Don't think I'm missing much.
James Cameron's AVATAR series - Page 87
Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
Rev0lution
United States1805 Posts
Don't think I'm missing much. | ||
TwoPac
United States163 Posts
Not a bad movie but definitely overhyped. | ||
Stenstyren
Sweden619 Posts
| ||
XazXio
United States356 Posts
![]() | ||
Cofo
United States1388 Posts
| ||
alypse
Vietnam2762 Posts
| ||
Mastermind
Canada7096 Posts
| ||
LingKing
United States44 Posts
The Good and the Bad Sci-Fi I am a science fiction movie fanatic. Early exposure to science fiction sparked my interest in the genre. Some of my first memories are of Star Wars V: The Empire Strikes Back. I can also remember watching Startrek Voyager and X-Files on the couch with my mom on weekday nights. Any story that involves speculation of humanity in the future or encounters with alien life always grabs my attention, if it is told well. Alien in 1979 and Avatar in 2009 were both instant sci-fi hits, but for different reasons. Avatar was successful because of stunning computer generated imagery while Alien demonstrated that an original story, a complimentary setting and strong acting are qualities that make a sci-fi hit memorable. Alien’s story set a curve on suspense and thrill in sci-fi. It begins with a seven man crew aboard the immensely huge deep space mining vessel the “Nostromo” being awoken by the ships computer because it received a distress signal on a nearby planet. Obliged to investigate, the crew lands the ship and sends a party of three to search for the source of the SOS. The crew discovers a derelict ship of completely unknown origin with an apparent cargo hold of egg-like objects. After one of the eggs hatches, an organism attaches itself to a crew member’s face. The crew quickly retreats back to the ship to leave the planet. After they leave the creature dies and the host is left seemingly unaffected. Later at dinner the crew realizes to their horror that the creature laid an egg inside the crewmember as a terrifying worm-like creature bursts from inside his chest. The remaining crew is then stuck in a nightmarish situation as they are trapped onboard with a rapidly maturing alien creature that is elusive and deadly. The story draws viewers in by working upon a variety of fears. Claustrophobia, fear of the dark, fear of being hunted and the fear which is done the best and fear of being unable to escape, are all fears that are played upon in the film. The suspense created by the story unfolding is almost unbearable and makes the film most memorable. James Cameron’s Avatar features a story of human greed and hatred of other species. The story borrows ideas not far from the Disney story Pocahontas, in fact it has a strong theme colonization much like the story of the American Colonies. The movie begins by introducing main character ‘Jake’, a paraplegic ex-marine. He is called on a mission to a moon named Pandora after his brother’s freak death. When Jake arrives he is briefed by the greedy corporate figurehead on the company’s intentions of driving off the native population in order to mine the rare and expensive mineral ‘unobtainium’. The corporation plans to move the indigenous population of 10ft tall blue humanoids called “Na’vi” either through negotiations or force. Jake is connected to a synthetic Na’vi in order to infiltrate and find a compromise. The situation starts to turn as Jake finds himself sympathizing with the native population and even falling in love with the Na’vi princess. Jake soon finds himself fighting for the Na’vi and against the corporation as they attempt to destroy the Na’vi home and culture. Avatar can be interpreted as offensive because of similarities to the story of Native Americans and white colonists. The story in Avatar is not deep enough to explore these connections in a meaningful way. Setting in science fiction is important and helps to decide the believability of a film. Alien’s dark and grotesque setting provides a perfect immersing environment for a sci-fi horror. The “Nostromo” ship is cold, poorly lit, weathered and provides the perfect creepy environment for the cat and mouse screenplay. Even the planet and derelict ship that appear in the beginning of the movie are completely bizarre and eerie. Each setting throughout the movie intensifies the overwhelming feeling of fear. The setting in Avatar is visually intense. James Cameron was able to add some amazing computer generated graphics in every scene, but some of it is not well thought out. The CG graphics did not always blend well with the live action and it was obvious in some scenes that the actor was in front of a green screen. Outside environments vary from vast lush forests to expansive military bases, all of which are CG. The creatures appearances’ are clearly taken from actual animal counterparts on earth with some added bright colors, fins and eyes. The movie also features floating rock mountains with waterfalls that are important in the story and at no point