| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
|
SuperJongMan
Jamaica11586 Posts
For 500 million, I could expect Avatar to be better. Maybe even hold unfair expectations. Half a billion dollar movie.. that's a lot of movie! Is Avatar enough to justify? Meh... I still likey. I mean... pink helicopter lizards... if those didn't make you smile, you are an empty husk of man. | ||
|
Mortality
United States4790 Posts
And let me start off by saying I need a shower. This overdose of political correctness makes me feel dirty beyond words. The special effects were mostly worth the hype. I say mostly because those stupid glasses were hard on my eyes. And no, I don't have glasses nor do I need them. My vision passes all tests with flying colors. Probably it's because I have one eye significantly more dominant than the other. But in any case, that just goes to show that not all the kinks have been worked out of the technology yet. Other than the glasses issue, I have to say that the visual effects were mind-blowing. In that sense, this movie was completely revolutionary. But in all other senses it failed. Utterly. The characters were a cliche selection pulled straight off TVTropes. In fact even the word "unobtainium" is a long standing trope: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Unobtainium You have your corrupt corporate executive who's hell bent on getting his macguffin because it's worth big bucks, totally not caring that the very world he's stepping on has natural features that could potentially bring big bucks (via understanding them), which only makes him look more anviliciously bad via being not only corrupt but idiotic as well. You have your Colonel Kilgore/General Ripper (he really plays both roles) who takes great pleasure in inciting conflict just to prove he's a badass. Another anvil dropped. You have your noble savage Navi people who are pretty much Wood Elves with blue skin and tails, right down to the "proud warrior race" persona. Hell, and with the Navi being so much bigger than humans, you could also argue that this is a case of "Elves vs Dwarves." Even the bit where the hero is brought to the side of the "righteous" through sex is a trope. + Show Spoiler + And there's a case of Murder the Hypotenus. I could go on. What a tropperific plotline. But while not all tropes are bad, Cameron needs to realize that when tropes aren't employed effectively and when the characters and story are overly one-dimensional (and make no mistake -- this story has no depth what so ever), they become cliche. And that's bad. To be honest, I expected the environmentalist plug to be really bad given Shauni's post, but to be honest, I wasn't overly bothered by that part. Other than perhaps sending questionable messages (namely that technology and nature cannot co-exist -- technology is portrayed in a universally negative way in this film), it wasn't any worse than what you might find in certain movies that are actually good like Bambi or Dances With Wolves. What did bother me was certain other political themes. Firstly, who are the villains? Humans? Wrong answer. Correct answer? White men. I only noticed this towards the end of the film, but all the bad guys are white. I only noticed two non-whites on the case, and both helped the hero save the Navi people. Whether this is intentional or simply an unfortunate implication created by casting is irrelevant -- what is relevant is the subliminal message it sends that is supported by extremists on the farthest most left end of the political spectrum: only white people are evil. Their business is evil, their military and politics are evil, their science is evil, their culture is evil. And that's not even getting to the implications of the film if you replace the word "unobtanium" with "oil." I won't bother to discuss in this thread how subversive I think that is. What could have made this film better? Script writing. Definitely. The part where the entire planet is connected through a neural network of some kind? If I were writing this film, I would have made the Navi people and the rest of the planet a genetically engineered creation, built by a greater alien power. I would also have given a stated reason for unobtaniums value. Just saying "it's worth a lot of money" cheapens the film. A lot of implications would change. As my brother put it, "Everything about that movie was incredible: the special effects were incredible, the plot was incredibly non-existant, and the political correctness was incredibly stupid." 6/10 | ||
|
keepITup
251 Posts
