AVATAR.... the movie

[Phil_on_uni]

it reminded me of what falling in love is like.... as bold of a statement that might be...

[Into the blue]

I'm going to go see it in about an hour.

I'll let you know what I think.

[Phil_on_uni]

A BIG NOTE to anyone that goes to this movie!

If you have the chance to see it in 3D, I would HIGHLY recommend it

[Into the blue]

Dances With Wolves in space.

I wasn't particularly impressed.

[Matt_V]

Me and my friends are thinking about taking a trip to Toronto to see it on Imax 3D over the christmas holidays.

[MuniAddict]

I think the females will like it most for the Love story aspect; The guys will probably enjoy the battles and CG effects most. If the emphasis *is* on the love story aspect, I'll pass.

[Phil_on_uni]

Actually, the love story aspect is very subtle. It is mostly about the main story.

Which is SIMILAR to dances with wolves.... not the same story....

[Robuni]

This movie is very good and actually has a good point to it. The only thing was the colors in the forest were very intense and i quickly had a headache. But overall an excellent movie.

[CottonAnatomy]

I think the females will like it most for the Love story aspect; The guys will probably enjoy the battles and CG effects most. If the emphasis *is* on the love story aspect, I'll pass.

Sexist. :rolleyes:

[MuniAddict]

Sexist. :rolleyes:Realist, lol! :p I know I was stereotyping a bit there, but it was just in a very general sense. I know the very opposite can be true as well. :o

[beeper]

Wow. I can't stop talking about this movie.

See it in 3d though. It boosts the cinematic experience that much more.

The concept of the whole movie was so nicely thought out. All I can really say is.. Wow.

I don't even generally like movies, or like to watch them 2 times.. But I am buying this on DVD the day it comes out, and watching it again immidiately.

So many deep messages. Such great meaning compacted into 2.5 hours.

A must see. But see it in 3d for the 4 extra bucks. Do yourself a favor.

[SqueakyOnion]

Despite all these positive reviews, the fact is that the movie is being used primarily as a means to sell plastic crap. McDonald's commercials already try to associate their burgers with watching the movie, plastic action figures can already be found in stores, and you can re-live the movie in first person through the video game.

In my mind, these things cheapen the movie, despite any meaningful messages it conveys. It's clear that this movie was designed to be released just before Christmas in order to cash in on the holiday spending frenzy. Take your kids to the movie, buy them plastic crap for christmas, and then throw it all out or stuff it in a closet in a few months when Avatar is old news.

While it may be that the movie writers or whatever had good, thoughtful messages to convey, it seems obvious that they're sell-outs.

While I may eventually see it if I can see it for free sometime in the future, I feel that spending money on a ticket only supports this sort of theatrical overconsumption.

[beeper]

Despite all these positive reviews, the fact is that the movie is being used primarily as a means to sell plastic crap. McDonald's commercials already try to associate their burgers with watching the movie, plastic action figures can already be found in stores, and you can re-live the movie in first person through the video game.

In my mind, these things cheapen the movie, despite any meaningful messages it conveys. It's clear that this movie was designed to be released just before Christmas in order to cash in on the holiday spending frenzy. Take your kids to the movie, buy them plastic crap for christmas, and then throw it all out or stuff it in a closet in a few months when Avatar is old news.

While it may be that the movie writers or whatever had good, thoughtful messages to convey, it seems obvious that they're sell-outs.

While I may eventually see it if I can see it for free sometime in the future, I feel that spending money on a ticket only supports this sort of theatrical overconsumption.


I see where you're coming from, but I wouldn't call them sell outs. They want to make money off of this movie, yeah. But it cost them 250 million to make. They just want to make sure they make a profit, rather than fall short. That isn't selling out, and I'm sure if you were in the same position you would do the same. I don't see how this movie was intended to sell plastic crap at all. It stresses the importance of nature, but It had other messages in it as well regarding war, human opression, and discrimination. And I think it was smart of them to release it prior to christmas. 250 million is a big chance to spend on a movie, and even after its released you still aren't sure. I'm sure they're just trying to make as much back as possible, and enjoy the profits. Thats why movies are generally made in the first place.

[Straightarrow]

+1 with Beeper and Phil on uni

I saw Avatar. I liked it for so many reasons on so many levels.

It replays and I find my mind drifting back to different parts over and over. The visual aspect alone is worth admission right there..it's impressive.

I actually have an O7 Torker DX prototype that is made from "unobtanium"...which is like..uhhh...really hard to get : )

Seriously, Avatar is worth seeing

[SqueakyOnion]

I don't see how this movie was intended to sell plastic crap at all.
The McDonald's commercials and elaborate store displays don't give it away? Don't the large-eyed, colorful blue creatures appeal to children both on screen and on action figures? It all started with STAR WARS...
I'm sure they're just trying to make as much back as possible, and enjoy the profits. Thats why movies are generally made in the first place.

If a movie can't turn a profit on its own merits, then it probably isn't that great of a movie. (Or, I suppose you could argue that the public has bad taste in general, and even good movies need to be hyped and over-commercialized in order to exist - this idea I might buy.)

I have little doubt that the movie itself is both entertaining and thought-provoking. Clearly, Avatar is not a high offender...movies like G.I. Joe or Tomb Raider are the worst, being created only to be flashy vehicles in order to sell stuff or cash in on existing public interest, with little or no substantial food for thought. While this practice is not inherently "evil" or anything like that, I hope to spend my dollar "votes" on movies that support the direction in which I think Hollywood should move. I'm just hesitant to support the marketing machine that operates in the movie industry in general, of which Avatar is a small part. I still plan to see the movie.

[Michaelgoround]

I see where you're coming from, but I wouldn't call them sell outs. They want to make money off of this movie, yeah. But it cost them 250 million to make. They just want to make sure they make a profit, rather than fall short. That isn't selling out, and I'm sure if you were in the same position you would do the same. I don't see how this movie was intended to sell plastic crap at all. It stresses the importance of nature, but It had other messages in it as well regarding war, human opression, and discrimination. And I think it was smart of them to release it prior to christmas. 250 million is a big chance to spend on a movie, and even after its released you still aren't sure. I'm sure they're just trying to make as much back as possible, and enjoy the profits. Thats why movies are generally made in the first place.
+1 I do find the McDonalds commercials annoying though.

