Avatar is zooming up behind Titanic fast. Avatar opened in it's last market on Jan. 15/10. Italy.
http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/
http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/
James Cameron's "Avatar" (grading and discussion)
- Thread starter chrisspringob
- Start date
I think it may be more the case of people not going farther than what was on screen, meaning the plot was simple therefore there were no questions to ask. If you viewed it that way then you won't imagine the underlying currents in that simple plot.
Reading the script (posted on the Fox website) actually answers some of the questions (especially why Chacon remained free - Quaritch thought she was his double agent.)
Reading some of the additional available information (Avatar - An Activist Survival Guide), you find out that, as has been said here, Unobtainium is a power source. You also find out that Pandora does have sources of materials that would help Earth, cures for disease and plants that could detoxify the land and water. RDA isn't interested in any of those things; they are only interested in the substance that will help them to maintain their power base.
You will also find out that the people providing security are not military but instead really were the mercenaries hinted at in the movie.
The Bond itself isn't a simple thing and opens up a whole new area to explore.
Avatar's plot is simple because it has to be. Cameron knew he had a lot more story to tell and this was just the introduction. Cameron told this story from Jake Sully’s point of view, and there is one interesting thought concerning writing;
Point being is that there are a lot of things you don’t need to know, yet. The questions are all there right in front of people, and I can see a lot of people here voicing those questions and that can only mean that the movie was interesting enough to initiate thought. Granted some of those ideas are negative but they were generated and that says a lot.
Brit
That sums my feelings up quite well. The stroy was utterly predictable and a rather worn out chestnut. The acting was not anythign of note, not that it had anything to challenge it. Zoe Saldana was good, but other than her.... eh.
The movie cries out to be seen in the theatre at least once. You will never be bale to appreciate it on your TV at home, no matter how good your 3D glasses are.
The reason there are 59 pages is because the people who didn't like the story can't articulate their real reasons for disliking Avatar. If anything, people dislike the story because the hero does not beat up or kill his native rival for the hand of the loved one' because his rival is not a scenery chewing villain like Billy Zane in Titanic; does not win the climactic battle to save the native homeland; most especially, does not save his lady love from the villain. Every claim about predictability is BS.
And every allegation of cliche is sharply contradicted by remorseless fact. That man who pretends At Play in the Fields of the Lord is a White Messiah is a conservative pundit, which is practically the same as a professional liar. The basic story in Avatar has not been told enough to be cliche, even if you throw in Ferngully.
The story does have a major weakness, namely, it imagines a Religion That Works. But superstition is a treasured vice and cannot be acknowledged, much less criticized. It's not a plot cheat that God(dess) did it, because the groundwork is laid. But it's a cheap plot. If you can't suspend your disbelief for two hours, the movie's not for you. But this bbs has people who can suspend critical judgment for years, while equally cheap TV shows run.
What it boils down to, did you get a thrill when the bad but white guys got their asses kicked? And, were you a little disappointed that the good white hero wasn't the White Messiah?
And every allegation of cliche is sharply contradicted by remorseless fact. That man who pretends At Play in the Fields of the Lord is a White Messiah is a conservative pundit, which is practically the same as a professional liar. The basic story in Avatar has not been told enough to be cliche, even if you throw in Ferngully.
The story does have a major weakness, namely, it imagines a Religion That Works. But superstition is a treasured vice and cannot be acknowledged, much less criticized. It's not a plot cheat that God(dess) did it, because the groundwork is laid. But it's a cheap plot. If you can't suspend your disbelief for two hours, the movie's not for you. But this bbs has people who can suspend critical judgment for years, while equally cheap TV shows run.
What it boils down to, did you get a thrill when the bad but white guys got their asses kicked? And, were you a little disappointed that the good white hero wasn't the White Messiah?
^
You've seriously misrepresented and generalized the criticisms of this film. Just because someone criticizes the plot of Avatar doesn't necessarily mean they didn't like the film as a whole.
Besides, a plot is cliché and predictable when a viewer is able to easily predict a story's outcome based on similar stories. Plain and simple. To me, there was no "surprise" or ingenuity to the plot of Avatar. All of the ingenuity went into building the world of Pandora -- both in terms of design and on-screen visuals. I give Cameron plenty of credit for that, but he loses credit for not bothering to bring the same ingenuity to the actual story.
You've seriously misrepresented and generalized the criticisms of this film. Just because someone criticizes the plot of Avatar doesn't necessarily mean they didn't like the film as a whole.
Besides, a plot is cliché and predictable when a viewer is able to easily predict a story's outcome based on similar stories. Plain and simple. To me, there was no "surprise" or ingenuity to the plot of Avatar. All of the ingenuity went into building the world of Pandora -- both in terms of design and on-screen visuals. I give Cameron plenty of credit for that, but he loses credit for not bothering to bring the same ingenuity to the actual story.
stj, the criticisms I have of the film have nothing to with religion... regardless of whether one believes religion works or not. Overall I enjoyed the film quite a bit and intend to take my wife to see the IMAX version very soon. Many people who find problems with the film seem to have expressed those criticisms very well.
The single reason there are 59+ pages now is due to one thing - a tremendous number of folks have seen this movie, which itself has caused some division in opinion on it. Don't you find those factors combined likely to cause such a great amount of response?
You might want to drop the jabs at religion and politics of any one persuasion or another, saving them instead for TNZ. This isn't the proper place for those explosively emotional topics, but TNZ is a great pace to get into those debates. Thanks ahead of time.
