A scientist looks at Avatar
Schlockhack
Skipper
<Sar...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/athena-andreadis-phd/camerons-iavatari-jar-jar_b
> _402576.html
>
Here's the telling line -
But all his films after The Abyss increasingly resemble the Hindenburg:
bloated, self-indulgent, lacking originality and subtlety in all but
F/X.
***
He made The Abyss because then he had an excuse to writeoff all his
diving expenses (I kid you not). It's probably been indulgence since
that time.
nmstevens
> In article <hh148s$qs...@reader1.panix.com>, Schlockhack
>
> <Sar...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/athena-andreadis-phd/camerons-iavatari-...
> > _402576.html
>
> Here's the telling line -
>
> But all his films after The Abyss increasingly resemble the Hindenburg:
> bloated, self-indulgent, lacking originality and subtlety in all but
> F/X.
>
> ***
>
> He made The Abyss because then he had an excuse to writeoff all his
> diving expenses (I kid you not). It's probably been indulgence since
> that time.
Well, there's a joke floating around that NASA was secretly trying to
interest Cameron in making a movie about going back to the moon -
figuring that the only way that he'd be willing to do it would be to
actually build a working spaceship and literally go back to the moon.
What I'm wondering about is whether or not anybody, in the course of
making this movie ever stopped to question the inherent irony of a
giant multi-national corporation spending anywhere between a quarter
and a half a billion dollars inventing vast, complex technology in
order to tell a story about how bad multi-national corporations are
and how bad technology is compared to like, you know, all those really
like loving peaceful aboriginal people who are at one with the earth
(or whatever planet they happen to on).
hy not jus
Well, if the people who spent all that money on this movie really
believed that -- why bother to make the movie? It's not like the
profits are going to help the rain forest or anything. They're going
to help the stockholders of those same giant multinational
corporations. They're going to east the debt burdens of the
corporations -- into the pockets of big banks. They're going into
James Cameron's pockets.
If they really believed that stuff -- why not take the money and just
give it to the people who are trying to preserve the rain forests and
the aboriginals who live down there (who, by the way, sharing our
collective humanity, are not nearly so nice as we'd like to think).
Because big corporations love nothing more than delivering safe
messages that people like to hear. Easy good guys. Easy bad guys
(even if the bad guys happen to be them) Pat answers. Easily pressed
emotional buttons. Same Old Shit.
NMS
Skipper
<nmstev...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yeah, but see, it looks REALLY COOL and James Cameron is the king of
the world and he invented A WHOLE NEW WAY of making movies. Right?
Isn't that it?
Martin B
> Here's the telling line -
>
> But all his films after The Abyss increasingly resemble the Hindenburg:
> bloated, self-indulgent, lacking originality and subtlety in all but
> F/X.
I recently read an early script of his, A CROWDED ROOM. It's a character
study of killer Billy Milligan who copped an insanity plea by virtue of
having Multiple Personality Disorder.
The script falls flat after a good beginning, but I wouldn't say it was
any of "self-indulgent, lacking originality and subtlety" ("bloated"
perhaps at 132 pages). So he has writing chops, I think.
--
Martin B
Mysti Berry
And he obviously does have his finger on the pulse of something.
Hasn't each of his films since (including?) The Abyss been the most
expensive movie to date, and haven't they all been profitable?
I'd hate to be the studio chief who greenlights the first one to fail,
but...
I was in the geek tower at Fox when Titanic was being finished (talk
about culture of fear!),
but he pulled it off.
I kind of hate most of his stories, but I'm not sure why folks are all
up into villifying his movie before they see it.
He's not the most arrogant or angry person in Hollywood. He can get
people into theatres, so even if his films are not for me...
Anyway, happy new years everyone!
mysti
P.S. NMS told me Patrick McGoohan is going to play him in the bio
pic...
Rule in our house is, if you don't watch it, you can't trash it.
Ovum
>
> Well, if the people who spent all that money on this movie really
> believed that -- why bother to make the movie? It's not like the
> profits are going to help the rain forest or anything.
I nearly took out one of the Significant Other's ribs while we were
watching movie trailers the other day. "Spot the Obligatory Eco-
Preservation Message" is being added to our selection of movie games,
right behind "Predict Which Black Character They'll Kill Off First."
o
Skipper
<myst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Glad I'm not in your house (although I do like your husband quite a
bit, great guy).
I was wrong about Titanic. I initially said, why make this? Felt the
same way about Disney's announcement to do a movie about Pirates, then
when Jerry Bruckheimer came aboard I knew it would be good. Titanic was
a great movie except at the end when the old lady tosses the jewel into
the sea. She could've given that to her granddaughter and boyfriend, to
start them off in life. That was a huge hunk of socialist absurdium
akin to multi-millionaire John Lennon singing "Imagine no
possessions..." (thank you, Elvis Costello).
For me, I wanted to see it for the visuals, even though I think the
story is utter bullshit and preachy nonsense about like Wall-E (which
was nevertheless cute). After I saw Cameron on Conan, and then cussing
out the autograph hound, knowing what I already know about him from
people who've spent long hours with him, I went, screw it, this guy's
not getting my money, hello cable.
