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

[Hyperspace05]

Now officially going to see Avatar again tonight! Introducing some friends who haven't seen it, yet!

I've only seen it once but I think I want to see it again. This time in IMAX 3-D.

Be careful, though... Not all IMAX theaters are what they are cracked up to be. Several co-workers of mine thought that the film looked much worse (washed out colors) in IMAX than it did in regular theater 3D. (RealD 3D)

 

[23skidoo]

The story wasn't at all original when Final Fantasy borrowed it, either. Most stories aren't. I haven't seen an "original story" in decades, and when I was young they only seemed original because I hadn't seen them before.

All that matters is treatment. Many of the story beats were more familiar than they could have been, though Cameron was clever enough to avoid two or three of the most obvious...thank goodness.

I'm actually going to both agree and disagree with you. I agree with you there are no original ideas left. Just ask Star Trek writers who keep trying new stuff only to have some guy say "Already done in season 3 of DS9" or something. And I agree it's in the treatment where originality is born.

I've seen enough movies and read enough books to be able to shunt that aside, and in fact in some cases say "yes the idea isn't original but they did it better this time". And I'd be more than willing to say this was the case with Avatar, if it was the case.

The problem with Avatar - a film I am surprisingly and unexpectedly finding myself disliking more and more 24 hours after I first saw it the more I think about it - is that the similarities are so overt and obvious that it distracted from the enjoyment of the piece.

And it's not just the fact that Avatar borrowed the Gaia theory idea from Final Fantasy and also featured alien creatures similar to that used in Final Fantasy. Or the fact that Final Fantasy was promoted as the "Avatar" of its day, you'll recall. ("All movies will be photo-real CG after this film" was the mantra back in 1998-99; sound familiar - just change the word to 3-D) But Cameron even stole from himself. Paul Reiser's character from Aliens is there in all but name. We have a hard-assed female Hispanic soldier who lays down her life for the cause, like in Aliens. We even have whatever the hell you call that articulated mechanical thing Ripley used to beat the hell out of Mama Alien, and which Sgt. Rock used to beat up Jake in this film. And those airships looked like something from the Aliens film too. (If Cameron comes out and says Avatar takes place in the same universe as Alien, then I'm fine with that. Nothing says it can't.)

I'm fine with recycling ideas. I'm not so fine when it's done in such an overt way as to distract from the enjoyment of the piece. If it was just me noting the fact the plot was almost identical to Dances with Wolves and Legend of Ferngully, I'd chalk it up to the fact I'm a trivia hound and a hopeless fanboy who can probably recite the title of every Doctor Who story ever broadcast. But I went online after seeing the film and there are a lot of people who noticed it and were put off by it as well.

I'm not denying the film isn't a technological marvel. I give it full credit. I'm just disappointed that a director/writer capable of coming up with such groundbreaking, original film-making couldn't have come up with a more original-seeming story to go along with it. I think he could have done so. And that would have made Avatar, in my opinion, a top-to-bottom masterpiece. But as it stands, again in my opinion, it's a chocolate ice-cream sundae without the ice cream. The chocolate tastes great by itself, and might fill you up if you're not too hungry, but a vital part of the recipe is missing.

Alex

 

[Agenda]

Since when was Gaia a Final Fantasy invention? Asimov wrote about that in Foundation almost three decades ago.

 

[Hyperspace05]

I've seen enough movies and read enough books to be able to shunt that aside, and in fact in some cases say "yes the idea isn't original but they did it better this time". And I'd be more than willing to say this was the case with Avatar, if it was the case.

The problem with Avatar - a film I am surprisingly and unexpectedly finding myself disliking more and more 24 hours after I first saw it the more I think about it - is that the similarities are so overt and obvious that it distracted from the enjoyment of the piece.

Well, now that you have expressed your authoritative opinion, I guess we can put this thread to rest. As for you disliking it more and more... Not that unexpected. It's a common theme in this thread amongst people who did not enjoy the film. After seeing/reading how popular Avatar is, it just vexes them to no end. But it's OK, you know. People like different things.

And it's not just the fact that Avatar borrowed the Gaia theory idea from Final Fantasy and also featured alien creatures similar to that used in Final Fantasy.

