James Cameron's "Avatar" (grading and discussion)

[Gryffindorian]

Is it wrong that the "sex" scene between Jake and Neytiri turned me on?

I thought it was pretty tame. Also, I was surprised that he wasn't more curious about Na'vi sex.

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?

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.

I agree with you, Trekker. FWIW, I hear the special edition/Director's Cut DVD and Blu-ray will have an alternate sex scene.

 

[Thespeckledkiwi]

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.

Why though? I didn't have any expectations whatsoever for this movie going in.

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.

It's a terrible plotted movie. While I do agree that is does deserve a lot for cinematography, not for any of it's acting.

And it doesn't have to be Shakespeare but at least give it twists and not predictability.

I haven't had time really to write anything because I've been busy but here's some issues with the movie:

We get an ex-marine, that happens to have the same genetic code as his brother. Is whisked away to a planet (which we don't know anything about, but that isn't the biggest issue). Now here comes the problems:

First off, it's predictable the marine colonel would have him spy on the scientists and 'learn' the ways of the Navi. It's actually painfully predictable how this plot line goes. Guy has regrets and the colonel turns the table on him. You could also predict each and every plot turn that this is going to have. Not only that but the scientists know that he is spying on them. Furthermore, the stupid notion that the military still lets the scientists in their base without throwing their ass out or sending them God knows where.

Secondly, the whole plot with the Navi is horribly predictable. Let's see; girl hates 'new' outsider, they bond through montage, and then they get married or mated for life. Then he does something stupid, she gets mad, and then after something, they hook back up. Could they telegraph the whole bird thing even more than that? Anyone with half a brain cell knew that he was going to 'tame' that giant bird after they make an obvious statement about it. Then her beau, who she was going to get married with, the tough guy makes life horribly unpleasant for our outsider but they have a bond at the end, and become friends.

Third is the whole villian plot. Not just the colonel who was paper thin (which actually didn't bother me as much as...), but the 'corporate' guy. Not only preachy but very one dimensional. Oh! I'm a scary corporate guy, out to make a quick buck. I'm just going to displace these natives. I'm just going to give token statements about how much I like these people while trying to remove them. No internal conflict at all or any other conflict then just, evil natives, must displace.

Which leads us back to the natives. They are very simplistic, which isn't as annoying as how they are 'attuned' to nature. Again, anyone with half a brain cell knew that all of those creatures we were introduced to in the beginning were going to turn the tide and fight against the marines. Not only that but when the tide looks like the marines have won. There isn't any attachment to the Navi really other than they are being displaced.

Then we come to their nature tree. We all knew Jake was going to be 'reborn' into his avatar right after they tried with Weaver's character.

Then we come to Jake. I think one of my favorite parts of the movie is the actual scene of him in the wheelchair and the realistic showing of someone who is in a wheelchair and what happens to their legs. But Jake is a very thin hero. I mean, I didn't mind the whole Avatar thing at all or how he is the chosen one, if he wasn't why would we be focusing the movie on him. I think Jake is the least of the problems that this movie had.

It was shallow at best, with no plot twists or turn.

Personally, I would have added more depth to the storyline, even some maybe predictable twists that aren't conventional like the girl rejecting Jake because she is to be mated with the beau. Destroy the old tree. Kill Jake off. Something then a+ b = c storyline. Maybe a + b - c + e...but man this movie was absolutely predictable.

Maybe have an internal struggle between the marines. Seriously. These people felt like carbon copies. No personality there. Maybe the one that broke off and then died.

BTW one of my favorite movies in the last few years was the X-Files: I want to believe because of the internal growth of characters.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I don't know why we're arguing over something as subjective as whether or not we were entertained.

All I can say is, if you were too busy dissecting the plot to enjoy what's happening on the screen in front of you, you have my sympathy and I'm sorry you wasted your money. If you got exactly the kind of movie you expected going in, and you are still unhappy about it, I might suggest you choose your moviegoing experiences more carefully in the future.

 

[barnaclelapse]

Why the Na'vi might live happily ever after:

This planet, I understand, is in the Alpha Centauri system.

That means it will be 4 years before Earth even hears of the rebellion (2158).