Betterduck
> I was wrong about Titanic. I initially said, why make this? Felt the
> same way about Disney's announcement to do a movie about Pirates, then
> when Jerry Bruckheimer came aboard I knew it would be good. Titanic was
> a great movie except at the end when the old lady tosses the jewel into
> the sea. She could've given that to her granddaughter and boyfriend, to
> start them off in life.
Pffft. Only in MWS&M folks. Any other changes Skip? Not only do you
not get the recurring symbol and how it is connected to the iceberg,
the brief love affair and the eternity of loves power, its also the
major POINT of the all time ear worm theme song. She could have kept
it and did what you said, but she didn't, just like she didn't marry
the douche bag which also would have started her grand kids off well.
Care to jump in on what Ripley should have done differently while you
are at it?
Alan Brooks
And Cool Hand "No More Hard Boiled Eggs For Me Thanks, I'm Full" Luke should
have just sat out his 30 day sentence and walked.
Alan Brooks
---------------------------
A Schmuck with an Underwood
-- We Don't Want
Plots With
Good Taste,
We Want Plots
That Taste
Good.
MWSM FAQ: http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/faq.html
Filtering Trolls: http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/trolls.html
Skipper
<chip.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ah, bullshit. The old lady should've handed her granddaughter the ice,
then gone and jumped into the drink to be with Leo, it would've made
more sense. You rich kids...
STJensen
have been called "Wishful Thinking".
SPOILER ALERT!!!
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Primitive natives with literally bows and arrows beating super-high
future tech. Yeah, right. A resource so valuable and yet no
government trying to get control of it ... just the Hollywood typical
"evil" corporation. Hollywood just cannot make Big Government out as
a bad guy as it loves it too much. No suspense. Everything ... and I
do mean everything telegraphed beforehand that only a child that has
never seen a movie would be surprised by anything in this movie ...
and maybe not even then. Not a SINGLE original character, plot point,
or anything. I dare anyone here at MWSM to point out one original
thought in this movie. One. Just one! The "evil" corporate
executive ripped from Aliens (and countless other movies), know-
nothing down-on-his-luck bad-to-turn-good nobody as central character
(throw dart at any movie and you'll hit one that has this), crazed
military leader (my eyes rolled when I saw that one), tough-as-nails-
but-will-assuredly-become-a-softie female lead (I wanted to throw my
soda at the screen when I saw that one), and the list goes on and on.
NOTHING original. "Running With Wolves" in space. Not science
fiction but space opera.
Not one person involved in the movie knows anything about what
probable future tech will be like then or apparently what is being
developed TODAY!
Nanotechnology could have extracted the resource without the natives
even knowing (without help from some unbelievable supernatural force)
that anything was being done. No strip mining needed. Oh wait.
Sorry, that would totally destroy the conflict. Can't have that. I
guess nanotechnology never gets developed in the future.
And think about it. If you can remotely control biological bodies,
shouldn't you be able to remotely control ... oh say ... combat robots
from orbit? Like the US military is literally developing TODAY! Same
goes for any mining needing to be done. And those too are being
developed TODAY! No need to have a single human on that inhospitable
hostile moon. Just an orbiting space station filled with wimpy geeks
operating bad-ass robot avatars on the moon's surface. No big show-
down where the humans die. Oh, you destroyed my robot? Here. I'll
send down another one.
Or if you want to take out the mother tree, what ever happened to long-
range missiles? We have the bomb and missile tech TODAY that could do
the job no sweat. Oh wait. That wouldn't result in a prolonged
bombing scene that shows how evil the corporation and soldiers are
(not to mention how oppressed the natives are) but just a split
second, a flash, and ashes.
And poor little main character. He's a cripple. Oh, you can just
feel the sympathy factor surround him like a halo. And yet, we're
told he's extremely valuable to the corporation as the reason this
literal know-nothing is recruited and sent on this mission. Hmmm.
Let me get this straight. He's so valuable but the corporation cannot
afford and/or want to fix his legs before he goes? Wouldn't they want
to do that to insure he works as best as he can for them and be
grateful to them for doing so? Wouldn't they at least hold that out
as a carrot to come work for them? Oh wait. We need that carrot to
be dangled by the "evil" military leader so the idiot becomes a we-all-
know-momentary turncoat. And then there's the idiot himself. Could
he be more dumb? He has the corporation over a barrel. They need him
more than he needs them. Is he so dumb that he cannot say, "Here's
the deal. You fix my legs now and I'll go off on this mission for
you." No, that would eliminate the sympathy factor. We cannot have
that.
And then there are the natives. They could be cast for "Dumb and
Dumber 3". They never once think, "Hmmm. Our bows and arrows don't
do much against these humans and their machines. Hmmm. I did kill
one and here is his weapon resting on the ground here. Hmmm. I
wonder what would happen if I picked it up and used it against them."
You know like how American Indians did. But then that would make the
moon's natives less pure and natural. Nope, we cannot have that. We
have to be rescued by the PLANET becoming a sentient being! Gaia
comes to life!!! Every tree-hugger's dream come true. I felt like
vomiting at this point.
No, "Avatar" was nothing more than just another unrealistic eco anti-
capitalism dumbed-down fantasy movie that manipulates everything with
a sledgehammer to produce everything in it.
Scott Jensen
Avoid normal situations.