The McDonald's commercials and elaborate store displays don't give it away? Don't the large-eyed, colorful blue creatures appeal to children both on screen and on action figures? It all started with STAR WARS...

If a movie can't turn a profit on its own merits, then it probably isn't that great of a movie. (Or, I suppose you could argue that the public has bad taste in general, and even good movies need to be hyped and over-commercialized in order to exist - this idea I might buy.)

I have little doubt that the movie itself is both entertaining and thought-provoking. Clearly, Avatar is not a high offender...movies like G.I. Joe or Tomb Raider are the worst, being created only to be flashy vehicles in order to sell stuff or cash in on existing public interest, with little or no substantial food for thought. While this practice is not inherently "evil" or anything like that, I hope to spend my dollar "votes" on movies that support the direction in which I think Hollywood should move. I'm just hesitant to support the marketing machine that operates in the movie industry in general, of which Avatar is a small part. I still plan to see the movie.
Its certainly a good movie man. I like it and I don't like most movies that come out now a days. Its is "flashy" and there are a few things I would have changed, but all in all it was a great movie.

BTW I don't really see the big deal about a movie trying to make money. That is what most are made to do.

[SqueakyOnion]

BTW I don't really see the big deal about a movie trying to make money. That is what most are made to do.

Well like I said, making money isn't bad per se. In fact, just the opposite; movies need to make money in order to make it profitable and desirable for talented and passionate movie-makers to join the field. I'm not even against selling action figures or anything like that; I've bought my fair share of STAR WARS memorabilia. It's about the current climate where too often, the movie itself is irrelevant, it's all about how much plastic (or otherwise) crap the movie can get people to buy. When movie-making becomes solely about selling stuff, the quality of movies in general suffers. When movies cease to be an end in themselves and become only a means to an end (that of selling stuff), movies cease in needing to have quality. When profit is the only motivator, other things suffer.

I'm not really criticizing the movie itself (how can I? I haven't seen it, aside from a few scenes in the trailer), but merely the marketing machine surrounding it and the movie industry in general.

[beeper]

When profit is the only motivator, other things suffer.

I'm not really criticizing the movie itself (how can I? I haven't seen it, aside from a few scenes in the trailer), but merely the marketing machine surrounding it and the movie industry in general.


I think you need to see the movie. You'll understand entirely why i'm disagreeing with you.. "environmental destruction", or "plastic"aren't even terms that come up in the movie. they're just background themes in the plot. It isn't like the movie was made to motivate us to buy plastic, and when you see it, you will understand that. I havn't seen the mcdonald's commercials, so I can't entirely see where you're coming from there. But I would imagine it would just be a way of promoting the movie. When WALL-E was made, they had toys for that movie. That movie actually stressed environmental importance. I don't think that was a technique to make people buy plastic. When you see the movie you will definitely see where i'm coming from here. I can't say much more without giving it away..

[SqueakyOnion]

I think you need to see the movie. You'll understand entirely why i'm disagreeing with you.. "environmental destruction", or "plastic"aren't even terms that come up in the movie.

I haven't made any comment about any environmental concerns one way or the other, and am not sure why you mentioned it. While the movie may have some environmental message, this has nothing to do with my criticism as I was not even aware of it.

My mentioned of plastic was more of a literal descriptive term, and perhaps also as a symbolic term; neither referring to any environmental stance.


But I would imagine it would just be a way of promoting the movie.

This is exactly what I'm getting at. Your assumption is that toys, video games, and advertising are a way of promoting a movie. Given that the toys, ads, and video game was released at the same time as the movie, your assumption seems plausible.

My assertion is that the movie is simply a way of promoting the sales of toys and video games, and that in general this practice has led to the sales of toys and video games to be the primary objective in movie-making, degrading the quality of movies overall.

I remember when toys/games used to come out when a movie came out on video...they came out fairly long AFTER the movie had already hit it big or flopped. If a movie hit it big, they ran production of toys - makes sense. If it flopped, they didn't. These days, toys/games are released at the same time as the movie itself. Since the cost of production is so low, it makes monetary sense to release toys/games at the same time as the movie regardless of its quality. Profit margins are high enough that a movie can flop (or break even, or only turn a slight profit) in ticket sales, but the movie-makers still turn a big profit on the sales of toys/games. Since the profit motive has shifted to selling toys/games instead of making awesome movies, the quality of movies will suffer, overall. Movies no longer need to be awesome by their own merits, only good enough to get people to buy stuff.

[Straightarrow]

...Speaking of plastic

I know this isn't scientifical and don't in no way use enough fanciful words to spill over into enough bandwidth to be taken none too serious, but here is what I just done

I took out the Magic 8-Ball and asked it if everyone at UDC should see Avatar because it is a life affirming, and worthwhile endeavor.

Magic 8-Ball said: IT IS CERTAIN ...That right there is better than a plain old YES...It's like YES with a little extra!

[beeper]

I haven't made any comment about any environmental concerns one way or the other, and am not sure why you mentioned it. While the movie may have some environmental message, this has nothing to do with my criticism as I was not even aware of it.

My mentioned of plastic was more of a literal descriptive term, and perhaps also as a symbolic term; neither referring to any environmental stance.



This is exactly what I'm getting at. Your assumption is that toys, video games, and advertising are a way of promoting a movie. Given that the toys, ads, and video game was released at the same time as the movie, your assumption seems plausible.

My assertion is that the movie is simply a way of promoting the sales of toys and video games, and that in general this practice has led to the sales of toys and video games to be the primary objective in movie-making, degrading the quality of movies overall.

