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.
Pokemon has a message that tells me to enslave animals and use them to fight each other in a world-wide fighting ring. People will pit their animals against each other 1v1 and the winner will reap the spoils from the loser. Oh, and it's every kid's dream to do that too.
LOL, RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT. Like it even matters what message you get from a movie. You can take anything and analyze it to look like it has some bullshit message. Prove me wrong.
I've already said that there are no 'universal' messages for a movie and people can interpret it how they want, but I'm talking about the directors message in the movie. If I interpret it (and I'm not trying to analyze it deeply at all) the same way as the director and many other people I talk to interpret it that way, is it really such a strange thing? Why do you have to see my view as some absurd message that's not even remotely logical? I don't know why you're playing stupid and bring up Pokémon as a parallel. I thought most of us agreed that there was indeed messages in the movie, and by message I don't mean the way it tells the story.
On December 30 2009 19:20 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: 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.
What a simple way to describe the movie.....but it's true..
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.
Pokemon has a message that tells me to enslave animals and use them to fight each other in a world-wide fighting ring. People will pit their animals against each other 1v1 and the winner will reap the spoils from the loser. Oh, and it's every kid's dream to do that too.
LOL, RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT. Like it even matters what message you get from a movie. You can take anything and analyze it to look like it has some bullshit message. Prove me wrong.
most cruel fact regarding enslaving animals and making them fight 1v1 is that you have to put them in a tiny-winnie ball which is the size of a scrotum with tumors.
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.
Story-wise, there is no change from the script except they cut out a lot of the story because you can only fill so much in 2 hours 40 minutes. 20 minutes of (fully rendered) Future Earth Scenes should appear in Blu-Ray
I've read the script and there's no difference with the 1994 scripts except who lives/dies (I won't say who, but there's 1 major change in who lives/dies). Dialogue was changed (but the script barely had any dialogues).
On December 30 2009 20:17 Shauni wrote: I've already said that there are no 'universal' messages for a movie and people can interpret it how they want, but I'm talking about the directors message in the movie. If I interpret it (and I'm not trying to analyze it deeply at all) the same way as the director and many other people I talk to interpret it that way, is it really such a strange thing? Why do you have to see my view as some absurd message that's not even remotely logical? I don't know why you're playing stupid and bring up Pokémon as a parallel. I thought most of us agreed that there was indeed messages in the movie, and by message I don't mean the way it tells the story.
My interpretation is the director's interpretation. Its a historical movie, not about the U.S, but as humans as a whole.
To be perfectly honest, the themes are pretty much copy/paste from his past movies (Titanic, Terminator, etc...). The only major difference is that its very very historical.
Its a simple message, but a lot of people would shrug it off because it seems too simple. But in the end, the movie really tells the truth that we're not being vigilant in the way we live.
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.
Its pre-emptive attacks. That was used by Dick Cheney.
... and funnily, it was used in World War I. word-per-word: pre-emptive attacks.
Its not a Bush word. Its just fresh in your mind with the Bush legacy. But yes, all wars have used the pre-emptive notion.
On December 30 2009 20:17 Shauni wrote: I've already said that there are no 'universal' messages for a movie and people can interpret it how they want, but I'm talking about the directors message in the movie. If I interpret it (and I'm not trying to analyze it deeply at all) the same way as the director and many other people I talk to interpret it that way, is it really such a strange thing? Why do you have to see my view as some absurd message that's not even remotely logical? I don't know why you're playing stupid and bring up Pokémon as a parallel. I thought most of us agreed that there was indeed messages in the movie, and by message I don't mean the way it tells the story.
You still haven't explained WHY this is a bad thing. You just seem upset by it. WHY are undercurrents in media a bad thing? You realize songs don't just go by a beat, they come with a message. Even television shows are littered with a theme or moral.. and it usually changes every season/half season etc.
Did you never notice this before? If you're not bothered by the particular messages in this movie, but just messages in general - why is this the movie that set you off?
Well he doesn't like the movie because it feels he's being spoon-fed and that the message was too direct. Its understandable.
Its kind of like you want the message to be slightly out of reach, but not out of reach for your mind so that in that way, it/you feel more intellectual. A lot of people are that way.
But James Cameron's movies always had really simple message in the front, but gets more complex when you look at it more deeply. But you know, if you FEEL you're spoon-fed, then you feel unsatisfied emotionally.
Anyway, in any case, iJames Cameron must follow the "Simple message on the face, deeper when you think about it" motto. He wants to catter to the next generations of the world and make a real clear-cut impact on them.
In other words, its a propaganda movie (I don't say its a bad thing. Propaganda CAN be a good thing).
Just stating the facts lol. Not siding with anyone.
I think the movie was pretty good. Visually, it's stunning obviously.
