Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, December 30, 2009
Film Against Avatar
Posted by Christopher Frizzelle on Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 12:20 PM
I fell for it, you fell for it, everyone fell for it. It was Jon Stewart, not usually a person to fall for shit, talking about how Avatar has "reinvented filmmaking" (before he'd even seen it), that led me to the theater.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Sigourney Weaver | ||||
| ||||
As you can see, the story of James Cameron making Avatar has pretty much been the marketing strategy for Avatar, which is ingenious, because (1) Cameron's career, post-Titanic, was in need of some re-marketing, and (2) Americans are obsessed with careers, especially Hollywood careers, and (3) the story of Avatar itself is so unworthy of the three hours the movie takes that you can't seriously talk about the movie as, like, great storytelling.
Granted, there are nice things about it. The liberal propaganda it contains is exactly the sort of liberal propaganda you want Hollywood to be peddling. Sam Worthington is the most attractive person currently living. The lady aliens have shapely, fully articulated breasts, and there's a lady-alien crotch shot that a straight friend of mine apparently is never going to stop talking about. Lots of people I like liked it (Lindy, Eli). But come on, people. The story is trite. The dialogue is abysmal. The thing goes on and on and on (and on and on), in furtherance of a plot that makes Disney's Pocahontas seem virtuosic. And the new cameras used to capture the facial gestures of the actors—the ones that have ostensibly "changed filmmaking forever"—don't capture nearly the nuance that a regular camera pointed at a regular face does.
And what if you see it in 3-D? It's even more annoying, since all you're watching is 3-D applied to a movie that was not made for 3-D. Here's how you can tell. You know how, in any movie, sometimes an object in the foreground will be out of focus and an object in the distance will be in focus? To establish distance between the two objects? Well, in a 3-D movie, you don't have to do that—you can establish depth (one object in the distance and one object close up) without having to make either of them blurry. That's why you have 3-D movies. In Avatar, there are tons of these gorgeous little floating jellyfish-like seedling things, and sometimes they swim through the foreground, out-of-focus, while a scene is going on behind them. But if you see Avatar in 3-D, the jellyfish float by out of focus. A big, out-of-focus blob coming toward you. Reinvented-filmmaking-forever fail!
3
Its kinda a cross between the Smurfs, and Fern Gully, with the Sargeant from Small Soldiers thrown in.
A kids movie, pure and simple, with no adult emotions, issues, or complications.
A kids movie, pure and simple, with no adult emotions, issues, or complications.
4
It didn't reinvent film making forever, and I actually preferred the way Coralline used the new 3D technique, but it was some of the best eye candy every created by a computer. When the computer generated characters were running along the tree branches and cliffs I actually got vertigo. A big feet for what is basically a complicated cartoon.
5
Wrong. All of it.
If you didn't enjoy this movie in 3D you have other problems than listening to Jon Stewart for movie recommendations.
If you didn't enjoy this movie in 3D you have other problems than listening to Jon Stewart for movie recommendations.
6
Thank you, Christopher. This movie might make me kill somebody eventually. It makes me long for Mike Leigh and three ugly people in a room.
7
Obviously the hyperbole is stupid. But come on, every big movie has loads of hyperbole on it.
I saw it yesterday in 3D and I enjoyed myself. I thought it was worth the $6 I paid, and it made me forget about what a mess things are in the real world and just focus on the adventures of these crazy blue aliens and their crazy planet for a few hours.
Citing the stilted dialog or trite story in Avatar is like citing the stilted dialog or trite story in Iron Man. Yes it's factually true, but it's beside the point. You don't see a movie of this type for deep understanding of the human condition, you see it as a big shiny distraction. It's a visual and aural rollercoaster, and on that level I think it succeeds.
I saw it yesterday in 3D and I enjoyed myself. I thought it was worth the $6 I paid, and it made me forget about what a mess things are in the real world and just focus on the adventures of these crazy blue aliens and their crazy planet for a few hours.
Citing the stilted dialog or trite story in Avatar is like citing the stilted dialog or trite story in Iron Man. Yes it's factually true, but it's beside the point. You don't see a movie of this type for deep understanding of the human condition, you see it as a big shiny distraction. It's a visual and aural rollercoaster, and on that level I think it succeeds.
10
Agree completely with #4. It's a lush, amazing world they've created, but everything else, including the 3D, is at best nothing special.
12
Right on Christopher. Avatar is a terrible movie for many, many reasons, but summed up, it would be difficult for the writing to have been any worse. I feel like it is only worth seeing in 3-d while very, very high, and wearing earplugs.
13
Points well taken, except that Avatar WAS made for 3-d. Shot with 3-d cameras and everything, which I know because of your aforementioned marketing hullaballoo. All of that about having to invent a better 3-d system, &c.
14
Are there really people out there who can't appreciate a movie with a bad story?
Sometimes fluff can be just plain entertaining. I think this applies to avatar.
Sometimes fluff can be just plain entertaining. I think this applies to avatar.
16
I actually think having foreground elements slightly out-of-focus seemed more natural, since your eyeballs are actually focusing on a fixed depth (the screen). It looks crazy when everything is in focus regardless of distance from the viewer.