I remember when toys/games used to come out when a movie came out on video...they came out fairly long AFTER the movie had already hit it big or flopped. If a movie hit it big, they ran production of toys - makes sense. If it flopped, they didn't. These days, toys/games are released at the same time as the movie itself. Since the cost of production is so low, it makes monetary sense to release toys/games at the same time as the movie regardless of its quality. Profit margins are high enough that a movie can flop (or break even, or only turn a slight profit) in ticket sales, but the movie-makers still turn a big profit on the sales of toys/games. Since the profit motive has shifted to selling toys/games instead of making awesome movies, the quality of movies will suffer, overall. Movies no longer need to be awesome by their own merits, only good enough to get people to buy stuff.


I see now. I didn't realize you were using the term "plastic" to represent the term "toys". I thought you meant that the movie's purpose was to make people choose recyclable plastic, over anything else.

I think you are looking too deep into this though. Keep in mind these are mcdondald's toys, not high end action figures. These toys are essentially accepted by mcdonald's to help sell happy meals, or whatever it is they sell with toys. And as for the video games, those are also just promoting the movie, but more so the toys. I don't think they're making that much money off of toys that come for free in children's meals that come in flimsy cardboard boxes. The toys are advertising the movie, its obvious.

The way you are explaining this, is that the 250 million dollar movie, was created to sell cheap mcdonald's toys, and a video game. They could have saved a lot of money and just made a small cartoon series of the same effect.

The video game most likely wasn't made at the same time as the movie. This movie started production around '04-'05. That gave developers plenty of time to decide if they wanted to persue it as a game, and to see if they think it would sell. From what I understand, the makers of the movie only get the money from the "rights" that are sold, anyway. Its not like they made the game. On top of this, I find it very unlikely that any knowledgeable movie writer would make a scene, thinking "wow this would make a great boss level".

The way I see it is this: They made the movie, weren't sure how it would do, then decided to make a video game and some cheap toys to make some extra buck if it was decent. There can't be any way that they thought the video game and the mcdonald's toys would make them such a large profit, and wanted to promote it with a movie. That isn't financially logical.

Even if they were making a movie to promote toys and a video game, that may make them ignorant, but not a bunch of sell-outs.

[Into the blue]

I find it very unlikely that any knowledgeable movie writer would make a scene, thinking "wow this would make a great boss level".

Don't be so naive.
Go watch Star Wars: Attack Of The Clones and tell me that robot factory scene wasn't written with a video game in mind.

It's all about... MERCHANDISING!

[SqueakyOnion]

I think you are looking too deep into this though.
With all due respect, I don't think you realize the amount of thought, market research, and planning goes into movie-making; you're looking too shallow into this. With 250mils at stake, at every step of the movie-making process, every decision is made to maximize profits based on market research, and this is the sole motivator. When it comes to big business, of which movies are a part, every decision is made deliberately in order to minimize risk and maximize profits.

Keep in mind these are mcdondald's toys, not high end action figures.
While it may be that McDonald's is pushing toys, this wasn't what I was referring to (since I don't go to McDonald's, and don't even know if they are offering Avatar toys). I was referring to the McDonald's commercials where they try to equate the excitement of watching the movie with the excitement of eating one of their cheeseburgers (or "Angus burger," or whatever they're pushing these days).

In referring to toys, I meant action figures etc. that I've seen in department stores.

...the 250 million dollar movie, was created to sell cheap [retail store] toys, and a video game.
Exactly.

They could have saved a lot of money and just made a small cartoon series of the same effect.
Here, I disagree. A cartoon series would not generate the same amount of merchandise sales. This is evidenced by the sheer amount of movie-merchandise available as compared to cartoon-series-merchandise. If selling cartoon-series-merchandise were just as profitable, or even more so, then there would be more cartoon-series-merchandise in stores. In my holiday shopping (where I was in the toy dept shopping for a 3 y/o), I hardly saw any cartoon series merchandise, and this is not due to a lack of cartoon series. While things like Pokemon have hit it big in the past, movies still dominate merchandising.

On top of this, I find it very unlikely that any knowledgeable movie writer would make a scene, thinking "wow this would make a great boss level".
While the movie writer may not, the production company's marketing team may tweak the movie in order to do just that: design the movie so that it will more easily adapt into an enticing video game.

The way I see it is this: They made the movie, weren't sure how it would do,
Exactly! Since they're not sure how it would do, they supplement ticket sales revenue with merchandise sales. The thing is, merchandise sales are no longer supplementary, but the primary means for revenue, since merchandise sales is a more reliable and predicable source of revenue.

then decided to make a video game and some cheap toys to make some extra buck if it was decent.
If you're selling merchandise, the movie doesn't even have to be "decent," just enticing enough to sell merchandise.

There can't be any way that they thought the video game and the [retail store] toys would make them such a large profit, and wanted to promote it with a movie. That isn't financially logical.
Really? Are you sure? A movie ticket is what, $8-$12? What if every parent who sees the movie also buys their kid $30 worth of merchandise for xmas? The profit margin on merchandise is much higher than ticket sales.

Even if they were making a movie to promote toys and a video game, that may make them ignorant, but not a bunch of sell-outs.
Why ignorant?

Into the Blue's Spaceballs clip hit the nail on the head. STAR WARS, the new ones especially, are clearly designed in order to cash in on merchandising.

[Inigo Montoya]

They made a figure for him-a (http://www.mwctoys.com/REVIEW_120508a.htm), but not-a for me?

Inconceivable!

[beeper]

With all due respect, I don't think you realize the amount of thought, market research, and planning goes into movie-making; you're looking too shallow into this. With 250mils at stake, at every step of the movie-making process, every decision is made to maximize profits based on market research, and this is the sole motivator. When it comes to big business, of which movies are a part, every decision is made deliberately in order to minimize risk and maximize profits.

Define what you mean when you say "every decision". You may have just selected the wrong term. I can definitely see how they might have created the characters to be appealing to children for marketing sales on toys, but I don't think they tweaked the storyline to sell toys, or make for a better "character description" on the back of an action figure box.

Really? Are you sure? A movie ticket is what, $8-$12? What if every parent who sees the movie also buys their kid $30 worth of merchandise for xmas? The profit margin on merchandise is much higher than ticket sales.

