^ Fat lot of good THAT did.
"Aliens" on the other hand could be seen as pro-military... well, except for the fact that platoon commanders are depicted as bozos.
But corporals are ok, and Hispanic warrior women are awesome.
James Cameron's "Avatar" (grading and discussion)
- Thread starter chrisspringob
- Start date
"Aliens" on the other hand could be seen as pro-military... well, except for the fact that platoon commanders are depicted as bozos.
But corporals are ok, and Hispanic warrior women are awesome.It is worth noting that 'unobtanium' is never talked about as a substance that is essential for the survival of Earth. Not ever. It just makes the corporation (RDA) a boatload (or shipload) of $$$. The security forces are just there to defend (and expand) company investments.
Also, the ONLY person in the film ever referred to as a Marine is the main character. (and he is an ex-marine at that point) But he, along with all the others, are just (well)paid mercenaries. NOT an official army in the traditional sense, that belongs to a nation-state.
Just to make it clear. Again.
Also, the ONLY person in the film ever referred to as a Marine is the main character. (and he is an ex-marine at that point) But he, along with all the others, are just (well)paid mercenaries. NOT an official army in the traditional sense, that belongs to a nation-state.
Just to make it clear. Again.
This.
Fun fact: Jenette Goldstein was up for a role on TNG that would have been much like her Aliens role.
Would it make any difference if it was?
As for the supposed 'mercenaries' not being actual military: They were led by a Colonel...
Just as Bill Clinton is still President Clinton retired US Colonels retain their title. I remember taking about Sergeant Major Higgins on Magnum PI it was pointed out that UK NCOs also keep their military rank in retirement but you rarely hear of a US sergeant being called by his rank in retirement. He might be "gunny' or "top" but rarely Staff Sergeant Jones. you often hear "Chief" but not the full rank like Senior Chief when revering to retired USN sailors.
If the sequel brought out some *real* military, who aren't evil, then that would be good.
To some people, yes. They seem to think that Jake condems all on earth to a slow death by stopping the mining. When he just is cutting into RDA's profits.
Non-'military' organizations have ranks as well. Why would a private security force not use them for convenience, when most of their employees probably have some sort of military experience?
True, but in this case the Colonel was an ex US Recon Marine also
Thespeckledkiwi
Vice Admiral
Don't feed the troll, Locotus.
Thespeckledkiwi has a history of making absurd points in this thread.
No, it was similar to Transformers in the fact it was a shiny movie but with no substance. You still haven't come up with a good argument against it.
This movie was very hollow but it also shows the trend of Hollywood movies. There has been a couple that buck the trend but mostly they have been the expensive movies with no characterization or acting.
Top ten:
Transformers
Avatar
Harry Potter
Up
The Twilight Saga
The Hangover
Star Trek
The Blind Side
Monster vs Aliens
Ice Age
(with the 11th being X-Men Origins: Wolverine)
To me the biggest buck was the Blind Side. Hangover has shown trends of past movies as well.
But mostly the blockbusters have been light on acting/plot but heavy on special effects.
I mean was Transformers 2 a critically acclaimed movie for it's acting? For it's writing?
Avatar delivers what it promises, a very shiny movie with special effects.
There is no conflict, no drama in the movie whatsoever. You can basically plot out all of the plot points pretty much 30 minutes into the movie, maybe a little more than that. And any new twists that come up are easily predictable as to the outcome.
Throwing in a twist or two, I think would have made this a great movie.
The biggest disappointment is the perfectly neat, prepackaged ending that we get. Humans lose. Natives win. They lose their home but they still have their neat tree.
Destroying that tree and removing that element from them would have forced unseen conflict and drama into the movie. It would also force Jake Sully into an uncomfortable position that would have been an interesting scenario. He is Na'vi in spirit and mind but physically he is not. He also betrayed humanity. So what does he do?
I would have forced more into the corporate guy than the bland cookie cutter guy we go. This rock is worth millions, I will destroy everything in my way to make money. Muhahahah. Not interesting. And shallow.
