Avatar impressions part 2 -- spoilers ahead, you've been warned.

[bolddeceiver]

(Continued from my no-spoiler post)

The only major exception I take with the film is with the happy-ever-after tone of the ending.  I guess I've studied too much history, but that just isn't a happy ending.  Throughout history, indigenous peoples have used superior numbers and better knowledge of the territory to win battles against technologically superior invaders, but they've never won the war.

Just think -- what's going to happen when that ship gets back to earth, and they tell what the mean bad blue aliens did to them?  Suddenly we've got a "humans versus alien monsters" plotline, and the planet's mineral wealth is just gravy at that point.  Having "the spirit of the planet" on your side isn't going to help you much if they come back and bomb from orbit (or for that matter bring helicopters with spear-proof glass cockpits).

Sorry to be such a downer, but I just can't imagine any scenario where this turns out well for the good guys in the long run.

[bumdhar]

I liked it though it was a touch predictable at times. (The introduction of that big red flying creature (can’t remember what it’s called) you know he’s going to tame it….) All and all I thought it was a Sci Fi Dances with Wolves, but with a happy ending. But who knows this could be their Battle of Little Bighorn…The humans will be back. And Pissed.   

[Bdoomed]

It's really weird, most of the dialogue was cliche, the plot was pretty generic just put in a wildly different setting, and the acting was good but not amazing... yet I friggin loved it.  It really was due to the amazing effects, which sucks because that's exactly the kind of thing I hate about movies.  Hey the plot and everything suck but the effects are so good people will watch!  However with this movie I don't think the plot REALLY sucked or the dialogue REALLY sucked, they just weren't spectacular.  And, again, the landscapes were stunning.  I definitely enjoyed watching it.

My friend saw it again, this time in IMAX (which he said was ridiculously amazing), and he didn't like it so much the second time.  I guess the awe of the effects aren't so overpowering that the plot leaks through more.
My brother and his friend saw it and they walked out in an hour.  I think they are retarded.  I also think my brother's opinion is influenced in every aspect WAY to heavily by his friend.  (yesterday I overheard the guy pretty much lecturing my brother on blues music and the difference of it from today's more complicated music... DUDE you are 17 and in high school what the fuck do you know?  Take a music theory class or something before you run your mouth... not that I know anything more than he might but just sayin... but I digress.)  They also didn't see the movie in 3D... I feel that is a necessity.

[Heradel]

I don't know, I guess I'll be the lone voice of optimism here and point out that the invading force was a corporation, and I think it was fairly well proved that the cost-benefit analysis for that plant is pretty out of whack. Six-year interstellar space missions are expensive, and we don't really know what the state of either Earth or its government(s). 

As a historical aside, while no indigenous-tribal people has won in recent memory, there have been ones that won after aid was given (notably, the Russians in Afghanistan). Unless it's decided to just rod the planet from orbit I'm not convinced that a guerrilla war couldn't be mounted, especially now that they have at least six years to prepare and kickstart the Na'vi's tech level.

[stePH]

(Continued from my no-spoiler post)

The only major exception I take with the film is with the happy-ever-after tone of the ending.  I guess I've studied too much history, but that just isn't a happy ending.  Throughout history, indigenous peoples have used superior numbers and better knowledge of the territory to win battles against technologically superior invaders, but they've never won the war.

My thoughts exactly.  The Na'vi have won a reprieve, but I couldn't help thinking the humans would be back with a literal vengeance.

Oh, and "Unobtainium"?    If it were my film, I'd have called it "MacGuffinite" 

[cdugger]

... especially now that they have at least six years to prepare and kickstart the Na'vi's tech level.

12 + years. 6 to Earth, 6 back, plus planning/equipping.

And, what we aren't talking about is that there were more than one human that stayed. These could easily begin a technological revolution of sorts. The Na'vi would be stronger in the 13 or so years they have.

I, by the way, had the worst movie experience of my life in Avatar. I didn't know that the glasses were battery powered where I saw the movie. Thus, I thought that there was something wrong with the projector. And, not wanting to miss too much of the movie, I said nothing. 2 1/2 hours of feeling like I had my eyes crossed. Not fun.

[stePH]

I, by the way, had the worst movie experience of my life in Avatar. I didn't know that the glasses were battery powered where I saw the movie.

what WHAT WHAT?  Battery-powered 3D glasses?  That suggests to me that the lenses alternate being transparent or opaque with each frame of film, which would require precise synchronization with the film, which I don't see the way that could be done in a theater. 

My glasses were simple, passive, plastic.