I am almost positive. Keep in mind not every person is a parent. Keep in mind most parents take their children to see movies. Here, a movie ticket is $11.50 ($14.50 in 3d), but i'll go by $11.50. Let's say that two parents and their kid go to see a movie. The movie has already earned $34.00, disregarding the fact that some parents have more than one child. If every parent were to go see this movie, that offers a wide variety of prices, but surely it will be at least $23.00 for every 2 parents that go to see this movie, and surely they are going to bring their kid(s), if they might intend on buying their child some sort of toy from that movie. What sense would it make for a parent to buy their child a toy they are unfamiliar with? That's $34 per 2 parents and 1 child, and $23 per one parent and one child (assuming the parents are split). Already they are making more profit off of your given price (although it was an estimate. I don't know what avatar toys run for).

The video game is a completely different story, however. It is definitely a marketing technique, and I agree with you on that now. Video games tend to run anywhere from 30-50 dollars, and i'm not sure how much this one is in particular. I don't see how the making of the game can make the quality of the movie "suffer", as you mentioned earlier, though.

I didn't understand entirely what you meant about the movie endorsing following products. It only makes sense that the movie is endorsing the products, but it still is taking a chance on people not liking the movie. They just want to make more money, but its still a risk. No matter how much research is done (unless everyone intending to see the movie is studied), you can't put an accurate percentage on opinions. There are too many varieties of them, and it is still a risk. Although they probably only made money on the video game, as they just had to sell the rights to it. I dont think they get money from every copy sold.


We've left the sell out debate entirely haha. I do see somewhat where you're coming from as far as toy sales now though.

[SqueakyOnion]

Define what you mean when you say "every decision". You may have just selected the wrong term.
By that I mean things like the color of the characters, facial features, character voices, machines/vehicles, color of sets (be they real or digital), plot transitions, plot events, etc...they are either purposefully designed to transfer well into merchandise or, perhaps more likely, a marketing team OKs these various elements after they determine that they will transfer well to merchandise.

...but I don't think they tweaked the storyline to sell toys,
I most certainly do. Neither of us can never know this for sure, but my belief comes from watching the storyboard special feature sections of various movies, namely most of the STAR WARS movies. In some, they explicitly state how they tweaked things to create a contrast in sets and scenes, which allows for more diverse merchandise. You can get an action figure of Han Solo the smuggler, Han Solo in Hoth cold gear w/ Tauntaun, Han Solo as Rebel General, Han Solo w/ breathing mask and mynock, Han Solo in Endor forest gear, Han Solo paired with Chewbacca, Han Solo paired with Leia, and Han Solo paired with Luke (if you can't tell I used to go to STAR WARS conventions...)...and that's just ONE CHARACTER.


Already they are making more profit off of your given price (although it was an estimate. I don't know what avatar toys run for).
They money made isn't profit, only revenue. Profit is only the amount of revenue that exceeds expenses.

When merchandise is sold, profit margins are HUGE. Profit is made on EVERY SALE. A typical action figure is produced, packaged, and shipped to the US for likely under a dollar or two, and is sold for...roughly ten times that (I'm not up on action figure prices). This isn't counting blankets, pillows, plush toys, and whatever else they can think of. You've given that Avatar cost 250mils. If they double, triple, or even quadruple their money (all realistic expectations for movies), that still doesn't come close to the profit margins on merchandise.

It takes a lot of work to produce a movie that makes a lot of profit. It only takes a little bit of work to stamp out merchandise that makes a HUGE profit.

Thus, movies only need to be good enough to get people to 1) buy a ticket 2) buy merchandise. Movies no longer need to make a profit. Making a movie good enough to make a huge profit is a waste of effort, economically speaking. That same amount of effort could instead be used for merchandising which reaps much higher profit margins. It's all about how many dollars are invested vs. profit margins on sales.

Thus, it's more profitable for the movie industry to churn out mediocre movies that spur merchandise sales, than to produce movies that are high quality and make profit on their own.


I don't see how the making of the game can make the quality of the movie "suffer", as you mentioned earlier, though.
Merchandise doesn't directly cause a movie to be bad, but is indicative of a system that values merchandising over quality movies, and thus produces lower and lower quality movies.

Regardless of whether Avatar in particular is of high or low quality, the quality of movies has, and will continue, to decline as long as the profit motive is on merchandising rather than producing good movies. I am making an assertion about the quality of movies in general, due to a system which places more value on merchandising than on quality movies. While some movies will be good (perhaps Avatar is) and others horrible, the quality of movies in general will decline.

No matter how much research is done (unless everyone intending to see the movie is studied), you can't put an accurate percentage on opinions.
Actually, once a sample size exceeds 1,000 individuals, its predictions are very reliable. It's been quite a while since I've taken a statistics class, so I can't remember the percentage (95% reliable? 98% reliable? I can't remember). Of course, this assumes good sampling techniques, but I think it can safely be assumed that Hollywood, with its big $$$, can afford reliable statisticians, or maybe even employ them in-house. While there will be (and have) been flops that were predicted to turn good profit, these fall into that small percentage where the prediction was wrong.


We've left the sell out debate entirely haha. I do see somewhat where you're coming from as far as toy sales now though.

Indeed. But that debate can't exist unless we agree upon certain other things first. While individuals may not have sold out, I was primarily asserting that the movie industry itself has "sold out," in that it values profit (from merchandising) at the expense of creating quality movies.

[Straightarrow]

I had the chance to see Avatar a second time. It was actually better even though I knew the storyline. Incredible amount of detail I missed in the first show.

I saw the trailer and it looked like an interesting movie but after Phil and Beeper gushed about it it seemed maybe pretty good. They did'nt oversell it.

[Zzagg]

I saw it last night in 3D, I got what I "expected": No surprises about the story, visualy beautifull.
I didn't fall asleep and it wasn't too long.
what I didn't like:
-the movie is a patchwork made of so many classics (Alien, Dance with wolves, as said by John, The matrix...) that I wonder if the real aim wasn't to make a "clean 3D movie", no matter the story.
-There are "messages" (environmental protection, big corporation abuses, soldiers kill) but they are intended to 7 years old people. I've seen some scoobidoo's cartoon going deeper (or almost).