Make some conflict for him as well. Don't make him a bland, every corporate guy. Add conflict and drama into the character. Make it so he doesn't have a choice but to evict the aliens off the land due to Earth dying and the rock is important to the regrowth of the planet instead of it being worth millions.
Also make the Na'vi more divided then all against humanity. A tribe here or there might actually welcome the humans and go against the other Na'vi.
BTW I find it interesting that people critique and call Titanic a bad movie due to the fact of the love story and it's shallowness but cling to Avatar as a great movie.
Last edited:
Thespeckledkiwi, thanks for posting something more substantial... They are always a better read that your 'thread snipe posts'.
Later in the post you wished for more intra-personal conflict in the Quaritch. But conflict is more that just intra-personal conflict. Conflict occurs whenever you have two characters interacting that have different goals that are non-compatible. So there is conflict. We can always disagree on whether or not it is *good* conflict, but it is there.
Drama is how that conflict is resolved. If it isn't, no drama. But if it is - drama! We can always disagree on whether or not it is *good* drama, but it is there.
If you can't agree to this, then you need to redefine the term and/or call them something else. Thorough discussion is always interesting, but it cannot occur when you use words in ways others do not.
But you need to stop making idiotic statements like this. They undermine your credibility.
Later in the post you wished for more intra-personal conflict in the Quaritch. But conflict is more that just intra-personal conflict. Conflict occurs whenever you have two characters interacting that have different goals that are non-compatible. So there is conflict. We can always disagree on whether or not it is *good* conflict, but it is there.
Drama is how that conflict is resolved. If it isn't, no drama. But if it is - drama! We can always disagree on whether or not it is *good* drama, but it is there.
If you can't agree to this, then you need to redefine the term and/or call them something else. Thorough discussion is always interesting, but it cannot occur when you use words in ways others do not.
Thespeckledkiwi
Vice Admiral
Thespeckledkiwi, thanks for posting something more substantial... They are always a better read that your 'thread snipe posts'.
But you need to stop making idiotic statements like this. They undermine your credibility.
Later in the post you wished for more intra-personal conflict in the Quaritch. But conflict is more that just intra-personal conflict. Conflict occurs whenever you have two characters interacting that have different goals that are non-compatible. So there is conflict. We can always disagree on whether or not it is *good* conflict, but it is there.
Drama is how that conflict is resolved. If it isn't, no drama. But if it is - drama! We can always disagree on whether or not it is *good* drama, but it is there.
If you can't agree to this, then you need to redefine the term and/or call them something else. Thorough discussion is always interesting, but it cannot occur when you use words in ways others do not.
Conflict is also internal conflict, which there wasn't any. Or if there was (Jake's struggle with humanity and Na'vi), it wasn't portrayed very well. There are three reasons for this and I believe it is a combination of all three; acting, script, and directing.
While I do agree the rudimentary foundations of conflict is there, it's like a toddler and a teenager. It's the sophistication of what is shown, directed, and acted that I believe is missing, hence why I don't believe there is any substantial conflict nor drama.
Conflict is resolved through the easiest means necessary and not necessarily through an interesting means.
In terms of scripts, there will always be conflict as it is one of the natural stages in creating a story, but this isn't so much of a story as it is simply an outline to follow with a simple skeleton to reinforce the outline.
It is more like a flow chart than a story. A leads to B that leads to c. There is no deviation from that. There is no A leads to B1.
Following that the conflicts between the characters is simply one out of necessity and not necessarily through story telling.
While yes, you can say that this movie has conflict and drama, it is a rudimentary and not one of artistic quality, which I am going off of.
Well, I knew the Na'vi were going to win in this movie, just like I knew that the Titanic was going to sink.
Ok, now you are much clearer in presenting your opinion. Thanks!
In what universe was Transformers 2 critically acclaimed?
You know, having to make stuff up to try to shore up your point is one of the indications that your point isn't really all that valid.
This is the problem I have with your argument, one word - artistic - that's because what is considered artistic is in the eye of the individual. Avatar doesn't have the kind of conflict and drama that you as an individual find attractive. However another's "artistic" eye will see something completely different.