On December 28 2009 10:16 Mortality wrote: + Show Spoiler + Alright, I've seen it now. And let me start off by saying I need a shower. This overdose of political correctness makes me feel dirty beyond words. The special effects were mostly worth the hype. I say mostly because those stupid glasses were hard on my eyes. And no, I don't have glasses nor do I need them. My vision passes all tests with flying colors. Probably it's because I have one eye significantly more dominant than the other. But in any case, that just goes to show that not all the kinks have been worked out of the technology yet. Other than the glasses issue, I have to say that the visual effects were mind-blowing. In that sense, this movie was completely revolutionary. But in all other senses it failed. Utterly. The characters were a cliche selection pulled straight off TVTropes. In fact even the word "unobtainium" is a long standing trope: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Unobtainium You have your corrupt corporate executive who's hell bent on getting his macguffin because it's worth big bucks, totally not caring that the very world he's stepping on has natural features that could potentially bring big bucks (via understanding them), which only makes him look more anviliciously bad via being not only corrupt but idiotic as well. You have your Colonel Kilgore/General Ripper (he really plays both roles) who takes great pleasure in inciting conflict just to prove he's a badass. Another anvil dropped. You have your noble savage Navi people who are pretty much Wood Elves with blue skin and tails, right down to the "proud warrior race" persona. Hell, and with the Navi being so much bigger than humans, you could also argue that this is a case of "Elves vs Dwarves." Even the bit where the hero is brought to the side of the "righteous" through sex is a trope. + Show Spoiler + And there's a case of Murder the Hypotenus. I could go on. What a tropperific plotline. But while not all tropes are bad, Cameron needs to realize that when tropes aren't employed effectively and when the characters and story are overly one-dimensional (and make no mistake -- this story has no depth what so ever), they become cliche. And that's bad. To be honest, I expected the environmentalist plug to be really bad given Shauni's post, but to be honest, I wasn't overly bothered by that part. Other than perhaps sending questionable messages (namely that technology and nature cannot co-exist -- technology is portrayed in a universally negative way in this film), it wasn't any worse than what you might find in certain movies that are actually good like Bambi or Dances With Wolves. What did bother me was certain other political themes. Firstly, who are the villains? Humans? Wrong answer. Correct answer? White men. I only noticed this towards the end of the film, but all the bad guys are white. I only noticed two non-whites on the case, and both helped the hero save the Navi people. Whether this is intentional or simply an unfortunate implication created by casting is irrelevant -- what is relevant is the subliminal message it sends that is supported by extremists on the farthest most left end of the political spectrum: only white people are evil. Their business is evil, their military and politics are evil, their science is evil, their culture is evil. And that's not even getting to the implications of the film if you replace the word "unobtanium" with "oil." I won't bother to discuss in this thread how subversive I think that is. What could have made this film better? Script writing. Definitely. The part where the entire planet is connected through a neural network of some kind? If I were writing this film, I would have made the Navi people and the rest of the planet a genetically engineered creation, built by a greater alien power. I would also have given a stated reason for unobtaniums value. Just saying "it's worth a lot of money" cheapens the film. A lot of implications would change. As my brother put it, "Everything about that movie was incredible: the special effects were incredible, the plot was incredibly non-existant, and the political correctness was incredibly stupid." 6/10 the natives control the forests of the planet, and they are aggressively defensive, even after the humans' attempts at reaching out to them with non-violent strategy. so how can you research such a hostile environment and expect to come away making money? | ||
|
StRyKeR
United States1739 Posts
From Wikipedia: Finding a cost effective room-temperature superconductor has been an elusive dream of superconductivity research scientists for generations. If such materials could be developed in the future, they might revolutionize our understanding and use of nearly everything that is electric. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity#Theories_of_superconductivity | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On December 28 2009 10:16 Mortality wrote: Alright, I've seen it now. And let me start off by saying I need a shower. This overdose of political correctness makes me feel dirty beyond words. The special effects were mostly worth the hype. I say mostly because those stupid glasses were hard on my eyes. And no, I don't have glasses nor do I need them. My vision passes all tests with flying colors. Probably it's because I have one eye significantly more dominant than the other. But in any case, that just goes to show that not all the kinks have been worked out of the technology yet. Other than the glasses issue, I have to say that the visual effects were mind-blowing. In that sense, this movie was completely revolutionary. But in all other senses it failed. Utterly. The characters were a cliche selection pulled straight