[..]
> I'm sorry but, as far as I'm concerned, "Avatar" sucked. It should
> have been called "Wishful Thinking".
> SPOILER ALERT!!!
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> Primitive natives with literally bows and arrows beating super-high
> future tech. Yeah, right. A resource so valuable and yet no
> government trying to get control of it ... just the Hollywood typical
> "evil" corporation. Hollywood just cannot make Big Government out as
> a bad guy as it loves it too much.
_Spartan_.
> No suspense. Everything ... and I
> do mean everything telegraphed beforehand that only a child that has
> never seen a movie would be surprised by anything in this movie ...
> and maybe not even then. Not a SINGLE original character, plot point,
> or anything. I dare anyone here at MWSM to point out one original
> thought in this movie. One. Just one!
Dr. Augustine's avatar wearing a Stanford shirt. That was funny.
> Nanotechnology could have extracted the resource without the natives
> even knowing (without help from some unbelievable supernatural force)
> that anything was being done. No strip mining needed. Oh wait.
> Sorry, that would totally destroy the conflict. Can't have that. I
> guess nanotechnology never gets developed in the future.
Dude, this is silly. There's no way to know what turns out to be workable
and what doesn't in the future, and under what circumstances, until we
actually get there. Haven't you noticed that we've been told we'll all have
flying cars in ten years for the last 50 years?
> And poor little main character. He's a cripple. Oh, you can just
> feel the sympathy factor surround him like a halo. And yet, we're
> told he's extremely valuable to the corporation as the reason this
> literal know-nothing is recruited and sent on this mission. Hmmm.
> Let me get this straight. He's so valuable but the corporation cannot
> afford and/or want to fix his legs before he goes? Wouldn't they want
> to do that to insure he works as best as he can for them and be
> grateful to them for doing so? Wouldn't they at least hold that out
> as a carrot to come work for them? Oh wait. We need that carrot to
> be dangled by the "evil" military leader so the idiot becomes a we-all-
> know-momentary turncoat. And then there's the idiot himself. Could
> he be more dumb? He has the corporation over a barrel. They need him
> more than he needs them. Is he so dumb that he cannot say, "Here's
> the deal. You fix my legs now and I'll go off on this mission for
> you." No, that would eliminate the sympathy factor. We cannot have
> that.
The world is full of people who just don't know how to negotiate their
salary/bennies. This is probably one of the reasons for the salary gap
between male and female professionals in the same jobs with the same
skillsets: women, on the whole, are socially conditioned more to be nice
and sweet and pleasant rather than to take a corporation by the cojones and
squeeze.
Besides, even if the lead guy *had* negotiated for fresh legs, that doesn't
mean the corporation would have caved.
> And then there are the natives. They could be cast for "Dumb and
> Dumber 3". They never once think, "Hmmm. Our bows and arrows don't
> do much against these humans and their machines. Hmmm. I did kill
> one and here is his weapon resting on the ground here. Hmmm. I
> wonder what would happen if I picked it up and used it against them."
> You know like how American Indians did. But then that would make the
> moon's natives less pure and natural.
Mere possession of a weapon does not imply (a) knowledge of the possessor
of how to use and maintain the thing, or (b) a steady supply of spare parts
and ammo. I bet a lot of those future weapons are more complicated and,
therefore, touchier than modern weapons are, too.
It is true that Amerinds learned to use firearms against their oppressors.
However, that was only after being exposed to them for a long enough time to
acquire (a) and (b) above. Pandora hadn't exactly been very friendly, but
what you saw in the movie was the first time it had turned into full-scale
war.
> "Avatar" was nothing more than just another unrealistic eco anti-
> capitalism dumbed-down fantasy movie that manipulates everything with
> a sledgehammer to produce everything in it.
I cannot and won't argue with most of your points. However, I would like to
point out that it is an unrealistic eco anti-capitalism dumbed-down fantasy
movie that manipulates everything with a sledgehammer that boasts *great*
visuals -- and movies *are* a visual medium, let us not forget. It's not a
masterpiece or anything, and I won't buy the DVD, but IMHO it is a highly
enjoyable picture. I really enjoyed _Independence Day_, an even dumber movie,
for the same reasons... and, mind you, as you may have noticed, I'm one of
the folks who's usually inclined to talk up the smaller movies around here
rather than the larger ones.
You sound a lot like you *want* to hate it because you don't like its
politics, and that you may have wanted to hate it before it even started,
but lost a family vote for what the Christmas movie was going to be and
wound up getting dragged along anyway. If this is true -- and please don't
take this as an insult -- I feel sorry for you. As Kurt Vonnegut put it,
you are viciously attacking a hot fudge sundae.
You think lefty Hollywood movies are bad? Hell, _Battleship Potemkin_ is
a flaming Communist propaganda film. It's also a towering masterpiece that
every human being who likes film should see. If you don't believe me, you
can download the sucker from archive.org free of charge:
http://www.archive.org/details/uso_battleship_potemkin
--
alt.flame Special Forces
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without
accepting it." -- Aristotle
RonB
>> "Avatar" was nothing more than just another unrealistic eco anti-
>> capitalism dumbed-down fantasy movie that manipulates everything with
>> a sledgehammer to produce everything in it.
