The first two Star Wars had broad appeal and high brow critics didn’t think it was awful either (though they disliked the effect they had on the movie industry). Yet everyone agrees that the films had shlocky elements, in more ways than one. Thus we have a puzzle, which is grist for discussion.
Apologies for not being clear: I’m not very good at lit crit.
Well, the U.S. in 2012 isn’t facing massive economic and environmental disaster, as the entire Earth as of 2148, according to the film itself. It mentions, almost in passing that Earth is in quite serious trouble, that (it’s implied) through greed and short-sightedness and general white-man stupidity that things are desperate. We’re not told specifically what unobtanium is for, but at “$20 million a kilo”, it’s worth considerably more than diamonds.
Anyway, I don’t think using nukes were called for. The events in Avatar is what prompts the considering of nukes, or at least more aggressive “ethnic cleansing” or whatever the 22nd-century euphemism is. Heck, given the genetic engineering necessary to create the avatars, I figure the humans must have enough knowledge of Na’vi genetics to create deadly pathogens. In any case, if/when there is a sequel, there will have to be handwaving effort (it doesn’t have to be much) to explain why the humans don’t just massacre the Na’vi. I suggest:
unobtanium is not as rare or valuable; maybe an alternative was found, or deposits found in the asteroids of the Centauri system
the discoveries made alongside the genetic engineering that went into making the avatars is being applied to solve Earth’s problems
Earth has engaged in a massive world war that has decimated its population, reducing demand for unobtanium
…and I’m sure there are other possibilities. Thing is, if the RDA corporation of the sequel is presented as having the same motivation as the RDA, then I don’t see why we should expect anything less than the 22nd-century equivalent of smallpoxed blankets.
I think you massively OVERstate how long these effects would last, especially in light of more pressing problems like, I dunno, Earthlings going extinct.
Oh, I think it could happen. It’s happened a few times just in the last thirty years, I see no problem with accepting that it might happen again in 150.
Well, actually, it’s not my argument, and never has been. I can picture this happening in the sequel (and I think I would need a pretty good reason why it wouldn’t), but there’s nothing gentle about that final battle. The humans were dropping whole palettes of plastic explosives, jerry-rigging their shuttle into a strategic bomber. It only looks “restrained” because, I assume, they didn’t have nukes, or some kind of Agent Orange or other WMDs.
Of course, nukes may be contraindicated anyway - they could destroy the very resource the humans want.
Possibly true, but I don’t care. I dislike Avatar for a number of reasons related to its unoriginal and manipulative storyline. I was a little surprised at its massive popularity, but that doesn’t make me resent the film. I respect it as a technical achievement, but I also respect Tron, The Last Starfighter and Sky Captain, all of which were impressive technically but flawed dramatically.
We’re just going to have to disagree on that.
We’ll have to disagree on that, too.
There are ways to put a spin on the stereotypical colonial message, but Avatar pursued none of them. The “Indians” drove back the “Cavalry” and… I see no reason this story should end differently from the numerous historical versions that have played out for thousands of years. There are a few “natives win!” stories, like Leif Ericson at L’Anse aux Meadows, or French and Americans in Vietnam, or anybody in Afghanistan, but for the most part, natives don’t win.
Then I invite you to leave this thread, since self-reporting is pretty much all that is happening here. At the very least, we don’t have to make up stuff about Star Wars to defend it, much as you’re making up stuff about Avatar and declaring it as obvious fact that is “preposterous” to object to.
I have no real interest in remaining in this thread. I said my opinion in my first post and that’s all I felt the need to say. But I keep getting challenged by people to respond, so I have.
I’m not really making up stuff about avatar. I’m saying “the only logical outcome from the premise of the movie is that the humans commit genocide against the Na’vi, therefore the outcome as presented is a plot hole” is a stupid argument. You can argue it as a plausible alternative, but certainly not a mandatory one.
But the original trilogy did exactly the same thing. Either that or my copies are missing scenes where they explain what the Clone Wars were all about.
Does anyone imagine that 35 years from now people will be talking about Avatar?