gives an explanation of why they’re floating or the source of the waterfalls. Some of the features James Cameron decided to add to the movie’s setting are confusing and others are unoriginal ideas. The cast in Alien does a superb job in communicating the sheer terror the characters in the story are experiencing. The white-knuckle fights and arguments between the crew are well done and the moments of panic are truly scary. The stress of the crew looking for an escape builds and draws the viewer in. Sigourney Weaver, who appears in both Alien and Avatar, provides a enthralling screen performance as a tough heroin who ends up being the last one standing and only survivor. The viewer would be hard pressed to find a scene where the emotion the cast conveys is not sincere. The characters fit in the situation naturally and the great acting enhances the experience. By contrast, there is little depth to the characters in Avatar and it is hard to relate to them. The film features generic and unoriginal character personalities that are made worse by bad acting. Sam Worthington, the actor who plays ‘Jake’, gives a dull performance and his character’s development is predictable. The clunky one-liners throughout the movie are cringe worthy and keep viewers from becoming intimate with Jake. It is sad to see Sigourney Weaver’s talent wasted on a minor role that mostly sets up one-liners for Sam Worthington. The colonel seems to be the only character that has decent background and convincing acting, but his motive of being an elitist bent on extermination of a group of beings prevents him from being someone that the audience wants to relate to. The viewer cannot make meaningful emotional attachments in the movie because the characters are unimaginative and the acting bland. A sci-fi movie, like any movie, should make sense. Avatar and other recent sci-fi movies lack the science in science fiction. Every movie, regardless of genre, should have consistent quality in story, cast and setting. Alien proved that a sci-fi does not need excessive special effects to thrill viewers. In fact, most of the movie is live action including the alien puppet. Alien is still a well known sci-fi today, even after 31 years most people can recall the shear terror and suspense they felt when they first saw it. The story and setting in the movie went together perfectly and the acting brought it all together. Avatar won 3 Oscars for visual effects because it was a pretty looking movie. It will not be remembered for its story or acting. Other than the graphics in the setting, nothing else about the movie was pretty. Avatar’s story was unimaginative and blatantly borrowed ideas which were presented poorly. The characters and dull acting are on par with a children’s movie. The fact that Avatar earned 16 million dollars in box office is a testament to how low American film standards have become. | ||
lethalboi
France150 Posts
On August 23 2010 01:56 LingKing wrote: Comparative essay I wrote for english101: The Good and the Bad Sci-Fi I am a science fiction movie fanatic. Early exposure to science fiction sparked my interest in the genre. Some of my first memories are of Star Wars V: The Empire Strikes Back. I can also remember watching Startrek Voyager and X-Files on the couch with my mom on weekday nights. Any story that involves speculation of humanity in the future or encounters with alien life always grabs my attention, if it is told well. Alien in 1979 and Avatar in 2009 were both instant sci-fi hits, but for different reasons. Avatar was successful because of stunning computer generated imagery while Alien demonstrated that an original story, a complimentary setting and strong acting are qualities that make a sci-fi hit memorable. Alien’s story set a curve on suspense and thrill in sci-fi. It begins with a seven man crew aboard the immensely huge deep space mining vessel the “Nostromo” being awoken by the ships computer because it received a distress signal on a nearby planet. Obliged to investigate, the crew lands the ship and sends a party of three to search for the source of the SOS. The crew discovers a derelict ship of completely unknown origin with an apparent cargo hold of egg-like objects. After one of the eggs hatches, an organism attaches itself to a crew member’s face. The crew quickly retreats back to the ship to leave the planet. After they leave the creature dies and the host is left seemingly unaffected. Later at dinner the crew realizes to their horror that the creature laid an egg inside the crewmember as a terrifying worm-like creature bursts from inside his chest. The remaining crew is then stuck in a nightmarish situation as they are trapped onboard with a rapidly maturing alien creature that is elusive and deadly. The story draws viewers in by working upon a variety of fears. Claustrophobia, fear of the dark, fear of being hunted and the fear which is done the best and fear of being unable to escape, are all fears that are played upon in the film. The suspense