Also, James Cameron has always had sort of clunky dialogue.
ALSO, where/when is that crotch shot?!??! I gotta see that!
Also, James Cameron has always had sort of clunky dialogue.
ALSO, where/when is that crotch shot?!??! I gotta see that!
17
@11: Honkey please. The dialogue in most classic movies is garbage by today's standards. And there's a variety of styles of dialogue that bear no resemblance to the way an actual person would talk (Mamet, Tarantino, etc.) but yet serve the purpose of the films they are in perfectly.
Complaining that Avatar's dialogue isn't good enough is like complaining that the special effects in Barton Fink aren't good enough. It makes you look like a stupid asshole.
You can easily state that it's a problem YOU can't get over, and it's too much of a distraction for YOU to enjoy the movie, but as an action-adventure movie the dialog and story are par for the course.
Complaining that Avatar's dialogue isn't good enough is like complaining that the special effects in Barton Fink aren't good enough. It makes you look like a stupid asshole.
You can easily state that it's a problem YOU can't get over, and it's too much of a distraction for YOU to enjoy the movie, but as an action-adventure movie the dialog and story are par for the course.
19
@14, yes, there are. Avatar's story wasn't just bad in the "wow this is fucking boring" sense, it was bad in the "this is boring/argues liberal positions clumsily/reinforces racist tropes" sense. That last point makes it unforgivable. I love me some special effects (and Avatar's world is beautiful), but I dislike it when they are attended by a white/western man comes to understand oppressed people, defects to their side, and comes to lead them (because of course the oppressed minorities don't have the ability to save themselves) plot.
21
I think expectations make a huge difference. My boyfriend heard something about it on NPR just after Christmas, said "let's go see it" and we did. Neither of us had heard any hype (or anything about it at all), and we thought it was cool as shit (in 3-D). Bad dialogue, trite story, and all. It was just fun to watch.
22
okay. . . um. . . so a guy who reports and writes about all things hipster-ish for a paper / blog for hipsters, plays the "if-everyone-likes-it-it-must-be-bad-card."
shocking.
shocking.
23
I could not agree more about the mind-blowing hotness of Sam Worthington. He's the only reason Terminator: Salvation was worth watching.
24
You make an interesting point with the out-of-focus shit, but I think that has more to do with keeping the audience focused on the story rather than have them sit there going "Wow! Look at that! Look over there!" the whole time and miss the plot, weak that it might be. When *you*, in your 3D world, focus on something, everything else is out of focus. Try it!
25
Uh, I might add -- that's the whole point of "focus" -- the thing we're looking at is in focus, everything else is out. A world that is all in focus all the time wouldn't look right -- it'd look like a cartoon.
26
Amazing visual effects. Stilted dialogue. Coveluted plot-line with large holes.
Sounds like Star Wars.
I loved Star Wars (episodes 4 & 5 anyway).
Sounds like Star Wars.
I loved Star Wars (episodes 4 & 5 anyway).
27
@19
Those are exactly the things I was ignoring while I "oohed" and "awed" at the CG environment.
Those are exactly the things I was ignoring while I "oohed" and "awed" at the CG environment.
28
I "fell for it"?
I went in expecting a shrugfest with weak dialogue and giant plot holes, but I really enjoyed it. Does that constitute "falling for it"? It wasn't a perfect film by a long shot but it was super-awesome to experience.
What I want to know about a movie is if it's a good experience, not how you felt about the hype, or whether it was what YOU expected. This is a blog, and you can post whatever you want here, but if you consider it criticism, well... it's kinda crappy criticism.
I realize this is anecdotal, but without exception everyone I know who saw the movie without 3D thought it was okay, while everyone I know - including me - who saw it in 3D thought it was hells of great. So, there's, uh... that.
Anyway, I guess what I'm really saying is stop being an indie snob dickweed, Frizzelle. You're nitpicking.
I went in expecting a shrugfest with weak dialogue and giant plot holes, but I really enjoyed it. Does that constitute "falling for it"? It wasn't a perfect film by a long shot but it was super-awesome to experience.
What I want to know about a movie is if it's a good experience, not how you felt about the hype, or whether it was what YOU expected. This is a blog, and you can post whatever you want here, but if you consider it criticism, well... it's kinda crappy criticism.
I realize this is anecdotal, but without exception everyone I know who saw the movie without 3D thought it was okay, while everyone I know - including me - who saw it in 3D thought it was hells of great. So, there's, uh... that.
Anyway, I guess what I'm really saying is stop being an indie snob dickweed, Frizzelle. You're nitpicking.
29
Here's a great review with very specific reasons to hate Avatar:
http://www.theawl.com/2009/12/guest-op-e…
http://www.theawl.com/2009/12/guest-op-e…
30
I saw a matinee showing on Xmas so seeing Sam Worthington was worth the price of admission for me. But, like you, I found the movie itself pretty lame. I think the hype poisoned it for me.
32
Yeah, my boyfriend does this a lot. Granted, he's in the digital effects industry, so he can be forgiven. But it's fairly annoying when he says, "Well, I didn't really like the story or the dialogue or the characters, but the effects were SO GOOD."
