The Trouble City Forums
Avatar post-release discussion - Printable Version

+- The Trouble City Forums (http://citizens.trouble.city)
+-- Forum: Specific Cinema (http://citizens.trouble.city/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Films in Release or On Video (http://citizens.trouble.city/forumdisplay.php?fid=78)
+--- Thread: Avatar post-release discussion (/showthread.php?tid=120288)



- pop zeus - 12-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustAncient
View Post
These Behind the Scenes videos show them filming what looks to be the raid on Hell's Gate. Footage can be found in 2:30 into Video 1.

http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/avatar/b-roll-i

Just because they "shot" the scene in no way means that they will finish all the post required to include it in an extended cut. That's not to say I wouldn't be pleasantly surprised to see it in there, and if it is I'll (figuratively speaking) eat my words. I just think the mo-cap process allows directors to cheaply "shoot" everything on the page with no bearing on what will actually be in the final cut, since the shots/scenes don't really come together until all the FX have been rendered and composited.


- justancient - 12-28-2009

Avatar was surprisingly light on action. It would seem that if they were to make an extended cut they should include at least one new action scene. I don't know if that's jaded thinking, but some of the best extended cuts like Kingdom of Heaven, Lord of the Rings, King King, Watchmen had added action scenes. One can hope...


- bitches leave - 12-28-2009

from a deleted scene:



- devincf - 12-28-2009

Can someone give an in-world explanation as to why the Na'vi don't have six limbs, four eyes and a blowhole?


- joeypants - 12-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by devincf
View Post
Can someone give an in-world explanation as to why the Na'vi don't have six limbs, four eyes and a blowhole?

Not as many teens and sci-fi geeks would want to "do it."

ETA: I realize that's cheating, and doesn't fit what's likely a rhetorical question. But that's the best answer you're going to get.

I would be curious to hear why Cameron thinks almost every other creature would have the extra, cumbersome limbs and not the Na'vi.


- devincf - 12-28-2009

I know. This is why I asked for 'in-world.'


- Richard Dickson - 12-28-2009

This is a hell of a reach, but when I asked a similar question, someone pointed out those monkey-looking things that were swinging in the trees. They said those things had two forearms but only one upper arm (so their arms look like a letter Y). To them, this implied they were some kind of Pandora missing link, that over time the four arms fused into two and gave us the Na'vi we see in the film.

Still doesn't explain the eyes and the blowhole though.


- alan "nordling" cerny - 12-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson
View Post
This is a hell of a reach, but when I asked a similar question, someone pointed out those monkey-looking things that were swinging in the trees. They said those things had two forearms but only one upper arm (so their arms look like a letter Y). To them, this implied they were some kind of Pandora missing link, that over time the four arms fused into two and gave us the Na'vi we see in the film.

Still doesn't explain the eyes and the blowhole though.

The eyes could be an evolutionary leap, that the Na'Vi developed the proper vision over time. Can't explain the blowholes though.

Edit t say that the tree monkeys had similar eyes. But the arms were Y shaped. Considering we saw less than 1% of the world, it would be difficult to chart any evolutionary scale based on the few creatures we saw.


- joeypants - 12-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by devincf
View Post
I know. This is why I asked for 'in-world.'

Well, let's see. I want to go for "they just don't need 'em," but then that begs the question of WHY IN THE FUCK DOES A HORSE NEED AN EXTRA SET OF FRONT LEGS!?

Hell, as a being that uses arrow-technology to hunt/kill, you'd think an extra set of arms would do you some good while hunting/hanging on to a Banshee. It seems like if any creature on Pandora could benefit from extra limbs, it'd be the Na'vi.


- Richard Dickson - 12-28-2009

But if four eyes is "improper", how do so many species seem to be thriving with four eyes?


- pop zeus - 12-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by devincf
View Post
Can someone give an in-world explanation as to why the Na'vi don't have six limbs, four eyes and a blowhole?

Give it time. The Avatar EU hasn't even been established yet. And you know that's where all the good retconning takes place.


- joeypants - 12-28-2009

I'd also be interested to hear what the Na'vi themselves think about their missing extra appendages/eyes. Do they tie that into their religious/spiritual beliefs somehow? How do they envision that separating themselves from the other creatures.


- noahthestud - 12-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by devincf
View Post
Can someone give an in-world explanation as to why the Na'vi don't have six limbs, four eyes and a blowhole?

The biological diversity all around us on Earth is an explanation. Marsupials have pouches, playtipus have poisonous spines and lay eggs, deer have horns growing out of their heads and have hoofs instead of toes and fingers. There are lizards that don't have any limbs but are not in the snake family.