>
> I cannot and won't argue with most of your points. However, I would like to
> point out that it is an unrealistic eco anti-capitalism dumbed-down fantasy
> movie that manipulates everything with a sledgehammer that boasts *great*
> visuals -- and movies *are* a visual medium, let us not forget. It's not a
> masterpiece or anything, and I won't buy the DVD, but IMHO it is a highly
> enjoyable picture. I really enjoyed _Independence Day_, an even dumber movie,
> for the same reasons... and, mind you, as you may have noticed, I'm one of
> the folks who's usually inclined to talk up the smaller movies around here
> rather than the larger ones.
But being a "visual medium" doesn't excuse a movie from making sense...
or having decent dialog. Comparing it to "Independence Day" makes me
want to want to watch it less -- because I was disappointed in that one
also. I don't like being hit over the head with "sledgehammer"
propaganda. Movies are supposed to say something, but you don't have
talk down to your audience. (I haven't watched "Avatar" but I read the
spoilers and it does sound like sledgehammer propaganda.)
> You sound a lot like you *want* to hate it because you don't like its
> politics, and that you may have wanted to hate it before it even started,
> but lost a family vote for what the Christmas movie was going to be and
> wound up getting dragged along anyway. If this is true -- and please don't
> take this as an insult -- I feel sorry for you. As Kurt Vonnegut put it,
> you are viciously attacking a hot fudge sundae.
> You think lefty Hollywood movies are bad? Hell, _Battleship Potemkin_ is
> a flaming Communist propaganda film. It's also a towering masterpiece that
> every human being who likes film should see. If you don't believe me, you
> can download the sucker from archive.org free of charge:
I thought he gave some pretty good reasons for not liking "Avatar."
Personally I don't see anything wrong in attacking evil corporations --
who in reality run the governments anyhow -- but I'm not in love with
this earth worship malarkey either, so I'm guess I'm somewhere in the
middle politically. I may watch this on DVD when it comes out, but I'm
definitely going to see it at the theater.
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
RonB
NOT
> definitely ^ going to see it at the theater.
Steven J. Weller
Didn't really care for it, striking visuals or no. The "unobtainium"
didn't bother me so much; they only mentioned it by name once (that I
noticed) and that was pretty much glossed over. An in-joke that went
over most people's heads.
What DID bother me was the idea of a world - a naturally-evolved
world, if I understand it correctly - where all of the people,
animals, and even plants come equipped with a built-in USB link. It
also bothered me that sleep seemed to be largely unnecessary for our
human heros, except that sometimes it wasn't. They were awake while
they were "driving" the avatars, and then while the avatars were
asleep the drivers seemed to be up and around in the real world.
WTF? They also never bothered to address the idea of what happened -
or didn't happen - to the drivers, when the avatars were wounded or
killed. Not to get all Matrix about it, but his bravery leaping from
branch to branch or leaning over this or that precipice or leaping
onto the back of some silly-looking flying bat-lizard thing seems less
than impressive. Everybody's a fearless stunt pilot when flying a
model plane by remote control.
And the production design largely sucked. Bad enough that our alien
world has horses, but they actually call them "horses." And they grow
their own reins, as do the bat-lizard guys. Each of the animals
seemed painfully obvious - we need a wolf, but it can't just be a
plain old wolf, 'cause it's an alien world and all. What if we gave
it some sort of reptile-looking jaws, and some armadillo-looking
scales on its back? Fine, close enough. Moving on...
Also bothered me that when Our Hero first discovers his USB cable (in
his ponytail) someone tells him not to play with it, or he'll go blind
- an obvious masturbation reference. But then he jacks* it into every
living thing on the planet. At least when he finally bangs Angelina
JoLionKing, they use crotch-level genitals rather than link ponytails.
It's all pretty enough to look at, though it seems painfully familiar
- not in the 'believable future' sense, but in the 'oh, look, it's a
James Cameron SF movie' sense. And the 3D looks quite good. It just
seems like a fairly thin, weak, obvious story - and a telling of that
story that's uninspired at best - on which to hang a quarter-billion
dollars of film making. Sure, of course, no argument that no one
wants to take much in the way of an artistic risk at that pricepoint,
but even if you're comfortable trotting out Dances With Wolves for
another go-round, couldn't they have done a slightly less pedestrian
job in the telling?
--
Life Continues, Despite
Evidence to the Contrary
Steven
*you should pardon the expression.
Alan Brooks
> It's all pretty enough to look at, though it seems painfully familiar
> - not in the 'believable future' sense, but in the 'oh, look, it's a
> James Cameron SF movie' sense. And the 3D looks quite good.
Yeah. Well, you know this is totally going to change the face of
quarter-billion-dollar film making for the rest of history...
Alan Brooks
---------------------------
A Schmuck with an Underwood
-- Canon HF S10-3D
only $30,000,000
at Best Buy
(with refund
coupon for
$28,900,000)
STJensen
<byend.removethisbityousillyper...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> STJensen <recreationalpo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm sorry but, as far as I'm concerned, "Avatar" sucked. �It should
> > have been called "Wishful Thinking".
> > SPOILER ALERT!!!
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > even knowing (without help from some unbelievable supernatural force)
> > that anything was being done. �No strip mining needed. �Oh wait.
