James Cameron's AVATAR series - Page 40

On December 27 2009 14:05 Shauni wrote:


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.

On December 27 2009 14:14 darktreb wrote:
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.

On December 27 2009 11:55 Mortality wrote:



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 13:36 Archerofaiur wrote:
Why didnt Bambi portray the mother killing hunter as needing to feed his starving family.

On December 27 2009 13:27 keepITup wrote:


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 13:58 jalstar wrote:


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 14:50 hazelynut wrote:

But for a movie that's advertised as 10/10 best-movie-of-the-year-must-watch, I expected something more complex than a Disney plot, because Avatar isn't a children's movie (or did I miss a memo here?). Instead, it occupies a very peculiar position: it's an adult movie, has up to PG-13 violence, and for some reason exhibits a child-like understanding of the world.

It probably didn't help that 3d makes me dizzy

On December 27 2009 15:08 mainerd wrote:

i disagree about your perception that these characters were evil. you can construe their actions as evil since as a member of the audience you can see both sides of the story, but the humans had very positive motives for being on pandora from their limited perspective. unobtanium is a cure all for the earths woes (as darktreb pointed out in his post it's a joke among scientists who wish they had something to make their jobs/projects easier), or at least that's what the humans think (why else call it unobtanium?), and that pretty much sidelines concern for the indigenous life. we also learn that the earth is in some kind of eco trouble, which to me sounds like the perfect thing to inject some unobtanium into. the continuation of the human race is pretty important, right?

Selfridge (the exec) didn't dive right in to blowing up the giant tree, he was persuaded by the colonel... if Selfridge had decided to kick back the decision to earth, i think he knew what the answer would be anyway, and it would be a needless delay of time. maybe even ten years, if messages need to be sent sub-light like all the ships sent to pandora. he was there to make on the spot decisions, and again is just doing his job and would probably be replaced if he cannot make the obvious, "tough" choices.

the colonel might be the closest thing to an evil character, but even he was on pandora to do a job. he obviously loved a good fight (keeping the scars on his face), but the navi also had warriors which probably felt the same way. anyway thats another debate entirely about good vs evil.

really the evil in the movie is the collective complacency of the human camp, but why would the corporation even consider sending someone if they are known to be an environmental sympathizer? they wanted people who would get the job done. the scientists are the one exception i can think of in this regard, but even they were a smart investment. grace & co were useful to the corporation in the long run since they could study and profile the indiginious life, navi included, thus speeding up mining efforts on the planet.

everyone had a job to do, and the sum of the parts was a destructive force on pandora... of course the corporation is the easiest "evil" to identify, b/c of their policy making, but even then, it seemed like a pretty classic tale of entrepreneurial policy negating any moral/ethical dillemas... just human nature. its easy to sit back and make policy when you won't even see the results from earth for five years.. and if you are making $$ hand over fist.

to me, the decisions the characters made may have been predictable as far as the story went, but they also made sense... and for an "evil" to really exist, the character in question has to choose the "evil route" with no legitimate reason to but for fun, pleasure, or just to be a real jerk. its easy to say its a dumbed down, unoriginal good vs evil story, but that really doesn't do it justice imo. :S

just my 2 cents

On December 27 2009 15:36 jalstar wrote:
You're trying to add depth to the colonel and the corporation by explaining additional motives they might have had, however those were not explained in the movie, in the movie the antagonists just wanted to destroy the Navi and the spiritual tree network to get a mineral they could sell for money.

On December 27 2009 16:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
They touch some more on why humanity needs Unobtainium on the official Avatar movie site and pandorapedia, but there's really no need to go into specific details in the movie.

On December 27 2009 16:07 mainerd wrote:

yes, if you just look at just the facts that were presented you're right, though id just point out that the final battle was also an act of self preservation by the humans as explained by the colonel (and whether he believed that or not is speculation, that's what he told his mercs and thats how he got them all riled up). if he was lying in his speech to further the corporation's hold on the planet, then i guess he is quite evil, but again thats speculative :D
i agree it's harder to sympathize with the humans, and this was probably deliberate by cameron, but i don't agree that they were "evil". if anything, i'd say they were desperate.

On December 27 2009 16:12 Archerofaiur wrote:
You know what made Starcraft suck. Remember when Kerrigan made Fenix harvest minerals for her to boost her Brood strength? They never really went into what those minerals would be used for. Or how she might have been justified in stealing them from the kel-morians. That whole plot wasnt that complex so therefore I am going to give Starcrafts plot a 5/10.

On December 27 2009 16:13 jalstar wrote:
plenty of movies (and video games, as you pointed out) have pointless macguffins that are never explained, the problem is that people are saying that avatar is deep and complex because of the macguffin, it's only a macguffin

On December 27 2009 16:17 Archerofaiur wrote:


Who is saying avatar is deep and complex? Id say well done, elegant and timeless are better words to describe it.

On December 27 2009 16:19 jalstar wrote:


Timeless? What makes unobtainium (and avatar's plot in general) so different from the million other macguffins and plots just like it?

On December 27 2009 16:21 Archerofaiur wrote:



What makes a vital message of repeated themes that echo throughout human histroy timeless? lol i dont know :p

Theres a reason youve seen Avatars message before. Its cause its an important one.

On December 27 2009 14:29 Archerofaiur wrote:
Thats the point. Its a plot device. Its something people want but cant obtain. Its not shallow, its part of the directors message. It doesnt matter what people want, its always something and its always what they cant have. Its oil or land or money or power or any of a thousand other possesions that one man has and another doesnt.