First, what you call 'Gaia' in Avatar is only loosely connected to the 'Gaia' concept as commonly presented - FF being a typical case. It is not some kind of bizarro living energy/soul that all life has an element of, it is instead a real *physical* connection between all living things. Avatar is really the first SF film to present such a concept (although it has occurred in SF literature once or twice before), so it should be applauded for actually showing is something new. (whereas FF was just recycling the typical 'Gaia' nonsense) ... Second, please show me a FF creature that looked similar to an Avatar one, I'd really like to see it. I have seen FF many times (and own it), so I am very curious.

But Cameron even stole from himself. Paul Reiser's character ... hard-assed female Hispanic soldier ... articulated mechanical thing

And? Cameron is hardly unique in recycling character archetypes. In fact, you'd have a harder time coming up with a director/writer who doesn't.

I'm fine with recycling ideas. I'm not so fine when it's done in such an overt way as to distract from the enjoyment of the piece.

So the film didn't grab you, like it did for many people. For most of us, the execution far outweighed the borrowed and recycled ideas. Again nothing new - That happens to all of us for various films.

But from your lengthy post, one also gets the distinct feeling (could be wrong) that you went into the film with a mental checklist of recycled items to look for. Again, that is your pejorative - but I wouldn't expect to get much enjoyment out of any film if I went into it with that mindset.

For example, I rented the "The Hurt Locker" yesterday. A very well-made film, but hardly an original idea in the whole film, or something not seen before. But it was well executed, so I enjoyed it a lot.

Speaking for myself (about Avatar), I was very affected by the film. I enjoyed the love story, liked the characters, and was transported to a world I hadn't seen before. That's what cinema is about. I'm sorry you did not connect with it that way...

 

[Harvey]

You've seen a film that closely examines the life of a bomb tech in Iraq? The idea that 'war is a drug,' is not a new one, although The Hurt Locker probably makes this idea more central than most other war films operating under this premise (like Platoon).

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Since when was Gaia a Final Fantasy invention? Asimov wrote about that in Foundation almost three decades ago.

The "Gaia" hypothesis has been a popular notion since at least the early 1980s.

 

[Hyperspace05]

You've seen a film that closely examines the life of a bomb tech in Iraq? The idea that 'war is a drug,' is not a new one, although The Hurt Locker probably makes this idea more central than most other war films operating under this premise (like Platoon).

I don't want to make this a "Hurt Locker" discussion - But no, not an 'bomb tech in Iraq'. But I have seen plenty of other bomb tech movies. Plus lots of other war movies (including Iraq ones). So the film skillfully blends tropes and plots from many sources into something new. Not altogether different from what Avatar does. That was my point.

 

[Harvey]

A fair enough point, which I won't disagree with. I'm curious, actually, about these other bomb tech movies, though. I was fascinated by that part of The Hurt Locker and would be happy to see other examples, even if they're not as good.

 

[Hyperspace05]

Not as in-depth about bomb defusal, perhaps. Unless you count MacGuyver (or MacGruber)
Stallone had a trashy film called "The Specialist". Then of course defusing a bomb is a common action movie trope. There are other films, but they escape me at the moment...

 

[Harvey]

Well, if they come to mind, I'm curious. Though, less curious if they star Sly Stallone, who has the acting range of a rotten tomato (meaning, Rocky and Rambo).

 

[Agenda]

Since when was Gaia a Final Fantasy invention? Asimov wrote about that in Foundation almost three decades ago.

The "Gaia" hypothesis has been a popular notion since at least the early 1980s.

Remember Sim Earth?

 

[Hyperspace05]

According to Wikipedia, the Gaia scientific theory originated in the 1960's. Of course 'mother earth' myths may be as old as storytelling itself.

-------------------------
Getting back on topic, here is a 30 min in-depth interview with producer Jon Landau about the process of creating Avatar. I haven't seen it all yet, but it is very interesting so far...

 

[Lt. Trull]

Well... I ordered the audiobook bible.... basically because I thought it would be cooler to have SOLARA to be listening to the audiobook bible at the end of the movie... thereby carrying it with her....

which would solve how the next movie "Book of Solara" would remedy how she would have the book.

 

[Kegg]

Gaia is the Greek goddess of the Earth - yeah, the basic premise has been around for a while (though more modern Gaia tends not to fuck the sky and then get her son to cut off the abusive bastard's testicles. Greek myths are just more fun than modern Gaia mysticism to me.)

Or the fact that Final Fantasy was promoted as the "Avatar" of its day, you'll recall. ("All movies will be photo-real CG after this film" was the mantra back in 1998-99; sound familiar - just change the word to 3-D)

That's hardly ripping off, though. The objective of making CGI people lifelike is one various films and productions have been striving towards since the whole thing began. Hell isn't that the main push behind Zemeckis' CGI films? If anything since they're basically cartoons like Final Fantasy they're more following in that film's footsteps.