> > Sorry, that would totally destroy the conflict. �Can't have that. �I
> > guess nanotechnology never gets developed in the future.
>
> Dude, this is silly. There's no way to know what turns out to be workable
> and what doesn't in the future, and under what circumstances, until we
> actually get there. Haven't you noticed that we've been told we'll all have
> flying cars in ten years for the last 50 years?
Let me guess, you're an agnostic, right? You think magical elves
produced all our technological advancements. That our scientists
didn't stand on the shoulders of giants but trampolines. No need to
argue with me on this point. I know it is pointless either way.
> > And poor little main character. �He's a cripple. �Oh, you can just
> > feel the sympathy factor surround him like a halo. �And yet, we're
> > told he's extremely valuable to the corporation as the reason this
> > literal know-nothing is recruited and sent on this mission. �Hmmm.
> > Let me get this straight. �He's so valuable but the corporation cannot
> > afford and/or want to fix his legs before he goes? �Wouldn't they want
> > to do that to insure he works as best as he can for them and be
> > grateful to them for doing so? �Wouldn't they at least hold that out
> > as a carrot to come work for them? �Oh wait. �We need that carrot to
> > be dangled by the "evil" military leader so the idiot becomes a we-all-
> > know-momentary turncoat. �And then there's the idiot himself. �Could
> > he be more dumb? �He has the corporation over a barrel. �They need him
> > more than he needs them. �Is he so dumb that he cannot say, "Here's
> > the deal. �You fix my legs now and I'll go off on this mission for
> > you." �No, that would eliminate the sympathy factor. �We cannot have
> > that.
>
> The world is full of people who just don't know how to negotiate their
> salary/bennies.
And there are people who don't know how to tie their shoes. Let us
make one of those retards the central character of a movie too.
> This is probably one of the reasons for the salary gap
> between male and female professionals in the same jobs with the same
> skillsets: women, on the whole, are socially conditioned more to be nice
> and sweet and pleasant rather than to take a corporation by the cojones
> and squeeze.
No, actually the difference is because women take off to have a kid
and many then stay home to raise them. When they then return to the
workforce, they might have same skillset (almost assuredly an outdated
skillset) but they don't have the years of job experience and
continuous employment that makes them more valuable to hire. No one
forced them to have a kid(s). It was a choice they made and they're
paying the consequences.
> Besides, even if the lead guy *had* negotiated for fresh legs, that doesn't
> mean the corporation would have caved.
You realize this is a story, right? It never happened. It is
fiction. Anything can happen in fiction but that doesn't mean
anything should happen. Yes, I know that giving the main character an
ounce of intelligence would screw up this whole movie but that doesn't
mean it should be forgiven or that it doesn't make this movie suck.
> > And then there are the natives. �They could be cast for "Dumb and
> > Dumber 3". �They never once think, "Hmmm. �Our bows and arrows don't
> > do much against these humans and their machines. �Hmmm. �I did kill
> > one and here is his weapon resting on the ground here. �Hmmm. �I
> > wonder what would happen if I picked it up and used it against them."
> > You know like how American Indians did. �But then that would make the
> > moon's natives less pure and natural. �
>
> � Mere possession of a weapon does not imply (a) knowledge of the possessor
> of how to use and maintain the thing, or (b) a steady supply of spare parts
> and ammo. I bet a lot of those future weapons are more complicated and,
> therefore, touchier than modern weapons are, too.
>
> � It is true that Amerinds learned to use firearms against their oppressors.
> However, that was only after being exposed to them for a long enough time to
> acquire (a) and (b) above. Pandora hadn't exactly been very friendly, but
> what you saw in the movie was the first time it had turned into full-scale
> war.
No, hostile natives was well and long established in that story's
universe. Or did you think they had mercenaries there by accident?
More gifts from the trampoline gods?
> > "Avatar" was nothing more than just another unrealistic eco anti-
> > capitalism dumbed-down fantasy movie that manipulates everything with
> > a sledgehammer to produce everything in it.
>
> � I cannot and won't argue with most of your points. However, I would like to
> point out that it is an unrealistic eco anti-capitalism dumbed-down fantasy
> movie that manipulates everything with a sledgehammer that boasts *great*
> visuals -- and movies *are* a visual medium, let us not forget. It's not a
> masterpiece or anything, and I won't buy the DVD, but IMHO it is a highly
> enjoyable picture. I really enjoyed _Independence Day_, an even dumber movie,
> for the same reasons... and, mind you, as you may have noticed, I'm one of
> the folks who's usually inclined to talk up the smaller movies around here
> rather than the larger ones.
So you have a poor taste in movies and your standards are beneath the
barrel. So? That doesn't elevate this movie but simply further
condemns it.
> � You sound a lot like you *want* to hate it because you don't like its
> politics, and that you may have wanted to hate it before it even started,
> but lost a family vote for what the Christmas movie was going to be and
> wound up getting dragged along anyway. If this is true -- and please don't
> take this as an insult -- I feel sorry for you. As Kurt Vonnegut put it,
> you are viciously attacking a hot fudge sundae.
Nice try at strawman-making there. But, unfortunately, you're way
off. I really enjoy science fiction and went in hoping for the best.