off TVTropes. In fact even the word "unobtainium" is a long standing trope: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Unobtainium You have your corrupt corporate executive who's hell bent on getting his macguffin because it's worth big bucks, totally not caring that the very world he's stepping on has natural features that could potentially bring big bucks (via understanding them), which only makes him look more anviliciously bad via being not only corrupt but idiotic as well. You have your Colonel Kilgore/General Ripper (he really plays both roles) who takes great pleasure in inciting conflict just to prove he's a badass. Another anvil dropped. You have your noble savage Navi people who are pretty much Wood Elves with blue skin and tails, right down to the "proud warrior race" persona. Hell, and with the Navi being so much bigger than humans, you could also argue that this is a case of "Elves vs Dwarves." Even the bit where the hero is brought to the side of the "righteous" through sex is a trope. + Show Spoiler + And there's a case of Murder the Hypotenus. I could go on. What a tropperific plotline. But while not all tropes are bad, Cameron needs to realize that when tropes aren't employed effectively and when the characters and story are overly one-dimensional (and make no mistake -- this story has no depth what so ever), they become cliche. And that's bad. To be honest, I expected the environmentalist plug to be really bad given Shauni's post, but to be honest, I wasn't overly bothered by that part. Other than perhaps sending questionable messages (namely that technology and nature cannot co-exist -- technology is portrayed in a universally negative way in this film), it wasn't any worse than what you might find in certain movies that are actually good like Bambi or Dances With Wolves. What did bother me was certain other political themes. Firstly, who are the villains? Humans? Wrong answer. Correct answer? White men. I only noticed this towards the end of the film, but all the bad guys are white. I only noticed two non-whites on the case, and both helped the hero save the Navi people. Whether this is intentional or simply an unfortunate implication created by casting is irrelevant -- what is relevant is the subliminal message it sends that is supported by extremists on the farthest most left end of the political spectrum: only white people are evil. Their business is evil, their military and politics are evil, their science is evil, their culture is evil. And that's not even getting to the implications of the film if you replace the word "unobtanium" with "oil." I won't bother to discuss in this thread how subversive I think that is. What could have made this film better? Script writing. Definitely. The part where the entire planet is connected through a neural network of some kind? If I were writing this film, I would have made the Navi people and the rest of the planet a genetically engineered creation, built by a greater alien power. I would also have given a stated reason for unobtaniums value. Just saying "it's worth a lot of money" cheapens the film. A lot of implications would change. As my brother put it, "Everything about that movie was incredible: the special effects were incredible, the plot was incredibly non-existant, and the political correctness was incredibly stupid." 6/10 I'm sorry, do you work for Fox News? You make a lot of assumptions, and one of the most obviously WRONG ones is that this film is about technology VS nature and how they are incompatible. The irony is, without technology Jake would have never been able to travel to pandora, the avatars wouldn't exist, none of this would have ever happened, in fact the film to watch it on couldn't even exist. The film doesn't negatively portray technology, that's you making an assumption. Another is your emphasis on ethnicity. Really? I mean it's not like all of the human heroes were white too (save for the pilot and a scientist). Your claim that a subliminal message in the film is that "whites are evil" is completely ridiculous and paranoid. Also, there's plenty of people who already mentioned the significance of unobtainium. Sure there's parallels to oil, along with every other nature resource that has existed, or for that matter any sort of economic resource imaginable. With these comes demand, which will always be lower than supply, always leading to conflicted interests. The bit about the connected neural system and characters and plot is just opinion so I really have no problem if you don't like it, each to his own. What's getting old is reading where people are claiming the movie is about "x" or "y" and it's completely horrible because it is, when X and Y are in no way implied in the film explicitly whatsoever. It's people taking specific details from the movie and making their own personal assumptions about them and treating it as fact. | ||
|
Newbistic
China2912 Posts
