>Lastly, the native civilization confused me. They had warriors, but no one to go to war with.
I thought the idea was, like most tribal groups in the real world, they often fought each other for resources. Sure, they united against a common enemy, but that doesnt mean it was some peace planet.
I thought they did a good job of emphasizing that getting to Pandora is expensive.
That would only have compounded their crimes at the UN sitting they’re going to be hauled in front of now, anyway.
Humans don’t have carbon nanofibre bones…
Why would the military show up when it’s the private RDA who’s fucked up? Probably more likely, reparations are in order.
That all depends on how badly they need Unobtainium doesn’t it?
Now that Eywa has Grace’s intellect within her she should have a better idea of human technology and how it works. Jake can help them with the tactical aspects of it and clue them in as to military hardware. They have two scientists/technicians who stayed behind.
I’m hoping for organically driven railguns myself. 
Maybe I missed something in the setup, but where did the Na’vi think the avatars came from?
They spoke human english, wore human clothes, and knew nothing about na’vi culture.
Was it explained where they thought these avatars originated from?
[quote=“Cat_Fight, post:157, topic:521626”]
Speaking of Titanic…
The* Aliens/Transformers* robot body knife fight at the end (a robot has a knife? What?) QUOTE]
Why wouldn’t it? I think it’s a nice detail the suits were designed to be big robotic men, not mech with guns for hands. This was also a mining operation, so these suits can pull double duty, loading craft and working in the field using their articulate hands and scaled-up tools – like the knife. That really made sense to me that the guns were scaled-up and not attached to the suits. If a gun jammed it can be dropped, where a gun-limb would only be a club.
I think they understood that they were alien technology.
Here’s what I’m having trouble understanding. Everyone (colloquialism) is saying the script is unoriginal, essentially serving as a remake of some other movie. What I don’t understand is that I’ve seen so many different examples thrown around.
Some say it’s Dances With Wolves. Others have said it’s Fern Gully. Now we have “Dune in the Jungle,” and there are many others I’m missing.
Perhaps it borrows elements from all those films–I wouldn’t say that makes it unoriginal; no more so than any Tarentino film.
Theyre all examples of the hero of a thousand faces.
That said, I like hero myth stories, but I think the audience was expecting more or a deviation or challenge than what they got.
>Was it explained where they thought these avatars originated from?
Considering they used the terms ‘dreamwalkers’ and ‘puppets’, I think they understood the basic concept.
And most of them seemed very, very creeped out by it. Still they were apparently more succesful in field work that humans in masks were.
Which was sort of my point; any movie can be boiled down to its core structure, and in doing so, every movie is a rip-off of some other (if not hundreds or thousands) of previous stories.
The more I think about it the more annoyed I am making myself about the actual MacGuffin-esque nature of the Avatars themselves.
I dont think most movies can be boiled down to the hero myth. I mean, we cant fit 500 Days of Summer or the Big Lewbosky into that category.
Scifi/fantasy fans are pretty much always reading the hero myth story. They’re pretty resistant to it and expect a modern writer to really jazz it up or play with it in a way thats new, the same way I expect a modern rock song to not be a clone of 1950s rock. I think Cameron just delivered Johnny B. Goode to an audience expecting Radiohead.
We also got a standard melodrama. Bad guys vs good guys and not much exploration into their motivations and contradictions. If some negative parts of the Navi and some positive parts of human society and its need for this rock were explored I think a lot of people would have walked away a bit more satisfied.
That said, I loved this movie. I imagine its what people in the 1970s thought of Star Wars, but its appeal has more to do with technical achievement than anything else.
I get the impression that the authorities back home were forcing RDA to subsidize scientific research.
Which is why I made that joke about it being a cliche rehashing of ‘man vs man’.
Indeed, and I didn’t say such.
I meant that any movie can be boiled down to one of a small handful of basic themes.
I think you make the mistake in thinking that his audience is expecting Radiohead. A tiny fraction of his audience is expecting Radiohead. The other vast majority of it would have been turned off by Radiohead and it wouldn’t have made 232m in its opening weekend.
Perhaps, but I like to think even an unsophisticated viewer knows he’s being served something stale. This movie wont inspire people for repeat viewings, rentals, talking amongst friends, etc. I believe his Terminator movies, Titanic, and The Abyss did this because they did something right that Avatar did wrong. They didnt rehash yesterday’s movie, even if their themes were well explored by previous sci-fi works.
Shame really, a couple of twists, unpredictable betrayals, or any other quick and dirty complexity would have really helped. At least big blockbusters like The Matrix know this lesson. Cypher’s betrayal, the option of surrendering to the machines for a life of luxury, the machines telling Neo that the smell of humans is too much for them and that humanity is a virus, etc. Not much, but enough to toss the morality ball back and forth. With Avatar its just humans bad, aliens good.
2001 gave them “Radiohead” and they appreciated it. I wouldnt sell sci-fi audiences this short.
Sci Fi audiences are irrelevant to box office success, they are a tiny niche market.
Sure, but at the same time, they are the early adopters who tell their friends to see the movie. A lot of movies fail because sci-fi fans dislike it and dont recommend it. Word of mouth certainly has economic value and all the astroturfing and viral advertising doesnt help if the movie is poorly received by critics and hard core fans. Wolverine comes to mind. That should have been an easy blockbuster considering the popularity of the character and all the money tossed at it, but turned out to be a flop.
You can take this attitude on that audiences are stupid and will do whatever advertisers tell them but historically its wrong.