James Cameron does an excellent job of completely absorbing you into the movie, it's as if you're exactly there watching the whole thing from a helicopter (I watched it on 3D Imax, so that may have effected my experience). You don't really feel you're watching it on a screen. The movie does have a few misses.
A lot of the dialogue, and the story at times felt pretty cheesy and cliche. I think James didn't focus as much on these aspects, and instead focused more on the technology, which apparently he achieved. Like stated above, I think the movie becomes more enjoyable if you watch it a second time, and you'll probably catch onto a lot of things you missed the first time.
I saw the movie this week. I didn't expect much from the story in the first place, and it delivered even less. It seems as if all the plot and characters was taken straight from some "Hollywood Movie 101" handbook. Generic valiant hero, generic uncomplex villains, generic faceless friends ready to die in battle for the hero, and of course there needs to be a generic love story to make things complete. There was nothing in this movie that I hadn't seen elsewhere already. Which is a pity, the avatar body switching thingie had some potential at least.
This film is shockingly uncreative. You'd think the first thing when making a science-fiction movie would be thinking about a cool world, setting and plot. Apparently not, it's all just a tech demo with a weak run-of-the-mill story strewn over as an alibi. Not even the alien world is much different from ours: only the people are tall blue dryads, the forest plants glow when touched, and the horses have six legs. It's laughable really.
That said, the movie did fulfill its purpose of entertaining me a few hours. Everything looks cool after all, and there are only few boring parts. Still, I couldn't help but exit the cinema unsatisfied, cursing the scriptwriter.
On December 30 2009 20:17 Shauni wrote: I've already said that there are no 'universal' messages for a movie and people can interpret it how they want, but I'm talking about the directors message in the movie. If I interpret it (and I'm not trying to analyze it deeply at all) the same way as the director and many other people I talk to interpret it that way, is it really such a strange thing? Why do you have to see my view as some absurd message that's not even remotely logical? I don't know why you're playing stupid and bring up Pokémon as a parallel. I thought most of us agreed that there was indeed messages in the movie, and by message I don't mean the way it tells the story.
My point is that even if you can draw some message from a movie (which you obviously can do for anything) doesn't mean that it's the message intended.
Here, read this:
Cameron said: ''I see it as a broader metaphor, not so intensely politicised as some would make it, but rather that's how we treat the natural world as well.
BanZu I don't know if you just try to ridicule me for the lulz or that you seriously do not understand what I'm saying. Yes, the overall message is not concrete enough to say 'anti-bush'. I have read similar things from his interviews. He tells me to feel the movie instead of trying to interpret it intellectually, feel the nature message and the war is bad message. I'm just saying that if you actually put it in context (which he might not have intended, no) it becomes many other things. If you put it all together in a modern context it's quite clear he wasn't a fan of the style America declared war upon countries back then. The 'anti-bush' thing was an example to show that in a modern movie you should be careful not to leave too many stupid messages that are easily interpreted as social commentary. And of course Cameron isn't going to be blunt enough to spell it out for you in an interview, whatever he believes. He acts like a coward and says nothing provoking at all in them (trying not to scare off the masses). Lets drop the anti-bush thing already, it was an example of a message. I don't want to argue whether which messages are present and which are not, the point I was arguing was if ANY messages existed in the movie.
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.
Its pre-emptive attacks. That was used by Dick Cheney.
... and funnily, it was used in World War I. word-per-word: pre-emptive attacks.
Its not a Bush word. Its just fresh in your mind with the Bush legacy. But yes, all wars have used the pre-emptive notion.
Thanks, sorry I didn't translate it correctly. My English is pretty bad. But yeah, I was asking if the dialogues in the scrips were changed since 1994, it was them I hinted at. I agree with most of your posts but I don't quite understand how the movie becomes more complex once you look under the surface. Am I just stupid for not noticing any complexity here?
On December 30 2009 20:17 Shauni wrote: I've already said that there are no 'universal' messages for a movie and people can interpret it how they want, but I'm talking about the directors message in the movie. If I interpret it (and I'm not trying to analyze it deeply at all) the same way as the director and many other people I talk to interpret it that way, is it really such a strange thing? Why do you have to see my view as some absurd message that's not even remotely logical? I don't know why you're playing stupid and bring up Pokémon as a parallel. I thought most of us agreed that there was indeed messages in the movie, and by message I don't mean the way it tells the story.
You still haven't explained WHY this is a bad thing. You just seem upset by it. WHY are undercurrents in media a bad thing? You realize songs don't just go by a beat, they come with a message. Even television shows are littered with a theme or moral.. and it usually changes every season/half season etc.