On December 28 2009 10:16 Mortality wrote: + Show Spoiler + Alright, I've seen it now. And let me start off by saying I need a shower. This overdose of political correctness makes me feel dirty beyond words. The special effects were mostly worth the hype. I say mostly because those stupid glasses were hard on my eyes. And no, I don't have glasses nor do I need them. My vision passes all tests with flying colors. Probably it's because I have one eye significantly more dominant than the other. But in any case, that just goes to show that not all the kinks have been worked out of the technology yet. Other than the glasses issue, I have to say that the visual effects were mind-blowing. In that sense, this movie was completely revolutionary. But in all other senses it failed. Utterly. The characters were a cliche selection pulled straight off TVTropes. In fact even the word "unobtainium" is a long standing trope: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Unobtainium You have your corrupt corporate executive who's hell bent on getting his macguffin because it's worth big bucks, totally not caring that the very world he's stepping on has natural features that could potentially bring big bucks (via understanding them), which only makes him look more anviliciously bad via being not only corrupt but idiotic as well. You have your Colonel Kilgore/General Ripper (he really plays both roles) who takes great pleasure in inciting conflict just to prove he's a badass. Another anvil dropped. You have your noble savage Navi people who are pretty much Wood Elves with blue skin and tails, right down to the "proud warrior race" persona. Hell, and with the Navi being so much bigger than humans, you could also argue that this is a case of "Elves vs Dwarves." Even the bit where the hero is brought to the side of the "righteous" through sex is a trope. + Show Spoiler + And there's a case of Murder the Hypotenus. I could go on. What a tropperific plotline. But while not all tropes are bad, Cameron needs to realize that when tropes aren't employed effectively and when the characters and story are overly one-dimensional (and make no mistake -- this story has no depth what so ever), they become cliche. And that's bad. To be honest, I expected the environmentalist plug to be really bad given Shauni's post, but to be honest, I wasn't overly bothered by that part. Other than perhaps sending questionable messages (namely that technology and nature cannot co-exist -- technology is portrayed in a universally negative way in this film), it wasn't any worse than what you might find in certain movies that are actually good like Bambi or Dances With Wolves. What did bother me was certain other political themes. Firstly, who are the villains? Humans? Wrong answer. Correct answer? White men. I only noticed this towards the end of the film, but all the bad guys are white. I only noticed two non-whites on the case, and both helped the hero save the Navi people. Whether this is intentional or simply an unfortunate implication created by casting is irrelevant -- what is relevant is the subliminal message it sends that is supported by extremists on the farthest most left end of the political spectrum: only white people are evil. Their business is evil, their military and politics are evil, their science is evil, their culture is evil. And that's not even getting to the implications of the film if you replace the word "unobtanium" with "oil." I won't bother to discuss in this thread how subversive I think that is. What could have made this film better? Script writing. Definitely. The part where the entire planet is connected through a neural network of some kind? If I were writing this film, I would have made the Navi people and the rest of the planet a genetically engineered creation, built by a greater alien power. I would also have given a stated reason for unobtaniums value. Just saying "it's worth a lot of money" cheapens the film. A lot of implications would change. As my brother put it, "Everything about that movie was incredible: the special effects were incredible, the plot was incredibly non-existant, and the political correctness was incredibly stupid." 6/10 Came out of lurking just to post in this thread  Even if some people are destined to hate this movie forever, let me just refute some of your points. I don't think a lot of people who hate the movie actually even understand the movie that well. 1) The plot of the movie is not stupid or a failure. It was James Cameron's well thought out decision to make the movie have a simple and direct plot. One thing many people fail to appreciate is that when an experienced director/composer/artist kicks out a piece of work, his or her intentions are absolute. It's not that Cameron is not capable of making complex characters, it's that he chose not to. All the other things, the one-dimensional characters, the portrayal of certain people in certain ways, the stereotypes, function to reinforce the simple plot, to get a clear message through. This is simply the best way to forward a simple plot. You can dislike the story, but to call the story a "failure" because of stereotypes is just retarded. A simple story is best presented with easily understood characters and motives. It just wouldn't work to simply add vagueness or needlessly complex characters for the sake of appeasing