created by the story unfolding is almost unbearable and makes the film most memorable. James Cameron’s Avatar features a story of human greed and hatred of other species. The story borrows ideas not far from the Disney story Pocahontas, in fact it has a strong theme colonization much like the story of the American Colonies. The movie begins by introducing main character ‘Jake’, a paraplegic ex-marine. He is called on a mission to a moon named Pandora after his brother’s freak death. When Jake arrives he is briefed by the greedy corporate figurehead on the company’s intentions of driving off the native population in order to mine the rare and expensive mineral ‘unobtainium’. The corporation plans to move the indigenous population of 10ft tall blue humanoids called “Na’vi” either through negotiations or force. Jake is connected to a synthetic Na’vi in order to infiltrate and find a compromise. The situation starts to turn as Jake finds himself sympathizing with the native population and even falling in love with the Na’vi princess. Jake soon finds himself fighting for the Na’vi and against the corporation as they attempt to destroy the Na’vi home and culture. Avatar can be interpreted as offensive because of similarities to the story of Native Americans and white colonists. The story in Avatar is not deep enough to explore these connections in a meaningful way. Setting in science fiction is important and helps to decide the believability of a film. Alien’s dark and grotesque setting provides a perfect immersing environment for a sci-fi horror. The “Nostromo” ship is cold, poorly lit, weathered and provides the perfect creepy environment for the cat and mouse screenplay. Even the planet and derelict ship that appear in the beginning of the movie are completely bizarre and eerie. Each setting throughout the movie intensifies the overwhelming feeling of fear. The setting in Avatar is visually intense. James Cameron was able to add some amazing computer generated graphics in every scene, but some of it is not well thought out. The CG graphics did not always blend well with the live action and it was obvious in some scenes that the actor was in front of a green screen. Outside environments vary from vast lush forests to expansive military bases, all of which are CG. The creatures appearances’ are clearly taken from actual animal counterparts on earth with some added bright colors, fins and eyes. The movie also features floating rock mountains with waterfalls that are important in the story and at no point gives an explanation of why they’re floating or the source of the waterfalls. Some of the features James Cameron decided to add to the movie’s setting are confusing and others are unoriginal ideas. The cast in Alien does a superb job in communicating the sheer terror the characters in the story are experiencing. The white-knuckle fights and arguments between the crew are well done and the moments of panic are truly scary. The stress of the crew looking for an escape builds and draws the viewer in. Sigourney Weaver, who appears in both Alien and Avatar, provides a enthralling screen performance as a tough heroin who ends up being the last one standing and only survivor. The viewer would be hard pressed to find a scene where the emotion the cast conveys is not sincere. The characters fit in the situation naturally and the great acting enhances the experience. By contrast, there is little depth to the characters in Avatar and it is hard to relate to them. The film features generic and unoriginal character personalities that are made worse by bad acting. Sam Worthington, the actor who plays ‘Jake’, gives a dull performance and his character’s development is predictable. The clunky one-liners throughout the movie are cringe worthy and keep viewers from becoming intimate with Jake. It is sad to see Sigourney Weaver’s talent wasted on a minor role that mostly sets up one-liners for Sam Worthington. The colonel seems to be the only character that has decent background and convincing acting, but his motive of being an elitist bent on extermination of a group of beings prevents him from being someone that the audience wants to relate to. The viewer cannot make meaningful emotional attachments in the movie because the characters are unimaginative and the acting bland. A sci-fi movie, like any movie, should make sense. Avatar and other recent sci-fi movies lack the science in science fiction. Every movie, regardless of genre, should have consistent quality in story, cast and setting. Alien proved that a sci-fi does not need excessive special effects to thrill viewers. In fact, most of the movie is live action including the alien puppet. Alien is still a well known sci-fi today, even after 31 years most people can recall the shear terror and suspense they felt when they first saw it. The story and setting in the movie went together perfectly and the acting brought it all together. Avatar won 3 Oscars for visual effects because it was a pretty looking movie. It will not be remembered for its story or acting. Other than the graphics in the setting, nothing else about the movie was pretty. Avatar’s story was unimaginative and blatantly borrowed ideas which were presented poorly. The characters and dull acting are on par with a children’s movie. The fact that Avatar earned 16 million dollars in box office is a testament to how low American film standards have become. What was your mark for that essay? | ||
