|
Braavos36370 Posts
Here's a good article about why white people need to stop making movies like Avatar:
http://io9.com/5422666/when-will-white-people-stop-making-movies-like-avatar
Basically the reasoning is that there's no need to make Jake the savior of the race. That's a bit asinine. Writer says look at District 9, you have a guy who helps aliens but is also wants to be human. He helps because theres an actual choice between catfood eating aliens and humans. He can be one or the other, and he wants to be human. In Avatar, it's a pretty easy choice. Na'vi are literally perfect. They have very few flaws, and Pandora is a paradise. Jake has no real choice here, humanity sucks compared to the life he could have as a Na'vi.
Author also says, why does the white/human guy always end up being the best Indian/Samurai/Alien in like a few months? Is it really necessary to have that? Look at Tom Cruise in Last Samurai. Dude becomes #1 Rank Samurai in like a few months. Author says wth is that, its like every white dude's dream to not only get over guilt by helping the disadvantaged, but leading/being the best one too.
I don't agree with everything the author of the article says, but imo its a pretty legit criticism of Avatar and has good reasons why the moral handling of this issue in District 9 is superior to Avatar's.
|
in real life usually the white savior is horribly beaten and outcast by the brown people for example: ret
|
Braavos36370 Posts
|
It was good as a sci-fi film I'll give it that...
Damn I just lost the argument I'll admit that.=))
but really, does that make the movie less predictable?
|
On December 28 2009 16:15 Hot_Bid wrote:Here's a good article about why white people need to stop making movies like Avatar: http://io9.com/5422666/when-will-white-people-stop-making-movies-like-avatarBasically the reasoning is that there's no need to make Jake the savior of the race. That's a bit asinine. Writer says look at District 9, you have a guy who helps aliens but is also wants to be human. He helps because theres an actual choice between catfood eating aliens and humans. He can be one or the other, and he wants to be human. In Avatar, it's a pretty easy choice. Na'vi are literally perfect. They have very few flaws, and Pandora is a paradise. Jake has no real choice here, humanity sucks compared to the life he could have as a Na'vi. Author also says, why does the white/human guy always end up being the best Indian/Samurai/Alien in like a few months? Is it really necessary to have that? Look at Tom Cruise in Last Samurai. Dude becomes #1 Rank Samurai in like a few months. Author says wth is that, its like every white dude's dream to not only get over guilt by helping the disadvantaged, but leading/being the best one too. I don't agree with everything the author of the article says, but imo its a pretty legit criticism of Avatar and has good reasons why the moral handling of this issue in District 9 is superior to Avatar's.
The author talked about this in depth in the Slashfilm After Dark podcast. She mentioned that the story has been told similarly in other movies and it would've been nice to see how the Na'Vi would deal with their otherworldly trespassers without the Jake Sully character. Basically, take the approach of the natives and not have this other character, in this case a white guy, become bring salvation to them.
I will agree partly about the part where it's preposterous for Jake to effectively master the Na'Vi culture in three months. Not only did he master the culture, he completely assimilated into the culture and became their leader. He also seemingly offscreened the Turok when they hyped it up as this legendary fearsome creature. As for the white guilt issue, maybe...I don't know. I probably have to relisten to the podcast to better sum up my thoughts on that issue.
|
On December 28 2009 15:43 SilverSkyLark wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2009 15:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On December 28 2009 13:28 LilClinkin wrote: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. 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.
"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."
maybe you should go through grade school again to learn the difference between fact and opinion.
although you probably lack the intelligence for it
|
On December 28 2009 16:15 Hot_Bid wrote:Here's a good article about why white people need to stop making movies like Avatar: http://io9.com/5422666/when-will-white-people-stop-making-movies-like-avatarBasically the reasoning is that there's no need to make Jake the savior of the race. That's a bit asinine. Writer says look at District 9, you have a guy who helps aliens but is also wants to be human. He helps because theres an actual choice between catfood eating aliens and humans. He can be one or the other, and he wants to be human. In Avatar, it's a pretty easy choice. Na'vi are literally perfect. They have very few flaws, and Pandora is a paradise. Jake has no real choice here, humanity sucks compared to the life he could have as a Na'vi. Author also says, why does the white/human guy always end up being the best Indian/Samurai/Alien in like a few months? Is it really necessary to have that? Look at Tom Cruise in Last Samurai. Dude becomes #1 Rank Samurai in like a few months. Author says wth is that, its like every white dude's dream to not only get over guilt by helping the disadvantaged, but leading/being the best one too. I don't agree with everything the author of the article says, but imo its a pretty legit criticism of Avatar and has good reasons why the moral handling of this issue in District 9 is superior to Avatar's.
That article seems like another "your race should stop being racist" article (which is hypocritical) and I've read a few of them. They're basically "stop making white people heroes or it's racist!" which is the stupidest fucking argument i've ever heard of.
