Avatar (movie): Your thoughts…

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    So… how do people feel about this film? I am curious.


  • @LHoffman:

    So… how do people feel about this film? I am curious.

    I didn’t see it, but I heard some extreme right-wingers hated it since it was anti-imperialist and advocated environmental conservation

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @calvinhobbesliker:

    I didn’t see it, but I heard some extreme right-wingers hated it since it was anti-imperialist and advocated environmental conservation

    The movie was very overt in its political agenda, so I wouldn’t say you had to be an “extreme” right-identifier to not like what it presented allegorically.


  • @LHoffman:

    @calvinhobbesliker:

    I didn’t see it, but I heard some extreme right-wingers hated it since it was anti-imperialist and advocated environmental conservation

    The movie was very overt in its political agenda, so I wouldn’t say you had to be an “extreme” right-identifier to not like what it presented allegorically.

    Well, I guess in the US you’d be right. In the UK, I think the conservatives are more to the center(for example, the Conservative party wants to expand the NHS)

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @calvinhobbesliker:

    @LHoffman:

    The movie was very overt in its political agenda, so I wouldn’t say you had to be an “extreme” right-identifier to not like what it presented allegorically.

    Well, I guess in the US you’d be right. In the UK, I think the conservatives are more to the center(for example, the Conservative party wants to expand the NHS)

    NHS? … as in National Health Care System?

    Yeah, I do believe most European “conservatives” are much more progressive than their American counterparts.

    And since I don’t want IL to shoot me…  Back to the movie


  • @LHoffman:

    @calvinhobbesliker:

    @LHoffman:

    The movie was very overt in its political agenda, so I wouldn’t say you had to be an “extreme” right-identifier to not like what it presented allegorically.

    Well, I guess in the US you’d be right. In the UK, I think the conservatives are more to the center(for example, the Conservative party wants to expand the NHS)

    NHS? … as in National Health Care System?

    Yeah, I do believe most European “conservatives” are much more progressive than their American counterparts.

    And since I don’t want IL to shoot me…  Back to the movie

    I think it stands for National Health Service


  • Isnt it the same story as that disney cartoon Pocahontas.

    I like 3D, but Avatar has the same plot and stupid dialogue as alot of other hollywood moives nothing particularly cool or intersting about the battle scenes either.

    I have never heard anyone accauly say why they liked it except its in 3D or its “revolutionary”.

  • Official Q&A 2007 AAR League

    I enjoyed it. It is a fairly standard story but I rather like that particular story and it was told very well. I like stories where the ‘good guys’ win. I found myself very immersed and never questioned whether the Na’vii were ‘real’ and I was rooting for them out loud by the end. Cameron certainly understands the grammar of cinema.

    It is a wonderful technical achievement even only seeing it 2D but I’d hardly say revolutionary. Although my GF said, “This must have been what it was like seeing Star Wars in 1977.”

    It is a solid film by any objective cinematic standard.


  • What I did not understand about the movie is that it took place in the future right? Humans can now travel long distances in space, but when it come to war apparently they still have to bomb a target like they did in world war II!!! fly over the target and release the load!! seriously?!?! your in the future, now-a-days you can destroy a target from hundreds of miles away…anyways aside from that i enjoyed the movie.


  • For those who have not seen the movie I am referring to the battle seen at the end of the movie.

  • '10

    @Emperor_Taiki:

    Isnt it the same story as that disney cartoon Pocahontas.

    I like 3D, but Avatar has the same plot and stupid dialogue as alot of other hollywood moives nothing particularly cool or intersting about the battle scenes either.

    I have never heard anyone accauly say why they liked it except its in 3D or its “revolutionary”.

    This movie had a lot of great special effects and the color photography was great. But the story line reminded me of the movie DANCES WITH WOLVES where they made the army look like a bunch of dolts. In Avatar it was the Marines that looked like dolts or maybe it was former Marines that were now merceneries I am not sure which.


  • @Fishmoto37:

    @Emperor_Taiki:

    Isnt it the same story as that disney cartoon Pocahontas.

    I like 3D, but Avatar has the same plot and stupid dialogue as alot of other hollywood moives nothing particularly cool or intersting about the battle scenes either.

    I have never heard anyone accauly say why they liked it except its in 3D or its “revolutionary”.

    This movie had a lot of great special effects and the color photography was great. But the story line reminded me of the movie DANCES WITH WOLVES where they made the army look like a bunch of dolts. In Avatar it was the Marines that looked like dolts or maybe it was former Marines that were now merceneries I am not sure which.

    So they didn’t call it Dances With Smurfs for nothing 🙂


  • Decent movie. Special effects do little for me these days. I thought the political agenda of the movie wasn’t drowning, like Day After Tomorrow.