- bitches leave - 12-28-2009

I bet the Navi men wish they had 4 arms.


- devincf - 12-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan "Nordling" Cerny
View Post
The eyes could be an evolutionary leap, that the Na'Vi developed the proper vision over time. Can't explain the blowholes though.

Edit t say that the tree monkeys had similar eyes. But the arms were Y shaped. Considering we saw less than 1% of the world, it would be difficult to chart any evolutionary scale based on the few creatures we saw.

All of Pandora's landmass is covered in jungle, so we saw a pretty representative section.

The four eyes are explained as being regular eyes and infrared or some shit eyes. Why would two eyes be 'proper?' That makes no sense. And the idea that the Na'vi would have evolved to be that way while nobody else has also makes no sense. No mammals have six legs, for instance. All mammals have four limbs. All Pandoran mammals (or whatever they are) should have six limbs.


- devincf - 12-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoahtheStud
View Post
The biological diversity all around us on Earth is an explanation. Marsupials have pouches, playtipus have poisonous spines and lay eggs, deer have horns growing out of their heads and have hoofs instead of toes and fingers. There are lizards that don't have any limbs but are not in the snake family.

No. The basic shape of all mammals are the same. Symmetrical, head on top of torso, four limbs. The horns and all that shit are specializations, and each Pandoran animal also has specialization. But they should all have evolved along a similar path, just like more or less every Earth animal has.

Also, snakes and lizards are all reptiles. You have little understanding of what you're talking about.


- TzuDohNihm - 12-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by devincf
View Post
Can someone give an in-world explanation as to why the Na'vi don't have six limbs, four eyes and a blowhole?

Intelligent Design?


- noahthestud - 12-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by devincf
View Post
All of Pandora's landmass is covered in jungle, so we saw a pretty representative section.

It's not all jungle. There was the Navi that lived out in the plains that Jake recruited. Plus the ones living in a coastal environment. You have little understanding of what you are talking about.


- the alexor - 12-28-2009

Sorry if this has been answered before but I couldn't find an answer in the last five pages of this thread:

At the same theater, I can see the film in 3D or in Imax 3D. Wich version is recommended?

From past experience, TDK is the only regular film I liked in Imax because some parts were actually filmed in Imax. Others like Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire lost some image quality by being blown up to Imax proportions. Is Avatar different?


- joeypants - 12-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Alexor
View Post
Sorry if this has been answered before but I couldn't find an answer in the last five pages of this thread:

Go back further. It's there, and not too much farther.


- pop zeus - 12-28-2009

Now you're just stirring the pot, Devin. The only real answer is because you can't mo-cap extra arms that don't exist on humans.


- hbarr - 12-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by devincf
View Post
Also, snakes and lizards are all reptiles. You have little understanding of what you're talking about.

Technically snakes and lizards are in different families. They are in the same order though.


- devincf - 12-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoahtheStud
View Post
It's not all jungle. There was the Navi that lived out in the plains that Jake recruited. Plus the ones living in a coastal environment. You have little understanding of what you are talking about.

No. According to the script and the scriptment, Pandora has forests that cover all landmasses. Obviously there's a fucking coastline and an ice cap, but there are no deserts or anything. Unless Cameron retcons that, he's written it into both scripts.


- blueharvester - 12-28-2009

Maybe they have 4 arms when they are born and they have a traditional circumcision ceremony.

But really, who cares? I thought the world was pretty well thought out, better than anything in the last years. I especially liked those bugs that spawned the glowing DaVinci helicopter wings. It really felt like a nicely thought out defensive distraction thing such a tiny animal could have on Pandora.


- captain mal - 12-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by devincf
View Post
Can someone give an in-world explanation as to why the Na'vi don't have six limbs, four eyes and a blowhole?

Perhaps this is a symptom of uber-geekery with which I've never identified (and I say that with the utmost admiration), but can someone explain to me why such a thing matters?

I would ask the same of those who have gotten uptight over why the floating mountains float. Seriously? The answer you're pointedly not looking for (and which, of course, you already know) is that floating mountains are cool, and six-limbed protagonists would be harder to identify with.

Perhaps Cameron brought this kind of scrutiny on himself by blathering on about the completeness of his imagined world, but this is a big, broad space-opera with sci-fi wallpaper, and S.O. is a genre intended to be felt, not scientifically scrutinized. Plots should progress sensibly, characterization should be clear and consistent, and the wallpaper should be awesome.

Not that I begrudge anyone else the right to experience stories their own way, but to me, this is like asking someone to explain why there are no mushrooms in the cheesecake.