About 5.5 years before the surviving Earthmen get back to explain what happened (2159.5)

Now let's assume that there are Earthlings who are going to take a strong "no war for unobtanium" stance, along with truly thinking conservatives who understand that the Na'vi were, in fact, defending their private property (which is the real message of this movie; don't steal shit that ain't yours, monkey boy) - the Company is going to have to deal with this somehow, along with the fact that nobody really likes losers. So funding for the Great Pandora Invasion Fleet is going to be somewhat difficult to come by, even if a Bush is President-CEO of Earth. So let's say, four years minimum to get all this put together, even if it's possible at all. Huge expenses involved here.

So really, is the Company going to glass Pandora, really? Are Earthlings really going to tolerate genocide? I doubt it. Right now, you have to have O2 masks to survive on Pandora; are you really willing to have your people work in radiation suits, too?

So assuming the glassing Pandora option is out, President George W. Bush V decides to invade. That means the mighty Earthling army will have to fight a bush war at the end of a 5.5 year long one way trip supply line, against a whole planet where the natives know the land better than you and can make their weapons right there...unlike you, General Halliburton, who has to have every single bullet and gallon of chopper fuel, every man and gun and helicopter, shipped to you over 4 light years of interstellar space.

Costly. VERY costly. And in the meantime the Na'vi are going to have at least a decade to develop better weapons, tactics and, also, to dig in.

I like your George W. Bush V touch. Very frightening.

 

[Trekker4747]

- [Titanic] was also overly preachy. Ohhhhh bad corporate.

Considering it really happened....

Destroy the old tree

Er... They did, or did you miss the big, action, set piece about three-quarters of the way through the movie that set-off the events going into the climax/third act?

Was the plot predictable? Yes. But, really, any movie you can do that with. In every movie you know the male lead and the female lead are going to hook-up. So, I guess, every single damn movie every made that has a male character and a female character in it is "predictable." (Look at Terminator. You telling me you didn't "know" that Resse would hook-up with Sarah Connor?)

I admit there's plot elements in this movie that are thin and predictable but, honestly, we can say that about pretty much any movie out there. As was said above, there's no original stories out there. Every story is predictable on some level just off-of how the whole notion of how fiction works.

You didn't like the movie, fine. But your reasons should make a bit more sense than "knowing" things will happen based on the fact that every movie ever made -with some, rare, exception- follows, more-or-less, the same pattern.

 

[FordSVT]

What I'm hearing is this:

Being a CG whore is a sin in these parts. Going to see a blockbuster movie that is weak on plot and clichéd through and through, and features mediocre performances just because the movie has great special effects represents everything that is wrong with Hollywood.

Unless you're going to see this movie.

I'm just trying to figure out how awesome a movie has to look in order for people to ignore how mediocre it is in other aspects. There is obviously such a line... would this movie be so "important" if it wasn't presented in 3D?

I'm not mocking here or judging the movie, but I think it's a legitimate question. If this movie looked like Final Fantasy I reckon it would be laughed out of the box office.

 

[Captain Craig]

What I'm hearing is this:

Being a CG whore is a sin in these parts. Going to see a blockbuster movie that is weak on plot and clichéd through and through, and features mediocre performances just because the movie has great special effects represents everything that is wrong with Hollywood.

Unless you're going to see this movie.

I'm just trying to figure out how awesome a movie has to look in order for people to ignore how mediocre it is in other aspects. There is obviously such a line... would this movie be so "important" if it wasn't presented in 3D?

I'm not mocking here or judging the movie, but I think it's a legitimate question. If this movie looked like Final Fantasy I reckon it would be laughed out of the box office.

I said the same thing, with a bit more gusto, some 14 pages or so ago. Lots of folks around here with double standards. It got under my skin because these folks seem to take joy in mocking other films for the same reason(s) they are praising Cameron's movie.

 

[Ethros]

Just saw it this afternoon


Frakking excellent


That is all

 

[Jono]

^^ There's also the director effect, certain directors seem to get more favourable treatment by the public and critics in general.

For example it would have been interesting to read the responses if this was Michael Bay's Avatar instead. Not that I have anything against Bay but he seems to be the most popular director to pick on in recent times.

 

[JacksonArcher]

I will be the first to agree that Avatar didn't have the most original story, but I thought the concept (putting yourself into another person's -- or alien's -- body) was very uniqe, if that makes sense. It's all about the execution.