Graphicly, it's still a very entertaining movie, but I think I'd have been bored watching it in 2D.
Side note: If you go and see it in 3D, try and be there in advance, in order to be "centered" in the theater, I was against the left wall and 3D effects got blury on the edge of the screen (I guess it's an angle issue).

[Kartochitatel]

It's best fantastic film I ever saw.

[Julia B]

I saw it last night, it was great. Definitely watch it in 3D.

[Bondo]

Total rip-off/re-make of the animated 80's movie; FernGully.

Plot was thin and predictable, Sigourney Weaver's performance was flat and awkward.

Blue-cat-girl-princess' performance was really really good.

But distractions aside - it is a pretty amazing film and one of the best movie experiences I have had since seeing the original Star Wars.

See it in 3D!

[JJuggle]

Predictable, yes. Derivative, yes.

But what a fun movie!

[steveyo]

Predictable, yes. Derivative, yes...But what a fun movie!
I saw it a couple days ago, in 3D. A thoroughly enjoyable 3 hours. A feast for the eyes. Very well done.

[Matt_V]

I just saw it and I loved it. It's one of my favourite movies. I became very captivated by the story.

[BoffyTheUnicyclist]

worlds best movie!
i saw it in 3d.
it makes a huge difference and i highly reccommend it!

[uniShark]

OK, the whole family was going, so I went along to see it.
Caution: If you haven't seen the movie yet, are not good at predicting
predictable movies, and also haven't seen Dances with Wolves (which has
virtually the same story line), the following contains spoilers.
2nd caution: If you loved the movie and are easily upset by reading
opinions from people who don't agree with you, probably best to just
skip this post (or at least don't whine at me after I piss you off if
you keep reading).

I've got to admit, the amazing visuals captivated me for about the
first hour. Definitely the best visual film I've ever seen. I
particularly liked that the 3D was used for overall depth, not just the
"look we've got 3D so we're going to make something jump at you to
prove it" crap. The visuals alone were arguably good enough to justify
the price of the ticket.

But then the significant flaws of the movie caught up to me.

At first I really liked the alien world. Really good idea to inter-
connect the species. But hey, why is there only one mammal-like alien
species that doesn't have six legs? I mean, why do the monkey things
have six, but the let's-make-them-look-human-so-we-can-have-a-good-
love-story aliens only have four?

And then there were the floating mountains. These showed up while I
was still enjoying the visuals and the immersion in this cool world so
much that at first I tried, I really really tried, to accept the
floating mountains. Maybe it's some bizarre magnetism force, right?
Yeah, yeah, that could work. . . but where's the water coming from?
Thousands of gallons of water falling in gorgeous 3D waterfalls, coming
from WHERE???

Umm, and let's see, humans with space-faring technology who want to
destroy the natives, engaging in ground and low-flight warfare on a
world with a hostile environment and nasty monsters all around?
:confused: Can anyone say ORBITAL NUKE???

And I broke both my cheese-o-meter and predict-a-meter at this movie.
The moment they show the "last shadow" dragon, you KNOW, without a
doubt, that our hero is going to ride it. And same thing for when they
talk about the possiblity of Sigourney's character being morphed into
the alien body -- I mean, there's no question at all that this is how
the hero will end up.

Then there is the victory by the natives over the evil technology-
bearing humans. OK, let's suppose for a moment that dropping bombs
from orbit is not an option (yeah, right). And let's suppose that in
this first go-around the natives manage to surprise and overwhelm the
humans, as is portrayed. OK, great. In that case, I suggest naming
the sequel "Avatar+13" i.e. +13 years, because that's about how long
it would take for the humans to go back home, reload a new mission
(this time definitely with orbital weapons), and come back to wipe out
those annoying blue guys in the way of the unobtainium.

Did I just actually write unobtainium? And not in the context of some
high-tech toy I can't possibly afford? At first I took that name for the
precious we-gotta-have-it-stuff to be a self-deprecating joke. But
given the rest of the movie, maybe they thought it was a serious term?

And on those lines, give me a break with the "unobtainium" deposit just
coincidentally being located beneath the wonder tree.

So my feeling about the movie is disappointment. Imagine how great
this film could have been if the story was brought up to the level of
the visuals! And if they'd been a little original instead of just
copying someone else's storyline, it really wouldn't have been that
hard. How about some interaction between the life force and the
creation of the "unobtainium"? I mean, it's right under the wonder
tree, so how is there not a connection? And that way, the end message
could be that humans learn the value of the environment, a truce might
plausibly be had, and there could be a crowd pleasing environmentally
friendly ending with a new cooperative relationship between humans and
aliens of all kinds! . . . OK, right, that's not really believable.
But it can't be worse than trying to sell blue elves scaring off space
-faring nuclear-armed rabid humans, with just spears and "the mother."

And as for the rest of the family? My three boys, ages 8, 10, and 11, absolutely loved it. It seems that perhaps the real problem here is that I've aged myself out of the target audience. :eek:
My wife thought it was sillly, and speculated afterwords about whether the love story was more like bizarre fetish voyeurism or computer dating. :D

[Jerrick]

That type of thinking is what destroys my movie going experience. :)

[JJuggle]

That type of thinking is what destroys my movie going experience. :)
That's a line usually coming after something I write. :)

I happen to agree with everything uniShark (if that is his real name) said - particularly paragraph 7 - except for the part about enjoying the movie. In this case the lush beauty of the movie overwhelmed my normal inability to suspend my disbelief. And let's face it, I'm normally willing to believe that Bruce Willis can take that many blows to the head and still function, so what the hell.

[steveyo]

That's a line usually coming after something I write. :)

I happen to agree with everything uniShark (if that is his real name) said - particularly paragraph 7 - except for the part about enjoying the movie. In this case the lush beauty of the movie overwhelmed my normal inability to suspend my disbelief. And let's face it, I'm normally willing to believe that Bruce Willis can take that many blows to the head and still function, so what the hell.
That's how I felt, too. The action and color, the imaginative creatures and beauty of the artistic renderings of the scenes were sublimely enjoyable. Plot was just OK, but it was only a minor gripe for me.

