|
shauni ure comical.
You keep putting words in Camerons mouth and keep arguing hopeless argument about sci fi movie not being able to be enjoyable for a "smarter" viewer since it "spoon feeds" you. I skipped through some forums that usually rip on movies, they nowhere near as harsh as this thread.
Avatar was produced by 20th Century Fox, part of News Corp which is controlled by Rupert Murdoc. You are an idiot, i dont think i can explain further. There is absolutely no way for them to be sending this political message as you mentioned. Clean the shit out of your head and stop whining.
Few people keep arguing that this isn't the best movie ever, no one said it is. Bunch of losers who will always concentrate on negative shit no matter how good it is.
Plot structure is super solid, it's not new but it wasn't new for star wars either. Stfu.
|
just gotta watch movies with low expectations or under the influence 
+ Show Spoiler +Avatar > The Last of the Mohicans
|
On December 30 2009 07:42 Shauni wrote:Show nested quote +If James Cameron was actually trying to make this movie about a political environmental message and anti-bush movie (I haven't heard anything other than it's about "protecting the environment), then I could agree with you that he really did fail in that sense. Nowhere in the movie is anything explicitly preaching environmentalism or condemning the bush administration. I'm not saying that you should view the movie like Cameron intended. Everyone interprets a movie in their own way, it might even be true for a shallow example such as Avatar. I just think it's strange that you neither noticed any political messages (they weren't exactly hidden) or have any understanding for people who did. It's not just me, and as for my previous post, yes it was things he said himself in various interviews I read. Do a movie have to SPELL THINGS OUT for you to notice them? If you want to believe that there are no political messages - and I'm not just talking tangible things such as bush-administration, I'm talking generally, environmentalism, protecting the nature, anti-imperialism is also a part of the political message - then fine. But just because they do not exist in your world doesn't mean other people didn't read it in from Avatar. He failed with his moral message, political message and everything from the 'modern' sci-fi era. I don't understand why you are even arguing this...
I stand by my statement that nowhere in the movie is anything EXPLICITLY preaching environmentalism or condemning the bush administration. As mentioned before in this thread, environmentalism isn't the same as protecting the environment. I never said there weren't political messages, in fact I said there were some (and that they were very general) which were limited to things such as not killing people and stealing their land just for greed (imperialism). So you basically argued something that I agreed with in the prior post.
For me it was purely a fantasy/sci-fi immersion into an alternate reality. I didn't find anything really cheesy and I enjoyed the film in a way I haven't in a long time. Sure, the plot structure wasn't exactly original, but the world, the characters, their experiences were, and how this was portrayed into the audience was original. It was a great experience, I went in uncertain what to expect, but open-minded and accepted the film for what it was - an amazing cinematic experience.
It feels just like a child describing a new wonderful experience of his. It might feel this way for you but to people having seen more than a dozen movies it was just about any cliché movie repackaged. District 9, Pocahontas, The Last Samurai, Delgo, Starship Troopers, Dances with Wolves and his own movies of course. The list could be made a hundred times longer but you get the idea. The reason why people keep comparing the movie with others is because it feels like we've seen it before. I'm sorry but nothing was even remotely original about the contents of this film. I'd understand if it was just the plot since it's not relevant in comparison with the whole storytelling but everything feels recycled to me. Does it have to be original? No, especially not if it is a movie for children but for a 'mature' movie? Masterpiece? Seriously?
I've seen all of those movies (except Delgo), and more than most. So yes to some people having seen more than just a dozen movies it was somewhat cliche, but that didn't stop me from enjoying it. I'm sorry you lack the ability to see the beauty in something just because you've seen something similar to it. There was a lot of originality put into the execution of this film despite the parallel plot structure to other movies. This doesn't have to be a mature movie, I'm fine with that because the beauty is in the simplicity. If you can't see it as a masterpiece then I've got no problem with that, it's your view and you're entitled to it.
You're pretty much never going to enjoy a movie if you go about looking for hidden and subliminal political messages preaching specific messages, then judging it on how well it does based on that. Almost every film has some sort of "hidden" message (perhaps unintended) that could be related to numerous things such as philosophy, psychology, politics, religion, the list goes on and on. If that's what the movie's about for you though, good luck enjoying movies.