ZapRoffo
United States5544 Posts
I first want to explain a distinction I make between what you all are calling “visual effects” and the creation of an immersive experience. Visual effects to me are things like bullet time from The Matrix or giant robots fighting in Transformers or the bullets in Wanted or various superpowers like Spiderman shooting webs or clone battles in Star Wars, etc.. They are enhancing details to make their movies more memorable, get people to say “oh cool”, or add a realer touch if they are done well, or enhance the scale of events. But they aren’t the whole point of the movie so to speak. The Matrix is not about Neo dodging bullets, it’s about Neo and the gang trying to free humans from slavery, and the plot here and character interactions are totally central, along with the science fiction idea. Spiderman isn’t about Spiderman shooting webs, it’s about having great power and great responsibility with it and about getting MJ. Star Wars is about a huge struggle for the destiny of a galaxy and how certain characters are caught in it. These are the ideas that the filmmakers emphasize. If what you took away from Star Wars is “omg lightsaber battle” George Lucas would probably say “you’re missing the point. Although I’m still getting filthy rich off you, so OK.” Now when movies try to survive solely on effects like these with no real underlying ideas (Transformers) or empty ones that honestly make no sense (Matrix sequels) it pretty much fails epically and you say “wow giant robots fighting, and I care why?” or “gee whiz Neo is fighting 1000 Agent Smiths, is there any reason this scene is so long and elaborate, fast forward please.” There are some movies however, that pretty much follow an entirely different fundamental philosophy, in which the whole point is to create an experience that is memorable or innovative, that might legitimately wow you not only because it’s does cool things, but all builds into a visceral world that you don’t just watch, but feel. Movies I put into this category for example would be Avatar, Hero, Renaissance, Paprika, Eraserhead, and goes all the way back to the origins of film and French Impressionism of the 1920’s. It is quite reasonable, and I really believe correct to say that the central theme of Avatar, what Cameron is trying to strike at, is not “it’s bad to chase profits and oppress natives,” instead it’s “look at and feel how you really could get drawn into this world and the life of a Na’vi.” And for this, naturally, immersing the viewer in a fantastic, attractive, series of visuals throughout the film, making use of new technological developments in IMO a pitch perfect way not only makes sense but is exactly what you would do enforce the theme in an experiential rather than didactic way (which is a lot more interesting and fun). Now the films I mentioned are quite often criticized for having thin/derivative/nonsensical plots. The simple answer I have is: that’s not the point. The plots of these films are just the things that happen in the worlds that are created, the Na’vi experience in Avatar, the emotional expressionism of fighting and color schemes and visual motifs in Hero, and the futuristic noir atmosphere that is both clean and sanitary, and dark at its core in Renaissance and enhanced a thousand fold by its unique visual style. The plot of Paprika is fairly nonsensical, but it fits perfectly with the theme of the movie which is an exploration of dreams, and is consistent in that what happens is a device that allows travel through and others outside to experience someone’s dreams, and dreams are nonsensical with fantastic imagery, which allows the film to explore some of the craziest arrays of images I’ve ever seen. The plots are not the essences of these films like they are for most typical ones (what I’ve taken to thinking of as the ‘filmed novel’ style, where plot, character interaction/dialogue are the key aspects and thus the key criteria when evaluating quality), they are more like enhancers, like the visual effects in the discussion above. In the Avatar-style film, the plot provides some direction, and for the most part it’s quite sufficient and supports its goal; I was appropriately devastated when Hometree was destroyed, I watched in wonder at the interactions with the trees of ancestors/soul, I was interested in how Jake would interact with the different Na’vi we meet. Some of the characters are blatant caricatures, the colonel, the company leader, Norm, the pilot girl from Lost, and it’s not like the filmmakers didn’t