You’re missing the point I’m making. Yes, much of the memes in Avatar are derivative. There are similarities all over the place. But, these similarities are only apparent because the script and direction took the time, an assload of it, to flesh out those similarities. By making the Na’vi recognizable as proto-Indians it shortens the amount of time it takes to explain them. The viewer is able to infer a lot about them that would otherwise have to be detailed specifically if they were vastly different. Dune is a good example. The races and politics are so god damned intricate and unfamiliar that the movie adaptation borders on the incomprehensible.
Movies that devote themselves entirely to the development of character, the vast majority of them in modern Hollywood, are expected to be deeper and more complex. Expecting the same from Avatar is unrealistic.
Lord of the Rings was a 9+ hour epic and it still didn’t manage to avoid a few flimsy stereotypes and cliched memes and it had the luxury of building on a generations old story and an mythology that is firmly established in our culture. It didn’t have to spend a second explaining what a Elf was.
I agree that Avatar was a little too preoccupied with keeping the kiddies (and terminally dumb) engaged and interested for the sake of profit, but teh detractors are simply losing perspective. Star Wars is paper thin, derivative and fairly retarded in treatment of human emotion but that doesn’t mean it’s not a perfectly enjoyable movie that put the onus on wonder, eye-candy and a fantastic made up world.
The story is a meh for me, and its extreme cliche use of the genre doesn’t stir any emotions in me. I am moved more by plot and story-telling than great visuals. A poor plot can be extremely well-told and it is still an entertaining movie. For me, Avatar failed my bar for story-telling (execution) and plot. The graphics are impressive, but I wished they have used it for a wilder story.
(Such as? I was hoping for a high fantasy vs. high-tech kind of movie during the starting minutes. Then it turns out to be cowboys-in-space vs. Indians-with-flying-horse and my approval rating drops by 30%).
But you just said the movie didn’t have time for character and plot development, because it was too busy explaining an entirely new universe. Which is it?
Can somebody explain what was so special about the Avatar special effects? To me they didn’t seem any more spectacular than other movies from the last decade.
Was it the 3D? Then I say meh. That’s just stereographic rendering/recording, and was mostly distracting anyway.
I said it didn’t have time to delve deep into character development instead settling for derivative characters. Still, explaining the context of derivative characters takes longer than explaining nothing like a movie set in the real world. Explaining the new universe while allowing the audience to revel in the 3D eyegasm for stretches limits what they can do and they had to settle for something concise.
I really needed this thread – Let me explain. Even tho I spout my opinions at the drop of a hat, I don’t really have much confidence in them. Therefore I feel somewhat validated that strangers on the internet agree with me that Avatar wasn’t all that hot. So good to know I’m not alone. Seriously, those reviews that said it was going to change filmmaking…How exactly? Personally I was more impressed by the use of effects in “District 9”. and more emotionally moved by the natives v evil white guys in “Little Big Man”
For what it’s worth, I thought that Avatar was not good at predicting future technology. It’s supposed to be set 150 years in the future. Most of the technology in it looks, at most, to be from about 50 years in the future with only a few exceptions. The most important exception was the idea that it will be possible to build and control a body. Another one is the transportation to this distant star. Were they using faster-than-light travel, or is the star close enough that they can get there just using slower-than-light speeds and suspended animation? I don’t know if any of these ideas will ever be possible. Also, I think that the aliens look too much like humans. I know that this is so common in TV and movies that it’s hardly worth discussing, but there’s no reason to think that aliens would look so similar to human beings.
I think the Crazed Leader was more subtle than most. If anything the strictly military’s story is about the banality of evil rather than a violence-crazed culture.
I would agree that the specific way the corporation interacted with the military is pretty cliched (even if the corporations relationship with the government is not). But while the chief military guy is indeed bloodthirsty when actual combat is occuring, his bloodthirstiness seems so petty compared to the other forces around him that it diminishes him rather than making him into the Big Bad.
For all the talk about the “new 3-D” Cameron had invented I was not impressed.
The elements compossed on the screen had various depths (foreground, midground, background) but the elements themselves were flat. It was like watching a pop-up book. 3 dimensional layering of flat objects.
Gosh, your well-argued straw man is completely convicining!
It makes your point so much better leaving out how the film had to explain the Thanator, Banshee, Greater Leonopteryx, and Tree of Life as well as the Na’vi and their culture, to make sense of the climax. Plus brief showcasing of the Viperwolves and Dire Horses.