I didn't LOOK for them. I came to the cinema with a blank mind, expecting to mildly enjoy a simple movie. I did not see it to be fucking lectured by James Cameron. Show nested quote +
You're pretty much never going to enjoy a movie if you go about looking for hidden and subliminal political messages preaching specific messages, then judging it on how well it does based on that. Almost every film has some sort of "hidden" message (perhaps unintended) that could be related to numerous things such as philosophy, psychology, politics, religion, the list goes on and on. If that's what the movie's about for you though, good luck enjoying movies.
For me though, I love finding subtle messages (most of the time I think they're unintended, but I could see someone (like you) as interpreting them as being the whole message and point of the movie)
IMO, at it's foundation, movies should be about viewing the world from an alternate perspective for a few hours to appreciate life from the point of view of someone else. You can build upon that foundation in a variety of ways which will determine how you experience movies, but that should be the foundation if you ever want to enjoy a movie.
I'm not just being preached to by Cameron, you are now telling me how to enjoy a movie. Last paragraph I kind of agree with but relating it to Avatar is just ridiculous. Viewing the world from an alternate perspective? We were not given any perspective in Avatar, we were playing a damned video game where we act the hero, save the nice guys and kill the bad guys. How does that have anything to do with perspective?
Really? There was no perspective in Avatar? It's not even possible to have a movie without a perspective. There's definitely an alternative perspective to view Avatar from, in fact there's more than one. I don't know what definition of perspective you're using, but even if I agreed with you that it was dumbed down as a bad video game, that in itself would still have presented a perspective one may take in reaction to the events of the video game.
I didn't shut my brain off in the movie, I enjoyed it.
Yes yes... I know you enjoyed Avatar very much. I don't know if you do this on purpose but... what you said here was contradictory. Shutting your brain off doesn't literally mean that you shut all your senses out during a movie. It just means that your critical/active thinking isn't functioning. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I critically analyze every tiny piece of a movie. But if my consciousness notices a flaw that just keep growing, of course I can't help but pay attention to it. It's only natural.
I know the difference between literal and metaphorical meaning. I analyzed generally throughout the movie and there wasn't one giant flaw that I couldn't come up with a plausible explanation for. Perhaps you need to be more creative in finding possible solutions to flaws rather than just accepting flaws whenever you find them for being concrete.
On December 30 2009 05:49 L wrote: How do you shut off your 'brain' when you go see a play and want to shout out "HEY MORON, YOU ARENT ACTUALLY HAMLET. YOU, THERE, YOUR NAME IS TIM McKIBBONS, I HAD A BEER WITH YOU AT THE PUB BEFORE WE CAME HERE. YOU, THE BLONDE, YOU'RE NOT OPHELIA, YOU'RE SARAH ARGO ACCORDING TO THE PLAYBILL, WHAT IS THIS FARCE; THATS NOT EVEN A FUCKING A REAL SKULL THAT YORICK WAS HOLDING UP"? I mean, I keep doing that and getting tossed out, so any help people have would be greatly appreciated.
I know what you're saying but it's not the same thing. While speaking of movies, you might know about Dogville. A prime example of a movie that requires imagination to come alive (the whole movie is played out in a gymnastics hall - instead of houses and decorations it's just paint on the floor). I was captivated by it very easily, the same as with various theater plays I've seen. You do not need to turn off part of your brain to enjoy such things, you do not need to turn off your visual senses to enjoy a book. It's the same principle.
However, Avatar is not challenging to watch for any of your senses, it's just another movie that spoon-feeds you without mercy. I realize this is the purpose of the movie and I'm ok with it. What I'm not ok with is what it spoon-feeds you. If it was just visual landscapes and the creation of a new world I'd not be complaining. I don't see how I can possibly turn off my moral senses when the movie itself preaches morals. [/QUOTE]
|
Saw it last night, definitely not overrated.
|
On December 28 2009 01:35 SilverSkyLark wrote:
Uh, how do we define a good movie anyway?
I think we've exhausted all possible story lines that we need to soak it up with the graphics.
The moment the credits rolled, I was thinking to myself, it was good.....