No. Will anyone be talking about any movie from now in 35 years? Very unlikely. There’s not enough room to stand out to become a cultural phoenominon in the same way.
I think they said the same thing about books and scientific patents 100 years ago.
We can all agree that Star Wars was a technical marvel, right? Well ahead of its time. If you were to take any blockbuster today and transport it back to the 70s, it would be amazing. But today it’s just another blockbuster. The gulf between what has been done, and what’s technically possible to put on a 2d screen, is simply not that large anymore. We can already put everything we want onto a movie screen. We can only refine it. Revolution would require a major changeup in technology.
The gulf in technology between Star Wars and the average 1970s movie was larger than the gulf between blockbusters from 2010 can possibly be.
I don’t think anyone discounts that nostalgia colors people’s memories or enjoyment of the films. But that’s a far cry from stating that the reason the original trio seem great is purely nostalgia. That is the extreme position that you seemed to advocate, and several other posters have advocated, such as the guy who said “what made it great is I was 10.” That completely dismisses the opinions of numerous people who have at least as much insight as that guy.
There are a lot of factors that made the original trio great. Some are in the workmanship of the film, some are in the social setting that the film was released, some are the differentness of the feel, some are the creativity of the effects and the power they had. Sure, there are also flaws in the original trio, but overall the original three - especially the original 2 - stand up on their own merits as entertaining fun. They are a bit escapist, and that’s okay. They are engaging and fun. Sure, there are script lines that are clunky, but there are lines that are memorable. All of that creates a comprehensive whole that cannot be summed up by “nostalgia”, any more than it’s fair to say the answer is “Harrison Ford”. Yeah, he’s a great actor and really sold the role, but there’s far more to the films than him.
And yes, the prequels did not have the advantage of playing field. They were not new and original ideas, but trying to flesh out a previous entity and provide backstory. So it certainly is fair to state that they were at a disadvantage on that point. But the thing is, most people can look at those issues and account for them. But the flaws of the prequels are far greater than the flaws of the originals, and the merits of the originals are far better than the merits of the prequels. Those are objective statements.
So what if a bunch of movie industry insiders who viewed an incomplete (and from accounts sketchy presentation) of the film couldn’t see it’s merits? It didn’t fit the movies they were making at the time. But movie industry insiders aren’t gods - they’re subject to the same kinds of mental blocks that all humans are. They had their ideas of what people wanted, shaped as much by the cultural mileau as anything objective. So they missed how the public would be excited by and attracted to something different.
They even go so far as to say that riding the banshees is different than riding other animals like horses. Horses are interchangeable, but banshees are individual pairings.
As an outsider, and a nominal member of the antagonists, he has to do something extremely dramatic to prove his intent and his worth, to justify listening to him and following him. So it’s significant that he follows in the footsteps of one of their greatest heros and repeats a feat of exceptionalism to prove himself. That feat of exceptionalism could have been anything, but the movie chose to make it to take on and ride the last shadow, which normally preys on their banshees. Except, as you point out, what happens to his banshee in the process? Is it hanging out on the cliffs watching? Flying around following just because? Crying in it’s beer? It’s an odd choice to establish the emotional impact of the bonding, and then discard it so quickly, when the story could have used something different.
I know this id off topic, but:
In Avatar, humans apparently have the technology to create and grow these biological constructs that can be “linked” with the human brain for remote control.
Why couldn’t they regrow Sully’s legs?
(There may have been dialog to cover this, but I don’t remember it.)
IIRC, they promise him legs in exchange for his service.
Storytelling is storytelling, no matter the medium, or how you innovate the medium. While it certainly had the technical marvel going for it in its day, it was a novel application to the medium that worked to enhance the storytelling.
While some films today are more technically savvy compared to (or actually, because of) Star Wars, or some other stories are better in lieu of any huge budget-busting special/visual effects, you have to take in the holistic result of everything that came together for the original trilogy and not try to break down the elements and pinpoint them as, “Oh, see? That’s why they were so successful. Had that been done today, it would barely make a blip at the Box Office or register in the Pantheon of Cinema.”
