The Trouble City Forums

Full Version: Avatar post-release discussion
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
I don't get the people who aren't impressed with the world of Pandora. If anything that was one of the coolest aspects of this movie. Each to his own I guess. The biggest flaw was the predictability of the plot. Not that it's derivative cause that's alright, many stories share the same themes and if they manage to present these in a new package with new ideas they can work just fine. It's the way the story is told, and Avatar was told in a great way imo. So despite it's predictable nature and off-putting 3D (shocking I know) I'll still rate it at around 8.8/10.
Why is it people so much more time in discussing things they hate? If you really hate the movie and find its fans to be crippled morons, go to a different forum. Go discuss something you like.

It comes off as pathetic to constantly rag on something people seem to like. It took one post for me to state my opinion on G.I. Joe (one of the worst movies since Van Helsing) and then I was out of there.

The fact that people who actively dislike this film and its fanbase feel the need to spend large amounts of brain power on something they say requires none, really highlights how starved for attention most message board posters really are.

In short, we get it: you thought it sucked.
Okay, I liked District 9 as much as the next dork, but how are the prawns being held up as an example of relatable non-humanoid characters? As I recall, they had two arms, two legs, two eyes in the standard spot, a nose-like thingy and a mouth. And they behaved exactly like humans.



R2D2 is a much better example.

On this note, conversations like this remind of how much I sometimes hate the internet. "The aliens weren't alien enough."




Quote:

Originally Posted by Cornelius Cardew
View Post
Why is it people so much more time in discussing things they hate? If you really hate the movie and find its fans to be crippled morons, go to a different forum. Go discuss something you like.

It comes off as pathetic to constantly rag on something people seem to like. It took one post for me to state my opinion on G.I. Joe (one of the worst movies since Van Helsing) and then I was out of there.

The fact that people who actively dislike this film and its fanbase feel the need to spend large amounts of brain power on something they say requires none, really highlights how starved for attention most message board posters really are.

In short, we get it: you thought it sucked.

Agreed. Film discussion should take place somewhere else. Not on the film discussion forum.
Atomic Ross: What? Maybe if you took a second to refrain from putting words in my mouth, to notice that I am in no way launching some sort of apologia for Avatar, and refrained from calling me a crippled moron, you wouldn't come off as such a butthurt little shit.

Here's some help: "Boys' adventure" is an unofficial genre designation for stuff like the Tarzan stories, the John Carter stories, and The Lost World (the book, and not the one by Michael Crichton). They are stories which are pulpy, devoid of any poetry, and ultimately schlock. But pretty cool and fun schlock.
I thought Pandora was very impressive, but how exactly can there be waterfalls on floating mountains in the sky? Where does the water come from?
The sky?
I remember a line in the Trailer "The strong take from the weak and nobody does anything about it." It seems to be cut out from the film.

Hopefully when the Director's Cut comes, they'll be some extra character stuff to improve the film.
Rain and mist, yeah, maybe even through those vines, but the waterfall is running constantly. It would run out! Didn't really bother me, just weird considering everything else on Pandora was relatively functional. If neon.
what about the scene of him in the bar on Earth? Did I just miss that in a brieft flashback scene.

Also I remember reading a report from a journalist who saw the first 25 minutes a couple of months back who said he loved the escalating sense of the adventure. From Jake's cramped and dinky apartment to the wildlife on Pandora. I think a bunch of earth stuff was cut. I also read we'll get at least 10 additional minutes on the DVD release explaining more of the background of the Navi and a full hunting scene with Jake.
Most subtle effect: Jake's atrophied legs. Didn't even realize it until about halfway through the film.
That's because he's wearing pants a lot.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Count Chocula
View Post
Agreed. Film discussion should take place somewhere else. Not on the film discussion forum.

If you were interested in film discussion you'd have a point.
Quote:

Originally Posted by devincf
View Post
That's because he's wearing pants a lot.

True, but it simply never occurred to me that they'd go that route and make the legs that thin.
I thought Avatar is pretty much a solid refutation of any defense of Michael Bay. They make the same type of movie but the difference of skill level is so great it is shocking.

I also think that James Cameron, horrible writer of dialogue and character though he may be, gives a shit about his story. This doesn't mean it is an original story but you feel a sense of care put into the interactions and themes.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Mal
View Post
Okay, I liked District 9 as much as the next dork, but how are the prawns being held up as an example of relatable non-humanoid characters? As I recall, they had two arms, two legs, two eyes in the standard spot, a nose-like thingy and a mouth. And they behaved exactly like humans.

Because they're initially repulsive and we can't read their facial expressions well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cornelius Cardew
View Post
I thought Avatar is pretty much a solid refutation of any defense of Michael Bay. They make the same type of movie but the difference of skill level is so great it is shocking.

I also think that James Cameron, horrible writer of dialogue and character though he may be, gives a shit about his story. This doesn't mean it is an original story but you feel a sense of care put into the interactions and themes.

I may be projecting but I think there's a cynicism and hollowness in Bay's films that isn't present in most of Cameron's. I certainly give AVATAR points for its earnestness.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Count Floyd
View Post
Because they're initially repulsive and we can't read their facial expressions well.


I may be projecting but I think there's a cynicism and hollowness in Bay's films that isn't present in most of Cameron's. I certainly give AVATAR points for its earnestness.

Exactly. Transformers 2 was a list of characters, locations, and action beats that were strung together.

Avatar is a fully formed story with themes, subtext, and character development. They are just really simple.
And bad.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bitches Leave
View Post
what about the scene of him in the bar on Earth? Did I just miss that in a brieft flashback scene.