But what was good about the movie was the graphics. Jeez if someone made a replica of the movie in StarCraft (like, in campaign editor), he'll get stoned to death by everyone in this forum, it will be too predictable. Without the awesome graphics, the movie won't have shit to take your attention away from the storyline. Of course after you're just drooling with the graphics, the movie begins to build up against your emotion, and before you know it, you're just another one of those mindless people in the cinema looking at the screen and saying "ooohhs" and "aaahhs" to the graphics. Congrats, next generation graphics just did its job sending you to a zombie state while you're enjoying the graphics. Oh, isn't that what the regular television does? Numb off your mind and make you dependent on the next few frames for the answer. The graphics hid the predictable plot very well that you're arguing that the movie kicked ass, well the graphics kicked your brain cells as far as I can tell.
Go try watching the Rapture of Fe, or any other International Film Festival winners for that matter.
There we go...I found it. I got lost in the argument in this thread which made me conclude that we shouldn't be arguing about anything at all.
The thing is, different kinds of genre's appeal to different kinds of people. Just because Avatar is a film doesn't mean that you can go analyze it and according to your movie standards, and that will be the end of the story, no, that's doing injustice to the film. You can do that but that's just part of the beauty of the film. Sure it was bad in that (refer to post quoted) aspect, but what made it real good was the plot (even though I admit that I saw the plot coming from a mile away) and how it was told. I guess in the day and age of cinema today, it's not really about the plot anymore, we've been creating literature for the longest time and it's very possible that we've exhausted all the plots here. I'll take My Sassy Girl for example, it's a love story, boy meets girl, they fight, something happens, they get back together. That's the basic plot of the film, nothing new, it's been used for the nth time but what made the film so good? The execution. I won't argue with you if you'd say that it was a good sci-fi film because it had everything that sci-fi should have, I don't read sci-fi books but I saw the plot coming in from a mile away, and you can't take away the fact that the plot has been reused, and there's the possibility that the movie won't sell without graphics like that. If you like it, sure, if you don't, fine. We are all entitled to our opinions but there are facts about the movie that we can't argue about.
|
On December 30 2009 08:43 sassme wrote:
shauni ure comical.
You keep putting words in Camerons mouth and keep arguing hopeless argument about sci fi movie not being able to be enjoyable for a "smarter" viewer since it "spoon feeds" you. I skipped through some forums that usually rip on movies, they nowhere near as harsh as this thread.
Avatar was produced by 20th Century Fox, part of News Corp which is controlled by Rupert Murdoc. You are an idiot, i dont think i can explain further. There is absolutely no way for them to be sending this political message as you mentioned. Clean the shit out of your head and stop whining.
Few people keep arguing that this isn't the best movie ever, no one said it is. Bunch of losers who will always concentrate on negative shit no matter how good it is.
Plot structure is super solid, it's not new but it wasn't new for star wars either. Stfu.
Lets calm down a little shall we?
At least me and ggtemplar aren't resorting to personal attacks when we argue.
Paragraph by paragraph:
I merely rephrased his own words from an interview. Older science fiction isn't very intellectual (Star Wars) and doesn't attempt social commentary while newer sci-fi does. He tried to merge the two in this movie. It's what he said.
There were thousands of things in the movie that hinted to the wrongdoings of the government while Bush was in charge, now I don't have the movie in front of me so I can't analyze bit by bit but an example is the usage of the phrase 'preventive attacks' which Dick Cheney used before the Iraq war.
I've read hundreds of reviews saying this is one of the best, if not the best movie ever made. Even speaking of teamliquid, there has been a lot of people saying the same thing. I don't want to pull quotes just for your sake, look for yourself.
Why am I not allowed to concentrate on the negative 'shit'?
You act all defensive just because I'm criticizing a movie you like? What is the problem here?
|
thousands of things hinted it huh
even if you found 3 things( which would be a generous estimation) that hinted to bush administration i would be amazed if it was intended that way. You might see the hints just like numerous people seen different "hints" and "messages" in "inglorious basterds" but in reality it was something else. Even "environmentalist" message is subtle, there were hundreds of similar stories before not tied to "global warming" or staying "green", just authors view on things. Try to look up Deathworld by Harry Harrison, its so similar to Pandora story. Angry militaristic human colony versus nature/natives. Planet reacts to direct hate with swarms of pissed animals. And it was written DECADES before "environmentalist" movement. If you can prove the connections you suggested i will agree i miserably failed but so far cameron admitted to none of that and the company producing it would not allow this to happen in the first place.
youre a smart guy and your english is better then mine but you keep arguing for the sake of argument.
|
On December 30 2009 08:32 Shauni wrote:
Somebody has to fight the war for the sake of humanity. Everyone is screaming hallelujah! praise the lord! while I'm standing beside wondering exactly where this salvation is coming from.