    I was glad I saw the film in theater.


  • @ABWorsham:

    Decent movie. Special effects do little for me these days. I thought the political agenda of the movie wasn’t drowning, like Day After Tomorrow.

    I was glad I saw the film in theater.

    Day After Tomorrow can go both ways. It is critical of climate change, but it gives the impression that the scientists who warn us of global warming are greatly exaggerating


  • @Emperor_Taiki:

    Isnt it the same story as that disney cartoon Pocahontas.

    I like 3D, but Avatar has the same plot and stupid dialogue as alot of other hollywood moives nothing particularly cool or intersting about the battle scenes either.

    I have never heard anyone accauly say why they liked it except its in 3D or its “revolutionary”.

    I like Avatar.

    But about this                                    ^
                                                          l

    Someone once told me that you can only find kids movies that are in 3D (6-10)

  • Official Q&A 2007 AAR League

    @calvinhobbesliker:

    @ABWorsham:

    Decent movie. Special effects do little for me these days. I thought the political agenda of the movie wasn’t drowning, like Day After Tomorrow.

    I was glad I saw the film in theater.

    Day After Tomorrow can go both ways. It is critical of climate change, but it gives the impression that the scientists who warn us of global warming are greatly exaggerating

    :roll: Sigh.

    For those interested.

    And just in case.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    I found myself questioning what was so cool about the movie after I saw it. Unfortunately (for those who like it) I don’t have many positive comments about Avatar.

    The storyline was unimaginative. The effects were nice, but having almost an entire movie of them makes it seem a little hollow. I found the ‘moral of the story’ to be inescapable and distracting. Many of the characters were very one dimensional and the storyline was likewise predictable.

    The Art Department was creative and thus movie was visually well done… other than that, I do not see this film warranting $1 billion plus in sales. The movie doesn’t lend itself to being a masterpiece of cinema… or even a good film. Sorry James Cameron.

  • Official Q&A 2007 AAR League

    Someone mentioned that no one could say what they liked about it beyond the cool effects but I’ve found that everyone who didn’t like it mentions not liking the ‘moral of the story’ component of the film.

    At least with Avatar unlike a lot of things I’ve seen lately I’m pretty sure those who have the opposite take on it than I do saw the same film I did unlike STINO and Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood.

    I find Metacritic a valuable site.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @frimmel:

    Someone mentioned that no one could say what they liked about it beyond the cool effects but I’ve found that everyone who didn’t like it mentions not liking the ‘moral of the story’ component of the film.

    Yes, I found the “moral” to be distracting as I said… whatever message Cameron was trying to send simply brought me back to reality. It didn’t keep me on Pandora. That was not the only thing I didn’t like, but it certainly wasn’t the smallest of its problems.

    @frimmel:

    At least with Avatar unlike a lot of things I’ve seen lately I’m pretty sure those who have the opposite take on it than I do saw the same film I did unlike STINO and Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood.

    Whate exactly did you mean by this? I have seen Robin Hood also, and I am just wondering if you can clarify your statement so I can give you my take.

  • Official Q&A 2007 AAR League

    I have been doubting that objective criteria of artistic quality are known to people these days. I have seen a bunch of reviews even from critics I am familiar with (i.e. deem ‘fair’ even when I disagree) that just don’t bear any resemblance to the film I saw or come across as just being derogatory for the sake of being derogatory.

    I have seen stuff that has been given a pass (STINO) that was not extended to far less egregious errors in other films. Transformers for instance was seriously trashed but the script of that mess is tight compared to JJ Trek and yet to say this aloud is like speaking another language.

    With Robin Hood it seemed to me critics ran it down mostly because it wasn’t Erroll Flynn and not on any particular lack of merit. I didn’t see most of the reviews as accurate or fair. I have seen a lot of this lately, judgment of a film passed on what was expected or desired. What I’m getting at here is whether or not a person ‘likes’ the film or gets what they want out of it has been having far too much of an impact on whether it is deemed ‘good.’ “I didn’t like it” =/= “It was a terrible movie.”

    To bring this back to Avatar and your claim that it wasn’t even good, I suggest that the film made you think and you didn’t want to do that and so the film is ‘bad.’ Given some of your other comments on the board I am not surprised that you didn’t care for the film and your opinion is in line with others who didn’t like it and share some of your opinions. I understand your criticism and it would seem ‘you watched the same movie I did.’