a bunch of self-centered assholes who must have the director make them feel "smart" for getting something. A plot should be rated not for what it talks about, but how well it is presented, and I'll say, Cameron's presentation is damn good. 2) I don't think the Navi are portrayed as pure good and humans as pure evil at all. The only reason people think this is true is because they're too ingrained in their own culture to step into someone else's shoes. Colonel Quaritch's character, for example, isn't pure evil. He's just a military man who does anything he can to get the job done. In the beginning Jake asks him for time to come to a peaceful resolution, and the Colonel gives it to him. He only seems "evil" because he got really pissed after he discovered Jake was going Benedict Arnold. Perfectly understandable behavior. The Navi's aren't complete "noble" savages either. There's a fair amount of racism in the tribe at first against Jake, and against the humans throughout the story. Also understandable. Then again, of course the Navi's are going to appear more noble than the humans, because the whole point of the story is that humans are invading their territory for their shit, and the Navi's don't want to leave their home. I mean, who is right and who is wrong here? How would it make sense for Cameron to portray the humans as right to take shit from other sentient species? 3) Movies about morals are not unimaginative/stupid/insult to intelligence. I don't know how the fuck people get it into their minds that just because they've seen something before it's stupid. The movie's message is repeated from other movies because it is a message worth repeating. It's easy to see through history people clearly haven't learned the lessons in Avatar even though they've been repeated through so many stories. Therefore, the message is still relevant and timely. Maybe the real reason why people don't like the message Cameron's sending is because they are afraid of it, or disagree with it, or don't have any moral values themselves to identify with the movie. I personally like movies that have "simple" plots and deal with moral values. Usually epic movies are made even more epic by their focus on these themes, and Avatar certainly follows that rule. 4) The graphics of the movie are not "just icing" on the cake. A proper cake has good cake and good icing. Good icing is literally half the cake. In Avatar's case, the graphics go a long ass way to make the world believable, to suck the viewer into the story, and to make the story compelling. There's a reason why Cameron waited so long to make this movie, it's so that he could better paint his vision for the viewer. Hell, he's still holding off on making Battle Angel because he claims that current technologies are still not enough for his vision of the movie. There's a reason why the graphics are there and why the graphics are awesome. The way I see it, the only reason why anyone would dislike the movie is if they flat out hated its story. Everything else is done if not excellently, then at least very well. The presentation of the story is excellent, clear, sequential, logical, and compelling with high attention to detail, and the visuals are fucking out of this world. It's a 10/10 movie, probably the second best movie I've seen behind Dark Knight. | ||
|
zeonmx
United States111 Posts
They only BARELY managed to beat couple hundred mercenaries armed with helicopters and couple of exosuit robots. And the na'vi took HEAVY loss until the end. Imagine what happens if humans actually bring a full battalion of army with fighter jets, missiles, tanks, latest military weapons, etc... I wouldn't be surprised if pissed off human brings a orbital ship and start bombard the entire planet from the orbit. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
| ||
swanized
Canada2480 Posts
You can't just say Avatar was bad just because the plot was shallow or they did'nt explain the storyline and you can't say it was good just because it had mind-shattering visuals this movie was all about feeling. This movie wanted to share the feelings of Jake...You could feel his ravishement upon discovering pandora's magical landscape and you would share it. You could feel his fear when left alone in the woods, his ravishement when he discovered the complex heritage of the omocaya (probably not the right spelling but you know whom i'm talking about). I did'nt find this movie's story to be that bad, but I don't think it was THAT straightforward. but really, the way this movie made you feel and it's mind shattering visuals makes it an instant classic IN MY OPINION | ||
|
swanized
Canada2480 Posts
that's impossible because in Avatar's universe, there is only ONE space craft capable of intergalactic travels. so yeah unless you're ready to wait 40 years for the ship to do a few back and forth travels... | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
| ||
|
keepITup
251 Posts
| ||
|
zeonmx
United States111 Posts