Maybe I'm just sensitive about these things, but once a movie tries to consciously change my beliefs I see red. A movie is not a fucking marketing campaign. It is not an ad, it is not a political speech. It is not a manipulation medium, it is not a medium for preaching ethics, morals, environment.
Yes, it happens all the time, not just in Avatar. But it's getting worse and worse, especially how the directors get away with these things without people even noticing.
Just in case you havent noticed, its hard to do a movie about war without people going away with the message of 'war is hell' and this is no different.
|
To clarify a bit more, the only anti bush thing you could take from this is messages against the war in iraq, and honestly the plot of the movie is so far from this type of war its almost a joke.
The movie CAN be viewed as anti-war, but no more than any other war movie I have ever seen. This movie just focuses on the victims of the war rather than the suffering of the soldiers, and shows an even more harsh reality.
I think arguing the point is a bit absurd in all realities to be completely honest. Yes, the movie has a message, as do most good movies. This simply happens to be a movie portraying the suffering of the victims of war.
If that shows you that war is terrible, well congratulations you have just had an epiphany.
|
It's not just a war, but corporate greed. It is a private corporation that is destroying Pandora not a country.
|
So how about Avatar almost made as much US boxoffice its second weekend (75.6 million) as it's first weekend (77.0 million) !!!!!!! Incredible!! Of course part of that is because Christmas fell on that 2nd weekend, but still quite amazing. It really shows how many people talked this movie up to their friends.
|
It made over 3 Million more domestically this Monday than it did last Monday
|
You know whats sad. Once this movie leaves theaters we will never be able to see it in its original glory again 
Oh well better go see it 3 more times.
|
I didn't see any anti-Bush or anti-Iraq war at all. I saw anti-corporatism above all. I think the Americans are just getting a little touchy.
|
Its anti-war than anti-Bush.
Native = Pre-WWI wars.
Mask = WWI (gas masks)
AMP = WWII (tanks)
Helicopters = Vietnam
"Shock and Awe" = Current Middle East Wars; Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel.
And eitherway, the script was written in 1994.
But I would rather say... its much more about pro-balance more than anything.
|
|
|
On December 30 2009 09:38 Shauni wrote:
There were thousands of things in the movie that hinted to the wrongdoings of the government while Bush was in charge, now I don't have the movie in front of me so I can't analyze bit by bit but an example is the usage of the phrase 'preventive attacks' which Dick Cheney used before the Iraq war.
Because preventive wars are generally considered to be unlawful, the Bush administration preferred to call its own actions preemptive. Either way, Dick Cheney was not the originator of either term and does not hold a monopoly on the use of either term; they came into usage in the early stages of the cold war and have been used to describe numerous conflicts.
|
So I saw it again, this time in 3D IMAX.
Have to say that the 3D doesn't make a big difference at all, and it's a beautiful movie either way.
Anyways, now that's I've seen it twice, it's officially my favorite movie of all time. I just had to make sure.
|
On December 30 2009 16:11 ShcShc wrote:
Its anti-war than anti-Bush.
Native = Pre-WWI wars.
Mask = WWI (gas masks)
AMP = WWII (tanks)
Helicopters = Vietnam
"Shock and Awe" = Current Middle East Wars; Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel.
And eitherway, the script was written in 1994.
But I would rather say... its much more about pro-balance more than anything.
No changes were made to the script after 1994? I find that difficult to believe. In any case, it doesn't change any of my points whether it's anti-bush, anti-corporations or anti-war. The film has a simple and dumbed down message which i really dislike.
|
Baa?21244 Posts
This movie was a shitty combination of Star Wars VI and Xenocide. Definitely overrated, cliche plot. Good visuals alone a good movie does not make.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