[eytanz]

I, by the way, had the worst movie experience of my life in Avatar. I didn't know that the glasses were battery powered where I saw the movie.

what WHAT WHAT?  Battery-powered 3D glasses?  That suggests to me that the lenses alternate being transparent or opaque with each frame of film, which would require precise synchronization with the film, which I don't see the way that could be done in a theater. 

My glasses were simple, passive, plastic.

There are several 3D technologies out in the market now, most passive, but some active (I have no idea how the active ones work, but I'm pretty sure they exist for cinema use). I have heard that Avatar has been released in multiple 3D formats, so that different theaters can play it even if they are set up to use different kinds of glasses. Though I only have heard for sure different types of passive 3D are used, it may also be the case that some theaters, like cdugger's, which showed avatar using an active 3D.

[stePH]

There are several 3D technologies out in the market now, most passive, but some active (I have no idea how the active ones work, but I'm pretty sure they exist for cinema use). I have heard that Avatar has been released in multiple 3D formats, so that different theaters can play it even if they are set up to use different kinds of glasses. Though I only have heard for sure different types of passive 3D are used, it may also be the case that some theaters, like cdugger's, which showed avatar using an active 3D.

I've only been aware of active 3D tech used on computers, where a cable between the shutter-glasses and the computer allows synchronization between frames and shutters.  I've also heard it gives headaches when used for prolonged periods, like an hour or more.

For my money, the "Real-D" glasses were just fine, a massive improvelance over the last time I saw a 3D movie (over 20 years ago)

[Bdoomed]

I, by the way, had the worst movie experience of my life in Avatar. I didn't know that the glasses were battery powered where I saw the movie.

what WHAT WHAT?  Battery-powered 3D glasses?  That suggests to me that the lenses alternate being transparent or opaque with each frame of film, which would require precise synchronization with the film, which I don't see the way that could be done in a theater. 

My glasses were simple, passive, plastic.

i had the same reaction.

[stePH]

hey bdoomed, what's the plot device you mentioned in the other thread?

At first one of the plot devices bothered me, but then they made that device an integral part of the entire story, so it turned out just fine.

[Bdoomed]

how the girl was gonna kill him but the seed stopped her, and then the seeds also led her to take him to the village.  It bothered me at first that some superstition was driving the plot, but then it turned into a major topic so it's all good.

[eytanz]

I just saw avatar tonight. I found it pretty terrible (or, more accurately, terrible yet pretty). I guess they felt they had to balance the 3D visuals by making all the characters into 1D cartoons; everyone was obviously good or evil from the moment we met them. The cliche's were piled thick and high (you want to show that the female scientist is tough - have her demand a cigarette when we first meet her. But don't ever show her smoking on-screen!) And the lead was worst of all, as he had no personality at all - he just did what the plot dictated.

It was painful, but at least there were nice forests and floating islands to look at.

[Bdoomed]

yeah...
it was written in '94 tho, most of that stuff was passable at the time.  However it should have gone through a re-write.

[stePH]

Formulaic by-the-numbers story, and characters right out of Central Casting... Hello, this is James Cameron we're talking about!  Has he ever made any other kind of movie?

I've got slightly higher hopes for Battle Angel though, since he's adapting an existing story from manga.  And even if not, it'll still be an edge-of-seat action movie... this is James Cameron we're talking about, after all. 


[edit]
from another board:

[schmetterling]

In keeping with the Pocahontas post...

YouTube video mashup

[Planish]

hey bdoomed, what's the plot device you mentioned in the other thread?

At first one of the plot devices bothered me, but then they made that device an integral part of the entire story, so it turned out just fine.

It seemed that they kept dropping a lot of ("plot coupons"?) throughout the first half hour, in order to justify much of the later stuff.

- That little chunk of levitating ore sample on the guys desk -> floating mountains that jam electronics
- "Ooh, look, the roots are all connected" -> the planet is sentient, and can assembled herds of critters
- "carbon fiber bones" -> can survive falling from great heights
- "Low gravity" ->  can survive falling from great heights, flying creatures are more plausible.
etc.
I think the low gravity business backfired though, because people didn't walk right. They looked like they were walking in Earth normal gravity. OTOH, the zero grav scene on the transport ship at the beginning was pretty convincing.

Something I had trouble with was why didn't the helicopter-type ships have a wire mesh above the rotors? Seems to me all they had to do was drop a football-sized rock onto them from above, and they'd destroy themselves. My son went one further and suggested that they could have carried floating rocks on the ground below, and just let them fly up into the rotors. 