I mean, why do people put so much emphasis on race and "claim" it's for racial equality, because when they emphasize that a character's race matters they're inherently being racist.
I really don't think I would have liked the film any less had jake sully been a black man, or asian, or latino, or native american.
It's all just very ironic and silly, if you actually believe in racial equality you should just drop the race issue all-together because scientifically we're all the same race - human.
|
why fight? this movie was beautiful and amazing
|
Avatar is racist. It portrays all blue people as savages. We will not be silenced any longer!
Also let me get this straight. The movie people really wanted to see, according to the complaints on this thread, was a story where their is no clear good and evil but rather a series of complicated moral issues with conflicting justifications, was absolutly scientifically accurate to the point where no detail could be left to just the imagination, was completly serious, containing no light hearted "cartoonishness", no plot devices that were not througly explained, and stared a white hero who ended up being not as great as the natives and actually playing a very minor part in the overall story.
Sounds like a great movie :p
|
Braavos36370 Posts
hehe not saying i necessarily agree with her, just that its a more solid criticism of the movie than "the plot was too predictable!" lol
|
On December 28 2009 16:55 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2009 15:43 SilverSkyLark wrote:On December 28 2009 15:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On December 28 2009 13:28 LilClinkin wrote: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. 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. "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." maybe you should go through grade school again to learn the difference between fact and opinion. although you probably lack the intelligence for it
Explain to me how Avatar manages to stand alongside other movie titans, what is it that truly makes it a masterpiece? When you strip away the visual splendor, the only interesting aspect of the movie is the way grabs the viewer and leads them through the narrative via Jake Sulley's eyes.
The themes handled by the film are done so heavy-handedly and leave little room for viewer thought or interpretation. The messages are clearly rammed down your throat: Human expansionism is bad, destroying the environment is bad, corporate greed is bad, yet it never attempts to put forth an argument as towhy it is bad. It never considers an alternative perspective. The moral of Avatar is so blatantly clear and bias that it comes across as political propaganda rather than thought-provoking cinema.
The Na'vi are depicted as a race of beings who are deeply attuned to nature around them: They pray for every creature they kill. Yet they don't put heavy consideration into their actions when it involves killing humans? The only other sentient creatures they've ever encountered? Right. Inconsistencies like this are what prevents Avatar from being a masterpiece. How are we supposed to take the film's premise seriously when we are expected to overlook such glaring errors?
The plot is mostly serviceable, except for one major gripe I have with Jake returning to the Na'vi after their world tree is destroyed. They hate him, Nitirri says she never wishes to see him again, and then he captures the flying Tuurok and suddenly all is forgiven. How TeyTsu (sp?) was previously trying to beat the snot out of Jake, but now surrenders control of the Na'vi tribe (not even grudgingly) after Jake captures a bird? He willingly forgets how Jake infiltrated their people, gave intel on how to destroy their tree, and stole his promised life-mate away? Do you know how weak and pathetic it makes the Na'vi look when they just lie down like spineless creatures and allow some one they've known for 3 months to lead their people? It could be argued that a society so weak and lacking in pride deserves to be wiped out. I can understand if they pat Jake on the back and say "Your help is welcome, fight alongside us", but giving him leadership of their entire race is retarded beyond belief.
I could name a whole bunch of movies from a range of genres I consider to be masterpieces, and I know this is purely opinion, but I would like to hear a legitimate argument from you about how Avatar manages to stand alongside them: Forest Gump, Shawshank Redemption, Fight Club, The God Father part I and II, Good Will Hunting, Alien, Terminator 2, Gattaca, The Dark Knight, Brave Heart, Up.
Avatar doesn't hold a candle to a single one of those movies in terms of timelessness and relevance. 30 years from now I will fondly remember each and every one of these movies, but Avatar I will not care for.
Now, don't get me wrong: I never ever claim Avatar is a bad movie. It's over-all a very entertaining experience. If I was to give it a grade, it would earn a solid B+. But when you call something a Masterpiece, you're calling it an A++ piece of work. A masterpiece has to be able to stand up to an objective dissection across multiple aspects. Avatar does not.
|
just saw it
not the best movie of all time but i thoroughly enjoyed it and will be watching it again. multiple times.
|
On December 28 2009 07:12 Promises wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2009 06:30 Kingkosi wrote:
Stop bitching and crying because everyone didn't hate the movie like you guys did. I havent read a lot of replies that said they hated the movie, just a lot of replies that said they dont understand why people thought this was "the best fucking movie ever" when it seems almost everyone agrees that only the visual aspects were really amazing, and the rest was "not much of a downer" at best.