Unlike Transformers, which I think is another film meant for pure spectacle, Avatar has visuals you can appreciate. The action is clear, precise and gorgeous, and not quickly cut, jumbled and a mess like the action in Transformers. Avatar has great acting, and an emphasis on story and character. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen had an emphasis on an overabundance of underutilized characters and a lack of coherent story.

I'm just using the Transformers films as examples. Avatar is a lot better than The Phantom Menace or a lot of other recent big event films because it takes time to develop its story, characters and does so in a mature and sophisticated way. I think that's why Avatar is getting praised whilst others are condemned. Avatar may not have the most original storyline, like I said, but nearly everything else makes up for it, so when you have things like that, I think it's a lot more excusable. People will tolerate that if the acting is good or the story is properly developed.

 

[AJBryant]

He played Ike Clanton in Tombstone and he was a semi-regular on Crime Story back in the '80s.

And Pickett in "Gettysburg" and Stonewall Jackson in "Gods and Generals."

 

[AvBaur]

I don't think the value of a movie can be judged solely by the criteria "story" and "effects".

So, ok, Avatar's story's a bit thin (personally, I quite liked it, though) and the visuals are amazing. Lots of other films meet those criteria, among them crapfests like the many films by Emmerich, Bay, and the like. But that's not everything there is to a movie. A big part of whether a film works or not is the directing. Even a weak script can be really entertaining in the hands of a great director. And Cameron is exactly that. He knows how to pace a story, frame a shot and stage an action sequence like few others. This, more than anything else, is what makes the movie engaging and exciting, whereas films like Transformers 2 or 2012 (which had scripts that were waaaay worse than Avatar's imho) become dull and annoying despite the amazing visuals.

 

[JacksonArcher]

I don't think the value of a movie can be judged solely by the criteria "story" and "effects".

So, ok, Avatar's story's a bit thin (personally, I quite liked it, though) and the visuals are amazing. Lots of other films meet those criteria, among them crapfests like the many films by Emmerich, Bay, and the like. But that's not everything there is to a movie. A big part of whether a film works or not is the directing. Even a weak script can be really entertaining in the hands of a great director. And Cameron is exactly that. He knows how to pace a story, frame a shot and stage an action sequence like few others. This, more than anything else, is what makes the movie engaging and exciting, whereas films like Transformers 2 or 2012 (which had scripts that were waaaay worse than Avatar's imho) become dull and annoying despite the amazing visuals.

I definitely agree. You pretty much said it better than I could.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

The story was cliche and pedestrian.

However, it was executed very competently. This was not a tale of moral ambiguity. We had clear heroes and villains. Pandora was well-realized.

I care less about what the story is and more about how well it is done. Even the most well-tread story is worthwhile if you tell it in an entertaining way.

As AvBaur said, it was also well-paced. It had plenty of foreshadowing. Nothing came out of left field, either. Everything fit together well and the story flowed pretty naturally.

And hey, it all looked really nice.

I don't know, maybe people are upset James Cameron has no sense of irony?

 

[Hyperspace05]

^^ There's also the director effect, certain directors seem to get more favourable treatment by the public and critics in general.

For example it would have been interesting to read the responses if this was Michael Bay's Avatar instead. Not that I have anything against Bay but he seems to be the most popular director to pick on in recent times.

If you seriously think that Bay is on par with Cameron... I don't know how I can respond to that. You just need to compare their films closer.

Now Bay is not a talentless hack (I have enjoyed many of his films... Just not recent ones) ... But when it comes to directing action (and characters), he is not even in the same league.

 

[Captain Craig]

I will be the first to agree that Avatar didn't have the most original story, but I thought the concept (putting yourself into another person's -- or alien's -- body) was very uniqe, if that makes sense. It's all about the execution.

The body/mind transferrance was the most unique part of the whole thing. But 2.5hrs later I(and others) are bored with that novelty cause the rest has been so 'by the numbers'.

Unlike Transformers, which I think is another film meant for pure spectacle, Avatar has visuals you can appreciate.

I'd argue that based on its $$$ and admitted repeated viewings many appreciated the visuals of the car-to-robot spectacle.

Avatar has great acting, and an emphasis on story and character.