I didn't lose any family vote but treated my entire extended family to
the movie. That and treated them all to popcorn and sodas. Hell, I
treated them all to the Holmes movie (an excellent movie by the way)
on that same day and we saw that one first. Buying them "D-Box" seats
(movie-synchronized motion seats ... or "massage chairs" as my niece
jokingly labeled them) to see the Holmes movie and would have done so
also for "Avatar" if the theater it was in had them. This being one
of the Christmas gifts I gave everyone and what we all did on
Christmas Day.
Why I hated the movie wasn't because of its politics but because it
was a crappy movie. Yes, the computer animation was great. I will
give it that. But nothing supported it. No believable story,
characters, or anything. Nothing. Just endless cliches. The movie
requires you to leave your brain at the theater door. Accept
everything and question nothing.
> You think lefty Hollywood movies are bad?
As I think "righty" Hollywood movies are bad. As I think any movie
that tries to use a sledgehammer to get across its political views are
bad. And the politics of this one was classic Hollywood eco
liberalism. Not even an attempt to present any counter viewpoint. My
side good, your side bad. End of story.
And it could have been FAR more. What if what they were mining was
the cure to a fatal plague that was wiping out the human race
throughout the galaxy? What if the "evil" corporate executive was
weighing that against leaving the natives alone? What if going slow
meant millions would die as they did so? That injects a "greater
good" argument into the story. Now neither side is good or evil. Now
the main characters can have some real meat to debate. BUT we didn't
get that. Instead we got a simplistic one-sided moronic story and
worse cardboard-cut-out characters running to an obvious sugar-coated
climax. Oh, look! Pretty colors!
Scott Jensen
Ovum
> > point out that it is an unrealistic eco anti-capitalism dumbed-down fantasy
> > movie that manipulates everything with a sledgehammer that boasts *great*
> > visuals -- and movies *are* a visual medium, let us not forget. It's not a
> > masterpiece or anything, and I won't buy the DVD, but IMHO it is a highly
> > enjoyable picture. I really enjoyed _Independence Day_, an even dumber movie,
> > for the same reasons... and, mind you, as you may have noticed, I'm one of
> > the folks who's usually inclined to talk up the smaller movies around here
> > rather than the larger ones.
>
> But being a "visual medium" doesn't excuse a movie from making sense...
> or having decent dialog. Comparing it to "Independence Day" makes me
> want to want to watch it less -- because I was disappointed in that one
> also.
Hey! What do you have against "Independence Day"? It's sci-fi pedigree
was unassaible. It had Data from "Star Trek: Next Generation,"
President Roslyn from "Battlestar Galactica," Jeff Goldblum from
"Jurassic Park" and Will Smith from "Men in Black"!
Plus, the visuals were terrific. Not to mention Bill Pulman's kickoff
speech to the troops was stirring, and the film as a whole was by
turns touching, hilarious and funny.
OK, the filmmakers did make one of the main love interests a stripper,
but you can't have everything. At least they let the black guy
live. :-)
o
Ovum
>
> And the production design largely sucked. �Bad enough that our alien
> world has horses, but they actually call them "horses." �And they grow
> their own reins, as do the bat-lizard guys. �Each of the animals
> seemed painfully obvious - we need a wolf, but it can't just be a
> plain old wolf, 'cause it's an alien world and all. �What if we gave
> it some sort of reptile-looking jaws, and some armadillo-looking
> scales on its back? �Fine, close enough. �Moving on...
Didn't you notice that both the "horses" (which, I agree, did look a
tad too horse-ish) and one of the other animals -- maybe the rhinos or
the giant panther thing -- all had six legs instead of four? And gill-
like breathing holes?
So there you go. Totally different from Earth beasts. Cameron was
almost Trek-ish in his creation of alien life forms. ("Hey, throw in
an extra set of eyes or some head ridges and we've got 'aliens'!")
o
Ovum
> On Dec 29, 12:28�pm, "Avoid normal situations."
>
> > between male and female professionals in the same jobs with the same
> > skillsets: women, on the whole, are socially conditioned more to be nice
> > and sweet and pleasant rather than to take a corporation by the cojones
> > and squeeze.
>
> No, actually the difference is because women take off to have a kid
> and many then stay home to raise them. �When they then return to the
> workforce, they might have same skillset (almost assuredly an outdated
> skillset) but they don't have the years of job experience and
> continuous employment that makes them more valuable to hire. �No one
> forced them to have a kid(s). �It was a choice they made and they're
> paying the consequences.
Actually, you're both right. A recent issue of "Psychology Today" or
some other pub had an article about how women aren't as aggressive in
pursuing pay raises as men are. And it's been long understood that
women cede ground professionally when they put their careers on hold
to raise kids.
o
Steven J. Weller
I read an article about the production design on one of the Trek
movies, ages ago, and the designer/art director.illustrator/whoever it
was used perfect Trek shorthand. It applies to Cameron, too, perhaps
more than he realizes. The Art Guy was talking about using real-world
stuff, like actual buildings and whatnot, and "putting points on the
ears."
Just about sums it up.
--
Life Contiunes, Despite
RonB
> Hey! What do you have against "Independence Day"? It's sci-fi pedigree
> was unassaible. It had Data from "Star Trek: Next Generation,"
> President Roslyn from "Battlestar Galactica," Jeff Goldblum from
> "Jurassic Park" and Will Smith from "Men in Black"!
