He played Ike Clanton in Tombstone and he was a semi-regular on Crime Story back in the '80s.
James Cameron's "Avatar" (grading and discussion)
- Thread starter chrisspringob
- Start date
He played Ike Clanton in Tombstone and he was a semi-regular on Crime Story back in the '80s.
Here's a question that I'm unclear about: When the Na'vi agree to take Jake into their midst, they do so in the hopes of "curing his insanity." What exactly are they referring to? His "split identity" between human and Na'vi avatar? Or something else?
When I heard that line, I kind of assumed that Jake would, somehow, "learn" how to exist solely in his Na'vi body through the sheer force of his own spirit. That was undone a bit by the ending ritual (yes, I know, he still had to have strength, but the ritual implied more physical strength than spiritual strength).
Any thoughts?
When I heard that line, I kind of assumed that Jake would, somehow, "learn" how to exist solely in his Na'vi body through the sheer force of his own spirit. That was undone a bit by the ending ritual (yes, I know, he still had to have strength, but the ritual implied more physical strength than spiritual strength).
Any thoughts?
"His insanity" may have been refering to all of humanity through him. That being the need to destroy and/or relocate a group of people off of their home on their own fucking planet.
I thought it was pretty tame. Also, I was surprised that he wasn't more curious about Na'vi sex.
Humans are filled with all sorts of thoughts, ideas and attitudes that keep them disconnected from nature. That's the "insanity".
They really should've added an additional dimension to the native's sex by connecting their firewire-ponytails to give eachother the visceral, profound, experience of their partner's feelings, emotions, and sensations during the intercourse.
Had this movie been a "harder" PG-13 or even R Cameron really could've made a prodound, wonderful, shared sex scene there where they both felt sex from the other's, as well as their own, prespective of emotion and sensation. Setting this to the always great Horner score, some great -tame- visuals and it could've been made into a real moving scene.
Or, hell, go further and have them "jack into" the planet and then let them experience each other's side of love-making through nature. So it doesn't just feel like the relatively shallow experience of just two people making love, but that you're making love to nature, to the point the bioluminescence of the area they were in creates a light-show along with the passion and emotions, and all beings "connected" to nature around the planet at that point feel the love, and passion, of these two's love making. Really, make the experience of making love as being connect to the planet and nature.
^ yeah, I thought they were gonna do something with their tails. 
also wouldnt it make more sense for their nerve/wire ports to be in their tail tips(instead of their ponytails) since its actually connected to the spinal cord?
also wouldnt it make more sense for their nerve/wire ports to be in their tail tips(instead of their ponytails) since its actually connected to the spinal cord?
For what it's worth, Cameron already wrote such a scene
... As part of the film Strange Days. Which amusingly enough was directed by his ex-wife Kathryn Bigelow (they had already split at the time) - who now is a front-runner for an Oscar for directing (competing with Cameron). While Strange Days is very interesting and worth a watch (one of the few films Cameron has written and not directed), that particular scene is extremely disturbing, if I remember right, as a rape is involved. 
(the SF element is that experiences can be recorded, and played back to anyone - even live - so the victim is forced to experience it from the perpetrators POV) 
While such a sensual scene could have worked, it could also have failed badly. I think the fact that the Avatar scene works as well as it does, is how much we forget that they are CG characters due to the great work by WETA, Worthington, and most of all Saldana.
And thanks BTW, for the Stephen Lang film tips. I have seen Tombstone, but I guess I need to see it again now. I am also definitely going to see "Men who stare at Goats". Thanks!
Just saw Avatar this afternoon. Absolutely gorgeous setting, creature designs, vehicles, props everything. A total must see on the big screen.
But the story was just plain weak. The humans(aside from our plucky heroes) were completely stupid and mhahaha evil. The Navi were pure good, without a single flaw in any of them or any of their culture. It made the characters far more predictable and boring then they should have been.
And then there were the questions about the military tactics. In the end battle why do the humans land a force of groundpounders? I know the jungle battle looked amazing, but it was insanely stupid. C'mon Cameron, there was no reason whatsoever for those troops to be on the ground and every reason for them not to be there.
And then our sweet perfect Navi win and send the humans back to Earth. Well...if Unobtainium is really important, Earth will come back in force and the Navi are done, kaput, finished. Perhaps that'll be the story of a potential sequel.
But the story was just plain weak. The humans(aside from our plucky heroes) were completely stupid and mhahaha evil. The Navi were pure good, without a single flaw in any of them or any of their culture. It made the characters far more predictable and boring then they should have been.
And then there were the questions about the military tactics. In the end battle why do the humans land a force of groundpounders? I know the jungle battle looked amazing, but it was insanely stupid. C'mon Cameron, there was no reason whatsoever for those troops to be on the ground and every reason for them not to be there.
And then our sweet perfect Navi win and send the humans back to Earth. Well...if Unobtainium is really important, Earth will come back in force and the Navi are done, kaput, finished. Perhaps that'll be the story of a potential sequel.
