# Avatar: Now that you've actually seen it. No spoilers in OP **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [December 17, 2009, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatar-now-that-youve-actually-seen-it-no-spoilers-in-op/521626 "2009-12-17T11:32:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatar-now-that-youve-actually-seen-it-no-spoilers-in-op/521626/341 "2009-12-27T07:33:18Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I don’t see how my assumptions about the general populace are less valid than yours. The primary reason mine are more supportable is that they agree with the plot of the movie. Mine are corroborated by the spoken and implied restrictions created within this fictional world. It’s impossible for either of us to be objectively “right” but my presumptions don’t contradict the source material while yours do. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatar-now-that-youve-actually-seen-it-no-spoilers-in-op/521626/342 "2009-12-27T07:34:26Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > A round trip to Pandora from Earth takes 13 years (6 to get there, a year layover, and 6 to get back). A data transmission (assuming no FTL) would take 4.3 years to reach Earth. The ship we saw was only one of a small fleet forming a transport loop between the 2 systems. Which means that there’s at least one (probally a couple) of ships already in route to Pandora with no way to turn around (imagine the surprise the passengers will get when they’re woken up). Plus a ship or two launched after the events of the movie, but before any transmission reached Earth. They’ll get visitors alot sooner than 12 years. Where are you getting the 4.3 years? ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatar-now-that-youve-actually-seen-it-no-spoilers-in-op/521626/343 "2009-12-27T07:40:03Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > Where are you getting the 4.3 years? Pandora revolves around one of the Centauri stars. Alpha, I think. 4.3 light years away. ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatar-now-that-youve-actually-seen-it-no-spoilers-in-op/521626/344 "2009-12-27T08:17:04Z")
I think you would have to assume some kind of FTL communication at least. Otherwise the concerns about the domestic reaction or the reaction of the shareholders wouldn’t make much sense if it took them 4 years to get any news and 4 years to send back any response. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatar-now-that-youve-actually-seen-it-no-spoilers-in-op/521626/345 "2009-12-27T08:55:26Z")
> [@Equipoise](#): > > She said it herself, “I didn’t sign up for this shit.” She was an employee, paid to ferry equipment. It wasn’t “mutiny,” it was an employee deciding that the company had gone too far and she wasn’t going to be a part of it anymore. What could they do? Fire her? Yeah, they probably did in a scene we weren’t shown. But they had no call to lock her up or anything. Besides, there’s no evidence that anyone noticed she hadn’t fired. A regular military would debriefed pilots, checked gun cameras and compared payloads, but a mercenary outfit? Worse comes to worse, she could always claim that her firing system malfunctioned. ---
**Author:** ![Rodgers01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b19c9b/32.png) [@Rodgers01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rodgers01)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 9:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatar-now-that-youve-actually-seen-it-no-spoilers-in-op/521626/346 "2009-12-27T09:15:58Z")
Wow. I found this one just short of awful all around. The plot was weak, the acting dull, the characters amazingly one-dimensional… I wasn’t even wowed by the special effects, beyond an initial few moments thinking, “Huh - CGI has come a long way lately.” After that, Pandora looked like just a bunch of neon-lit scenes from some Wii game mixed with backgrounds from “Dinotopia” - in a word, pretty lame. The Navi themselves never stopped looking vaguely cringe-inducing. The music was particularly uninspiring, a cardinal sin for this kind of movie (where’s the thrilling theme??). And not to reopen this debate, but “unobtainium” was an awful choice of name, no matter what rationale you attach to it. Even the movie’s message was botched: the random indications that it was meant to be an anti-Iraq War parable (“shock and awe”, “winning hearts and minds”, etc.) made the movie seem that much more embarrassingly simplistic. I’m probably “wrong” about this one. When something like this is _so_ well regarded by both critics and audiences, the fault probably lies in me for just not getting it. Oh well. Glad so many people liked it, but to answer the person’s question upthread, no: it was not worth my $12+ and nearly three hours. \*\*FWIW, I saw the movie in 2D - wish I could have seen it in 3D to get the full experience, but doubt it would have changed my reaction much. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatar-now-that-youve-actually-seen-it-no-spoilers-in-op/521626/347 "2009-12-27T15:25:30Z")