I liked Will Smith in it -- and had nothing against the actors, but the
plot was pitiful.
> Plus, the visuals were terrific. Not to mention Bill Pulman's kickoff
> speech to the troops was stirring, and the film as a whole was by
> turns touching, hilarious and funny.
I liked some of the visuals, but the dialog and especially the speeches
came across as overblown and artificial to me. (And I like Pullman. What
happened to him?)
> OK, the filmmakers did make one of the main love interests a stripper,
> but you can't have everything. At least they let the black guy
> live. :-)
The black guy lived in "Mars Attacks!" also -- so I think I'll choose
that one.
Paulo Joe Jingy
Hollywood action movies that are mindless and they often make good
money. (Did I hear someone say Transformers?) Movie critics normally
pan these movies and label them with scorn as "popcorn movies".
I guess what bugs me is there seems to be different varieties of
mindless. There's mindless and there's "James Cameron mindless",
which these same, normally, derisive critics label as "brilliance".
Childish, idiotic dialogue is transformed into "dialogue that's
accessible to an International audience". (To the simple it might
look idiotic, but James Cameron cultists know it as something sublime
that transcends lesser writers and directors.)
Simplistic or non-existent plots in the hands of a genius like James
Cameron are "seemingly simplistic", but in actuality "steeped in
wisdom" A god, like James Cameron (It appears) has the ability to
take the horribly complex and distill into something simple, yet
universal, that "speaks to us all".
When James Cameron steals the concept of a cat/human hybrid that's
only been done in about five million fantasy and science fiction
stories or steals the old concept of floating rock forests, it somehow
becomes a "fresh new concept" and "world beyond anything we've ever
seen before". (Yeah, maybe if you were born yesterday or were born
blind and were miraculously cured yesterday.)
(And while we're on the subject -- what the hell is supposed to be so
sexy, to human males, about a woman/cat hybrid anyway? Personally
something that wags it tail when it's pissed off, claws the curtains,
chases mice, coughs up hairballs and poops in a really big litter box
isn't a turn-on to me.)
To end the rant. Enjoy it if you want. Spend every penny you ever
made watching it over and over again, if you want. But please don't
tell me it's "earth-shattering" or "brilliant", or "will change the
way movies are made forever", or any of the other mindless droolings
uttered by an army of James Cameron Moonies.
I know better -- I saw the trailer.
Remysun
> (And while we're on the subject -- what the hell is supposed to be so
> sexy, to human males, about a woman/cat hybrid anyway? �
It's all about the pussy :p
KeithCu
> I thought he gave some pretty good reasons for not liking "Avatar."
> Personally I don't see anything wrong in attacking evil corporations --
> who in reality run the governments anyhow -- but I'm not in love with
> this earth worship malarkey either, so I'm guess I'm somewhere in the
> middle politically. I may watch this on DVD when it comes out, but I'm
> definitely going to see it at the theater.
>
Labor unions have more influence over the US Congress than does the
car companies. Trial lawyers have more influence than Doctors.
Teachers have more power than parents. Pharmaceutical companies,
health insurance, and energy companies are demonized, which is the
first step to governments getting their fingers involved.
Uncle Arnold
> RonB:
>
>> I thought he gave some pretty good reasons for not liking "Avatar."
>> Personally I don't see anything wrong in attacking evil corporations
>> -- who in reality run the governments anyhow -- but I'm not in love
>> with this earth worship malarkey either, so I'm guess I'm somewhere
>> in the middle politically. I may watch this on DVD when it comes
>> out, but I'm definitely going to see it at the theater.
>>
>
> Labor unions have more influence over the US Congress than does the
> car companies.
.... which is of course why no-one in Congress did anything about health care
provision until GM started bleating that insurance costs were killing
them...
Truly, there's no dumb-shit like an Ameican dumb-shit...
A.
Michael
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/athena-andreadis-phd/camerons-iavatari-jar-jar_b_402576.html
>
I've just read all the comments here and I have to say that are pretty
much irrelevant for anyone other than scriptwriters.
The film works and has huge appeal. I'd rather not watch it again any
time soon, thanks. But that's irrelevant too. I just don't see the point
of debating the oxygen levels or relative wakey-wakeyness of the avatars.
What does it tell us that people enjoy such a film-by-numbers job?
Michael
Steven J. Weller
> Schlockhack wrote:
>
> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/athena-andreadis-phd/camerons-iavatari-...
>
> I've just read all the comments here and I have to say that are pretty
> much irrelevant for anyone other than scriptwriters.
...which is probably why the thread's here at
misc.writing.screenplays.moderated, rather than at
alt.fanboy.avatar.apologist or someplace similar.
> The film works and has huge appeal. I'd rather not watch it again any
> time soon, thanks. But that's irrelevant too. I just don't see the point
> of debating the oxygen levels or relative wakey-wakeyness of the avatars.
>
> What does it tell us that people enjoy such a film-by-numbers job?
...that we're the people who write screenplays? You wouldn't expect
an Art Department newsgroup to debate the merits of the script, or an
audiophile group to deconstruct the whole 3D aspect. What else would
a bunch of screenwriters talk about, if not the screenplay (which is
dull and pedestrian at best)?