I don't know about the jacking into all of nature itself, but what you have here with just the two of them would have been nice.
^ yeah, I thought they were gonna do something with their tails.
also wouldnt it make more sense for their nerve/wire ports to be in their tail tips(instead of their ponytails) since its actually connected to the spinal cord?
The animals had in their ears, so maybe these biological firewire ports were in several places on their body, and while hair covered the "pony tail" it's possible it was hair growing on a long "ponytail-like" appendage that grew out of the base of their skulls and it looked like, to us, a pony-tail.
We'll, I think adding the nature bit would've added more to the "we're all part of nature" element. And I mean, come on, don't you want to fuck nature? I mean, it's had it coming for several billion years now.
Dammit, every time I check out the showtimes at my local IMAX, it's always sold-out. Sure, I could go see it in the regular 3-D, but no -- I want my IMAX, dammit! 
Hopefully, I'll get the chance to see it in the next few days.
Oh yeah, and its numbers are pretty good. The $77 million opening is almost on par with what Star Trek did (actually, a bit better if you don't include the $4 million Trek made on the early Thursday screenings). Worldwide, its $241.6 haul makes it the 9th-best opening ever, just behind LOTR: Return of the King and ahead of The Da Vinci Code. As for where it currently stands in 2009: domestically, it is the 35th highest-grossing film of the year; globally, it's the 21st. I expect it'll climb the lists fairly quickly.
Hopefully, I'll get the chance to see it in the next few days.Oh yeah, and its numbers are pretty good. The $77 million opening is almost on par with what Star Trek did (actually, a bit better if you don't include the $4 million Trek made on the early Thursday screenings). Worldwide, its $241.6 haul makes it the 9th-best opening ever, just behind LOTR: Return of the King and ahead of The Da Vinci Code. As for where it currently stands in 2009: domestically, it is the 35th highest-grossing film of the year; globally, it's the 21st. I expect it'll climb the lists fairly quickly.
Thespeckledkiwi
Vice Admiral
I'm sorry, but I think you need to check your ticket stub, and ask the theater for a refund. Because you clearly were shown a different film than the rest of us.
- No motivation? Most characters from the outset had very different motivations. (Jake, Grace, Quaritch, RDA guy, Neytiri)
- No conflict? I guess the RDA/Na'vi and Security Forces/Scientists has no conflict. Sure.
With your first statement (about Avatar = Titanic) and now this... The evidence seems to point to you trolling rather than being interesting in a discussion.
Titanic had a lot more visuals than plot. Just like this movie.
- No motivation whatsoever. It was paper thin and very, very cliche.
- No conflict at all. So you got cookie cutter bad guys and good guys.
- It was also overly preachy. Ohhhhh bad corporate.
I would have liked to see that this planet actually offer something beneficial to Earth and the conflict being the fact of survival than, oh a rock worth 20 million a kilo...let's displace a bunch of native people.
That would have been a lot better if they had that sort of conflict. But nope. It's the same cookie cutter thing. Humans are bad, displacing the natives.
Surely you misunderstand me. I didn't say the movie was flawless in every way. In fact, I didn't rate the movie as Excellent; I thought it was pretty good overall but not quite exceptional. I just think people shouldn't take these types of movies seriously (I certainly don't) and thus lower their expectations a few notches.
Thespeckledkiwi
Vice Admiral
Why though? I didn't have any expectations whatsoever for this movie going in.
So why are you complaining? You went in expecting nothing and got exactly what you paid for. It's not like Cameron or the theater owed you anything more than what you already knew you'd get.
Thespeckledkiwi
Vice Admiral
As I said, it was a very shallow movie. While, yes it was a beautiful work of art, it wasn't an entertaining movie.
there were a few movies this year I had no real expectations when I went in. I went in, was entertained.
Isn't that what movies are suppose to do? Be entertaining? That shouldn't be an expectations.
Well, one thing I'll never understand about some moviegoers is when they complain and bitch about how "terrible" a sci-fi/action/adventure movie is simply because it doesn't have a Shakespearean plot. They're really setting up themselves up for disappointment. Avatar isn't a perfect movie; it's not an awful movie either. It does deserve some acclaim for cinematography.
Or why they decided to fly at about 10 kph to the target zone.
Or why the colonel didn't bother to send out some of those attack rotors after the "good guys" when they fled the base. It isn't like it would be difficult to guess where they would head to.
Or why he's willing to lock up the avatar bunch but not the pilot who didn't go through with the attack on the tree. Didn't sign up for this? Actually, I think you did.
I thought this was an interesting read about the issue of censorship in Egypt. Credit goes to my boss for forwarding it:
Ebert: Egyptian Film Critic Saves "Avatar"
Ebert: Egyptian Film Critic Saves "Avatar"
^ yeah, I thought they were gonna do something with their tails.
also wouldnt it make more sense for their nerve/wire ports to be in their tail tips(instead of their ponytails) since its actually connected to the spinal cord?
Really? I was hoping for a little backdoor action, considering that's how cats do it.