Well they did deliver those cliched lines well I suppose but the hackneyed cliche of it ruins it. Not even Deniro or Pacino can save bad writing(ie Righteous Kill,88 Minutes) which is what Avatar has.
The main argument against this is movie is many feel there is a distinct lack of good emphasis on the story. He hammers away at it yes, that emphasis of its cliched points doesn't make it good.

This movie should win awards for its technical merits. I doubt any would argue that, even those like myself acknowledge that.

It is not though the 'revolutionary movie to change how movies are made' though. For that type hype it needs to fire on all cyliners and blow me away in every aspect and it didn't do that. It's cursed by it's own hype machine. This movie should not be nominated for any acting awards or screenplay nods.

Remember how Fifth Element was billed as "The Next Star Wars"? Don't jinx your movie by laying the marketing on so thick.

 

[Gryffindorian]

Why though? I didn't have any expectations whatsoever for this movie going in.

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.

It's a terrible plotted movie. While I do agree that is does deserve a lot for cinematography, not for any of it's acting.

And it doesn't have to be Shakespeare but at least give it twists and not predictability.

I haven't had time really to write anything because I've been busy but here's some issues with the movie:

We get an ex-marine, that happens to have the same genetic code as his brother. Is whisked away to a planet (which we don't know anything about, but that isn't the biggest issue). Now here comes the problems:

First off, it's predictable the marine colonel would have him spy on the scientists and 'learn' the ways of the Navi. It's actually painfully predictable how this plot line goes. Guy has regrets and the colonel turns the table on him. You could also predict each and every plot turn that this is going to have. Not only that but the scientists know that he is spying on them. Furthermore, the stupid notion that the military still lets the scientists in their base without throwing their ass out or sending them God knows where.

Secondly, the whole plot with the Navi is horribly predictable. Let's see; girl hates 'new' outsider, they bond through montage, and then they get married or mated for life. Then he does something stupid, she gets mad, and then after something, they hook back up. Could they telegraph the whole bird thing even more than that? Anyone with half a brain cell knew that he was going to 'tame' that giant bird after they make an obvious statement about it. Then her beau, who she was going to get married with, the tough guy makes life horribly unpleasant for our outsider but they have a bond at the end, and become friends.

Third is the whole villian plot. Not just the colonel who was paper thin (which actually didn't bother me as much as...), but the 'corporate' guy. Not only preachy but very one dimensional. Oh! I'm a scary corporate guy, out to make a quick buck. I'm just going to displace these natives. I'm just going to give token statements about how much I like these people while trying to remove them. No internal conflict at all or any other conflict then just, evil natives, must displace.

Which leads us back to the natives. They are very simplistic, which isn't as annoying as how they are 'attuned' to nature. Again, anyone with half a brain cell knew that all of those creatures we were introduced to in the beginning were going to turn the tide and fight against the marines. Not only that but when the tide looks like the marines have won. There isn't any attachment to the Navi really other than they are being displaced.

Then we come to their nature tree. We all knew Jake was going to be 'reborn' into his avatar right after they tried with Weaver's character.

Then we come to Jake. I think one of my favorite parts of the movie is the actual scene of him in the wheelchair and the realistic showing of someone who is in a wheelchair and what happens to their legs. But Jake is a very thin hero. I mean, I didn't mind the whole Avatar thing at all or how he is the chosen one, if he wasn't why would we be focusing the movie on him. I think Jake is the least of the problems that this movie had.

It was shallow at best, with no plot twists or turn.

Personally, I would have added more depth to the storyline, even some maybe predictable twists that aren't conventional like the girl rejecting Jake because she is to be mated with the beau. Destroy the old tree. Kill Jake off. Something then a+ b = c storyline. Maybe a + b - c + e...but man this movie was absolutely predictable.

Maybe have an internal struggle between the marines. Seriously. These people felt like carbon copies. No personality there. Maybe the one that broke off and then died.

BTW one of my favorite movies in the last few years was the X-Files: I want to believe because of the internal growth of characters.

Agreed. The plot was rather predictable, mediocre at best.

I guess my point is that some people go to the movies with only two standards of rating it: Terrible and Not Terrible.

"Did you see the movie Avatar?"

"Oh, yeah. It was terrible. But I liked Jim Carrie's Christmas Carol because it wasn't terrible."