I thought the movie was good, but not mind blowing amazing how people make it out to be. It's just that people get raged when others didn't like the movie.
|
On December 28 2009 18:10 LilClinkin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2009 16:55 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On December 28 2009 15:43 SilverSkyLark wrote:On December 28 2009 15:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On December 28 2009 13:28 LilClinkin wrote: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. 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. "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." maybe you should go through grade school again to learn the difference between fact and opinion. although you probably lack the intelligence for it . The themes handled by the film are done so heavy-handedly and leave little room for viewer thought or interpretation. The messages are clearly rammed down your throat: Human expansionism is bad, destroying the environment is bad, corporate greed is bad, yet it never attempts to put forth an argument as to why it is bad. It never considers an alternative perspective. The moral of Avatar is so blatantly clear and bias that it comes across as political propaganda rather than thought-provoking cinema.
The why part was in there, but quite subtlety. A few quotes:
"He was stabbed for the paper in his wallet" - related to human greed, corporatism, etc
"There is no green on Earth" - contrasting the complete naturalness and tranquility of Pandora
But yeah, it needed a bit more than that. I'm sure there are more things in it but I can't remember every bit of dialogue.
|
I think most of the outrage (at least from me anyway) isn't from the disagreement that avatar is good or bad, it's that people are proclaiming it as THE FINEST PIECE OF CINEMA EVER MADE and it really isn't. The exact same thing happened last year with the dark knight; it's good, but it's not a masterpiece, it's a fucking batman movie you assholes
|
On December 28 2009 18:35 rushz0rz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2009 18:10 LilClinkin wrote:On December 28 2009 16:55 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On December 28 2009 15:43 SilverSkyLark wrote:On December 28 2009 15:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On December 28 2009 13:28 LilClinkin wrote: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. 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. "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." maybe you should go through grade school again to learn the difference between fact and opinion. although you probably lack the intelligence for it . The themes handled by the film are done so heavy-handedly and leave little room for viewer thought or interpretation. The messages are clearly rammed down your throat: Human expansionism is bad, destroying the environment is bad, corporate greed is bad, yet it never attempts to put forth an argument as to why it is bad. It never considers an alternative perspective. The moral of Avatar is so blatantly clear and bias that it comes across as political propaganda rather than thought-provoking cinema. The why part was in there, but quite subtlety. A few quotes: "He was stabbed for the paper in his wallet" - related to human greed, corporatism, etc "There is no green on Earth" - contrasting the complete naturalness and tranquility of Pandora But yeah, it needed a bit more than that. I'm sure there are more things in it but I can't remember every bit of dialogue.
Yeah, I love it when movies give subtle hints like those because you really need to pay attention and analysis what the character(s) are saying. I watched the movie 2 times so far and I picked up some info that I didn't get when watching it for the first time.
On December 28 2009 18:37 rsol wrote:
I think most of the outrage (at least from me anyway) isn't from the disagreement that avatar is good or bad, it's that people are proclaiming it as THE FINEST PIECE OF CINEMA EVER MADE and it really isn't. The exact same thing happened last year with the dark knight; it's good, but it's not a masterpiece, it's a fucking batman movie you assholes
Yeah,that's true, but claiming things like that is impossible since it's nothing but opinion. I thought "The Dark Knight" was superb, but not the greatest, and this is coming from a Batman fan. I am sure I will never see a movie that will make me say "this is the greatest movie ever".
|
On December 28 2009 18:10 LilClinkin wrote:
Well when you've got an alien race that invades your planet to take your minerals and is kicking you out of your home, I don't think they're going to much care about killing humans. The Na'vi people still were capable of war, and they were at war with the humans. I see no reason for them to be praying for fighting back against the guys blowing them and their home up. And the humans are hardly the only sentient creatures they've ever encountered.. they're connected to everything on Pandora... the humans might be the only aliens they've ever encountered, but those aliens are fucking their home up.
Besides your whole idea of a spineless race deserving to die, I kind of agree here. But you could argue that the bird was more of a sign that Jake really was chosen by Eywa to lead their people. I'm sure other Na'vi died trying to capture Tuurok and Jake's success was a sign to all the Na'vi people that Jake was chosen. Me and my friend were joking around how bad the TeyTsu guy gets fucked over in this movie by Jake. He gets his girl stolen from him, leadership stolen from him and eventually just gets killed.
Finally, in 30 years I am positive some people will look back to Avatar as that great movie from 2009. It's all a matter of opinion. Some people were not nearly as emotionally impacted as say you were with Up or Fight Club for example. I don't know, I'm not really disagreeing with you here your post is a breath of fresh air compared to some of the other posts like yours here but still, each to his own. Some hated Fight Club, even more hated Oldboy, but they're still masterpieces to me. You may not think Avatar is a masterpiece, but I thought it was. The few flaws Avatar has do not take away from the greatness of the movie in general. I have never felt so connected to a movie as I did with Avatar. Nor has a movie ever made me think about it so much. Even though everything about it is so simple, I still cannot stop thinking about the wonderfulness of it. It was a completely different experience for me, it was less of a movie and more of a journey.