And that whole Eywa thing. Yep, no time needed to cover alien stuff.
Your use of Star Trek as an example of “interesting races with different emotions and social structures” was particularly inspired. Who knew ear prosthesis and rubber foreheads could be so deep?
Did you just get an Internet connection to the rock you’ve apparently been living under? Every thread on Avatar since before the film released has been stuffed full of the same whining. Rest assured, you’re right smack in the middle of the rest of the herd on the Internet.
Christ, yes.
Star Wars was even more paper-thin on plot, cardboard cutout stereotypes for characters, and fairly poor acting (other than a few standouts). No one expects Citizen Kane out of Star Wars. Nor Avatar.
Can you link to the threads you’ve been reading? All of the threads that I’ve seen on this subject include a liberal sprinkling of caveats, even from people who criticize the film on a dramatic level, that nonetheless it’s a technological achievement of unparalleled scope.
Yeah, scarred general dude was definitely my favorite character. Hell, I found him more sympathetic than the main character! From his perspective–and the perspective of most humans not deeply involved with Na’vi research–he was being completely reasonable. I mean, he gave them time to negotiate. We see that he was not the sole aggressor–there was fighting from both sides, and his first few lines establish that the humans were under fire from the start. He can’t very well leave–rich business guy wouldn’t allow it–so from his perspective the only way to secure safety to his men was to attack and counter-attack. In the end. After years of protracted negotiation. And even after he decides to counterattack, he doesn’t even try to kill them all. His first thought is smoking them out. Then, when that is shot down, he aims to demoralize them by attacking (what he sees as) simple landmarks, which would (again from his perspective) inflict much fewer Na’vi casualties then direct combat.
Compare that to Jake, who, after it is established that it is critically important for everyone, including himself, to do one thing, completely ignores that task in favor of one night of sex. And then, after he gains the trust back that he rightfully lost, his big plan is–gather everyone together, make a desperate charge. Which, of course, massively increases the Na’vi death count. If Eywa hadn’t intervened, Jake–not General Dude, Jake–would have been responsible for the mass extermination of the Na’vi.
Lightray - If there was a herd on the internet that was anti-Avatar, I wasn’t aware of it. I was referring in my previous post to Real Life, wherein everyone I know who has seen this movie gushes on and on about how wonderful it is.
It was pretty to look at and fairly amusing but I found it quite forgetable and have no desire to see it again. Don’t understand it’s big profits.
Exactly. The first thing i said in this thread was “I enjoyed the hell out of Avatar.” Doesn’t change how i feel about the plot and characterization, though.
Ah. Having foolishly wandered into the echo-chamber of naysayers that Avatar discussions on the Internet are, believe me there are people whose gushing is not appreciative.
However, IRL everyone I know described it as “Wow. What a great movie, but…” (even me).
I think some people limit their own potential for a positive experience somewhat by arbitrarily defining ‘good cinema’ with numerous characteristics. The only thing that matters to me when I’m not trying to analyse a piece of art, be it music, literature, sculpture, painting or cinema, is whether it is pleasing, whether it entertains.
But I guess it’s fair enough if you will only accept enjoying a movie that has a strong story. I know people who will not listen to music that doesn’t involve distorted electric guitars, and I guess they’re happy with what they’ve got. I just think there’s a wealth of experiences out there that can be thoroughly enjoyed if you learn to shut off your pre-conceived expectations.
The story of Avatar isn’t particularly inspired and it is most certainly derivative of many others, but it’s perfectly functional as near as I can tell. I suppose it’s kind of like driving through beautiful countryside, it might have been a much better experience had there been better conversation and company, but at least you didn’t break down and come on, it was beautiful scenery, wasn’t it? Not every journey should be enlightening or a deep exploration of the human condition, sometimes you just want to gaze out of the window.
Of course, de gustibus non est disputandum and all that. And if all Cameron was trying to do was entertain I think folks wouldn’t talk about it. But the movie hasa thick veneer of IMPORTANT MESSAGE that simpy does not resonate and in fact harms the movie. So I think what you are seeing is that folks like the movie for reasons you state, as “eye candy” for the most part, but once they leave the theater they realize that the actual movie itself is pretty empty. And there is nothing wrong with that, in actuality. That can be a good movie, but IMO not a great one. Movies can be purely visceral in the moment, but greatness goes deeper than that, IMO.