They need to "recalibrate" their rating scale, for God's sakes. It's not all black and white; there are shades of gray, too. I'm not saying sci-fi and action/adventure genres don't have to have a good plot and should just focus on special effects. Star Wars is a good example of great epic sci-fi film-making, both plotwise and cinematography. To say that Avatar is a horrendous, awful movie is just plain preposterous.

 

[Tom Servo]

^^ There's also the director effect, certain directors seem to get more favourable treatment by the public and critics in general.

For example it would have been interesting to read the responses if this was Michael Bay's Avatar instead. Not that I have anything against Bay but he seems to be the most popular director to pick on in recent times.

If you seriously think that Bay is on par with Cameron... I don't know how I can respond to that. You just need to compare their films closer.

Now Bay is not a talentless hack (I have enjoyed many of his films... Just not recent ones) ... But when it comes to directing action (and characters), he is not even in the same league.

Exactly. Bay does have talent, but overall Cameron is a much more effective film maker. To say the two are comparable is laughable to me. I mean, one could say that Pearl Harbor is Michael Bay's version of Titanic...a love story wrapped around a tragic historical event. By just comparing those two films, one can see the difference in the two filmmakers.

 

[JacksonArcher]

The body/mind transferrance was the most unique part of the whole thing. But 2.5hrs later I(and others) are bored with that novelty cause the rest has been so 'by the numbers'.

To each their own. Pandora felt like a fully developed and realized world to me. The parts where Jake discovered the planet with Neytiri and practiced with her on the ways of the Na'vi was very entertaining to me. I think the part where Jake finds his flying dragon creature and flies around Pandora was incredibly captivating both on a visual and storytelling level. The characters were rich and engaging and kept me interested. Again, to each their own.

I'd argue that based on its $$$ and admitted repeated viewings many appreciated the visuals of the car-to-robot spectacle.

Money doesn't mean anything to me. There have been a lot of financially successful movies that sucked. I didn't like Titanic, for example, but that was hugely successful. Plus, Transformers and its sequel was trashed by critics and movie fans, and rightfully so. Well, I do enjoy some of the first Transformers. And Revenge of the Fallen has a good first act but just completely falls apart. How many racial stereotypes and useless characters can you cram into a two and a half hour movie? Apparently a lot, thanks to Revenge of the Fallen.

Well they did deliver those cliched lines well I suppose but the hackneyed cliche of it ruins it. Not even Deniro or Pacino can save bad writing(ie Righteous Kill,88 Minutes) which is what Avatar has.

Rigetous Kill and 88 Minutes were horribly written, staged, acted and directed procedural cop dramas. Avatar was at the very least well-directed, well-staged, well-acted and even well-written, story tropes and cliches aside.

The main argument against this is movie is many feel there is a distinct lack of good emphasis on the story. He hammers away at it yes, that emphasis of its cliched points doesn't make it good.

Well, the concept was fresh and engaging to me. The execution was very good, in my opinion. If those couldn't become engaged in the story then that's a concern, but that is their concern. I guess the visuals, the acting, and everything else couldn't captivate certain people's attention, but it did others. Including myself.

It is not though the 'revolutionary movie to change how movies are made' though. For that type hype it needs to fire on all cyliners and blow me away in every aspect and it didn't do that. It's cursed by it's own hype machine. This movie should not be nominated for any acting awards or screenplay nods.

Well, it WAS nominated for a Best Screenplay Golden Globe. I would agree the screenplay shouldn't get nominated. It was good, but not great. The direction was superb, though. James Cameron deserves every nomination and award he gets for directing. I don't think any of the acting was strong enough to merit award consideration. It was really good, but no performance stood out in my opinion. Of course, in terms of the hype thing, that's only if you allow the hype to affect you or your judgment. I went into Avatar aware of the hype but not affected by it, and I enjoyed the movie regardless.

Remember how Fifth Element was billed as "The Next Star Wars"? Don't jinx your movie by laying the marketing on so thick.

That's marketing's job. To lay it on thick, to get your butt in the seat.

 

[Nerys Myk]

What qualifies as "bad writing"? To me me using a familier story isn't bad writing. Peppering that story (or any story) with cringe worthy dialog, bad pacing, plot holes and out of the blue reveleations is bad writing.