> [@Rodgers01](#): > > Wow. I found this one just short of awful all around. The plot was weak, the acting dull, the characters amazingly one-dimensional… I wasn’t even wowed by the special effects, beyond an initial few moments thinking, “Huh - CGI has come a long way lately.” After that, Pandora looked like just a bunch of neon-lit scenes from some Wii game mixed with backgrounds from “Dinotopia” - in a word, pretty lame. The Navi themselves never stopped looking vaguely cringe-inducing. The music was particularly uninspiring, a cardinal sin for this kind of movie (where’s the thrilling theme??). And not to reopen this debate, but “unobtainium” was an awful choice of name, no matter what rationale you attach to it. I actually laughed out loud when I heard the word “unobtainium”. > [@Rodgers01](#): > > Even the movie’s message was botched: the random indications that it was meant to be an anti-Iraq War parable (“shock and awe”, “winning hearts and minds”, etc.) made the movie seem that much more embarrassingly simplistic. > > I’m probably “wrong” about this one. When something like this is _so_ well regarded by both critics and audiences, the fault probably lies in me for just not getting it. Oh well. Glad so many people liked it, but to answer the person’s question upthread, no: it was not worth my $12+ and nearly three hours. > \*\*FWIW, I saw the movie in 2D - wish I could have seen it in 3D to get the full experience, but doubt it would have changed my reaction much. I feel for you. unfortunately, the novelty of the 3D effect wasn’t well used and I tired of it quickly. It was good but not great and without it the movie was 2 hrs and 15 minutes too long. The director didn’t understand the basics of stereo-vision and missed many opportunities to exploit it for theatrical shock and awe. For people who have never seen a movie in 3D I think the novelty of it was better received. As I said before, I was more impressed by Cinerama than this from a visual standpoint. The obnoxiously bad script and plot really drove down the experience for me. I liked the creativity of the scenery design but the movie left me wanting to name my chain saw Pandora. ---
**Author:** ![MostlyClueless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@MostlyClueless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MostlyClueless)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatar-now-that-youve-actually-seen-it-no-spoilers-in-op/521626/348 "2009-12-27T16:05:39Z")
> [@](#): > > The director didn’t understand the basics of stereo-vision and missed many opportunities to exploit it for theatrical shock and awe. Cameron said he explicitly didn’t go for the cheap “Look! We have 3D! HERE IS A BALL IN YOUR FACE!” shots, but tried to go for a more subtle route, so it wouldn’t break the immersion of the audience. As far as I’m concerned, he did good. So, how did he not understand stereo vision? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatar-now-that-youve-actually-seen-it-no-spoilers-in-op/521626/349 "2009-12-27T16:45:00Z")
> [@MostlyClueless](#): > > Cameron said he explicitly didn’t go for the cheap “Look! We have 3D! HERE IS A BALL IN YOUR FACE!” shots, but tried to go for a more subtle route, so it wouldn’t break the immersion of the audience. As far as I’m concerned, he did good. > > So, how did he not understand stereo vision? You lose stereo-vision quickly with distance (it’s gone beyond 300 feet). It would have been more effective if done from the first person perspective and with images close to the person. To say that he was trying not to go for the cheap look underscores the creative aspect of it in the first place. It’s like saying I’m only going to add color to a B&W movie to be subtle. You either film for color or you don’t. In this instance, I never perceived the 3D effect as anything but a novelty in the movie and it was poorly exploited at that. It would have been impressive if the camera angle walked around the curved holographic projection screens and zoomed in so that resolution could have enhanced the 3D effect. Compare this to Cinerama where they exploited the process by showing the breathtaking views of the Western States. In Avatar, I felt like I was watching a video game. If the movie was constructed like Toy Story where the perspective was up close it would have been much more effective. Resolution, close proximity, and rotation around (or movement passed) other objects is the cinematic realm of 3D. The problem, as I see it, is that it is too expensive to use computer generated images as the bases for an entire movie. There was no reason to drag out the story line at the expense of a script or basic acting. This was Chuck Norris meets Jurassic Park. To make a movie like Avatar is a technical achievement of considerable note. It just wasn’t a noteworthy movie. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatar-now-that-youve-actually-seen-it-no-spoilers-in-op/521626/350 "2009-12-27T20:06:32Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The director didn’t understand the basics of stereo-vision and missed many opportunities to exploit it for theatrical shock and awe. He very deliberately avoided the shock-and-awe factor. He wanted to draw people into the world as though you were looking through a literal window at the reality outside, rather than have things floating and zooming around in your face. It made it more accessible and real. It felt like a place I wanted to visit, rather than something flashy and just for show. If there’s anyone who understands “stereo-vision” it’s James Cameron. After all, after studying it intently for ten years, he had to invent a whole new, more practical camera system, pretty much by himself, to achieve what he wanted. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Barchetta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/da6949/32.png) [@Red\_Barchetta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Barchetta)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatar-now-that-youve-actually-seen-it-no-spoilers-in-op/521626/351 "2009-12-27T20:44:57Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > You lose stereo-vision quickly with distance (it’s gone beyond 300 feet). It would have b **een more effective if done from the first person perspective** and with images close to the person. I, for one, am glad you’re not making movies. ---
**Author:** ![Equipoise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/equipoise/32/151_2.png) [@Equipoise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Equipoise)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatar-now-that-youve-actually-seen-it-no-spoilers-in-op/521626/352 "2009-12-27T21:01:08Z")
[QUOTE=Magiver] I feel for you. unfortunately, the novelty of the 3D effect wasn’t well used and I tired of it quickly. It was good but not great and without it the movie was 2 hrs and 15 minutes too long. [/QUOTE] I disagree with everything you say, but these especially. I’ve seen lots of 3D movies, and Avatar is by far the best use of it. I also saw the movie in 2D and it held up beautifully and in fact was even more emotional for me. I cared about the characters more the 2nd time. If anything, **Avatar** is too short as it is. I could have used more scenes on Pandora. > [@Red\_Barchetta](#): > > I, for one, am glad you’re not making movies. That’s harsh. There has to be someone out there making the next generation of cartoon movies with no subtlety like Transformers and G-Force. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Barchetta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/da6949/32.png) [@Red\_Barchetta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Barchetta)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatar-now-that-youve-actually-seen-it-no-spoilers-in-op/521626/353 "2009-12-27T21:32:07Z")
> [@Equipoise](#): > > That’s harsh. There has to be someone out there making the next generation of cartoon movies with no subtlety like Transformers and G-Force. Did you not see the portion I bolded? A movie from the first-person perspective? You know what movie last tried that? Doom. ---
**Author:** ![DETXL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/detxl/32/19366_2.png) [@DETXL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DETXL)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatar-now-that-youve-actually-seen-it-no-spoilers-in-op/521626/354 "2009-12-27T21:36:40Z")
I saw it again today to see if I liked it any better the second time around. Yes, actually–it watches a lot better if you see it as a parody going in, with the “ayayayayay” and the biologically-evolved Indian braids and the “walk in beauty” and the “smelling the Earth to see where the game is” and all the silly Western tropes it crowds in. Also, there is a lot of dakka, and that’s fun. I took my dad to see it. His first question, at the end: “So, is the estate of Poul Anderson going to be suing?” “Perhaps,” I said. Then my father paused. “Well,” he answered his own question. “Probably not. [They’d](http://cdn2.ioffer.com/img/item/401/635/51/9PeMVwa0GrZ7RT9.jpg) [have](http://i31.tinypic.com/2we98w8.jpg) [to](http://www.filmcasino.at/miyazaki/download/nausicaa_02.jpg) [get](http://www.japan--world.net/Wallpapers/Laputa_le_chateau_dans_le_ciel/Laputa_le_chateau_dans_le_ciel%5Bwww.japan--world.com%5D.jpg) [in](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bc/WordWorldForest.jpg) [line](http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0756402514.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg).” I’m not sure it’s a problem that there’s a problem that the entire movie is a Frankenstein of other movies. It’s not a serious movie; it’s a light, vaguely satiric pastiche. Worth seeing in the theatres; maybe not so much on DVD. ---