Well, yeah. But why watch a movie then? Go watch a laser show with random clips of amazing CG effects -- same result.
Well, yeah. But why watch a movie then? Go watch a laser show with random clips of amazing CG effects -- same result.
33
I agree with #6 (fnarf). I was way more thrilled by the scenario and the ACTING in "Secrets and Lies". Visually, I know when I can believe my eyes and when I'm being "tricked". Tricks are for Halloween and I don't enjoy Halloween one bit.
35
Look, "Avatar" is a 1950's era B-movie Western given a Sci-Fi spin and a gazillion dollars in GCI effects. People who think it's "the greatest thing since sound was introduced" or whatever are just as guilty of reading too much into it as those of you who fault it for being what it is, namely a very expensive B-movie Western.
And c'mon, anyone who's paid any attention to Cameron's films pretty much already knows there's going to be some sort of anti-corporate, anti-military slant to it, since pretty much every movie he's ever made has some element of those themes running through them.
As for plot and dialogue, are you serious? The only reason more people haven't complained about this re: his previous films have been because the very idea that one goes to a Cameron film for the plot and dialogue (aside from the occasional teaser-worthy catch-phrase) is so ludicrous on its face as to be laughable. You go to a Cameron movie to see shit 'splode (yes, including "The Abyss" - remember that cool underwater sub chase? AND "Titanic" - a two and a half-hour tease until the ship sinks), and for no other reason whatsoever.
And anyone who says different is full of it.
And c'mon, anyone who's paid any attention to Cameron's films pretty much already knows there's going to be some sort of anti-corporate, anti-military slant to it, since pretty much every movie he's ever made has some element of those themes running through them.
As for plot and dialogue, are you serious? The only reason more people haven't complained about this re: his previous films have been because the very idea that one goes to a Cameron film for the plot and dialogue (aside from the occasional teaser-worthy catch-phrase) is so ludicrous on its face as to be laughable. You go to a Cameron movie to see shit 'splode (yes, including "The Abyss" - remember that cool underwater sub chase? AND "Titanic" - a two and a half-hour tease until the ship sinks), and for no other reason whatsoever.
And anyone who says different is full of it.
37
Please! Get over yourselves. This movie is gonna do huge box office for all the reasons that big box office movies do. Its a solid story, and its visually stunning. For someone to create an entire world and race and language is kind of impressive, no? How many times have you done that in your lives?
Stop whining. I had low expectations and I love movies with heart and soul and didn't expect much from Avatar, but when I set all my prissy-pants aside, it had me enthralled. If you don't want to see it, then don't go see it and quit talking about it. Let moviegoers have their fun.
As long as movies like this appeal to the mass public (the kind like the mindless, greedy, self-centered human race depicted in the movie), then Hollywood will keep making this type of film. Did it make you think, AT ALL? Or just wanna whine more?
If you wanna go to the art house theater with your Vagisil & a box of single origin organic chocolate truffles and see some well written art-house film where the C-list actors all emote themselves right off the screen, then do that. If you want a big popcorn movie that pushes the envelope of film making technology, then Avatar is your flick.
Stop whining. I had low expectations and I love movies with heart and soul and didn't expect much from Avatar, but when I set all my prissy-pants aside, it had me enthralled. If you don't want to see it, then don't go see it and quit talking about it. Let moviegoers have their fun.
As long as movies like this appeal to the mass public (the kind like the mindless, greedy, self-centered human race depicted in the movie), then Hollywood will keep making this type of film. Did it make you think, AT ALL? Or just wanna whine more?
If you wanna go to the art house theater with your Vagisil & a box of single origin organic chocolate truffles and see some well written art-house film where the C-list actors all emote themselves right off the screen, then do that. If you want a big popcorn movie that pushes the envelope of film making technology, then Avatar is your flick.
38
What kind of moron goes into a James Cameron movie expecting characterization, good dialogue or clever plotting? Every movie he's ever made is about spectacle and adrenaline and narrative drive and fascism; it's pure brain-off eye candy. What exactly did you expect from a 3D Cameron movie about marines fighting space aliens?
39
Me and My friend couldn't stop talking about how all the aliens must have had retractable penises. How can you be eight feet tall and not even have a bulge in your loincloth. I simply could not suspend disbelief for that. Sorry. And there should have been a shower scene with Sam Worthington.
41
Man, slog commenters get so butthurt when the Slog disagrees with their opinions...
The dude's allowed to not like the movie. Doesn't make him a dick.
The dude's allowed to not like the movie. Doesn't make him a dick.
42
Avatar is a really really gorgeous cartoon that goes on a little too long for love of its effects. It's one of the prettier things I saw all year, and for me, that was enough to make the ticket price worthwhile and the laughably corny dialogue tolerable.
I'm deeply confused, though, about your arguments about 3D and depth perception. Are you upset that the glasses and technology aren't yet magical enough to allow each individual audience member to determine the focal point of each moment of the film?
I'm deeply confused, though, about your arguments about 3D and depth perception. Are you upset that the glasses and technology aren't yet magical enough to allow each individual audience member to determine the focal point of each moment of the film?
