Avatar is stupid
- Thread starter Deimos Anomaly
- Start date
Not so much, seeing as if you are gonna compare the films, compare just the first Star Wars film, and Avatar. Perhaps after two more sequels we can compare them this way, but not before.
I thought they are similar films. A basic well used story, done in an exciting and fun way.
This is the part that I thought Avatar was lacking. It was an okay movie, but if it hadn't been for the awesome visuals, I would have probably fallen asleep.
LOL, stop putting words in my mouth. Style over substance, my ass. I said that make up and puppeteering is done with CG now. There's no difference to the "substance", only the way a specific effect is created has changed. Years ago they painted images on glass, and now they are creating them digitally. There's no difference. If you say "strip away the VFX" for a 2010s movie, then you'd have to strip away VFX AND SFX of a 1980s movie to be fair.
There's less and less Special Effects in movies nowadays. Special Effects are mechanical effects achieved on set or optical effects achieved in-camera. Visual Effects are achieved in post production.
And if you can tell me how you can create creatures like the Na'vi or Gollum using practical effects, then go ahead. There's a reason why the full body shots of Dinosaurs were done digitally in Jurassic Park, and there's a reason why Pandora has been created mostly digitally.
Last edited:
If this isn't, like, a reference that I'm missing, I'd be happy to go into agonizing detail about the superiority of hemoglobin over other respiratory pigment choices.
Especially those perfidious vanabins!
I think the point being made is that things with red blood tend not to have blue skins.
I think that's splitting hairs. These "private contractors" wear military style uniforms and have a command structure with corporals and colonels, and use plenty of military terminology. I don't see how you can deny that they're an obvious stand in for the U.S. military.
They aren't because, well, they aren't. They are mercenaries hired by a private corporation. Of course they have uniforms and a command structure. Every security company has that. By your own description ("military style uniforms and have a command structure with corporals and colonels, and use plenty of military terminology"), they could as well be the British, French, German, Russian or Chinese military, but you want to see the US military in them.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-camerons-avatar/story-e6frg8pf-1225809286903
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123810319
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/27/avatar_director_james_cameron_follows_box
So obviously, it's just my imagination that makes me see reflections of the U.S. military in Avatar's "private contractors". I totally made that up myself.
Sometimes I'm amazed at the ability of people to debate stuff that is as plain as the nose on your face. How many lines like "shock and awe" and "winning hearts and minds" do you have to hear in a movie before you start to think, hmmmm... maybe this is a reference to the Iraq War? Are there really people who sat through Avatar and thought the whole thing was a commentary on the Chinese military?
The people who deny any specific politics to Avatar seem to be those who either like the movie, or are awed by the money it made. Other people who don't like the politics ignore the subject entirely to criticize other elements of the story. Not only are they not really separable, but almost all of the comments are obtuse at best. A few pretend to criticize Avatar from the "left." That apparently was some woman named Annalee Newitz, whom I confess I had never heard of before.
The only substantial criticisms of Avatar are for the science. There are plenty of that kind of criticsms, most of which are interesting only to people interested in science. For my part, Cameron using goofy science to imagine a native religion that really works is the most doubtful aspect to the movie. (I am aware no one else thinks so.) But I think it's like J.R.R. Tolkien imagining a world in which the Good People are Born Prettier, Taller and Whiter than the Bad People.
The only substantial criticisms of Avatar are for the science. There are plenty of that kind of criticsms, most of which are interesting only to people interested in science. For my part, Cameron using goofy science to imagine a native religion that really works is the most doubtful aspect to the movie. (I am aware no one else thinks so.) But I think it's like J.R.R. Tolkien imagining a world in which the Good People are Born Prettier, Taller and Whiter than the Bad People.
For the most part, I (and no doubt many critics of the film) actually agree with it's politics. It's more about the patronising, bland and banal way those ideas were put across more than anything..
I couldn't care less about the science really - I accepted this as a fantasy film from the start.
I couldn't care less about the science really - I accepted this as a fantasy film from the start.
In ten years, when there's another war just like the Iraq war, you will be able to draw parallels from Avatar to that. You can draw parallels to the Vietnam war, too. Why is that a bad thing?
Is that was that was? I must be dense, because I never made that connection - though now that you point that out I find it in rather poor taste tbh. It verges awfully close to trivialising what was a terrible real life tragedy, imo.
Sorry, but I can't recall that happening. Maybe it's just that I am trying to wipe the entire experience from my memory - could you remind me?
Actually, its quite clear. I found the execution of the story to be boring and dull, to be devoid of freshness, originality or subtlety and to be hackneyed in its approach. I found it patronising because it treats it's audience like they are imbeciles, with condescension (much like any other use of the word "patronising" throughout the history of modern western society) - the characters are stupifyingly 1 dimensional and shallow, the analogies in the dialogue are clumsy and telegraphed.
To be fair, these are problems not just with Cameron's film (and, indeed, all of his films), but with the general output from Hollywood as a whole. Even some of their best efforts are guilty of these things.
On the other hand, how many fictional vice-presidents have been sworn in to replace dead fictional presidents in this configuration of people?
^Indeed. I don't think using iconic imagery trivializes the historical event. To name other examples, how many shots of dying heroes have subtly or obviously tapped the iconic power of the crucifixion? And does Star Wars' use of transparently Nazi imagery trivialize the Holocaust?
I'm not sure what your point is. James Cameron actually said "the Vietnam stuff is there by design". And I doubt he's consciously putting in references to wars that haven't happened yet, so... again, I'm not sure what your point is.