**Author:** ![Equipoise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/equipoise/32/151_2.png) [@Equipoise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Equipoise)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatar-now-that-youve-actually-seen-it-no-spoilers-in-op/521626/355 "2009-12-27T22:44:03Z")
10 days, and it’s already [made over half a billion dollars](http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=avatar.htm). $615,168,000 Worldwide. [‘Avatar’ And ‘Sherlock’ Crush Box Office, Break Weekend Record](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/27/avatar-and-sherlock-crush_n_404310.html) > [@](#): > > NEW YORK — It was a memorable and merry Christmas in Hollywood as moviegoers shattered box-office records, responding in droves to a diverse array of high-profile releases over the holiday weekend. > > The estimated $278 million in weekend box-office revenue broke the previous record of roughly $253 million set in July 2008, the weekend “The Dark Knight” was released. > > A diverse group of films drew throngs to the multiplexes: James Cameron’s “Avatar” pushed strongly into its second week while “Sherlock Holmes,” “Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel” and “It’s Complicated” all opened. > > **“Avatar,” the 3-D epic, topped them all, earning $75 million for 20th Century Fox, according to studio estimates Sunday. Remarkably, that was only a 3 percent drop from its opening weekend total of $77.4 million. (Blockbusters typically drop 30-50 percent in the second weekend.) In its 10 days of release, “Avatar” has made $212 million domestically – and could be on its way to a worldwide gross of over $1 billion**. > > “This thing is going to be playing and playing, I can tell you that,” said Bert Livingston, 20th Century Fox distribution executive. “There’s a lot of business out there. Everybody’s got good movies out.” > > In second was “Sherlock Holmes,” Guy Ritchie’s reboot of the franchise with Robert Downey Jr. starring as Arthur Conan Doyle’s detective. The Warner Bros. film opened with a weekend total of $65.4 million, including a record Christmas Day debut of $24.9 million. > > …[much more at link, very interesting stuff] Good for Avatar, and dammit, good for Guy Ritchie! This next week is going to be delightful. > [@](#): > > The sparkling Christmas weekend results spelled good things for all the films in release in the coming week – one of the most lucrative of the year. > > “We all know what next week means to the industry. This is … huge,” said Nikki Rocco, head of distribution for Universal. “Christmas is past us. No more shopping, no more returning. College kids are home. … I’m so optimistic about what the next weekend holds for us.” > > Said Livingston: “Starting this Monday, every day is a Saturday.” > [@Red\_Barchetta](#): > > Did you not see the portion I bolded? A movie from the first-person perspective? You know what movie last tried that? Doom. I was joking, but yeah, I didn’t get that. (I didn’t see Doom) ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatar-now-that-youve-actually-seen-it-no-spoilers-in-op/521626/356 "2009-12-27T23:30:35Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > He very deliberately avoided the shock-and-awe factor. He wanted to draw people into the world as though you were looking through a literal window at the reality outside, rather than have things floating and zooming around in your face. It made it more accessible and real. It felt like a place I wanted to visit, rather than something flashy and just for show. When I say shock and awe I’m talking about visually breath-taking. This movie had way too much motion blur to appreciate much of the 3D effect. The only thing creative was the scenery and that was lost to 3D. Good photography constitutes many things and doing this in 3D does not mean objects wizing by you for the sake of depth. For it to be appreciated, it needs to incorporate all the faucets of regular photography. > [@GuanoLad](#): > > If there’s anyone who understands “stereo-vision” it’s James Cameron. After all, after studying it intently for ten years, he had to invent a whole new, more practical camera system, pretty much by himself, to achieve what he wanted. I’ve been involved with 3D and panoramic photography far longer than that. the fact that he put together a better camera system is a technological achievement, not an