[Matt_V]

You can destroy the fun factor of almost any movie by thinking like that. No movie is completely free from plot flaws. You just have to turn your brain off and have fun watching it.

But.. while we are on the topic of pointing out flaws. What did the blue guys think Jake was doing when he wasn't plugged into his avatar? He would have just been laying their apparently dead or just in a deep sleep. This could have almost made sense if he was only ever unplugged at night, but he is with the humans during the day a lot, which means that his avatar is just laying lifeless with the blue guys who don't question it. I guess if they are far enough apart on the moon it could be possible that it is night at tree home and day at the human base, but if that was the case then Jake would never get any sleep and would be exhausted after 3 months of doing this.

That's just another thing that you have to ignore in order to enjoy the movie.

[uniShark]

That type of thinking is what destroys my movie going experience. :)

Yeah, me too. It sucks to be me. :rolleyes:

That's a line usually coming after something I write. :)

I happen to agree with everything uniShark (if that is his real name) said - particularly paragraph 7 - except for the part about enjoying the movie. In this case the lush beauty of the movie overwhelmed my normal inability to suspend my disbelief. And let's face it, I'm normally willing to believe that Bruce Willis can take that many blows to the head and still function, so what the hell.

Good point. I did note that the visuals alone may justify the cost of admission. Overall, I'm glad I went. The part that really bums me out is that as long as enough people are willing to pay the price just for the visuals, there is no incentive for movie makers to bring up the quality of the plot lines.
-James (really :) )

[JJuggle]

-James (really :) )
Now look, Colonel... Bat Guano, if that really is your name... (http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0055.html)

[Jerrick]

You can destroy the fun factor of almost any movie by thinking like that. No movie is completely free from plot flaws. You just have to turn your brain off and have fun watching it.

But.. while we are on the topic of pointing out flaws. What did the blue guys think Jake was doing when he wasn't plugged into his avatar? He would have just been laying their apparently dead or just in a deep sleep. This could have almost made sense if he was only ever unplugged at night, but he is with the humans during the day a lot, which means that his avatar is just laying lifeless with the blue guys who don't question it. I guess if they are far enough apart on the moon it could be possible that it is night at tree home and day at the human base, but if that was the case then Jake would never get any sleep and would be exhausted after 3 months of doing this.

That's just another thing that you have to ignore in order to enjoy the movie.

I was thinking about that too. Seeing how they dont say what their sleep patterns are, maybe its natural for someone to lay motionless for days at a time. haha

[wobbling bear]

You can destroy the fun factor of almost any movie by thinking like that. No movie is completely free from plot flaws. You just have to turn your brain off and have fun watching it.

but clockwork scenarios are more fun! when everything seems to fit exactly in place. So why not mix pleasure from the eyes with pleasure from the brain?
I need substance to believe in what I see and enjoy it!

[dan de man]

just came back from seeing it , thought it was pretty schweet, the movie cinimas glasses had little stereo headphone type things to give surround sound, pushed it to the next level for me

[f3d3]

I want to see Avatar!! In italy it is coming on 15th of January!

Ps: Sorry for my English!!

[JJuggle]

This piece (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/opinion/08brooks.html) is almost as obvious as the movie itself, but like the movie, worth a look nonetheless.

Jerrick, don't read it, it'll spoil it for you. ;)

[steveyo]

This piece (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/opinion/08brooks.html) is almost as obvious as the movie itself, but like the movie, worth a look nonetheless.I'm liking Brooks more and more these days.

[BillyTheMountain]

[QUOTE=JJuggle;1321574]AVATAR is kind of offensive. It rests on the stereotype that white people are rationalist and technocratic while colonial victims are spiritual and athletic. It rests on the assumption that nonwhites need the White Messiah to lead their crusades. It rests on the assumption that illiteracy is the path to grace. It also creates a sort of two-edged cultural imperialism. Natives can either have their history shaped by cruel imperialists or benevolent ones, but either way, they are going to be supporting actors in our journey to self-admiration./QUOTE]

Raphael,

If that was so obvious, why didn't anyone else mention it before he did?

[BillyTheMountain]

The story, plot and animation was believable.

Really? What planet are you from?

[Straightarrow]

Earth

Floating mountains...hard to believe?...maybe not. We have a "Mountain" at UDC that is a "floater"

[Jerrick]

This piece (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/opinion/08brooks.html) is almost as obvious as the movie itself, but like the movie, worth a look nonetheless.

Jerrick, don't read it, it'll spoil it for you. ;)

Read through it. I dont think ill be getting tired of the white messiah anytime soon. Unless its painfully predictable. In Avatar, its still fun to go "Called it!" Then watch him go ride the big red thing.

No spoilers for me, already saw it. Not in 3d though, so ill probably go check out that version just for fun after I see Daybreakers this weekend. Not sure how I feel about Daybreakers yet.

[BillyTheMountain]

Read through it. I dont think ill be getting tired of the white messiah anytime soon. Unless its painfully predictable. In Avatar, its still fun to go "Called it!" Then watch him go ride the big red thing.

No spoilers for me, already saw it. Not in 3d though, so ill probably go check out that version just for fun after I see Daybreakers this weekend. Not sure how I feel about Daybreakers yet.

Avatar is kind of offensive

Do you agree that its offensive for those reasons?

[dan de man]

this may be somewhat approprite here
http://failblog.org/2010/01/10/avatar-plot-fail/

[johnfoss]

Dances With Wolves in space.
I wasn't particularly impressed.With which one? I liked both.

Just saw it in 3D IMAX. Pretty cool. To me, the star of the show was the planet. Its sky, plants, vistas, critters, roots and floating rocks. That was pretty much worth the ticket price alone. Yes, I found the story line reminiscent of a lot of things. But not just movies. It was reminiscent of whenever a technologically advanced culture wants something that a less-advanced culture has. Like has happened way too many times on this planet here.

Despite all these positive reviews, the fact is that the movie is being used primarily as a means to sell plastic crap. In my mind, these things cheapen the movie, despite any meaningful messages it conveys. It's clear that this movie was designed to be released just before Christmas in order to cash in on the holiday spending frenzy....Followed by a debate on movie and merchandising marketing.