[Swamp]

OK.  I finally saw Avatar tonight.  I held out until we could watch it in 3D since I had heard such discouraging things about the plot.  So here is my evaluation:

3D technology - freaking awesome!  Holy cow!  We saw Journey to the Center of the Earth in 3D last year and it was all right, but Avartar's 3D kicked butt.

Plot - actually a lot better than I thought going in.  That's not to say that the characters had much depth or that there was much original going on, but going in with the lowest of expectations, I was impressed.  Actually, I think Zoe Saldana, playing Neytiri, did a remarkable job of acting, and was the jewel of the film.  I felt the same way about her in Star Trek.

Again nothing stunning about the plot, but very passable.  And even though the political message was rammed down our throat, the movie was still enjoyable and fun.  (I actually laughed when the Colonel was making his speech about a pre-emptive strike and fighting terror with terror.  They even threw in a "Shock and Awe" comment.  The corporate bottom line dictums were also groanable.)

However, I should wait and see how I feel when I watch it on DVD without the blow-me-away 3D.  I was also drawn in by Titanic when I watched it in theaters, but it didn't stand up to subsequent viewings.

[wakela]

However, I should wait and see how I feel when I watch it on DVD without the blow-me-away 3D.  I was also drawn in by Titanic when I watched it in theaters, but it didn't stand up to subsequent viewings.

I was thinking the same thing while watching it.  Despite the cliche and heavy-handed message, it was a blast.  But I don't see myself wanting to see it again any time soon.  While I've seen Aliens, Terminator, T2, and The Abyss dozens of times and would watch any of them again tomorrow (and think of the interesting characters and good lines in those movies). 

[Bdoomed]

I agree, I have no desire to see Avatar again.  It was way awesome when I saw it but that's mostly due to first impression awesomeness.  The novelty immediately wears off, I don't feel like I'd enjoy the movie again.

[Talia]

Man I have no idea what movie you naysayers saw, I saw it tonight (well, on IMAX and 3D ) and it was AWESOMELY EPIC

Yes the bad guy was a little one dimensional and silly but so frigging what! oh man. Absolutely loved it. I think what won me over was the fabulous depiction of Pandora and its inhabitants. I even thought the plot was fine. There were good guys to root for! Bad guys to hate! Tragedy! Romance! The whole shebang.

Absolutely 100% adored it. Will buy it on DVD.

[CryptoMe]

The Wizard of Oz and Gone with the Wind also had "just okay" plot lines, 1-D villains, and cliche characters. Those films were similarly visually stunning for their time and they are considered classics today. I'm sure there are many other films that could be added to this list.

So, who's to say that just because the plot wasn't jaw-dropping that Avatar won't stand the test of time?

[Talia]

You make an excellent point, particularly in reference to Wizard of Oz.

Its interesting to consider the term "classic." You say that and want to assume "oh excellent awesome movie thats great in every way" but clearly that's a bit silly in regards to films like Oz

I'd be happy to see 'Avatar' considered a classic someday (though I doubt I'll live that long,heh)

[eytanz]

You make an excellent point, particularly in reference to Wizard of Oz

Actually, I do not think the point is valid about Oz - I mean, it's a fair criticism from our current point of view, but I don't think that at the time the plot would have been considered cliche'd.

I'd be happy to see 'Avatar' considered a classic someday (though I doubt I'll live that long,heh)

Maybe it's my bias here, as someone whose enjoyment of Avatar was limited soley to a few scenes and - given that my verbal memory is far better than my visual memory, I can no longer reconstruct what I liked about it but I can easily reconstruct what I despise about it - but my prediction is that in a few years Avatar will occupy the same slot as Titanic does now in popular culture - everyone will be tired of it. We are too jaded as a society, the where the sense of "wow! that's new!" can be retained over years and generations, are gone. We may have never seen CG/3D at the level of Avatar before, but we have been conditioned to expect technology to wow us. Wizard of Oz, Gone With the Wind and Star Wars have all been monumental because people didn't know beforehand that they could be wowed. Who here on the forum, after seeing Avatar - regardless of their impression of it - isn't already starting to anticipate the next big thing?

[CryptoMe]

You make an excellent point, particularly in reference to Wizard of Oz

Actually, I do not think the point is valid about Oz - I mean, it's a fair criticism from our current point of view, but I don't think that at the time the plot would have been considered cliche'd.

I didn't say the plot was cliche, I said it was "just okay". But now that you mention it:
      Restless protagonist goes on epic journey, works hard to return to the comforts of home.
Hmmm, sounds like several Greek classic and European fairytale plots to me....