    Another example would be Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull which essentially committed the ‘crime’ of not being Raiders of The Lost Ark. The critics seem to feel very positive about it but the users are nearly split. I think the attitude of movie goers (what I like is good, what I don’t like is not) has been seeping into critics and movie goers have been making less and less of an effort to be objective.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    What is objectivity in art? I am under the impression that all art is subjective. Art, is an individual creation and is one of the most polarizing mediums of communication/expression, because not eveyone’s brain likes the same thing. It can be interpreted objectively, on the surface, based on general consensus, but if you do not care for the work you cannot delve in and explain to others how great it is. Every aspect of a movie is interpreted from the perspective of the reviewer. People don’t always agree. Yeah, Picasso was a great, revolutionary artist, but I cannot say that his works are good when I can find nothing appealing about them.

    If I want a good review (from my perspective) I find someone I know who likes the same kinds of films I do and see what they say. I trust their opinion far more than any professional critic. I have always tended to see movie critics in the newspapers and online as putting forth their opinion, their take on the movie anyway. So I always take their review with a grain of salt. Sometimes I really agree with what they have written (after seeing the movie)… sometimes I totally disagree.

    In my honest opinion, with all my personal feelings and stances: I found Avatar to be a horrible film. Yes, that is based on my political views, personal preferences etc…

    In my objective opinion: Avatar was a poor film. This is based on a non-political, strictly plot-story-intrigue-quality mindset. This view is influenced by embedded, personal ideas about what a movie should be like… But I believe that quality, engagment, creativity and the ability to inspire are pretty objective qualities that people think are all in a “good movie”.

    I can seperate the two, but for an overall view I combine them. In the case of Avatar, poor + horrible = pretty bad. That is my review. As for reasons, I have listed some, but when people want to know what I thought of a movie, I give them both aspects; my honest and objective opinions.

    I am afraid, that I do not catch some of your references, Frimmel:             Is JJ Trek = Star trek (JJ Abrams)?      I have no idea what STINO is.

    I saw Robin Hood and IJ: Crystal Skull… neither of which stood out as very good overall. But they were not very bad films either. Sort of mediocre.

  • Official Q&A 2007 AAR League

    STINO is Star Trek In Name Only referring to the JJ Abrams directed film from 2009 aka JJ Trek. Pretty much the first time I’ve ever gone, “Did anyone watch the same movie I did?” We disagree on Avatar but we don’t appear to have ‘seen’ two entirely different movies, we see the same moral and so forth but were affected differently.  In STINO I keep hearing about how true to the original Uhura the 2009 version is and I don’t understand how the characters can even be considered similar.

    Yeah, Picasso was a great, revolutionary artist, but I cannot say that his works are good when I can find nothing appealing about them.

    Look I’m probably in over my head trying to answer questions about objectivity in art which at best is I’ll grant a fluid concept. But objectivity in the sense I mean is separating how it makes you feel from how it might make others feel. I mean it in the sense of how well it conforms to conventional forms of structure or departs from convention in ways that set the work apart.

    If your sentence had been “Yeah, Picasso was a great, revolutionary artist, but I cannot say that his works are appealing to me.” I would say you see my point. Since you use your internal reaction “…I cannot say that his works are good…” to dismiss the outside reaction “great, revolutionary” I tend to think you do not.

    I sense a set of shifting standards on the part of both professional critics and movie goers. I sense a growing lack of ability to intellectualize and to see narrative structure and narrative elements beyond the viewer’s reactions to them. I sense a shift to giving precedence to internal standards and personal reactions which often extends to the point of denying that there can even be external standards.

    To bring this back to STINO I can clearly see how and why folks might like the film and why they may have enjoyed themselves. However I can not see how anyone can claim it is ‘good.’ While on the one hand it is terrific that most everyone had fun, it is appalling that so few saw thru the style and recognized the utter lack of substance.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    I do understand what you are saying, and I agree with you. No "but"s or exceptions here.

    When talking of Picasso, I did reference myself via my internal reaction to illustrate my point. That point being: I can recognize Picasso’s achievement, status, creativity and influence… but I would be seriously ill-advised to examine or “review” his paintings, because my internal reaction would show through whatever objectivity I was supposed to have… if I were presenting some sort of review. Being objective about something that is suppose to cause a reaction in you is very difficult. And I cannot be other than who I am. Though, this does not mean I cannot quell a crusade long enough to let someone else form their own opinion.

    As for narrative/literary/cinematic structure, and people not intellectualizing these days… I would say you are right. I do not read enough reviews to know as well as you would, but I find that people I talk to more, often than not, present their personal opinion of the movie and little if anything about its cinematic quality or the possibility for someone else to like the movie. When someone asks me how a movie was, I start off by giving a short, good-bad-ok-not very good statement. I give the movie as much brief positive credit I can. Then if the person wants to hear more, I will give more. So, I try to be open about it, “Yeah I didn’t like it, but maybe you will…” I don’t like how polarized some people are when presenting their thoughts to someone who hasn’t seen a movie. My approach is to give them the facts, let them watch it and discuss it afterwards.