On December 28 2009 12:56 swanized wrote: about the humans coming back with a big army... that's impossible because in Avatar's universe, there is only ONE space craft capable of intergalactic travels. so yeah unless you're ready to wait 40 years for the ship to do a few back and forth travels... How is it not possible? Anything can be possible if James Cameron let it happen. Not to mention, the planet has an abundant amount of special ore minerals that humans need for resources. There is no way in hell humans are just gonna forget about the planet and roll with it. It makes sense that humans are gonna come back but prepared this time. | ||
|
LilClinkin
Australia667 Posts
On December 28 2009 07:37 GGTeMpLaR wrote: seriously though, that's wrong, avatar is pretty much the starcraft of cinema LOL that made me throw up a little. Avatar is a visual masterpiece. But it is nowhere close to being an overall masterpiece film. It doesn't have the story, narrative, plot, or characters to back it up. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy it thoroughly for what it is. I was entertained when I saw it, I even paid to see it again. But please, don't do your intelligence a disservice by attempting to call it a masterpiece of cinema when it clearly isn't. If/when I have children one day, there are a whole pile of movies I'd want to show them before showing them Avatar. | ||
|
SilverSkyLark
Philippines8437 Posts
On December 28 2009 07:21 gLyo wrote: @Shauni Appreciating visuals instead of substance does not mean you're stupid and appreciating substance over visuals definitely doesn't mean you're smart, so quit being so pretentious. They are two totally separate measuring sticks. Avatar is important because it is visually groundbreaking, and visuals, whether you like it or not, are very important in contemporary cinema. There! Thanks for pointing it out! What made Avatar good was the visuals. And I might have to disagree with you about contemporary literature, I don't know how literature is taught over there but for us, the contemporaneity of literature lies on the topic it tackles. Is Avatar really something new? If it was a stage play it would be different. It would just portray this guy who got caught up emotionally during his mission and ends up having to defend the people he was ordered to spy on. Nothing special really, it's modern, not contemporary if you ask me (well I'm not sure about this, forgot most of what I took from English Literature Class). *I could really write a whole lot more about this but I'm sleepy for some reason, and I have to fix a pc....I don't know if it's the video card or the ram that is broken* Anyway, it really boils down to how we define how we see a movie, most people will give it a 10/10 after seeing the graphics, some people will turn their critique mode on and cut straight through the material. The thing is that we have our own way of seeing things, our own way of defining beauty, and we got to respect it. It just so happened that the people who don't care about graphics are the minority. The story is a completely different thing because the visual is how it was executed. If you're the story guy, the movie was nothing new, if you're the visual guy, it was the best movie of all time. It just so happened that the really educated people that appreciate the story are few as compared the those who tend to appreciate the visuals (I'm not saying that the latter are not educated, but they tend to stay with the visuals they see), and this is why the movie sold so much, James Cameron knows where to hit the audience, and it's with the graphics. It's just like the films made here, no one wants to experiment with a new formula because a movie flop is never good. Therefore, to sell the movie with the usual formula, they spice up the visuals. Topics are also old to be honest, nothing is really contemporary, no one wants to tackle the reality around to show it to their audience, why? Because film was created as a past time, after having a really tiring week, you want something that is just shallow, you don't want something that will make you think just like your Calculus or Physics class, you just want something that will spoonfeed you, and that type of movie WILL sell to the masses. And this was what Avatar did, spoonfeed people with info? Got that, wait, storyline too old, wait we got kick ass graphics this will do. And it just so happened that a lot of people really like this style, and there are just a few that can still critique a movie after having a tiring day. It's really good that this thread isn't closed yet and no one got banned from this thread, because really, this is one of the arguments that's really in a very very gray area, there are no winners, because aesthetics isn't exact like science. | ||
|
iloahz
United States964 Posts
| ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On December 28 2009 13:28 LilClinkin wrote: LOL that made me throw up a little. Avatar is a visual masterpiece. But it is nowhere close to being an overall masterpiece film. It doesn't have the story, narrative, plot, or characters to back it up. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy it thoroughly for what it is. I was entertained when I saw it, I even paid to see it again. But please, don't do your intelligence a disservice by attempting to call it a masterpiece of cinema when it clearly isn't. If/when I have children one day, there are a whole pile of movies I'd want to show them before showing them Avatar. thanks for sharing your opinion now do your intelligence a disservice by never sharing it again in this thread | ||