artistic one. There is no artistic merit in this movie beyond scenery development. At best, it deserves an academy award for best in-depth parody of a space western. The first Star Wars movie was campy and fun. Avatar, not so much. I was expecting great things from the creator of the first 2 “Terminator” movies. Cameron made great use of special affects without destroying those movies. I was really looking forward to seeing what he would do with 3D as the next generation of computer generated special effects. This movie represents a huge technological achievement and the money invested in it can be compared to that of “Forbidden Planet”. It paves the way for future movies. It also paves the way for 3D television, which will in turn cater to 3D games. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2009, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatar-now-that-youve-actually-seen-it-no-spoilers-in-op/521626/357 "2009-12-28T02:35:20Z")
I thought it was beautiful. The plot was very basic, and there were some moments of clumsy dialog, but it was moving at the points that mattered. The entire scene of Hometree’s destruction was very compelling, forcing me to climb inside the perspective of all the people imperialist humans have displaced and destroyed throughout history. I thought the female protagonist was the best actress. Her anguish was palpable. I loved the creatures great and small. I believed every moment. And in a film that is almost entirely CGI, that is no small feat. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2009, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatar-now-that-youve-actually-seen-it-no-spoilers-in-op/521626/358 "2009-12-28T02:41:46Z")
How many aliens were based on human actors? ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2009, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatar-now-that-youve-actually-seen-it-no-spoilers-in-op/521626/359 "2009-12-28T03:56:00Z")
Just saw it in 3D. Apologies, but I read this thread up to about page 6 or so, 250-ish posts, so I’m not completely up to date on the bickering, but I wanted to write some impressions. I liked the movie a great deal. The visuals were cool as heck, the aliens and other animals moved believably in very cool ways. The humans’ armor and other tech were interesting as well, although I agree with the notion up-thread that we’d have some (more) amazing tech long before star travel, and the human tech seemed like Aliens v7.0. But what the hell, I liked Aliens, so I can forgive this. I don’t see this movie being the generational shift that Star Wars (among other movies) was, no more so than seeing Wall-E in 3D. Its a cool movie, I found it hugely entertaining, but IMO not tectonic. One very small thing that really lost me: at what point did Grace (and Norm) gain acceptance by the tribe? Jake was reputedly the first and only human accepted by the tribe, and a big deal was made of this. It took him months of his time to do so. Somewhere late in the movie, the next thing I know the Grace avatar is running around the tribe area in an upscaled jogging outfit trying to help the tribe, and later the Na’vi shamen is trying her best to heal Grace and bind her to the tree-entity. Why would the tribe give two shakes for this “dream walker”? Did I miss a scene? ---
**Author:** ![Tangent](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tangent/32/3098_2.png) [@Tangent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tangent)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2009, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatar-now-that-youve-actually-seen-it-no-spoilers-in-op/521626/360 "2009-12-28T04:04:24Z")
> [@squeegee](#): > > at what point did Grace (and Norm) gain acceptance by the tribe? Jake was reputedly the first and only human accepted by the tribe, and a big deal was made of this. It took him months of his time to do so. Somewhere late in the movie, the next thing I know the Grace avatar is running around the tribe area in an upscaled jogging outfit trying to help the tribe, and later the Na’vi shamen is trying her best to heal Grace and bind her to the tree-entity. Why would the tribe give two shakes for this “dream walker”? Did I miss a scene? Well, we were shown that Grace had been working with the Na’vi for years. She apparently had even run a school for the Na’vi children that had been shut down sometime before the events of the movie. So while she hadn’t been made a full member of the tribe like Jake was, they knew her and were somewhat accepting of her already, before Jake ever showed up. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatar-now-that-youve-actually-seen-it-no-spoilers-in-op/521626.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatar-now-that-youve-actually-seen-it-no-spoilers-in-op/521626.md?page=19)