realize this. They aren’t dumb amateurs, the purposefulness of this is seen in choosing to name the mineral unobtainium—it’s obviously not like they didn’t realize this is a totally unrealistic and dumb name for an actual mineral. They chose it as an expression of how little we need to care about the mineral, and these characters; Jake doesn’t care because he’s immersed in the world of Pandora. In Hero, dwelling more on the complications of the assassination plot and trying to weave in the nationalistic ideal rather than telling it so simply would have diverted the film away from the simple beauty it so strongly wants to elicit. Now could they have done this more subtly, in Avatar in particular? Yes. It’s a flaw that this aspect is so noticeable and causes people to be distracted from being immersed in the world. I would say Miyazaki handled this better in Princess Mononoke or Spirited Away (and honestly, if either of those were American and this year, I would place them as far and away best pictures) as they both create impressive visual worlds And many of the other cheesy aspects of Avatar can be chalked up to being required to fit some sort of mold due to its budget and studio expectations. But the fact that it has a huge budget is not itself something to criticize it for. Isn’t being able to use this to its advantage and create something basically as innovative and cutting edge as possible and maintain for the most part such a clarity of focus while having external expectations a sign of skill? There’s a noticeable difference between James Cameron using 500 million or whatever in Avatar and most other lackluster super-hero movies/Transformers/Star Wars prequels, etc.. Overall though, and how this relates back to the award discussion, is that for different philosophies of filmmaking, there have to be different criteria for judging quality. If the film’s main goal is to immerse the viewer into some world of dreams or emotions or a planet of wonders, you judge it by how immersed the viewers are and how rewarding that experience was to them, not whether the plot has been done before or some of the characters were flat, when those are more garnishes. Now is this a viable goal for a movie? I believe it is, because it taps into what film brings as a medium that something like a book doesn’t, what’s special: the visual experience. It’s what the French Impressionists thought back in the 1920’s (I would count, for example, Jean Epstein’s Fall of the House of Usher among my list too), it’s what made film popular in the first place, and I support the idea of the Academy recognizing a different style than the “best acting + best directing + best screenplay = best picture” formula that are really only prescient criteria for one prominent philosophy. | ||
Mortality
United States4790 Posts
On August 23 2010 01:02 XazXio wrote: avatar just seems like dances with wolves in space ![]() Dances with Wolves was much, much better. They don't compare, really, except maybe to say they are both white guilt fantasies. But Dances was actually good. Avatar had a ridiculously horrible plot. It stuns me that there are people who actually thought it was good script writing. | ||
MadVillain
United States402 Posts
Avatar really did show that 3-D can be a viable movie making technique and now its up to other directors to do 3-D + and engaging plot. Peter Jackson comes to mind, District 10 in avatar-quality 3-D would be sick. I just think the plot is bad -> movie bad argument doesn't really apply here. | ||
Alexstrasas
302 Posts
imo the movie was pretty good, with good effects (i saw it 2D tough fuck 3D faggotry) and the plot was decent too, i dunno why ppl are bashing the plot, wtf were you expecting? | ||
WarChimp
Australia943 Posts
| ||
StimCraft
United States144 Posts
| ||
Mortality
United States4790 Posts
On August 23 2010 03:45 MadVillain wrote: The plot was only meant to provide good situations for 3-D exploitation. Disagree completely. There wouldn't have been so many references to current events and there wouldn't have been such anvilicious delivery of intended aesops if Cameron had wanted an excuse plot. Unfortunately, he was dead serious about the plot. And that's what bothers me the most. | ||
dybydx
Canada1764 Posts
On August 23 2010 03:59 Alexstrasas wrote: Wtf guys the movie was realeased half a year ago! imo the movie was pretty good, with good effects (i saw it 2D tough fuck 3D faggotry) and the plot was decent too, i dunno why ppl are bashing the plot, wtf were you expecting? the story was too..... meh. its got great gfx, dats about it. | ||
Bluedraqy
Denmark496 Posts
| ||
-Sizzle-
United States8 Posts
I was bored the whole way through and was not impressed at all. | ||
r33k
Italy3402 Posts
On August 23 2010 05:24 Bluedraqy wrote: The avatar plot was written before Pocahontas afaik, Cameron had the movie planned already when Titanic was done, again, afaik :b http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocahontas ...I don't think so. | ||
| ||