43
I loved Avatar! It is a great reminder of the historical treatement of indigenous peoples all around the globe by European colonizers. Moreover, the movie is a brilliant visual indictment of the way the developed world is treating the environment - and possbily a plea to the world to do something about climate change. . And didn't anyone else catch the Buddhist play on the naming of "unobtainium?" That has to be a comment of the impossibility of satisfying our desires ...
44
ditto #42 et al, stereoscopic view has nothing to do with depth of field and focus.
Reinvented-filmmaking-forever-diatribe fail!
Reinvented-filmmaking-forever-diatribe fail!
45
@32, exactly!
I'm hoping that these big-budget special effects movies will soon evolve into a new genre - some sort of interactive video game/roller-coaster spectacle with minimal to no plot or characters. Because I wanted to enjoy Avatar more than I did. I wanted to turn my brain off and go with the adrenaline and ooh! pretty! sensations. And that would have been a lot easier without the inane and racist plot and the excruciatingly hokey writing which is just really really hard to ignore.
I'm hoping that these big-budget special effects movies will soon evolve into a new genre - some sort of interactive video game/roller-coaster spectacle with minimal to no plot or characters. Because I wanted to enjoy Avatar more than I did. I wanted to turn my brain off and go with the adrenaline and ooh! pretty! sensations. And that would have been a lot easier without the inane and racist plot and the excruciatingly hokey writing which is just really really hard to ignore.
47
Hipsters against Avatar, unite! How Ironic of you, Christopher.
I know it's cool to join the backlash against such a popular film but you're going about it all wrong.
I know it's cool to join the backlash against such a popular film but you're going about it all wrong.
48
i haven't seen avatar, i bet it sucks, but i can be 100% positive that you're a moron, frizzelle.
your own two eyes, in your own two head, both perceive depth and, independently, have a focal plane outside of which things are blurry.
so are you calling out God now, cause the eyeball was "not made for 3D?"
your own two eyes, in your own two head, both perceive depth and, independently, have a focal plane outside of which things are blurry.
so are you calling out God now, cause the eyeball was "not made for 3D?"
49
I go to see movies for one reason - to be entertained. When they're really long, I feel better about it (because goddammit, I hate paying that much fucking money to see a movie one time, and not once get a handjob in the process).
I went in wanting to hate this movie something fierce. Unfortunately, I found that not once was I bored. Sure, the dialogue is terrible, but it's kind of funny that way. And yes, Worthington is fucking hot (and nobody is hotter with long hair, 34, you fucking hippie).
The fact is that it's fun to watch, has a basic, easy to follow plot (although about two thirds of the way in, it seemed like it was going off course, but then managed to find its way back), and blue cat-people. What's not to love?
If I wanted to see a "good" movie, I'd go see "Precious..." But then I'd have to kill myself out of white guilt. Fuck that. I want entertainment, and Avatar totally provides. So fuck you, Mr. Frizzelle. You're wrong. (or right. I didn't read the entire thing).
I went in wanting to hate this movie something fierce. Unfortunately, I found that not once was I bored. Sure, the dialogue is terrible, but it's kind of funny that way. And yes, Worthington is fucking hot (and nobody is hotter with long hair, 34, you fucking hippie).
The fact is that it's fun to watch, has a basic, easy to follow plot (although about two thirds of the way in, it seemed like it was going off course, but then managed to find its way back), and blue cat-people. What's not to love?
If I wanted to see a "good" movie, I'd go see "Precious..." But then I'd have to kill myself out of white guilt. Fuck that. I want entertainment, and Avatar totally provides. So fuck you, Mr. Frizzelle. You're wrong. (or right. I didn't read the entire thing).
52
I'm surprised there are people who didn't like Avatar. I LOVE LOVE LOVED it. 3D had its problems, but it added to the plot in many ways - projecting the lush and beauty and vastness of the world in a very personal way to the senses. That's actually what I think of first when I think back on the movie - flowers and cliffs and incredible views.
As for the story, it may be a classic trope, but I'm okay with that. It's something that works and appeals to many people - like me.
As for the story, it may be a classic trope, but I'm okay with that. It's something that works and appeals to many people - like me.
53
OK, so you didn't like it, Christopher. Fine. Just don't "come on people" me with your trite comments about the plot and dialogue. If you thought the movie was too long, why didn't you just leave? Go eat popcorn in the lobby or something and let the rest of us enjoy a first-rate piece of entertainment. Oh, and your observations on the 3-d aspect are totally stupid.
54
When I first saw the previews, I figured no one would be interested in the movie except kids, furries, and wingnuts who would say it proved that Hollywood is out of touch with Real America. Guess I was wrong.
55
Avatar, which I saw twice, once in imax 3D to get the best effects possible, sucked. Effects don't make a movie, although I can be pretty forgiving of sci fi movies. This, though, was awful. The plot was 100% predictable; the characters were shallow as mud puddles; and the "alien" culture was so lazily done that it degenerated to being cheap racial stereotypes. I've seen 3D movies before, and this one was not much more impressive than "Jaws 3D: This Time It's Personal". I can't believe no one else is as sick of computer effects making movies into cartoons as I am.
56
Christopher - I don't think "articulated" means what you think it means, unless these Avatar females have hinges in their breasts.