    STINO … Hmmm, I cannot say I have heard it called that before, but it totally fits. I think this is the first subject that we both see eye to eye on: STAR TREK. (I must say that your avatar… heh, confusing term on this thread… your profile picture, is pretty cool… seems to suit you well.) I thought JJ Trek was… exciting enough. I use “exciting” somewhat grudgingly… It resembled the original Trek very little, other than the colored uniforms and the basic shape of the ships. I would say the movie was good, not very great, but it butchered what Star Trek is… or was anyway. I take it you don’t mind if I vent on this subject?


  • Well some real desperate people wanted to see it because of how blue women are not whereing all of there clothing!  :lol: :lol:

    Also watch how Transformers 3 will do without Megan Fox.

  • Official Q&A 2007 AAR League

    I am quite fine with hearing anything that isn’t glowing praise of JJ Trek. I personally thought it was horrible enough that JJ is officially on ‘probation’ as a creator.

    Did he have to steal one of the worst bits from one of the worst Star Wars movies? shudder

    Saved this from a talkback on Ain’t it Cool News. Format is as found so sorry if its tough to read.

    Is this Trek worth taking?
    by beneath_the_cowl May 11th, 2009 04:49:07 PM

    I saw it Friday night. it is a solid, well executed script. you could almost hear the screenwriters thinking as plot points clicked into place. definitely better directed than Mission Impossible III (JJ Abrams’ last big screen adventure). Lots of action, explosions, fast paced thrills and homages to the original series. BUT BUT BUT, I have to say at the end of it all, I felt like I had just been served a porcelain hamburger.

    It looked like the real thing and was artfully crafted in many ways to be better than a hamburger, with all its flaws, could ever hope to be. But at the end of the day I couldn’t eat it – it had no power to sustain me. When EVERYONE is raving about a movie, my gut tells me it’s feeding into the cultural mandates and norms of our day, which usually means something is lacking. And in this case, what was lacking was Star Trek’s gooey moral center.

    These characters, although they have much to lose in the story, are never faced with any of the moral or ethical dilemmas that made the original series (or even some of the spin offs) what it was. In this film, without giving anything away, Kirk is basically rewarded for being a rebel. Flout authority at every turn and at the end you’ll be in command of your very own starship. Even the Kobiyashi Maru sequence is treated as a joke. And though Spock’s comments underscore the need for fear and respect in the face of certain death, we never see that lesson played out. The movie plays well on the “isn’t this cool that we’re reinventing Star Trek” level. And many times it REEKS of Star Wars, Episode IV, with Kirk as Luke longing for adventure. But a day later there’s a sadness in my heart that our culture is swept up in a story so morally and ethically vacuous.

    Sure it’ll make a ton of money and spawn sequels. But even there, we’ll see this new machine breakdown. This cast won’t have the staying power of the originals. They’ll get bored and want out of their contracts after 3 pictures, as is the case with this generation. And so what then, will Paramount reinvent the reinvention? Don’t get me wrong, it was wildly entertaining. And of the performances, Bones McCoy, Spock and Uhura stand out the most. Even Pike, as the last of a dying breed of noble Star Trek officers. Tyler Perry has a cameo, and it was nice that it was handled with dignity. Roger Ebert’s review pretty much nailed it. Overall I guess what I missed most in this film was a sense of Star Trek’s nobility.

    I always liked Star Trek because, although it was humanistic, there was a sense, in this dream of a new frontier, that this could be humanity at its best. I walked away saying I would never want to be on a ship with those spoiled brats. And if they’re boldly going where no man has gone before…let 'em go. Send me a postcard occassionally, but I’m not sure if I want to take the ride. Also, this movie suffers from what every other TV show that’s given the big screen treatment suffers from, namely, you can’t treat a film like this as an ensemble piece, it has to be one man’s story. And this film tries to be both Kirk and Spock’s story. It gives us an efficient plot to accomplish that, but in the end we barely scratch the surface of either man.

    I actually think I’d be much more excited about this if this were a reboot of the TV series rather than the film franchise. Yeah, I’d tune in to watch these guys on TV, maybe because I feel like there’d be time to really unpack some sweet character moments, and perhaps also because I feel like the actors themselves would have more of a long term commitment/investment in the property. But as a film franchise I feel like we will never really get to know these characters ever again.

    And, like I said earlier, I think the movie biz fosters a high turnover rate. I just can’t see this cast suiting up 20 years from now like the original Trekkers for a new slate of films. As exciting as it was, I think we’ve seen the best from Star Trek already. Because of the moral and ethical shifts in our culture, I don’t think the clarity and self-examination this pantheon of characters needs is even in our vocabulary anymore.

    Edit: break up the quote for easier reading. 🙂

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

61
Online

15.3k
Users

36.4k
Topics

1.5m
Posts