overt nature of it and how it is timed in a way that is rather shameless and can easily be interpreted as either a) an effort to capitalize on enviornmentalism or b) an effort to promote specific environmental policy, or c) both of the above. This is what Shauni is saying. lol if your going to make that arguement your going to have to explain how james cameron is making a "environmentalist movement" statement and not a "protecting the enviroment" statement. Also Shauni is going to have to provide evidence where Avatar is promoting a "specific environmental policy". I for one didnt hear a whole lot of talk about CO2 emissions. What I did hear was a timeless message that ive been hearing since I saw The Jungle Book at age 6. Yes I like the way you put that. The movie does have a more "protect the enviroment" feel to it rather than the other. I'm not going to argue whether or not James Cameron is an active environmentalist, I'm just saying that a movie should not have 'hidden' morals in it, even if they are quite obvious ones. It doesn't even try to question either stance in the mining for cash versus protecting the nature, it just tells you that one thing is wrong and the other is not. Even in a movie about a murderer there is no point in portraying the murderer as an inherently evil person to make the audience unable to identify with him - even though it often works like this in Hollywood movies. Yes, you are right that you could make a comparison with The Jungle Book and other nature-themed movies like Princess Mononoke and Nausciaa, but it is strange how I didn't react this strongly upon watching those movies. I think the atmosphere was more important than the message in them.
I don't think it was even about 'hidden morals'
It wasn't just about mining for cash versus protecting nature. It was more along the lines of blood and iron imperialism versus freedom and equality - in essence stealing raw materials which do not belong to you from others out of greed.
That's the basics if you want to examine it, and everything else regarding "hidden" messages is just pure speculation and extrapolation and to assume otherwise with certainty isn't thinking at all. It's presenting an imaginary opposing argument by yourself so you can easily shoot it down and feel smarter than everyone else (irony).
|
|
|
On December 27 2009 13:18 Shauni wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2009 12:19 DyEnasTy wrote:On December 27 2009 12:08 Archerofaiur wrote:On December 27 2009 11:55 Mortality wrote:On December 27 2009 11:16 Archerofaiur wrote:On December 27 2009 10:56 Shauni wrote:
It becomes a political view when it is suggestive and do not just portray the things 'as they are' in the movie. Environmentalism is definitely a part of political ideology. It doesn't matter if 99% of the world population agrees with the underlying morals of the movie, in fact, it just makes things more disgusting as it shows how easy it is to manipulate and reach out to the audience. Don't you think the movie came in a very timely fashion as it recently became popular to 'care' about the environment in USA (and other countries)? yah this is obviously a plot to make people care about the environment.... Seriously did I miss something? You did miss something. He's not talking about whether the political message is right or wrong (and even if he were, there's a difference between protecting the environment and supporting the environmentalist movement -- a distinction most people either don't know or choose to ignore), but rather the overt nature of it and how it is timed in a way that is rather shameless and can easily be interpreted as either a) an effort to capitalize on enviornmentalism or b) an effort to promote specific environmental policy, or c) both of the above. This is what Shauni is saying. lol if your going to make that arguement your going to have to explain how james cameron is making a "environmentalist movement" statement and not a "protecting the enviroment" statement. Also Shauni is going to have to provide evidence where Avatar is promoting a "specific environmental policy". I for one didnt hear a whole lot of talk about CO2 emissions. What I did hear was a timeless message that ive been hearing since I saw The Jungle Book at age 6. Yes I like the way you put that. The movie does have a more "protect the enviroment" feel to it rather than the other. I'm not going to argue whether or not James Cameron is an active environmentalist, I'm just saying that a movie should not have 'hidden' morals in it, even if they are quite obvious ones. It doesn't even try to question either stance in the mining for cash versus protecting the nature, it just tells you that one thing is wrong and the other is not. Even in a movie about a murderer there is no point in portraying the murderer as an inherently evil person to make the audience unable to identify with him - even though it often works like this in Hollywood movies. .
Why didnt Bambi portray the mother killing hunter as needing to feed his starving family.
There isnt "hidden" morals. There is a moral to the story which is dont mess with the enviroment. Avatar is not the first story to have a moral nor will it be the last. Nor does the theme of protecting the environment need to be balance by reason to destroy the environment. Frankly I would have probably walked out if the movie had started rationalizing killing and pillaging nature.
