Is Star Trek Insurrection similar to Avatar? They have similar stories, yet Avatar did far better then Insurrection. How did you think these two films compare? Do you think Avatar did better solely due to superior visuals?
Is Star Trek Insurrection similar to Avatar?
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
Avatar didn't do anything well except special effects. It was a pretty version of Dances with Pocahontas of Fern Gully and not a particularly good mashup.
Despite that, I guess the blue people came off less as smug, sanctimonious hypocrites, so point to Avatar.
Despite that, I guess the blue people came off less as smug, sanctimonious hypocrites, so point to Avatar.
The basic story has been done and redone over and over again (Dances with Wolves comes to mind).
Anyway, I just think Avatar had more than special effects. The point of Insurrection revolves around moving 600, non-indigenous people from a planet so that billions can receive medical care. Avatar; kill the indigenous people when they get in your way of mining some sort of fuel-resource. The Na'vi in general were better done as opposed to the 'thanks for saving us with your technology, by the way we hate technology' Ba'ku. Neytiri was also a way better character/love interest then that Ba'ku woman who spoke all her lines in monotone.
Anyway, I just think Avatar had more than special effects. The point of Insurrection revolves around moving 600, non-indigenous people from a planet so that billions can receive medical care. Avatar; kill the indigenous people when they get in your way of mining some sort of fuel-resource. The Na'vi in general were better done as opposed to the 'thanks for saving us with your technology, by the way we hate technology' Ba'ku. Neytiri was also a way better character/love interest then that Ba'ku woman who spoke all her lines in monotone.
Avatar and the like featured a moral dilemma, of sorts. Insurrection featured a gradually unraveling mystery that at first appeared to be a moral dilemma, providing pros and cons: mystery is always "more" (and probably "better") than no mystery, but when it removes the moral dilemma, it may end up being "less".
Unless the moral dilemma is replaced with a great action scene, of course. Many successful movies are based on this. Although they may skip the mystery phase. And sometimes also the moral dilemma.
Timo Saloniemi
Unless the moral dilemma is replaced with a great action scene, of course. Many successful movies are based on this. Although they may skip the mystery phase. And sometimes also the moral dilemma.
Timo Saloniemi
at least the dilemma in "Avatar" was balanced. The Navi were a real culture of millions or billions, were indigenous to the planet and deeply intertwined with it. Plus, it was about a fuel source, not revolutionary medical treatment. Also, the Navi weren't a bunch of smug hypocrites who'd banished members of their own group off planet to die.
just better written overall. Insurrection's "dilemma" is just pathetically weak by comparison.
just better written overall. Insurrection's "dilemma" is just pathetically weak by comparison.
Yes. They both suck.
I would agree, although I do think INS sucked A LOT less than Avatar. Avatar is totally unbearable to watch. I avoid that movie like the plague.
No, that was the director.
Avatar was an anti-capatalist anti-corporation anti-military tale thinly disguised as a love story. It was pretty, but it was crap.
Yep, that was my conclusion. A fun evening out but have never rewatched it.
INS and Avatar basically told the same story, but the main difference for me, is that INS undersold the natives' plight ("So what if billions will continue to suffer? We don't want to move"), and Avatar oversold it (by making the humans motive solely about money).
Similar threads