58
@49 "When they're really long, I feel better about it"
you seem like the type who would enjoy a greasy buffet over a small, delicious meal at a nice restaurant. I used to know people like that back home.
cute
you seem like the type who would enjoy a greasy buffet over a small, delicious meal at a nice restaurant. I used to know people like that back home.
cute
59
@16 -- The crotch shot is in one of the scenes where she's riding one of those winged creatures and sort of bending forward. @56 -- I don't know from hinges, but all I'm saying is you see, visually described, the whole breast. Including the usually-not-seen-in-movies bottom half of the breast. @everyone -- If they can spend three million dollars on new technology, they can spare a little money for a decent writer. Not having a decent writer on a movie with a huge budget just means they don't care about decent writing, which is annoying. If you enjoy over-hyped stuff full of shopworn ideas and dialogue, knock yourself out.
60
@ 55 Tremodian for the biggest loser award - who thinks a movie sucks and goes to see it *TWICE*?!
61
Haven't seen Avatar yet, and probably will in a non-3D setting when it arrives on some high-def home version. Generally, I like Cameron's explodey goodness more than I do Michael Bay's.
Perhaps Avatar serves to illustrate the difference between the offensiveness of the Noble Savage trope and the Mighty Whitey trope. The Na'vi are an obvious allegory for every civilization conquered by Big West, but are technically a safe target since they're not too similar to any particular one. Perhaps we're now able to hit on the possibility that by implying one race / culture / religion / economic model / hairdo can be intrinsically superior than another, a story reinforces the common belief that an arbitrary culture (one's own) can be superior to another. This give permission to, say, the Conservative right to hate on the gays just for being different.
In other words, when Captain Kirk beams down and fixes a society-gone-astray, it's an allegory for your civilization imposing its customs on someone else, and them thanking you for it afterward. Or, it follows, the allegory is of another civilization imposing its customs on you, with the expectation that you'll be thanking them. I suspect, this is exactly how Loveschild imagines things would turn out if we all capitulated to her models of custom and faith: She believes that in retrospect, we'd thank her for invoking the change, even if she forced it upon us.
The problem is, the guys on top (whoever they are) want to believe they got there because they're intrinsically better. Jared Diamond notes the prevalence of the belief, even amongst academics, that intrinsic ingenuity propelled western civilization to develop faster than all other cultures despite studies that suggest otherwise, or that our intellectual elite are comprised of every society that is given the educational opportunity, or that Constantinople fell, also, to the Ottoman bombards when they had the technological upper hand.
Big West, hence, isn't the only civilization guilty of the Tarzan story (i.e. Civilized man in a strange land out-performs natives in every way, becomes local superhero and boffs the leg-hugging princess). It took an Egyptian-raised prince to rally the enslaved Jews, and King Arthur was (according to some scholars) educated by Roman custom (including literacy).
Note: Avatar isn't yet on the Green Aesop trope page, but a review of it is now the lead quote for Mighty Whitey.
More...
Perhaps Avatar serves to illustrate the difference between the offensiveness of the Noble Savage trope and the Mighty Whitey trope. The Na'vi are an obvious allegory for every civilization conquered by Big West, but are technically a safe target since they're not too similar to any particular one. Perhaps we're now able to hit on the possibility that by implying one race / culture / religion / economic model / hairdo can be intrinsically superior than another, a story reinforces the common belief that an arbitrary culture (one's own) can be superior to another. This give permission to, say, the Conservative right to hate on the gays just for being different.
In other words, when Captain Kirk beams down and fixes a society-gone-astray, it's an allegory for your civilization imposing its customs on someone else, and them thanking you for it afterward. Or, it follows, the allegory is of another civilization imposing its customs on you, with the expectation that you'll be thanking them. I suspect, this is exactly how Loveschild imagines things would turn out if we all capitulated to her models of custom and faith: She believes that in retrospect, we'd thank her for invoking the change, even if she forced it upon us.
The problem is, the guys on top (whoever they are) want to believe they got there because they're intrinsically better. Jared Diamond notes the prevalence of the belief, even amongst academics, that intrinsic ingenuity propelled western civilization to develop faster than all other cultures despite studies that suggest otherwise, or that our intellectual elite are comprised of every society that is given the educational opportunity, or that Constantinople fell, also, to the Ottoman bombards when they had the technological upper hand.
Big West, hence, isn't the only civilization guilty of the Tarzan story (i.e. Civilized man in a strange land out-performs natives in every way, becomes local superhero and boffs the leg-hugging princess). It took an Egyptian-raised prince to rally the enslaved Jews, and King Arthur was (according to some scholars) educated by Roman custom (including literacy).
Note: Avatar isn't yet on the Green Aesop trope page, but a review of it is now the lead quote for Mighty Whitey.
62
@58 -
You TOTALLY took that out of context. you left out the "(because goddammit, I hate paying that much fucking money to see a movie one time, and not once get a handjob in the process). " part!
Overall, excessively long movies (which, technically, I think this was) annoy me in theaters. My ass gets sore, and not in a good way. and since they don't serve booze or other stuff, that effing sucks.