People dont need any more influences telling them to kill and take. They do a well enough job of that already.
|
On December 27 2009 13:27 keepITup wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2009 12:24 jalstar wrote:On December 27 2009 11:41 keepITup wrote:On December 27 2009 11:35 jalstar wrote:On December 27 2009 11:31 fAnTaCy wrote:On December 27 2009 09:21 darktreb wrote:
My advice to viewers:
You have to see this movie in 3D because it is simply unbelievable. You don't need to "turn off" your criticism-center of your brain but just don't let it deprive you of what is an awe-inspiring experience. You don't watch an incredible sunset or go sit on the beach on a perfect day for surprises. You do it because it is an amazing feeling even if you know what you're getting yourself into.
Again, you don't have to turn off your brain, but for your own sake try to alter the way you're looking at this movie because otherwise you're just some dude watching a magnificent sunset and going "this is how it looks every time". You're not wrong, but that wasn't the point, and you just deprived yourself of what could have been an incredibly enjoyable 2 1/2 hours. In the end, you're the only person who loses if that happens.
After watching the movie I felt like I was actually on their planet, doing a tour in some magical invisible floating contraption for 2 1/2 hours. I've never even come close to actually feeling "I was actually there doing a tour" for any other movie - it's always been "it looked fantastic but I saw it on a screen".
QFT this is what people need to do not go to find what is wrong with a movie and waste then ten bucks because your spending time looking at the negative parts of the movie rather than enjoying the movie for what it is the story and characters and dialog are all terrible, you really do have to turn off your brain to enjoy it. if it was more mindless action and about an hour shorter i would have enjoyed it for what it was, but i was bored out of my mind what makes action "mindless" when it's meant to save an entire world? because the world tree did get destroyed, and yet everyone still lived happily ever after. the humans weren't planning to kill all the navi until jake switched sides and the humans doubled in stereotypical hollywood evil levels humans weren't demonized in this movie, and to call them "stereotypically" evil is evidence to your bias against this film. if the audience wasn't viewing this from the Navi perspective, the actions of the humans could of very well be justified. a bunch of natives are on a resource you desperately need, and won't move because they still have primitive beliefs about gods, goddesses and talking to nature. The Navi sound like a very annoying obstacle. it's only because of the Avatars that we learn about their culture, and how their evolutionary biology is actually more advanced than anything our technology can come up with. the general tries to smoke them out after they had already been told what was going to happen if they didn't. and only then does he return fire. we also see an example of a soldier who refuses to fire upon the natives. throughout out the movie there are clear signs that some humans know what they are dong is wrong -- but they are obviously living in desperate times, and this resource is important to economic recovery. there's no way they could of understood what the Avatars were experiencing, and if someone told me not to chop down a tree because someone cared about it, i'd probably laugh too.
we never learned why humans need unobtainium, the only guy who ever mentions it is a complete stereotype: evil and corporate.
and the general is a cartoon villain, in fact i remember seeing deeper villains in actual kid's cartoons from my childhood.
|
On December 27 2009 13:36 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2009 13:18 Shauni wrote:On December 27 2009 12:19 DyEnasTy wrote:On December 27 2009 12:08 Archerofaiur wrote:On December 27 2009 11:55 Mortality wrote:On December 27 2009 11:16 Archerofaiur wrote:On December 27 2009 10:56 Shauni wrote:
It becomes a political view when it is suggestive and do not just portray the things 'as they are' in the movie. Environmentalism is definitely a part of political ideology. It doesn't matter if 99% of the world population agrees with the underlying morals of the movie, in fact, it just makes things more disgusting as it shows how easy it is to manipulate and reach out to the audience. Don't you think the movie came in a very timely fashion as it recently became popular to 'care' about the environment in USA (and other countries)? yah this is obviously a plot to make people care about the environment.... Seriously did I miss something? You did miss something. He's not talking about whether the political message is right or wrong (and even if he were, there's a difference between protecting the environment and supporting the environmentalist movement -- a distinction most people either don't know or choose to ignore), but rather the overt nature of it and how it is timed in a way that is rather shameless and can easily be interpreted as either a) an effort to capitalize on enviornmentalism or b) an effort to promote specific environmental policy, or c) both of the above. This is what Shauni is saying. lol if your going to make that arguement your going to have to explain how james cameron is making a "environmentalist movement" statement and not a "protecting the enviroment" statement. Also Shauni is going to have to provide evidence where Avatar is promoting a "specific environmental policy". I for one didnt hear a whole lot of talk about CO2 emissions. What I did hear was a timeless message that ive been hearing since I saw The Jungle Book at age 6. Yes I like the way you put that. The movie does have a more "protect the enviroment" feel to it rather than the other. I'm not going to argue whether or not James Cameron is an active environmentalist, I'm just saying that a movie should not have 'hidden' morals in it, even if they are quite obvious ones. It doesn't even try to question either stance in the mining for cash versus protecting the nature, it just tells you that one thing is wrong and the other is not. Even in a movie about a murderer there is no point in portraying the murderer as an inherently evil person to make the audience unable to identify with him - even though it often works like this in Hollywood movies. . Why didnt Bambi portray the mother killing hunter as needing to feed his starving family. There isnt "hidden" morals. There is a moral to the story which is dont mess with the enviroment. Avatar is not the first story to have a moral nor will it be the last. Nor does the theme of protecting the environment need to be balance by reason to destroy the environment. Frankly I would have probably walked out if the movie had started rationalizing killing and pillaging nature. People dont need any more influences telling them to kill and take. They do a well enough job of that already.