Last edited:
Avatar's religion struck me as basically new age wish fulfilment. You get to have a scientific basis for eco-mysticism - it, like pretty much everything in the film's story, struck me as calculated to shape the moral quandry very specifically - everyone Cameron likes on one side of the coin, everything else on the other, and use some sci-fi conceits to smooth out differences that would occur in real life (normally a scientist like Grace Augustine would not consider the beliefs literally true.)
Correct. It's sixty pages of 'well here's my two cents'.
Oh, but on this you could not be more wrong. The existence of Eywa as a 'real entity' has NOTHING to with the moral quandry of the plot. Does the fact that Eywa is "real" (or not) make what the actions of the RDA more or less justified? No, it has zero importance. Does it make the Na'vi more or less justified in defending their land? No, it has zero importance.
Does it impact the plot resolution? Yes. But not with the "moral quandry" of the plot.
It just seemed a little handy that the pilot the scientists were teamed up with was apparently the only one willing to actually fire upon their fellow humans.
Forgiveable though. Perhaps it was more than we didn't get to see some more of her on screen.
A lot of the scenes with Trudy (the pilot) were cut. They might appear in an extended cut.
Yes, how odd that the only two soldiers who spent all their time with the Na'vi or people who sympathized with the Na'vi would end up being the only ones to sympathize with the Na'vi.
It'd be far less explicable if it was a pilot who didn't hang around with the scientists all the time who joined up with them.
The pilot didn't spend time with the Navi from what I could see. Why would it be odd that their pilot wouldn't sympathise? Her door gunner seemed a little phased at being taken away from the bloodiest slaughter too.
No, it's 59 pages of people saying what the film was sorely missing. Things such as a decent and original plot for one.
What do you mean it has zero importance? It's the entire moral imperative on which the Na'vi base their resistance. Like Selfridge said, there are a lot of other trees in the forest.
Cameron had to make the whole planet magical to justify the Na'vi being unwilling to bargain with the humans. It's cartoonishly black-and-white.
Bull... The fact that they had a 'deity' did not matter in this aspect. It was their tree. Their land. Their decision to give it up.
Is it OK for a corporation to raze your house, just because there are other houses you can move to?
And would it make it more right or wrong if you were a christian or an atheist? Well there is this concept of basic of right and wrong that *most* people buy into, no matter what religion or philosophy they subscribe to. Like property rights, etc... Not taking what isn't yours, etc... Ring a bell?
Again, the 'deity' helped resolve battle in the Na'vi's favor. But the basic moral quandry of the RDA vs the Na'vi would have been the same. Had the RDA won, they still would have been wrong in doing what they did.
Of course, but let's run with this: A scientist might consider the beliefs of a tribal society, well, not strictly rational, and whatever the respect they have for them they aren't likely to site them as scientific evidence. Now, the same scientist might consider it unethical to forcefully remove said tribe from their home, but would not believe that it would harm the Earth goddess they worship (only their belief in it.)
Consequence? There's an ideological distinction between characters who are on the right side of the story.
Avatar gets rid of all that. Grace's moment of revelation is understanding that these normally seperate worldviews, the numinous and the rational, are on Pandora really the same thing (or that rationality acts in a numinous manner, rather); and a condemnatory moment for Selfridge is the failure to make the same connection.
Hence, the scientist and the shaman can both believe in the divine involvement of Eywa, and if you don't, you're one of those guys arrogantly nuking the blue monkeys. So, yeah, that's very important.
I still don't but such a distinction. There is basic wrong and right, and Trudy and Jake (not being scientists) are examples of characters that see that. It just doesn't matter to them whether the Na'vi beliefs are 'correct'. What is being done to them is wrong.
Even Selfridge himself has moments of doubt, even though they are small. He wants to avoid a slaughter if he can.
It isn't until late in the film, when Jake connects to the glowing trees and hears the 'voices' that he truly grasps that "hey, maybe there is something to their beliefs". That's when he truly starts to believe. But he had started sympathizing with the Na'vi far before that.
There may be 'basic wrong and right,' as you say, but then there are a host of beliefs people might have which overlap or conflict, even if they're on the same page. Avatar doesn't allow for that sort of ambiguity - there is one correct interpretation of Pandora, and the Na'vi have it. The humans who side with the Na'vi understand that. So it isn't just a right/wrong struggle, there's also a consistent worldview which is slanted onto the good side.
Well, in this case I think your are looking for ambiguity in the wrong place. There is nothing ambiguous in taking what does not belong to you. Or killing because they do not want to give it you. Or destroying someones else's land. Again - Nothing to do with the existence of a neural network deity, nor does it have anything to do with a "correct interpretation of Pandora".
But perhaps we are talking past each other...
But perhaps we are talking past each other...
I'm not looking for it, though I am observing its absence.
Right, I guess I'm not being particularly clear here. Let's try another analogy (yeah, I know, but bear with):
There was this guy, let's call him Whedoniac. He was convinced that Firefly was better than Star Trek, and also he killed a whole family of Trekkies in mid-sentence because that's the cool thing to do.
Now of course what he did is an immoral act, and that's compeltely independent of whether he's a Firefly fan - it'd be wrong if even if he was a Farscape fan.
But wait! Of course it matters that he's a Whedoniac, because it's quite possible the writer had an intent here to mock them a little in the piece (which I did.) It's my story, I can make the Whedoniac a murderous villain, I can also make him lonely and unusuccessful in life, and maybe the Trekkie family was a model group of citizens and so on.
Avatar works on the same principle. Cameron puts stuff he likes on the good guy's side, and it designs it in a way that these doesn't contradict (maybe the Trekkie family liked Kirk and Picard equally? Or does that suspend disbelief too much); and more pertinently the narrative is designed in such a way that whatever moral grey that would exist in a real such activity is absent here.