You TOTALLY took that out of context. you left out the "(because goddammit, I hate paying that much fucking money to see a movie one time, and not once get a handjob in the process). " part!
Overall, excessively long movies (which, technically, I think this was) annoy me in theaters. My ass gets sore, and not in a good way. and since they don't serve booze or other stuff, that effing sucks.
63
Free Lunch since computer generated models are made of gazillions of rigid triangles, articulated models are so hinged along the edges of such triangles, which is to say they flex and bow at the joints to conform to the physical properties of the item in question (i.e. boob-flesh).
Anatomical physics, a superset of boob physics is now a specialty, often featured in 3D arena-fighting games like Mortal Kombat or Soul Caliber, and are necessary to preserve the realism of cyber-thespians.
Anatomical physics, a superset of boob physics is now a specialty, often featured in 3D arena-fighting games like Mortal Kombat or Soul Caliber, and are necessary to preserve the realism of cyber-thespians.
64
Several posters refer to this movie as "Sci fi", yet I defy anyone to point to a single instance of actual "sci" rearing its head in the movie. It was fantasy nonsense from beginning to end.
A moon orbiting a gas giant that close would be roasted with radiation and wracked by colossal tidal effects. "Cloning" an alien-human hybrid to perfectly fit and muscular adulthood in a zero-g tank is like summoning up a leprechaun using a magic spell. No explanation is even attempted for remote telepathic control of these clones, which again is basically magic nonsense. Speaking of lack of explanation, floating mountains in a "flux zone" -- bluh?
The ecology of Pandora makes no sense, either -- why is every creature on the planet able to plug into each other, including some kind of plant/animal neural (?) interface, besides making a selling point for action figures? Why does the plant life, which mostly looks like our trees, ferns and other flora, fluoresce at night as if under a blacklight?
A moon orbiting a gas giant that close would be roasted with radiation and wracked by colossal tidal effects. "Cloning" an alien-human hybrid to perfectly fit and muscular adulthood in a zero-g tank is like summoning up a leprechaun using a magic spell. No explanation is even attempted for remote telepathic control of these clones, which again is basically magic nonsense. Speaking of lack of explanation, floating mountains in a "flux zone" -- bluh?
The ecology of Pandora makes no sense, either -- why is every creature on the planet able to plug into each other, including some kind of plant/animal neural (?) interface, besides making a selling point for action figures? Why does the plant life, which mostly looks like our trees, ferns and other flora, fluoresce at night as if under a blacklight?
65
Oh, please, fuck all of you. Cheesy sci-fi flicks are an American tradition and are an end in themselves, and this one lived up to the standard robustly. Sure, Goldilocks and the Three Bears isn't a brilliant work, but it's an instant classic and a hell of a lot more enjoyable than War and Peace. Likewise in Avatar vs. [morose masterpiece of choice].
66
@64 Are you seriously breaking down the fake science in a movie? NOTHING in scifi actually works, but that doesn't stop it from being scifi.
67
@66, some of what is called "science fiction" does actually contain speculative science, with at least an attempt at explaining how it might work, based on known science. Cameron was apparently never interested in trying to give any grounding in reality to his fantasy story, so whatever Avatar is (a cartoon?), it's not science fiction.
Too bad, because another few rewrites might have punched up the story to a point where it became more memorable in the long run than, say, Disney's 1980s cartoon Tron, which also represented a huge leap in computer graphic imagery and yet is an unwatchable, mostly forgotten borefest in retrospect...
Too bad, because another few rewrites might have punched up the story to a point where it became more memorable in the long run than, say, Disney's 1980s cartoon Tron, which also represented a huge leap in computer graphic imagery and yet is an unwatchable, mostly forgotten borefest in retrospect...
69
@64, besides being an antagonistic dummy, you're also wrong. This movie contains speculative technology and while you might be right in calling it fantasy, someone else might also be right in calling it sci-fi. They're just labels.
70
Avatar was made for 3-D.
It used it to add to the movie, the dialogue, and the plot.
Without things jumping out at the screen to scare us silly.
Let's face it, the movie ROCKS.
It used it to add to the movie, the dialogue, and the plot.
Without things jumping out at the screen to scare us silly.
Let's face it, the movie ROCKS.
71
@69, wait, I'm wrong, but then I'm right? It just happens to be a pet peeve of mine that stupid, unscientific stuff like Avatar, 2012 or Timecop gets labeled as "science fiction" when no one has given the slightest thought to the lack of science in the scripts.
Was I seriously the only one who was knocked right out of the movie when lush, idyllic Pandora was shown orbiting so close to that giant Jupiterlike gas giant? Hasn't anyone seen the pictures of what Io looks like?
Was I seriously the only one who was knocked right out of the movie when lush, idyllic Pandora was shown orbiting so close to that giant Jupiterlike gas giant? Hasn't anyone seen the pictures of what Io looks like?