That's why I used 'hidden' with situational marks. So you are saying that as long as the movies morals fit with your perspective of the world, it is a good movie?
And I don't think you quite understood what I was saying. I didn't want them to make the movie a polar opposite, I just dislike when movies simplify everything into black and white. They're both the same colors, as director Ki duk kim use to say.
|
oddly enough, black and white arent the same color
|
United States41117 Posts
On December 27 2009 13:58 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2009 13:27 keepITup wrote:On December 27 2009 12:24 jalstar wrote:On December 27 2009 11:41 keepITup wrote:On December 27 2009 11:35 jalstar wrote:On December 27 2009 11:31 fAnTaCy wrote:On December 27 2009 09:21 darktreb wrote:
My advice to viewers:
You have to see this movie in 3D because it is simply unbelievable. You don't need to "turn off" your criticism-center of your brain but just don't let it deprive you of what is an awe-inspiring experience. You don't watch an incredible sunset or go sit on the beach on a perfect day for surprises. You do it because it is an amazing feeling even if you know what you're getting yourself into.
Again, you don't have to turn off your brain, but for your own sake try to alter the way you're looking at this movie because otherwise you're just some dude watching a magnificent sunset and going "this is how it looks every time". You're not wrong, but that wasn't the point, and you just deprived yourself of what could have been an incredibly enjoyable 2 1/2 hours. In the end, you're the only person who loses if that happens.
After watching the movie I felt like I was actually on their planet, doing a tour in some magical invisible floating contraption for 2 1/2 hours. I've never even come close to actually feeling "I was actually there doing a tour" for any other movie - it's always been "it looked fantastic but I saw it on a screen".
QFT this is what people need to do not go to find what is wrong with a movie and waste then ten bucks because your spending time looking at the negative parts of the movie rather than enjoying the movie for what it is the story and characters and dialog are all terrible, you really do have to turn off your brain to enjoy it. if it was more mindless action and about an hour shorter i would have enjoyed it for what it was, but i was bored out of my mind what makes action "mindless" when it's meant to save an entire world? because the world tree did get destroyed, and yet everyone still lived happily ever after. the humans weren't planning to kill all the navi until jake switched sides and the humans doubled in stereotypical hollywood evil levels humans weren't demonized in this movie, and to call them "stereotypically" evil is evidence to your bias against this film. if the audience wasn't viewing this from the Navi perspective, the actions of the humans could of very well be justified. a bunch of natives are on a resource you desperately need, and won't move because they still have primitive beliefs about gods, goddesses and talking to nature. The Navi sound like a very annoying obstacle. it's only because of the Avatars that we learn about their culture, and how their evolutionary biology is actually more advanced than anything our technology can come up with. the general tries to smoke them out after they had already been told what was going to happen if they didn't. and only then does he return fire. we also see an example of a soldier who refuses to fire upon the natives. throughout out the movie there are clear signs that some humans know what they are dong is wrong -- but they are obviously living in desperate times, and this resource is important to economic recovery. there's no way they could of understood what the Avatars were experiencing, and if someone told me not to chop down a tree because someone cared about it, i'd probably laugh too. we never learned why humans need unobtainium, the only guy who ever mentions it is a complete stereotype: evil and corporate. and the general is a cartoon villain, in fact i remember seeing deeper villains in actual kid's cartoons from my childhood.
It was explained that unobtainium was worth millions of dollars back on Earth. There is/was no need to delve on to it further.
|
I find it ridiculous that people are harping over "why the humans needed unobtainium". I mean seriously?
Also, unobtainium is a term commonly used jokingly by scientists to refer to an element that's "infinitely light and infinitely strong", ie something that doesn't exist but would solve a lot of problems. It's not just a term Cameron made up for this movie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