- devincf - 12-28-2009

This film wasn't space opera. It wasn't pulp. I know people use these terms to try and explain the film's problems, but they just aren't true. This is a science fiction film. People will crow about how a REAL science fiction film did well at the box office. The fact that the world was thought out and created from a scientific point of view was a big part of the push and the anticipation.

So basically, if some people want to think about it, let them. You can go be ignorant in silence.


- Richard Dickson - 12-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by devincf
View Post
No. According to the script and the scriptment, Pandora has forests that cover all landmasses. Obviously there's a fucking coastline and an ice cap, but there are no deserts or anything. Unless Cameron retcons that, he's written it into both scripts.

A lot of stuff in both scripts didn't make it to the screen, maybe the original conception of Pandora didn't make it either. I'm not going to hold the film accountable for what's in its scriptment. They never state in the film it's entirely jungle.


- matches_malone - 12-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by devincf
View Post
This film wasn't space opera. It wasn't pulp. I know people use these terms to try and explain the film's problems, but they just aren't true. This is a science fiction film. People will crow about how a REAL science fiction film did well at the box office. The fact that the world was thought out and created from a scientific point of view was a big part of the push and the anticipation.

So basically, if some people want to think about it, let them. You can go be ignorant in silence.

I think the terms are so nebulously defined that it's difficult to place a film like this in an easy category.

Personally, I think that Cameron didn't focus enough on the implications of the "science" he presented for it to be truly science fiction (as I prefer to define the term). I would definitely plop this within the space opera genre if it were a novel. Maybe next to Iain Banks.


- joeypants - 12-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Mal
View Post
Perhaps Cameron brought this kind of scrutiny on himself by blathering on about the completeness of his imagined world, but this is a big, broad space-opera with sci-fi wallpaper, and S.O. is a genre intended to be felt, not scientifically scrutinized. Plots should progress sensibly, characterization should be clear and consistent, and the wallpaper should be awesome.

You nailed it with your first sentence (or piece of it), which subsequently makes the rest of your comment not compute. You can't, "blather on about the completeness of your imagined world" and then turn around and say "it's a genre intended to be felt, not scientifically scrutinized."

You sort of have to pick one. Don't hinge the majority of your film's appeal on the former, and then shove the latter back in my face when I poke holes.


- bitches leave - 12-28-2009

In the scriptment the jungle was also purple at daytime. And in the movie there are vast areas with nothing but plains with little oasis-like green islands. We see them and we hear Jake describe them. And this movie's genre is a mix of hard sci-fi, fantasy and pulp.


- matches_malone - 12-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bitches Leave
View Post
And this movie's genre is a mix of hard sci-fi, fantasy and pulp.

Glad that's resolved.


- captain mal - 12-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by devincf
View Post
So basically, if some people want to think about it, let them. You can go be ignorant in silence.

Yes, Devin, I read that piece, thanks.

But I disagree with your premise that Avatar isn't space opera. Cameron can crow all he likes about the "scientific" basis of his story, but calling a giraffe a long-necked horse doesn't make it so. I've been reading your stuff long enough to suspect that you're capable of identifying the distinction, and from here it looks an awful lot like you're setting up a straw man.

As I said before, however, I don't begrudge you the right to enjoy (or, more to the point, be annoyed by) stories in any way you like. I find it baffling, though, that your most consistent argument is "shut up."


- the prankster - 12-28-2009

The movie is supposed to be predicated on the details of this alien world, so it's absolutely fair to examine this stuff. The disappointingly halfassed/ramshackle nature of the world we got is probably my biggest complaint about the film, and the Na'vi being so human (obviously done so that the audience would be able to "relate to them" or whatever) is a huge part of that. If the Na'vi had been genuinely alien it would have improved the film immensely.


- Bucho - 12-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by devincf
View Post
This film wasn't space opera. It wasn't pulp. I know people use these terms to try and explain the film's problems, but they just aren't true. This is a science fiction film. People will crow about how a REAL science fiction film did well at the box office. The fact that the world was thought out and created from a scientific point of view was a big part of the push and the anticipation.

So basically, if some people want to think about it, let them. You can go be ignorant in silence.

I've heard Cameron say it's a mix of sci-fi and fantasy, that it's somewhere in the middle.

There's also that shot of the plains tribe's camp being on plains, not jungle.


- captain mal - 12-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeypants
View Post
You sort of have to pick one.

Or, rather, Cameron does. To me, it looks like he wants to have it both ways, and the film simply doesn't hold up. Remove his P.T. Barnum act from the equation, and judge the film on it's content rather than its marketing — I think you'll find it's not trying very hard at all to be science-fiction.