--
Life Continues, Despite
nmstevens
> Schlockhack wrote:
> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/athena-andreadis-phd/camerons-iavatari-...
>
> much irrelevant for anyone other than scriptwriters.
>
> The film works and has huge appeal. I'd rather not watch it again any
> time soon, thanks. But that's irrelevant too. I just don't see the point
> of debating the oxygen levels or relative wakey-wakeyness of the avatars.
>
> What does it tell us that people enjoy such a film-by-numbers job?
>
> Michael
To be honest, to me this sounds like "foodies" arguing about how
terrible it is that most people like eating at McDonald's and how
terrible that food really is and why it's terrible and how much better
a salad made of fresh greens with some hicama (or however it's spelled
or whatever the hell it is) on top would be.
Well, maybe it would and maybe that make-believe brown-rice hicama-
eating world would be healthier -- but the sad fact is, right now the
equivalent of "foodie" movies is getting smaller and smaller and
smaller. The money to make them isn't there. The business model by
which they become profitable by way of on-line delivery isn't there.
Trying to make a living writing screenplays for hundred thousand
dollars movies that have one chance in ten of ever getting released --
or even making those movies yourself is a recipe for finding another
day job to keep your head above water. That's not a career. It's a
hobby
So you want to be in this business, you either have to make McDonald's
movies or figure out a way to make hicama taste like a Big Mac because
if you think you're going to convince the world to change its taste in
the next couple years, you're just living in a dream world.
NMS
Paulo Joe Jingy
> Schlockhack wrote:
> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/athena-andreadis-phd/camerons-iavatari-...
>
> much irrelevant for anyone other than scriptwriters.
>
> The film works and has huge appeal. I'd rather not watch it again any
> time soon, thanks. But that's irrelevant too. I just don't see the point
> of debating the oxygen levels or relative wakey-wakeyness of the avatars.
>
> What does it tell us that people enjoy such a film-by-numbers job?
Considering the 2nd highest grossing movie of 2009 was Transformers 2,
what it tells me is that screenwriters are doomed. (I have a DVD
quote of Michael Bay saying: "Hey screenwriters -- when it gets to
action, just write 'action' -- I'll fill it in. (only slightly
paraphrased.))
Here's a script I wrote for Michael Bay.
FADE IN:
Action
FADE OUT:
The End
"Special effects rules, screenwriting drools."
Paulo Joe Jingy
> Schlockhack wrote:
> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/athena-andreadis-phd/camerons-iavatari-...
>
> much irrelevant for anyone other than scriptwriters.
>
> The film works and has huge appeal. I'd rather not watch it again any
> time soon, thanks. But that's irrelevant too. I just don't see the point
> of debating the oxygen levels or relative wakey-wakeyness of the avatars.
>
> What does it tell us that people enjoy such a film-by-numbers job?
But seriously -- we now have movies that are being made for a
generation who have sat in front of the computer 12 hours a day,
manipulating pixels that ARE real life to them. Then they get a
movie, that's essentially the same thing, but with actual voices and
stuff. No wonder they're amazed.
And no wonder Sam Raimi moved from Spider-Man to World of Warcraft.
Compared to video games, comic books are just way too deep.
Michael
> On Jan 13, 9:23 am, Michael <nswri...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> Schlockhack wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/athena-andreadis-phd/camerons-iavatari-...
>> I've just read all the comments here and I have to say that are pretty
>> much irrelevant for anyone other than scriptwriters.
>
> ...which is probably why the thread's here at
> misc.writing.screenplays.moderated, rather than at
> alt.fanboy.avatar.apologist or someplace similar.
>
LOL. Can't argue with that.
M
>
> Steven
>
Michael
the music biz, it was clear that the movie biz was going to hit a
financing issue once it entered the digital sphere (p2p, dropping DVD
sales, etc).
But also coming from the music biz tells me that you shouldn't give up
yet! You just have to radically adapt your expectations. There will
still be movies/music made, but just as the charts are completely
dominated by X-Factor/Idol/Star Academy winners (and occasional losers),
the big movie hits will be even more the playgound of the truly big
producers with global "cross-platform" media reach.
More specifically, it looks like the mid-budget US movies are going to
have the worst ride as world audiences increasingly opt for their own
equivalents. Maybe the answer will be to develop stories with a greater
niche appeal. They seem to always stand up to bad weather.
M
Michael
> I don't mind so much that Avatar is mindless. There's a lot of
> Hollywood action movies that are mindless and they often make good
> money. (Did I hear someone say Transformers?) Movie critics normally
> pan these movies and label them with scorn as "popcorn movies".
>
...
>
> To end the rant. Enjoy it if you want. Spend every penny you ever
> made watching it over and over again, if you want. But please don't
> tell me it's "earth-shattering" or "brilliant", or "will change the
> way movies are made forever", or any of the other mindless droolings
> uttered by an army of James Cameron Moonies.
>
> I know better -- I saw the trailer.
>
We don't read the same magazines, I think! For me, it was a pretty
family film. Nothing as engaging as "Toy Story" or as well-crafted as
"Ice Age". End of story. What's on this week?
M