I could be wrong, but I think the two suits offering him the job was supposed to take place in the bar. They might have nixed the rest of the bar scene since STAR TREK kinda already did it.
Quote:

Originally Posted by devincf
View Post
And bad.

If I was 10 years old, Avatar would be one of the best movies I had ever seen. As a grown up it's one of the better blockbuster movies; a delightfully light, fun and action-packed kick in the ass.
Character development in AVATAR? Where? My feelings about the people and world of AVATAR amounted to indifference.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Abed
View Post
Character development in AVATAR? Where? My feelings about the people and world of AVATAR amounted to indifference.

Your reaction to character development is not related to its existence. Jake and Neyteri at the start of the film are different then the characters at the end. The villains don't develop though, I'll give you that.
I'd argue that Giovanni Ribissi sells his character's seeming change of heart (he seems to be changing his mind about the whole endeavour towards the end) with his eyes and facial expressions. Of course he never actually voices any misgivings...
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cornelius Cardew
View Post
Your reaction to character development is not related to its existence. Jake and Neyteri at the start of the film are different then the characters at the end. The villains don't develop though, I'll give you that.

If you don't actually FEEL their growth and lived through this cycle of maturity and understanding, telling me on screen that they changed is just about as useless as having no character development to begin with.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven
View Post
I'd argue that Giovanni Ribissi sells his character's seeming change of heart (he seems to be changing his mind about the whole endeavour towards the end) with his eyes and facial expressions. Of course he never actually voices any misgivings...

I get what you are saying but I think that's a bit of a stretch. He gives one meaningful look before he starts the assault. The second meaningful look while the battle is raging is too ambiguous. He could just want tacos.

His character was awful and completely unnecessary. They could have rolled one of his speeches into Quaritch and really improved the villain side of things. Would have made Quaritch two-dimensional rather than one.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Abed
View Post
If you don't actually FEEL their growth and lived through this cycle of maturity and understanding, telling me on screen that they changed is just about as useless as having no character development to begin with.

I'm not saying it is necessarily good character development but it is all there. That's like saying because I didn't find any of the action in Transformers 2 exciting, it wasn't there.
Again, I may be acting like Mercury with her interpretation of Siggy Weaver's character, but there's a lingering shot of Ribisi as he's leaving at the end wherre he and Jake share a glance and I could swear we're supposed to think Ribisi is regretting the whole thing.
Well what character development would you reaaaally want? I mean you get pretty much all the info you NEED. The villains hardly ever change in movies, why expect it here? It's simple character stuff....but Terminator didn't do any better.

Even though the story is predictable and ends the way you think it will...what is exactly the problem with that when it pretty much ends up the way you would WANT it to end up. What other way would you want it to end up? Everybody getting killed? The military winning and getting their land and all the mineral shit there, and Jake going back to Earth waiting to be sentenced to death as a traitor? Him and his native woman trying to figure out how this mating shit works without an avatar body?

What other path would you have really wanted the story to take?
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cornelius Cardew
View Post
I'm not saying it is necessarily good character development but it is all there. That's like saying because I didn't find any of the action in Transformers 2 exciting, it wasn't there.

There's character development in TF2. Shia goes from not wanting to be involved to going out of his way to help. The presence of an arc is just standard, and it's rare that ANY movie, no matter how bad, leaves out an arc for the characters. It's the execution of that arc that makes a difference.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cornelius Cardew
View Post
The villains don't develop though, I'll give you that.

I liked how Stephen Lang's character didn't have the predictable change of heart that almost every character in the movie had. He goes from "I just want to kick some ass" to "I REALLY WANT TO KICK SOME ASS".

LET'S BOOGIE!
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cornelius Cardew
View Post
Why is it people so much more time in discussing things they hate? If you really hate the movie and find its fans to be crippled morons, go to a different forum. Go discuss something you like.

It comes off as pathetic to constantly rag on something people seem to like. It took one post for me to state my opinion on G.I. Joe (one of the worst movies since Van Helsing) and then I was out of there.

The fact that people who actively dislike this film and its fanbase feel the need to spend large amounts of brain power on something they say requires none, really highlights how starved for attention most message board posters really are.

In short, we get it: you thought it sucked.

crit·i·cism (krĭt'ĭ-sĭz'əm)
n.
3.
a. The practice of analyzing, classifying, interpreting, or evaluating literary or other artistic works.


Once upon a time this was considered valuable and even vital to art at large.
"MASKS ON!" That guy doesn't need character development more than he needs a breathing apparatus!
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cornelius Cardew
View Post
I get what you are saying but I think that's a bit of a stretch. He gives one meaningful look before he starts the assault. The second meaningful look while the battle is raging is too ambiguous. He could just want tacos.

Nah, I thought he had a "what have I done?" look rather than "I should get the tacos for lunch" too. He also had that look at the end when they were getting onto their ships. I think Giovanni Ribisi was fine.

Quote:

His character was awful and completely unnecessary. They could have rolled one of his speeches into Quaritch and really improved the villain side of things. Would have made Quaritch two-dimensional rather than one.

Which speech would have fit? Quaritch was pretty much the muscle, and he was at least a little developed in that he followed through on getting Jake his legs. His real legs.

He actually cared about his men.
When you're analyzing the way characters look and glance at each other to prove the story had an ounce of growth and some cycle of emotional development, that to me is a sign of weak storytelling.

I think if I had found the actual visuals and action to be so enthralling, I could have forgiven the other weaker aspects of the film. But, alas, that didn't happen and I was left with an emptiness when I left the theater.