I'm sure that if you looked at the numbers, you would find that the "plastic crap" from unsuccessful movies doesn't make much money. That's because a lot of it probably goes unsold. And if the movie *is* successful, buy the crap -- or not -- if it pleases you. Nobody's forcing you. I never bought a beanie baby either.

I actually have an O7 Torker DX prototype that is made from "unobtanium"...which is like..uhhh...really hard to get : )I was kind of hoping that wasn't their "real" name for the mineral. I would have liked if they'd mentioned why it was worth so much, though mostly it's beside the point. If it brings that big of a price, that's all the motivation the military-industrial complex needs.

It all started with STAR WARS...I think it would be fair to say Star Wars made it big with that stuff, but I remember some Wizard of Oz stuff floating around. But Star Wars really hit it big. You can still find Star Wars merchandise in loads of stores today! Good for George. It's not there to rip you off, it's there because people liked the movies and/or characters.
(Or, I suppose you could argue that the public has bad taste in general, and even good movies need to be hyped and over-commercialized in order to exist - this idea I might buy.)You think the public doesn't have bad taste in general? Movies that make money aren't necessarily the best ones. Some top films do terribly at the box office.
Thus, it's more profitable for the movie industry to churn out mediocre movies that spur merchandise sales, than to produce movies that are high quality and make profit on their own.But I thought your argument was that the movies were no longer spurring the merchandise sales, but that the merchandise was already out there before the movie hit the screens. Only the good (or popular) ones will specifically spur merchandise sales. BTW, A themed happy meal is not something I'd call a merchandise sale. The licensing on those things is probably pretty complex in terms of the production charging a lot for the "privilege" of Mc Donald's or whoever to sell said stuff with their happy meals.
Merchandise doesn't directly cause a movie to be bad, but is indicative of a system that values merchandising over quality movies, and thus produces lower and lower quality movies.Wait, did movie quality get lower in the last few years? You're either not old enough to realize what came before, or you haven't been paying attention. :)

-the movie is a patchwork made of so many classics (Alien, Dance with wolves, as said by John, The matrix...) that I wonder if the real aim wasn't to make a "clean 3D movie", no matter the story.Don't you mean Aliens? Same director, one same actor in a lead role, and I'd venture to guess same designer for the military hardware and sets. Their big bomber and fighting suits were reminiscent of the drop ship and forklift from Aliens.

Dances with Wolves? Difference being that that story is about history that actually happened (not the specific story but the general history). The natives lost in that movie. These natives probably won't lose in the sequel either, though. Sure there will be a sequel. The movie is making too much money not to, and the story is far from over. Of course the Sky People will come back with better firepower. But will the people (and critters) of Pandora be ready?

[johnfoss]

why is there only one mammal-like alien species that doesn't have six legs? I mean, why do the monkey things have six, but the let's-make-them-look-human-so-we-can-have-a-good-love-story aliens only have four?Pretty much.

But who says a world can't have dissimilar body architecture? I've watched enough Star Trek to accept the "everybody essentially looks like humans with some junk stuck on their faces" approach to accept the idea, though I still like it when the aliens are a little more creative. These looked like blue Barbie dolls. Ridiculously skinny for their height (though this would fit with a lower gravity world).

And then there were the floating mountains. These showed up while I was still enjoying the visuals and the immersion in this cool world so much that at first I tried, I really really tried, to accept the floating mountains. Maybe it's some bizarre magnetism force, right? Yeah, yeah, that could work. . . but where's the water coming from?For the water, I'd like to think that was a bigger floating mountain than it looked like. Or if not, it's coming from a much bigger one above that one. :) As for what makes them float, maybe it's the force. The "Earth Mother" force. Or the force of Roger Dean, the artist who did the artwork for Yes's Close to the Edge album in the 70s, showing similar floating bits of planet.
Umm, and let's see, humans with space-faring technology who want to destroy the natives, engaging in ground and low-flight warfare on a world with a hostile environment and nasty monsters all around? :confused: Can anyone say ORBITAL NUKE???Yeah. Nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. {That's a quote from James Cameron's Aliens} Here I will postulate that the military forces on Pandora were not equipped for such destruction. Or that they didn't get a chance to use it because they were defeated too quickly.

Which was a massive military error on their part. Nobody commits their entire military force in a single battle unless they're desperate, do they? Obviously it was very bad military planning on the part of the humans. Real wars are seldom lost in a single battle. Oops. They won't make the same mistake in the next movie...
And same thing for when they talk about the possiblity of Sigourney's character being morphed into the alien body -- Yes I thought of this much earlier in the film. He wouldn't be safe from the humans, or be completely native, until he could be "converted" over to his avatar body.
I suggest naming the sequel "Avatar+13" i.e. +13 years, because that's about how long it would take for the humans to go back home, reload a new mission (this time definitely with orbital weapons), and come back to wipe out those annoying blue guys in the way of the unobtainium.Hey, call it "believable" interstellar travel. Like in the Alien movies. 60 year gap between I and II, and several hundred years between III and IV.
How about some interaction between the life force and the creation of the "unobtainium"? I mean, it's right under the wonder tree, so how is there not a connection?Let's save that for the sequel. And then maybe they can offer an explanation for all the floating rocks.

What did the blue guys think Jake was doing when he wasn't plugged into his avatar?Apparently it got explained to them at some point, as they no longer panicked when the avatars collapsed later on in the movie. But you're right about the sleeping. He can't stay up all night every night (out of the sensory bed). But I think this was accurately portrayed in the story with his being tired all the time. He was sleeping, but probably not enough.

Now look, Colonel... Bat Guano, if that really is your name... (http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0055.html)"Okay. I'll get you your money.
But you're going to have to answer to the Coca-Cola company."

AVATAR is kind of offensive. It rests on the stereotype that white people are rationalist and technocratic while colonial victims are spiritual and athletic. It rests on the assumption that nonwhites need the White Messiah to lead their crusades.I don't know where that author gets his whole White Messiah thing. Obviously Jake was a blue messiah. This wasn't a color thing; it wasn't about him being white vs. some other version of human. It was about him first learning the native culture, and later having inside knowledge about his human culture to help fight them.