|
SilverSkyLark
Philippines8437 Posts
On December 28 2009 15:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote: thanks for sharing your opinion now do your intelligence a disservice by never sharing it again in this thread Well uh, what LilClinkin said was a fact, maybe it's time for you to call your intelligence back, or what's left of it. | ||
|
sassme
56 Posts
The plot is awesome. A guy is being sent to a distant planet to pilot a creature similar to natives in order to establish a better contact with them and possibly prevent a huge conflict and save corporates a lot of trouble. And apparently he is really good at it. And this is only the beginning. This is AMAZING. How is this a bad plot? DO YOU KNOW WHAT SCIENCE FICTION IS( for the 10th time)? Imaginary world with imaginary problems, if this was a book it would need pages and pages of descriptive material in order to get all the details you've seen in the movie, trying to make you feel a part of it. Enter a different reality. Natives are connected with everything else on the planet, they can relate to every suffering creature. They feel their surroundings. It's like one huge organism. It's mind blowing. What are you complaining about? If this was an actual book it would be a sci fi classic. Some people are trying to bring political message into this - there wasn't any. No Iraq, no Afghanistan. You are looking for something that isn't there. Read more sci fi literature - similar idea was used hundred times before. This isn't based off Pocahontas, there are literally hundreds of similar scenarios. Cameron didn't tie it to nowadays politics, he said himself he wrote it based off almost every sci fi book he read as a kid. I READ THOSE BOOKS, I RECOGNIZE THEM. Sci fi could have good dialogue and character development. But it isn't a necessary part of the formula. It is a fucking STORY above everything else. Now compare Avatar to these. Guy is being followed for days by some weird organism, trying to survive and escape but damn thing just doesn't let go. In the end, he is being examined and lives on since "the thing" already has a human in its museum. Another one - your average Duke Nukem kind of guy that was born on a shitty agricultural planet; bored to death he embarks on a journey where he basically kicks ass and chews bubble gum whole time while visiting different worlds. Those are a couple of amazing sci fi stories that are a part of the worlds classic. Was Avatars story worse? Fuck no. It was better. Only an idiot would try to find a deep psychological development in this movie. It's not about that. It has its share of it, the marine changed his views after being introduced to this new world and the natives changed their views about humans. He fell in love, he started living in alternate reality. What else do you want? What hidden messages and multidimensional development? This movie is only 3 hours long while it felt like i could watch it for 5 more. No one is going to make an 8 hour movie just so they could fit everything else in it and make it unwatchable. If you like your little flicks about actual life and the tragedy and triumph of human spirit - just don't go. This isn't a movie for you. Maybe you should read a book or two since you value philosophical aspect of your existence so much. I watched a lot of movies, good ones and bad ones. Somehow im not dense enough to expect same kind of dialogue from a drama and an action flick. Who in the right mind does? Silverskylark, this isn't a 10/10 because of the graphics. It's a 10/10 because it does everything sci fi movie could ever hope for. And don't complain about people wanting to rest after a day of work, there are plenty of movies about your everyday life full of explicit realism and vivid everyday struggle. Why do you want Avatar to express any of that? How could you want? I feel bad for some of you. You couldn't enjoy this awesome movie just because your head was full of self-indulgent over pretentious shit. You are blind. This isn't the best movie ever, but this is a 10/10 sci fi film. And if you rate it 6 you are a retard( could pretty much tell from his post anyway) | ||
|
mainerd
United States347 Posts
On December 28 2009 15:43 SilverSkyLark wrote: Well uh, what LilClinkin said was a fact, maybe it's time for you to call your intelligence back, or what's left of it. actually, what he said was an opinion... but perhaps it seems like a fact to you, since you share the same view | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
OSC
LAN Event
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
LAN Event
IPSL
dxtr13 vs OldBoy
Napoleon vs Doodle
BSL 21
Gosudark vs Kyrie
Gypsy vs Sterling
UltrA vs Radley
Dandy vs Ptak
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Korean Royale
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