James Cameron walked a very fine line with this movie, he had to have enough "in your face" conflict for the persons with a more aggressive taste and enough "in your heart" conflict for those that like to see that side of conflict.
What's obvious is that "Avatar" appeals to a very wide variety of individuals. Some people fall outside, and the movie will not appeal to them. It all depends on just where you are willing to suspend your disbelief.
For myself, well I have waited for over fifty years to see the kind of movie that "Avatar" turned out to be, and in my eyes it is very "artistic".
Brit
A lot of people like to point out Quaritch is a one dimensional, mustache twirling bad guy. I saw more than that. I saw a battle hardened soldier who came to this planet and was hurt by it. Not only physically, but that weakened him emotionally, as well. He was ashamed by that. He hated the thought of "going soft." He wanted to keep his scar to remind him. He hated the planet for beating him, and he wanted to destroy it. I was kind of rivetted by that performance, and yes, in the writing and performing of the character, I saw subtlety.
^ Fat lot of good THAT did.
"Aliens" on the other hand could be seen as pro-military... well, except for the fact that platoon commanders are depicted as bozos.
Yeah but Avatar is only anti-military in the sense that the military characters are being fortrayed as doing something bad. The military often do things that are bad, but because they are ordered to.
Who knows, if they had had the kind of contact with Pandora that Michelle Rodriguez's character had maybe all the marines would have had a change of heart.
^ Fat lot of good THAT did.
"Aliens" on the other hand could be seen as pro-military... well, except for the fact that platoon commanders are depicted as bozos.
Yeah but Avatar is only anti-military in the sense that the military characters are being fortrayed as doing something bad. The military often do things that are bad, but because they are ordered to.
Who knows, if they had had the kind of contact with Pandora that Michelle Rodriguez's character had maybe all the marines would have had a change of heart.
Stop defending this piece of liberal propaganda! James Cameron clearly hates America and that's the end of it.
Seriously though, I don't care whether the military is portrayed as heroes or as war criminals as long as the movie is actually good.
The line is only crossed when it really gets too jingoistic, like in third-rate (mostly straight-to-DVD nowadays) American action movies. A counter-example would perhaps be the (in)famous Turkish action movie "Valley of the Wolves" which supposedly portrays the American military as an almost satanistic force.
I was under the impression that they knew humans were in Na'vi bodies because Grace had been operating a school amongst them for some time and she had simply told them what she and the other Avatars were and how they worked.
I guess I'm one of the few who didn't particularly like Avatar. It's average at best. The story is just a huge anchor around the movie's neck.
And unlike most people I didn't feel the SFX made up for it. Many of the slower scenes look beautiful, photo realistic even. But whenever any sort of action kicks in we're right back to the "weightless" cartoony effect that plagues CGI; if the same laws of physics govern Pandora as Earth it certainly wasn't evident on the screen.
There's a little hand waving about lower gravity which seems to affect the Na'vi and space dragons but not the regular humans. And from a geeky perspective the ecology of the planet felt absolutely absurd. What's the advantage of a space horse or space monkey having six limbs? How and why would all the vastly divergent life on Pandora evolve to communicate (other than a silly attempt to shoehorn the Gia concept into the film)?
Avatar is one of those movies that when people rewatch it in 10 years when the SFX are dated they'll have a very different opinion of.
And unlike most people I didn't feel the SFX made up for it. Many of the slower scenes look beautiful, photo realistic even. But whenever any sort of action kicks in we're right back to the "weightless" cartoony effect that plagues CGI; if the same laws of physics govern Pandora as Earth it certainly wasn't evident on the screen.
There's a little hand waving about lower gravity which seems to affect the Na'vi and space dragons but not the regular humans. And from a geeky perspective the ecology of the planet felt absolutely absurd. What's the advantage of a space horse or space monkey having six limbs? How and why would all the vastly divergent life on Pandora evolve to communicate (other than a silly attempt to shoehorn the Gia concept into the film)?
Avatar is one of those movies that when people rewatch it in 10 years when the SFX are dated they'll have a very different opinion of.