And it’s this holistic result, which took everyone by surprise, (even the filmmakers themselves) and why, despite the movies being 30+ years old, and my 13 and 9 year old kids having been exposed to the onslaught of blockbuster CG enhanced entertainment these days, were just as mesmerized by the characters, universe, sound, visuals and music that is Star Wars like none other.
Except maybe Back to the Future.
That was a major plot point, even. It was entirely possible to repair his injury, but it was far too expensive for him to afford it on a grunt’s income. Dystopian futures aren’t generally big on socialized medicine.
Yes. Despite the technology being available, I believe they vaguely mention it’s an expensive procedure he couldn’t afford (or perhaps wasn’t eligible for in some other way?). Colonel Quaritch says if he gets him the intel he needs, he’ll be sure he gets his legs back (i.e. pull some strings with the higher-ups).
There’s another angle to address: the reason why Star Wars is so everlasting (which is subtly different from what makes it great) is because it succeeded at world creation. Or galaxy creation, really. It introduced this vast setting in which millions of stories could be told. Geeks and others who like escapism could transport themselves to that setting and very nearly live in it.
Star Trek hit the same notes with its setting, as have countless other stories which took hold; perhaps not entirely with the mainstream as those two have, but certainly in the genre circles. The Wheel of Time series has many, many flaws, but the majority of people I speak to who love the series (myself included) love it because of the setting. It’s one reason why Redwall endures so well, despite clearly being written for young teens. Even Avatar captured this desire to a small extent; some folk really got into Pandora as a setting, which Cameron tried to encourage.
The original Star Wars trilogy captured imaginations with its setting: the planets, the technology, the races, the overarching conflicts. It was executed in such a way as to tap directly into that part of our brain that most desires that, and did it very well. (Example: laser swords? Cliche, hokey pulp sci-fi. Lightsabers? BADASS.)
The prequels, on the other hand, turned the channel from Star Trek to C-SPAN. They replaced imagination with ledgers, fantasy with class lectures, conflict with politics.
The original Star Wars didn’t go over the top with the bizarre names. The prequels did, spawning dozens of silly-assed names that are clearly not “real” sounding. Before you jump all over me for that comment, “real” sounding, consider the names of the characters in the original films:
Luke Skywalker
Han Solo
Princess Leia
Obi-Wan Kenobi
Darth Vader
Three of those names sound kind of like real American names, but also kind of not. The last two are, respectively, kind of Japanese sounding and kind of German sounding, but again, kind of not.
Harlan Ellison was once asked what made a great story great, and his answer was “versimilitude.” Not “realism,” but seeming like it could be real. That’s a good way to describe the names above - they seem believable, even if no real people have them. They seem like part of our world, but kind of not.
Then take the names in the prequels and compare them. They sound much more ridiculous and “made-up.”
:smack:
That’s right. Dammit.
Kids, don’t grow old. It sux.
Word. Because when I think of someone named Dooku, I think of an elderly, dignified gentleman.
That struck me as odd at the time and in retrospect it sounds even dumber - I can’t imagine repairing his legs is more expensive than transporting him 4.5 light years and back. I daresay the cost of his treatment would be a mere fraction of that. I can understand why there might not be time to fix his legs before leaving for Pandora (figuring the interstellar shuttle is on a tight schedule), but I’d’a thought “fix my legs when I get back” would be something Sully would have in his contract.
If not, then he’s an idiot. If Quaritch wants to motivate him, I daresay appealing to marine loyalty would be sufficient, maybe throw in some extra anti-intellectualism, playing on lifetime resentment Sully had for his genius brother.
You have to remember, they already had a trip to Pandora, they already had a slot for him. It was just slated for his brother, who died. That is why they needed him, instead of anybody else, like, say, another scientist who actually understood culture and sociology and such. They had the avatar sitting there ready to be decanted and used, but nobody to pilot it. Enter replacement brother.
Yes, it was given that he was earning his leg replacement. I thought that was stated right up front. The Colonel was just trying to pull on whatever personal motivation he could to keep Sully anchored and motivated.