72
Avatar was pretty as all hell, but the "noble savages" trope was beaten into the ground and then some. The fetishization of the Na'vi, who were pretty obviously based on African cultures (and I think a fair amount of the voice actors were African or African American), was ridiculous (was Zoe Saldana's priestess mom actually Rafiki?) and detracted from the story for me, but that's what I get for being an English major. Lindy's review of it as "FernGully in space" was fairly accurate-- there were some shots in Avatar that I first saw in FernGully when I was a kid. It's nice to know the technology's out there to make pretty dragons if someone ever wants to attempt to translate the Dragonriders of Pern to the big screen-- I read those quite a bit in high school, and it was breathtaking to see something so similar. I'll probably see it again, but I'll do it when I am very, very high.
73
@71
You do not have control over what other people label sci-fi. It focuses on futuristic science, much of which is fantasy-like. There's nothing saying sci-fi has to involve REAL science or to what degree.
There are robots. There is space travel. There is genetic engineering. The fact that they never delve into the specifics doesn't mean a thing. Neither did Starship Troopers. Saying either is NOT sci-fi is the stubbornness of a nerd with his calculator up his ass.
You do not have control over what other people label sci-fi. It focuses on futuristic science, much of which is fantasy-like. There's nothing saying sci-fi has to involve REAL science or to what degree.
There are robots. There is space travel. There is genetic engineering. The fact that they never delve into the specifics doesn't mean a thing. Neither did Starship Troopers. Saying either is NOT sci-fi is the stubbornness of a nerd with his calculator up his ass.
74
@73, I never claimed to have control over what people call anything, nor do I deny being a nerd. All I did was ask that fantasy without science not be labeled as "science fiction". To me at least, that seems like labeling a comedy featuring a racist caricature of a black guy "African American cinema".
Heinlein did actually include quite a bit of speculative science in his Starship Troopers, BTW. The movie adaptation contained pretty much none of that, but it was in the book.
I guess I'm just a weird, stubborn antagonistic nerd for wanting Hollywood to at least try to include some science in what it calls "science fiction"...
Heinlein did actually include quite a bit of speculative science in his Starship Troopers, BTW. The movie adaptation contained pretty much none of that, but it was in the book.
I guess I'm just a weird, stubborn antagonistic nerd for wanting Hollywood to at least try to include some science in what it calls "science fiction"...
75
I share Stupid Is as Stupid Does's pet peeve about the definition of science fiction, as opposed to science fantasy (which is a more accurate if less known descriptor for Avatar) or Space Opera which describes most starfaring diegeses, such as Star Wars and Star Trek.
Proper science fiction, now called hard science fiction extrapolates the effects of advancement (usually of science and technology, but can also be social change) on human society. Not having seen Avatar, I cannot really guess on it, but I can expect one of the messages is that conquest is impersonal. If we meet a newer more primitive society to ours, and we want something of theirs, we'll take it no matter how much we try to stay our hand; our society will find some justification to fuck that society out of their legacy. It was by the actions of the Brittish Empire to this effect that H. G. Wells extrapolated the same message in War of the Worlds. So when the aliens land and want to settle here on Earth, expect cooperation only if they cannot take things by force. Independence Day, not Close Encounters
On the other hand, I don't expect the same level of attention to realistic environments or technological development that we expected from, say, Frank Herbert. Just as Star Trek's transporters could be used to replicate crew as easily as transport them, and it raises the question why don't they do exactly that? we file it for later along with Nichols' red dress. Similarly, Lucas's single biome worlds are a slight tremor in the willing suspension of disbelief but easier to ignore by far in contrast to Anakin's wooden dialog.
And even if we did force speculative fiction to be feasible before it was labeled sci-fi, it still wouldn't pull the product from the Sci-Fi Ghetto; in the industry, Science-Fiction is a bad word like Liberal in American politics.
More...
Proper science fiction, now called hard science fiction extrapolates the effects of advancement (usually of science and technology, but can also be social change) on human society. Not having seen Avatar, I cannot really guess on it, but I can expect one of the messages is that conquest is impersonal. If we meet a newer more primitive society to ours, and we want something of theirs, we'll take it no matter how much we try to stay our hand; our society will find some justification to fuck that society out of their legacy. It was by the actions of the Brittish Empire to this effect that H. G. Wells extrapolated the same message in War of the Worlds. So when the aliens land and want to settle here on Earth, expect cooperation only if they cannot take things by force. Independence Day, not Close Encounters
On the other hand, I don't expect the same level of attention to realistic environments or technological development that we expected from, say, Frank Herbert. Just as Star Trek's transporters could be used to replicate crew as easily as transport them, and it raises the question why don't they do exactly that? we file it for later along with Nichols' red dress. Similarly, Lucas's single biome worlds are a slight tremor in the willing suspension of disbelief but easier to ignore by far in contrast to Anakin's wooden dialog.
And even if we did force speculative fiction to be feasible before it was labeled sci-fi, it still wouldn't pull the product from the Sci-Fi Ghetto; in the industry, Science-Fiction is a bad word like Liberal in American politics.
76
The animosity against scientific criticism here is depressing.
I hope you folks aren't implying there's something intrinsically wrong with those of us who actually think about how things work. Homosexuality isn't the only oppressed fringe around here, and I hope you guys can respect us despite our differences.
I hope you folks aren't implying there's something intrinsically wrong with those of us who actually think about how things work. Homosexuality isn't the only oppressed fringe around here, and I hope you guys can respect us despite our differences.