The big difference, obviously, is that Avatar has delivered, while Final Fantasy may or may not have been a step in that direction but from what I've seen (trailers, clips) it was a far cry from photorealism. I'm sure there are those who can find fault with the realism of the Na'vi, but I think we're essentially there and at most there are some kinks to iron out (not to mention we have yet to perform the ultimate test: Try a fully CGI human character and get the audience to buy it.)

You've seen a film that closely examines the life of a bomb tech in Iraq?

I thought how it handled the drug idea was pretty fresh, actually. It felt, well, neutral - some people get release from the adrenaline rush of defusing bombs. That doesn't seem to be particularly bad - dangerous, but not evil.

Remember Sim Earth?

Oh man I used to have all the Sim games! (My favourite was Sim Ant, actually, though for some reason I was also pretty partial to Sim Life - a wasted childhood of designing my own pixellated creatures. Good days.)

Was never really keen on Sim Earth, though. Blasted planet is just so easy to pollute.

 

[Hyperspace05]

I found this 30 min interview with Cameron on another forum. (It was made Dec 17th, the day before the opening) - Unfortunately its a sluggishly loading QT video.

It deals with a lot of stuff about the film, and also about story, themes, and more. And yes, "Dances with Wolves" is mentioned.

 

[T'Baio]

That's a good interview, thanks. Cameron is a very smart man, there's no doubt about it.

 

[Kegg]

Hm. It occurs to me I could make a connection to the Greek Gaia after all: The humans, who the Pandoran Gaia wants gone, obviously, are referred to more than once as the Sky People. It's up to someone who is both a Sky person and now part of Eywa - in the sense that Cronus was the son of Uranus and Gaia, the gods of sky and earth - to defeat the sky people.

I might be reaching here a little, but I like that. That way we have the Gaia hypothesis, New Age Mother Earth mysticism, and the Greek goddess all in one filmic passage.

 

[Ptrope]

Too late for the discussion, so I'm just popping in to say I saw Avatar finally, today, and it is definitely impressive, visually, and only average storytelling. That being said, I loved it - sometimes, I just want to be lost in the moment, and Avatar came very close to taking me there. Why? Because the CGI was so damn good that I didn't have to spend most of my time thinking either, "Wow! The CGI is so damn good!" or, conversely, "Wow! They got so close and then this." It doesn't matter that the story was average, because when you strip away all the visuals, even an average story is still worth experiencing; the visuals make it ... well, an experience. I can kind of understand why there are now people suffering from Pandora-withdrawal - Cameron and the teams of CG artists did such an incredible job of creating this world that it does feel real - and the 3D really solidifies it in ways 2D can't. It was beautiful, and the capture of the actors in the Pandorans was perfect - it's my first time to accept CGI characters as real living and breathing people. I realize that their very alienness helps bridge the Uncanny Valley, but you know what? I don't care; they were so good that, even though I could admire the technological achievement, the most important thing was that they felt real.

Cameron has done what he set out to do - I have no doubt Avatar will change the way films are made. Seeing it, I now have nothing but high hopes for A Princess of Mars - I've long resisted it because I didn't think anyone would ever be able to do it 'live action' and make it anything but a cartoon, but I've seen the light; if Cameron can do this, I have no doubts whatsoever that Pixar can improve upon what they must surely have seen in the theater with Mars.

My only complaint about Avatar is this: Roger Dean is owed credit, at the very least, and some very tall stacks of cash if there is any justice, for the look of Pandora; this movie is nothing less than a realization of Roger Dean's work over the past 4 decades, and it's criminal that he does not appear to have been acknowledged in any way by its creators.

 

[Hyperspace05]

BTW, Pixar is not doing the effects for Princess of Mars. Some of the creative people from Pixar are behind it, but Pixar is not officially involved with the CG work. It is a Disney production, and Cinesite and Double Negative are two effects companies that are supposed to be involved.

 

[Ptrope]

Regardless, it's the Pixar people and their approach to quality and advancing the technology that has me hopeful; Andrew Stanton could be doing it completely apart from Pixar and I'd still be hopeful, just because they all share the goal of making the best possible film. I don't doubt that every one of them probably beleive that Cameron has raised the bar, and see that as a challenge rather than the end of the game.