Did you never notice this before? If you're not bothered by the particular messages in this movie, but just messages in general - why is this the movie that set you off?
wh-why? First, as ShcShc said, it's too direct and one-dimensional. This might sound retarded but do you know why the #1 priority of high school is to teach you how to analyze things from different perspectives? Cameron wouldn't pass high school. At least not with this movie. It's offensive not only because it insults my own intelligence, it tries to kill the intelligence of whole mankind (because of the WOW effects, hype, blockbuster marketing factor). I see that as a problem. No, I don't notice it that often, at least not this direct. Maybe it's because I try to avoid manipulative media that jams it down my throat.
On December 31 2009 06:19 Shauni wrote: BanZu I don't know if you just try to ridicule me for the lulz or that you seriously do not understand what I'm saying. Yes, the overall message is not concrete enough to say 'anti-bush'. I have read similar things from his interviews. He tells me to feel the movie instead of trying to interpret it intellectually, feel the nature message and the war is bad message. I'm just saying that if you actually put it in context (which he might not have intended, no) it becomes many other things. If you put it all together in a modern context it's quite clear he wasn't a fan of the style America declared war upon countries back then. The 'anti-bush' thing was an example to show that in a modern movie you should be careful not to leave too many stupid messages that are easily interpreted as social commentary. And of course Cameron isn't going to be blunt enough to spell it out for you in an interview, whatever he believes. He acts like a coward and says nothing provoking at all in them (trying not to scare off the masses). Lets drop the anti-bush thing already, it was an example of a message. I don't want to argue whether which messages are present and which are not, the point I was arguing was if ANY messages existed in the movie.
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.
Its pre-emptive attacks. That was used by Dick Cheney.
... and funnily, it was used in World War I. word-per-word: pre-emptive attacks.
Its not a Bush word. Its just fresh in your mind with the Bush legacy. But yes, all wars have used the pre-emptive notion.
Thanks, sorry I didn't translate it correctly. My English is pretty bad. But yeah, I was asking if the dialogues in the scrips were changed since 1994, it was them I hinted at. I agree with most of your posts but I don't quite understand how the movie becomes more complex once you look under the surface. Am I just stupid for not noticing any complexity here?
On December 30 2009 20:17 Shauni wrote: I've already said that there are no 'universal' messages for a movie and people can interpret it how they want, but I'm talking about the directors message in the movie. If I interpret it (and I'm not trying to analyze it deeply at all) the same way as the director and many other people I talk to interpret it that way, is it really such a strange thing? Why do you have to see my view as some absurd message that's not even remotely logical? I don't know why you're playing stupid and bring up Pokémon as a parallel. I thought most of us agreed that there was indeed messages in the movie, and by message I don't mean the way it tells the story.
You still haven't explained WHY this is a bad thing. You just seem upset by it. WHY are undercurrents in media a bad thing? You realize songs don't just go by a beat, they come with a message. Even television shows are littered with a theme or moral.. and it usually changes every season/half season etc.
Did you never notice this before? If you're not bothered by the particular messages in this movie, but just messages in general - why is this the movie that set you off?
wh-why?
Why should it matter what messages you can draw? That's not the point of the movie.
So we're getting closer to the truth of the matter:
You don't agree with the message, and the fact that it has garnered widespread acceptance and congratulation - nay, adulation, has concerned you for the good of mankind as a whole.
As if the movie will somehow take more people away from a viewpoint that you fight for.
Weee..... what's wrong with letting people make their own opinions and not caring about what James Cameron tries to tell them? Anyone who gets brainwashed by Avatar's subliminal messaging isn't too intelligent anyway.
If J.C. were to see this thread, he'd probably face palm himself into a coma.
It's an A-C-T-I-O-N movie for God's sake! You shouldn't expect a story with a lot of depth. Action movies are as generic as Walt Disney movies to make it easier to follow.
This movie does a few things:
a) showcase the technology for filmmakers (like it or not, this is where the industry is going)
b) provide eye candy
So, let's go back to the OP's intial question: Is Avatar overhyped?
My response: they put so much money in advertising and publicity that the film was hard to miss and it worked. Avatar was meant to be seen in the movie theatres and so far, so good. It's been quite successful thus far.
In conclusion, overhyped to the common theatregoer but not to the rest of the industry.
Avatar is eye candy. Take it with a grain of salt.
On December 31 2009 06:19 Shauni wrote: If you put it all together in a modern context it's quite clear he wasn't a fan of the style America declared war upon countries back then.
I've been thinking about it a lot and I think Cameron should have ended the movie with a more bleak and depressing outlook. It would have made sense, but maybe he does have hope for the future of mankind. I think the humans should have won the epic battle, where the indigenous (Na'vi) lose and are forced to flee the spirit tree scattered, divided, and beaten. Jake is taken back to Earth and imprisoned for a short while, and he spends the rest of his life an alcoholic, reflecting on his experience with the Na'vi people.
EPT