77
@CHRISTOPHER FRIZZELLE,
Hold your hand up in front of your face. Now focus on something far away -- the wall, a tree, a picture, whatever. What does your hand look like? If it's anything but a fuzzy, out-of-focus hand then you have some seriously freaky & f'ed up eyes.
I won't argue you other points, although I disagree wholeheartedly, but I will point out that if your longest paragraph in a three-paragraph-argument is spent arguing that stuff in front of your eyes should never be out of focus then the rest of your argument becomes extremely suspect.
My thought is, you didn't like the movie going into it because of the marketing campaign. I couldn't agree with you more: the campaign told us we'd see something utterly mind-blowing and for it to be anything else is a failure. Perhaps you might have been more inclined to give it a chance if it had been marketed as: "Hey, remember Jim Cameron... the guy who gave us Aliens, T2, the Abyss and Titanic? Well, here's a new one from him."
Hold your hand up in front of your face. Now focus on something far away -- the wall, a tree, a picture, whatever. What does your hand look like? If it's anything but a fuzzy, out-of-focus hand then you have some seriously freaky & f'ed up eyes.
I won't argue you other points, although I disagree wholeheartedly, but I will point out that if your longest paragraph in a three-paragraph-argument is spent arguing that stuff in front of your eyes should never be out of focus then the rest of your argument becomes extremely suspect.
My thought is, you didn't like the movie going into it because of the marketing campaign. I couldn't agree with you more: the campaign told us we'd see something utterly mind-blowing and for it to be anything else is a failure. Perhaps you might have been more inclined to give it a chance if it had been marketed as: "Hey, remember Jim Cameron... the guy who gave us Aliens, T2, the Abyss and Titanic? Well, here's a new one from him."
78
Uriel-238@75 & 76, thanks for getting my back -- it's great that there's at least one kindred spirit here. I've been arguing since the 70s that Star Wars isn't sci fi any more than Lord of the Rings or Spiderman. Not that there's anything wrong with fantasy (as long as it at least obeys its own internal logic), it's just annoying that we get so little actual science fiction onscreen in the US, especially given that there's been such a resurgence in its Big Idea, Hard Science literary science fiction.
@77, I'd go further to say that one of the biggest problems in flashy computer generated effects is that they almost always seem to get rendered with equal focus at every point, so that your eye doesn't know where to look and none of it ends up registering. In Avatar, the 3D was much better realized in the CG portion of the movie and blurry and eye-straining in the live-action shots, at least on the edges of some of the shots. I couldn't find fault in nearly anything created digitally for the movie -- it was an undeniable watershed in that respect.
@77, I'd go further to say that one of the biggest problems in flashy computer generated effects is that they almost always seem to get rendered with equal focus at every point, so that your eye doesn't know where to look and none of it ends up registering. In Avatar, the 3D was much better realized in the CG portion of the movie and blurry and eye-straining in the live-action shots, at least on the edges of some of the shots. I couldn't find fault in nearly anything created digitally for the movie -- it was an undeniable watershed in that respect.
79
@7, You paid $6? Damn...
We paid $15.50 to see it in 3D in Manhattan.
It was fun, though. The freakiest thing about the 3D was the subtitles. I found them quite jarring. It was like someone was holding up a glass slide in the middle of the frame. The 2D effect of the subtitles in a 3D world made them really annoying.
As for the story, Pocahontas meets Apocalypse Now, and yeah, I cried in all the right spots. Even if it's crap, see it! (Especially if you can see it for $6 in 3D. Damn.)
We paid $15.50 to see it in 3D in Manhattan.
It was fun, though. The freakiest thing about the 3D was the subtitles. I found them quite jarring. It was like someone was holding up a glass slide in the middle of the frame. The 2D effect of the subtitles in a 3D world made them really annoying.
As for the story, Pocahontas meets Apocalypse Now, and yeah, I cried in all the right spots. Even if it's crap, see it! (Especially if you can see it for $6 in 3D. Damn.)
80
$15.50 in Manhattan isn't surprising. It's $10-$12 for a seat here in San Francisco.
Where was it $6?
Where was it $6?
82
Frizelle (@59) says "If they can spend three million dollars on new technology, they can spare a little money for a decent writer."
exactly. 'nuf said.
exactly. 'nuf said.
84
I am skeptical of his $6 claim. Seeing as there's a surcharge for the glasses, the base price would have been $4 or less. Even Omaha, NE doesn't have such cheap ticket prices.
86
It's a pot-pourri of movies we have seen the last 15 years. No inspiration, no creativity, trivial and bland. http://avatarsucks.com/
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Confidential to Conservative Christians: Keep Doubling Down On Hate, Assholes by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Show This Woman Some Love by Dan Savage
-
Dharun Ravi Sentenced to 30 Days by Dan Savage
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Seattle's Forthcoming Waterfront Ferris Wheel by David Schmader
-
NOM's Brian Brown Said I Could Name the Time and the Place by Dan Savage
-
Why KeyArena Won't Work by Goldy
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
SL Letter of the Day: Anti-Gay Sister-In-Law Getting Her Kink On by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (87) RSS