I keep on coming back to this damn thread! >
|
On December 28 2009 17:08 Bill Murray wrote:
why fight? this movie was beautiful and amazing
Dang it why didn't I just say that.
|
The plot has been told a million times before. Is this necesarily a bad thing? No, if its a timeless story it can be told again. The plot has a high Disney-level. Is this necesarily a bad thing? No, its a fairly simplistic moralistic story but this doesnt have to be a bad thing. The dialogue is horrible and then movie is utterly and completely predictable in everything it does. Is this necesarily a bad thing? Yeah. Tollerance stops somewhere, and it would've been very easy to polish up the conversations, quotes and to make the story a bit more interesting, which they didnt even seem to try to do. Are the visuals good enough to still make it a movie worth watching? Very much so. Is this a 10/10 movie? No. A 10/10 movie has good dialogue and isnt predictable in this way, and to say otherwise is giving a whole new meaning to 10/10.
|
On December 28 2009 18:10 LilClinkin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2009 16:55 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On December 28 2009 15:43 SilverSkyLark wrote:On December 28 2009 15:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On December 28 2009 13:28 LilClinkin wrote: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. 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. "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." maybe you should go through grade school again to learn the difference between fact and opinion. although you probably lack the intelligence for it Explain to me how Avatar manages to stand alongside other movie titans, what is it that truly makes it a masterpiece? When you strip away the visual splendor, the only interesting aspect of the movie is the way grabs the viewer and leads them through the narrative via Jake Sulley's eyes. The themes handled by the film are done so heavy-handedly and leave little room for viewer thought or interpretation. The messages are clearly rammed down your throat: Human expansionism is bad, destroying the environment is bad, corporate greed is bad, yet it never attempts to put forth an argument as to why it is bad. It never considers an alternative perspective. The moral of Avatar is so blatantly clear and bias that it comes across as political propaganda rather than thought-provoking cinema. The Na'vi are depicted as a race of beings who are deeply attuned to nature around them: They pray for every creature they kill. Yet they don't put heavy consideration into their actions when it involves killing humans? The only other sentient creatures they've ever encountered? Right. Inconsistencies like this are what prevents Avatar from being a masterpiece. How are we supposed to take the film's premise seriously when we are expected to overlook such glaring errors? The plot is mostly serviceable, except for one major gripe I have with Jake returning to the Na'vi after their world tree is destroyed. They hate him, Nitirri says she never wishes to see him again, and then he captures the flying Tuurok and suddenly all is forgiven. How TeyTsu (sp?) was previously trying to beat the snot out of Jake, but now surrenders control of the Na'vi tribe (not even grudgingly) after Jake captures a bird? He willingly forgets how Jake infiltrated their people, gave intel on how to destroy their tree, and stole his promised life-mate away? Do you know how weak and pathetic it makes the Na'vi look when they just lie down like spineless creatures and allow some one they've known for 3 months to lead their people? It could be argued that a society so weak and lacking in pride deserves to be wiped out. I can understand if they pat Jake on the back and say "Your help is welcome, fight alongside us", but giving him leadership of their entire race is retarded beyond belief. I could name a whole bunch of movies from a range of genres I consider to be masterpieces, and I know this is purely opinion, but I would like to hear a legitimate argument from you about how Avatar manages to stand alongside them: Forest Gump, Shawshank Redemption, Fight Club, The God Father part I and II, Good Will Hunting, Alien, Terminator 2, Gattaca, The Dark Knight, Brave Heart, Up. Avatar doesn't hold a candle to a single one of those movies in terms of timelessness and relevance. 30 years from now I will fondly remember each and every one of these movies, but Avatar I will not care for. Now, don't get me wrong: I never ever claim Avatar is a bad movie. It's over-all a very entertaining experience. If I was to give it a grade, it would earn a solid B+. But when you call something a Masterpiece, you're calling it an A++ piece of work. A masterpiece has to be able to stand up to an objective dissection across multiple aspects. Avatar does not.
The funny thing is, I don't even think about all the crap that you just wrote up. It's entertaining, good enough for me lmfao.
You talk about messages being rammed down your throat. So let me guess this straight, you get your moral substance and beliefs through movies? Come on, you've got to be kidding me. I didn't even give a thought about the messages: "Human expansionism is bad, destroying the environment is bad, corporate greed is bad". And you also say that the movie never tells you why it's bad. Are you that fucking stupid? You need someone to explain that to you? I shouldn't even be surprised considering the fact that you find a movie to be propaganda.
Maybe you should be the one growing a spine because apparently you can't handle it when a movie (lmao) "presents" a message.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.shift.jp.org/ja/archives/2007/10/02/blueman.jpg)