[steveyo]

As for what makes them float, maybe it's the force. The "Earth Mother" force. Or the force of Roger Dean, the artist who did the artwork for Yes's Close to the Edge album in the 70s, showing similar floating bits of planet.<Snaps fingers> That's why I liked those scenes so much! I had posters of several Yes albums (and other Dean art) plastered all over my walls in high school. Thanks for connecting that.

[Straightarrow]

My point of view on Avatar is that Cameron wanted to draw enough of a parallel to enable the casual observer to feel the desparity of justice that existed when America expanded west and displaced the First Nations People to secure a future that more closely resembled the socioeconomic structure that was reflective of the Americans.

Land, mineral resources, and future commerce were in my opinion a good measure of the hope that drove the Americans westward. Free land and a resource like Gold for example, was a powerful catalyst for expansion west (Gold Rush) The horse cultures of the plains had a remarkably similar counterpart in a similar region of Pandora. After vilifying the "indians" as "savages" and maligning their culture, America had enough justification and consensus to let the cavalry run roughshod over another culture. Without dredging up every detail it is not difficult for a reasonable person to understand that the expansion of America could/should have been handled more equitably.

Flash forward to Pandora and we have a similar situation. Commercial and military forces are at the brink of destroying a culture, their environment, possibly another entire world in the process.


There is no "White Messiah" in Avatar. At every junction every facet of Jake Scully's fidelity is very much in question. Unprepared, uneducated, broken body, Jakes only asset seems to be his pedigree and that, by chance only he is a match for a life and a role that is not his. The military component has it's "hooks" in Jake for a new set of legs if he is complicit in sharing sensitive details about a culture that is accepting him as one of it's own people. He is simultaneously betraying the trust and work of his own people in the "greater good" faction to solve the conflict with understanding and compassion. There is no "White Messiah". No one is really "white" anyway. The guy is actually a pale shade of pinkish tan, brown hair, blue eyes and the avatar is more Blue, to be accurate. I can't recall ever seeing a human being that lacked color. I think everyone is a "person of color".

To me, every aspect of Jake is flawed. He is in a body that is not his, betraying a people that accept him as their own, violating true love with a blue amazon that is smokin hot . Deceiving his own people that are projecting their faith and trust in him, while he sells out an entire culture to the military/industrial complex for their promise of his "legs". Everything that collectively we represent to have real value and importance this "White Messiah", figuratively speaking, pretty much bakes into a smoldering pile of ashes. There is no "White Messiah" in Avatar.

Somehow, from the depths of personal deficits, Jake does'nt let the past define him. He was born to fly, so he hooks up the biggest, baddest Dragon in Pandora. (Behold the Phoenix) He is a warrior, so he unites the tribes to fight, picks up the torch and lays his life on the line for their greater good, lets go of any hope that he will walk again in his real body or rejoin his old life. Against all odds the entire planet connects in symbiosis and mutual synergy, repelling the invading "sky people". All of this happened because a single, flawed person, refused to let the past define them and moved forward being themself with all their strengths and weaknesses to do the right thing for the greater good.

I think Cameron is trying to show parallels between the past and the present in the hope that regular, flawed people, will one by one question our current involvement and direction in countries that are "Islands On Oil". Question the mentality that we can "STOMP OUT THE VIOLENCE IN THE MIDDLE EAST", and try to make imperfect people feel empowered and that they can make a difference and do the right thing whether it is about "unobtanium" or "oil".

[reprah]

Very pretty movie with fantastic effects. Sorry, I didn't try to read anything into the characters or storyline like you clowns did. It was Star Wars or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon when it comes to that: no plot, no characters, no depth, no meaning. But it was fun to chortle at the silliness of it all while enjoying the spectacular visuals.

[TheJoker]

as someone from another forum summed it up:

I heard it summed up as 'Humans find a planet where the Thundercats *expletive*d the Smurfs".

[Straightarrow]

(Oprah...err Reprah) "no plot, no characters, no depth, no meaning. But it was fun to chortle"

Pee Wee Herman got arrested for "chortling" in the back of a dark theater. Glad the pretty lights got you jazzed up though.

[reprah]

(Oprah...err Reprah) "no plot, no characters, no depth, no meaning. But it was fun to chortle"

Pee Wee Herman got arrested for "chortling" in the back of a dark theater. Glad the pretty lights got you jazzed up though.

I was sitting next to my daughter at the time and that sort of "chortling" would have been entirely inappropriate. She did, however, chortle with me at the silliness of it all.

[steveyo]

...it was fun to chortle at the silliness of it all while enjoying the spectacular visuals. ...She did, however, chortle with me at the silliness of it all.But all that being chortled, Reprah, did you enjoy the fantastic immersion in that world of sight and sound.

I know I did, as did my friend Oyevets.

[reprah]

But all that being chortled, Reprah, did you enjoy the fantastic immersion in that world of sight and sound.

I know I did, as did my friend Oyevets.


I thought I made that quite clear.

But it was fun to chortle at the silliness of it all while enjoying the spectacular visuals.

I would be proud to call Oyevets my friend as well as you. But I don't think that the "o" is capitalized. You certainly know him better than I do.

[Inigo Montoya]

Did-a any of the aliens have-a six fingers on either hand?

Just-a wondering.

[oyevets]

I would be proud to call Oyevets my friend as well as you. But I don't think that the "o" is capitalized. You certainly know him better than I do.reprah is correct, steveyo.

[ayotnoM oginI]

reprah is correct, steveyo.

.repraH taht ,yug revelc a s'eH

[Into the blue]

Oscar nominated for best film?!

Are they serious?!

[johnfoss]

Oscar nominated for best film?!

Are they serious?!They are flawed humans as well.

Ever notice how some of the major awards at those things don't seem to match the criteria of what the award is supposed to be for? Or does "Best Picture" mean Best-Grossing Picture? :rolleyes: