Avatar: Bet Movie Going Experience Ever?

[Spy Car]

Sorry, wrong, really wrong. Besides the visuals, the content of the movie is flat, stupid, and banal.

 

Oh come on.

 

We can see you quoting Ludwig von Mises in your signature. It doesn't take a genius to know who you were rooting for :D

 

This film wasn't banal, flat, or stupid. "Derivative" in some aspects? Perhaps. Never-the-less, Avatar is a landmark in the history of cinema.

 

Bill

[Chris in VA]

Tho I love Stanley Kubrick, I'd never, ever put Eyes Wide Shut in the same catagory as The Seven Samuri, The Searchers or The Unforgiven.

Ever.

 

just sayin'

[Spy Car]

Tho I love Stanley Kubrick, I'd never, ever put Eyes Wide Shut in the same catagory as The Seven Samuri, The Searchers or The Unforgiven.

Ever.

 

just sayin'

 

Me neither.

 

And it's "Unforgiven" not "The Unforgiven."

 

just sayin' ;):D

 

Bill

[RubberChickenGirl]

This is why I don't want to see it, well, that and the fact that James Cameron wrote the script (I still can't forgive him for making Billy Zane say all those horrible lines in Titanic). However, a good friend suggested to me yesterday that I could see the film while listening to an iPod, and now I'm tempted.

 

HAHAHAHAHA!! The Titanic Soudtrack? Gotta be better than the script.....JACK! JACK! JACK!JACK! JACK! JACK!JACK! JACK! JACK!JACK! JACK! JACK!JACK! JACK! JACK!JACK! JACK! JACK!JACK! JACK! JACK!JACK! JACK! JACK!JACK! JACK! JACK!JACK! JACK! JACK!JACK! JACK! JACK!JACK! JACK! JACK!JACK! JACK! JACK!JACK! JACK! JACK!JACK! JACK! JACK!JACK! JACK! JACK!JACK! JACK! JACK!JACK! JACK! JACK!JACK! JACK! JACK!JACK! JACK! JACK!JACK! JACK! JACK!JACK! JACK! JACK!JACK! JACK! JACK!JACK! JACK! JACK! (to the 10th power)

[Stacy in NJ]

Oh come on.

 

We can see you quoting Ludwig von Mises in your signature. It doesn't take a genius to know who you were rooting for :D

 

This film wasn't banal, flat, or stupid. "Derivative" in some aspects? Perhaps. Never-the-less, Avatar is a landmark in the history of cinema.

 

Bill

 

 

Perhaps it doesn't take a genius to figure out who I'm rooting for, but in any case you certainly haven't.

 

As I said in my other post regarding whether Avatar is a landmark, Well alllllrightly then.

[tex-mex]

We saw it 2x -- 3D and then 3D IMAX. WOW!!!

 

Okay, the plot was a bit predictable. My thought was, "Oh c'mon!! Why do the aliens need a white guy to save them? White Messiah theme -- again." LOL (No rotten tomatoes, please... :D)

 

But the special effects and cinematography were AMAZING!!! Plus lots of parallels in the story that you can over analyze and use as a discussion with movie lit groups.

[Stacy in NJ]

Tho I love Stanley Kubrick, I'd never, ever put Eyes Wide Shut in the same catagory as The Seven Samuri, The Searchers or The Unforgiven.

Ever.

 

just sayin'

 

Well I would.

[LibraryLover]

Oh come on.

 

We can see you quoting Ludwig von Mises in your signature. It doesn't take a genius to know who you were rooting for :D

 

This film wasn't banal, flat, or stupid. "Derivative" in some aspects? Perhaps. Never-the-less, Avatar is a landmark in the history of cinema.

 

Bill

 

I have always been a big fan of the word 'derivative''.

 

And 'archetype'.

[Karen in CO]

Oh, wow, you saw it on IMAX?!? Now I'm jealous! We don't have an Imax theater here in Albuquerque. :crying: I kid you not: we talked about driving up to Denver to see it in Imax! :lol: Yeah, it's a five hour drive, but we'd make a weekend of it, do some shopping and other fun stuff. Think we should?

 

Hey - Colorado Springs has an Imax so that is an hour closer to you.:D

Get there early so you can get a better seat. I'm going to go again so I can have a "better experience." I got in about 10 minutes before the start of the movie and had to sit in the third row so some of the super cool stuff was a little blurry.

[KidsHappen]

Eyes Wide Shut

 

I am sorry but this had to be one of the worst movies I ever saw in my whole life. I hired a babysitter for a night on the town with my hubby and we went to see this. We were both terribly disappointed. Bad, bad movie. :glare:

[Tea Time]

Oh come on.

 

We can see you quoting Ludwig von Mises in your signature. It doesn't take a genius to know who you were rooting for :D

 

This film wasn't banal, flat, or stupid. "Derivative" in some aspects? Perhaps. Never-the-less, Avatar is a landmark in the history of cinema.

 

Bill

 

So you really don't think a movie has to even attempt to have a worthwhile plot in order to be a "landmark" achievement? Spending enough money will do??? This movie truly did have a childlike plot. I mean, it really truly was Pocahontas. I even think the father's voice was from Pocahontas. Maybe I watched that movie and The Lion King a few too many times and just couldn't take it. I laughed out loud a few times it was so juvenile. Of course, maybe juvenile is palatable when it is wrapped with enough mayhem and thinly veiled nudity.

 

Now, as far as advancing technology making for "landmark cinema experiences," that was certainly true for The Matrix, but it did have a plot that at least kept up with the technology.

 

Anyone would be taken aback by the amazing visual effect of this movie. It is like a fun rollercoaster. No debate there, but all that awesomeness was rather wasted on that plot. I like the idea of watching it with an ipod.

 

As far as recent alien movies I preferred District 9 by Peter Jackson. That was a movie for grownups though. Very interesting idea and execution. It took a totally unique (and much more realistic) approach to the interaction between species. Reality isn't nearly as much fun though, is it? It often has difficult problems that are not readily solved by "magic."

[Spy Car]

So you really don't think a movie has to even attempt to have a worthwhile plot in order to be a "landmark" achievement? Spending enough money will do??? This movie truly did have a childlike plot. I mean, it really truly was Pocahontas. I even think the father's voice was from Pocahontas. Maybe I watched that movie and The Lion King a few too many times and just couldn't take it. I laughed out loud a few times it was so juvenile. Of course, maybe juvenile is palatable when it is wrapped with enough mayhem and thinly veiled nudity.

 

I thought it had a very "worthwhile" plot. Did it draw on many of the same archetypes (that's for you LL :D) as other movies and legends of the past? Sure it did.

 

Did it offend the political ideology of some on the right? Evidently it did.

 

Now, as far as advancing technology making for "landmark cinema experiences," that was certainly true for The Matrix, but it did have a plot that at least kept up with the technology.

 

I guess we have different tastes, because the Matrix was (to my taste) spectacularly uninteresting and a convoluted pseudo-philosophical mess. And the "special effects" were all for their own ends (in a "look what we can do sort of way). Where the cinematic magic in Avatar created another worldly experience, and the "effects" were handled with subtle hands and minds, with the purpose of drawing an audience in, rather than showing off.

 

So yes, I'd say it was a "landmark in cinema." Without question.

 

Anyone would be taken aback by the amazing visual effect of this movie. It is like a fun rollercoaster. No debate there, but all that awesomeness was rather wasted on that plot. I like the idea of watching it with an ipod.

 

Since you recognized the "awesomeness" of the movie as a piece of cinema, I can't help think your issues with the "plot" were ideological. You were rooting for the "Cowboys" and the "Indians" won. Right? :D

 

Bill

[Tea Time]

Since you recognized the "awesomeness" of the movie as a piece of cinema, I can't help think your issues with the "plot" were ideological. You were rooting for the "Cowboys" and the "Indians" won. Right? :D

Bill

 

Do you really want to go there? Because I don't want to ruin this nice love fest with my hard look at reality unless you really want me to.

 

Naw, you probably just want to stay in your Matrix. ;)

[Spy Car]

Do you really want to go there?

:glare:

 

It wouldn't have been *my* choice, but I find it hard to ignore the obvious.

 

Because I don't want to ruin this nice love fest with my hard look at reality unless you really want me to.

 

 

It's not "reality", it's a movie.

 

Bill

[Tea Time]

It wouldn't have been *my* choice, but I find it hard to ignore the obvious.

 

No, really, you obviously can ignore some things. You just pick carefully.

 

It's not "reality", it's a movie.

 

Bill

 

I'll take that as a no. I didn't think you really wanted to go into it.

[Spy Car]

I'll take that as a no. I didn't think you really wanted to go into it.

 

I feel like you've got something you're dying to say, so if you need my permission, you have it.

 

Bill

[nmoira]

I feel like you've got something you're dying to say, so if you need my permission, you have it.

I dunno, Bill. Are you *really* sure you want to go there? 'Cause you've been warned...

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

:tongue_smilie:

[Spy Car]

I dunno, Bill. Are you *really* sure you want to go there? 'Cause you've been warned...

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

:tongue_smilie:

 

I have a feeling Avatar might be compared with "Yoga" :tongue_smilie:

 

Bill

[Garga]

You were rooting for the "Cowboys" and the "Indians" won. Right? :D

 

Bill

 

That's why I found the movie to be sad. I wasn't really rooting or not-rooting for anyone. There were only 2 bad guys in the movie: the military leader guy and the corporate guy. I felt really bad for all the mercenaries who were dying for a ridiculous reason AND felt really bad for the natives to the planet. It was a no-win situation and just sad when they were all fighting and dying.

[Trixie]

I have a feeling Avatar might be compared with "Yoga" :tongue_smilie:

 

Bill

 

Yoga is the debbil.

 

And thanks for the recommendation. I was going to skip "Avatar" because the mediocre plot that I've read reviews about didn't counterbalance the physical discomfort of sitting through a nearly 3-hour flick. :scared: But it sounds like the overall experience is worthwhile.

[Tea Time]

I feel like you've got something you're dying to say, so if you need my permission, you have it.

 

Bill

 

I don't need your permission, but I was honestly trying to see if you were interested in a more in depth conversation. Clearly you are not, so I won't bother. You would rather just mock. No wonder the juvenile themes in this movie are appealing to you (and others). Too bad because there are a lot of interesting things to discuss about this movie if it could be done on an adult level. Not happening here, obviously.

[Trixie]

No wonder the juvenile themes in this movie are appealing to you (and others).

 

Did you really just suggest that people to whom this movie appeals or would appeal are "juvenile?" :confused:

[LibraryLover]

Tea Time, you might want to slow down a bit. Take a breather, maybe? If this movie is not your cup of tea, it's not your cup of tea. That's OK. And I just realized your user name is Tea Time...it finallly processed...not trying to pun or unsult.

 

I am sitting here thinking about another way to say 'not your cup of tea' given Tea Time's name, but I can't. ;) lol I need my kids to fill in basic nouns like fridge and cabinet. So I am done here. :D

[Tea Time]

Did you really just suggest that people to whom this movie appeals or would appeal are "juvenile?" :confused:

 

Not at all. But I did suggest that mocking people is juvenile.

[Tea Time]

Tea Time, you might want to slow down a bit. Take a breather, maybe? If this movie is not your cup of tea, it's not your cup of tea. That's OK. And I just realized your user name is Tea Time...it finallly processed...not trying to pun or unsult.

 

I am sitting here thinking about another way to say 'not your cup of tea' given Tea Time's name, but I can't. ;) lol I need my kids to fill in basic nouns like fridge and cabinet. So I am done here. :D

 

Thanks for the friendly reminder not to let people get "all up in your grill," as my kids would say. Whatever the heck it means??? It does make me laugh when they say it. I really would like to discuss some things about this movie (which I enjoyed and think was very interesting), so this is disappointing. Too bad. :confused: Maybe another day in another dimension.

[Spy Car]

Thanks for the friendly reminder not to let people get "all up in your grill," as my kids would say. Whatever the heck it means??? It does make me laugh when they say it. I really would like to discuss some things about this movie (which I enjoyed and think was very interesting), so this is disappointing. Too bad. :confused: Maybe another day in another dimension.

 

I have no idea what getting "all up in your grill" means, but I wasn't trying to mock you.

 

I get that the film can be "critiqued." I don't think it was "juvenile" (exactly), rather that it hewed to very common archetypes that Margaret in GA wisely compared to the "Hero with a Thousand Faces" in myth (and popular films) as identified by Joseph Campbell. The characters were not particularly "complex", I'll grant you that.

 

But as a "cinematic experience" there has never (to my mind) been anything quite like it. To lose sight of that magnificence because you don't think it was sufficiently complex (or you don't like the ideology or theology) is I think missing the point that this was a groundbreaking "movie."

 

If you have a point you want to make make it.

 

Bill

[Jill- OK]

Mix them together with the white guy as savior.

 

...has this habit of saying, whenever Tom Cruise/Daniel Day Lewis/Whoever shows up in a movie, amidst a group of non-white folks, and surpasses them in skill...

 

"Yeah, right...he's a better samurai than the samurai." (Or "...Mohican than the Mohicans", or whatever.)

 

And then rolls his eyes.

 

(We both get seriously tired of this particular device, lol.)

 

So, you're saying I should expect him to lean over and say, "Yeah, he's a better...blue alien than the blue aliens"?

 

:D

 

(I still want to see it, lol.)

Edited January 21, 2010 by Jill, OK

[Trixie]

Not at all. But I did suggest that mocking people is juvenile.

 

Well, mocking people ... and the themes of the movie (and, by extension, ...). But I won't nitpick. ;)

[Jill- OK]

...come on - all these different species, from all these different planets, and the differences amount to the shape of the ears or the variations in bumps on the forehead? Star Wars was the other extreme, with the alien life forms basically a freak show parade. But the way the life on Pandora was portrayed really was something original: truly familiar and yet truly alien at the same time, and always enthralling.

 

LOL...I get upset when movies don't explain how different beings automatically understand each others' language. :)

[Tea Time]

I have no idea what getting "all up in your grill" means, but I wasn't trying to mock you.

I don't know what "all up in your grill" means either, but is does sum things up at times. And the yoga stuff was decidedly mocking, but not to me as I have never posted to a yoga discussion.

 

I get that the film can be "critiqued." I don't think it was "juvenile" (exactly), rather that it hewed to very common archetypes that Margaret in GA wisely compared to the "Hero with a Thousand Faces" in myth (and popular films) as identified by Joseph Campbell. The characters were not particularly "complex", I'll grant you that.

I agree, but I think the particular achetypes involved do happen to be of the more childlike and simplistic kind. Not all archetypes are equally simplistic. The over all message was quite simplistic, but that doesn't mean it had nothing to offer.

 

But as a "cinematic experience" there has never (to my mind) been anything quite like it. To lose sight of that magnificence because you don't think it was sufficiently complex (or you don't like the ideology or theology) is I think missing the point that this was a groundbreaking "movie."

I do think this movie took the technology to a new level. It reminds me of how people reacted to Star Wars when I was a kid. I think this is very much like that. So I absolutely agree with you there.

 

If you have a point you want to make make it.

 

 

I don't really have a major point to make; there are lots of interesting tangents that might bring in other literature or ideas. I wish things did not always have to be reduced to left/right because not everything has to be. If I were to take that angle, then I suppose I would point out the irony in a movie that used the most advanced technology and spent the most money ever to rail against those very things. That is ironic. But it is also capitalism working its magic, and that is also ironic; so I have to shake my head and move on. Nuff said on that.

 

One of those interesting tangents for me is this: I think the planet was not really a planet at all, it was Eden. I mean, the people in perfect harmony with each other and God. It is hard for us to imagine Eden, and I think this (accidentally no doubt) did a good job of representing that idea. If you had read the book by Lewis that I suggested at one time (The Problem of Pain), then we could talk about how this movie represented the Paradisal man that he describes in that book. Very interesting stuff.

 

“Wholly commanding himself, he commanded all lower lives with which he came into contact…. This power the Paradisal man enjoyed in eminence. The old pictures of the brutes sporting before Adam and fawning upon him may not be wholly symbolical.â€

 

Often that idea is portrayed as somehow being impossible or misunderstood to be that he "commanded" in a dictatorial fashion. This movie shows what that would look like, I think.

 

Bet that isn't where you thought I was going. Hey, I told you I would be repetative when it came to Lewis. And no wonder. I have almost always already run into the ideas "out there" in his work. :lol:

[Spy Car]

I don't know what "all up in your grill" means either, but is does sum things up at times.

 

I'm not sure this makes any sense, but I won't belabor the point :D

 

And the yoga stuff was decidedly mocking, but not to me as I have never posted to a yoga discussion.

 

When you see one of these (:tongue_smilie:) it means I'm being "tongue-in-cheek" and striving for some not-too-serious type humor. I didn't mean to offend.

 

I agree, but I think the particular achetypes involved do happen to be of the more childlike and simplistic kind. Not all archetypes are equally simplistic. The over all message was quite simplistic, but that doesn't mean it had nothing to offer.

 

No big argument there.

 

I do think this movie took the technology to a new level. It reminds me of how people reacted to Star Wars when I was a kid. I think this is very much like that. So I absolutely agree with you there.

 

I thought Star Wars was a big yawn, and a really stupid movie. And even the effects were pretty limited. It looks "dated" now, and really wasn't that impressive then. Kubrick had already done better in 2001, as far as I'm concerned.

 

As an "achievement" in cinema magic I think there is no comparison between Avatar and Star Wars. To my mind Avatar marks a huge leap in cinematic art and science.

 

I don't really have a major point to make; there are lots of interesting tangents that might bring in other literature or ideas. I wish things did not always have to be reduced to left/right because not everything has to be. If I were to take that angle, then I suppose I would point out the irony in a movie that used the most advanced technology and spent the most money ever to rail against those very things. That is ironic. But it is also capitalism working its magic, and that is also ironic; so I have to shake my head and move on. Nuff said on that.

 

I don't think the film was railing against technology. Rather it railed against those people who violate what C S Lewis calls our shared "moral law." It is wrong to steal what is not yours, and it is doubly wrong to kill others in the pursuit of that theft.

 

The "hero" and the scientists (while imperfect themselves) attempted to use technology for the good, as did the female helicopter pilot who would not follow immoral orders.

 

The values represented good over evil. And the message was not that technology is inherently evil.

 

One of those interesting tangents for me is this: I think the planet was not really a planet at all, it was Eden. I mean, the people in perfect harmony with each other and God. It is hard for us to imagine Eden, and I think this (accidentally no doubt) did a good job of representing that idea. If you had read the book by Lewis that I suggested at one time (The Problem of Pain), then we could talk about how this movie represented the Paradisal man that he describes in that book. Very interesting stuff.

 

“Wholly commanding himself, he commanded all lower lives with which he came into contact…. This power the Paradisal man enjoyed in eminence. The old pictures of the brutes sporting before Adam and fawning upon him may not be wholly symbolical.”

 

Often that idea is portrayed as somehow being impossible or misunderstood to be that he "commanded" in a dictatorial fashion. This movie shows what that would look like, I think.

 

So now I'm confused, because first the plot is "simplistic" and now it's thoughtful Christian allegory? Anyway, if you're seeing deeper meanings, why the knocks on the film for being shallow???

 

I do think there is an aspect of Eden and the "Paradisal man" (who is in touch with nature and the divine) that's implicit in the work. Some may see it a Christian allegory, and others might take it for new-age (anti-Christian) tripe. But I think you're closer to the truth in seeing "back to the garden" strivings in the Avatar story.

 

Bet that isn't where you thought I was going.

 

True. Then again, perhaps the film was a little "deeper" than some of your posts seemed to suggest? Yes?

 

Bill

Edited January 21, 2010 by Spy Car

[Spy Car]

 

So, you're saying I should expect him to lean over and say, "Yeah, he's a better...blue alien than the blue aliens"?

 

Count on it :lol:

 

(I still want to see it, lol.)

 

Imax 3-D ;)

 

LOL...I get upset when movies don't explain how different beings automatically understand each others' language. :)

 

Actually, this the movie has covered.

 

Bill

[Blue Lilac Studio]

I LOVED that movie. I went in with low expectations, because some reviewers said there wasn't much of a story, only special effects. 3 hours passed in a blink. I would love to see it again!

[MBM]

It would be interesting to scan people's brains as they watch Avatar. The visuals seem to have an incredible effect on so many.

[Tea Time]

I'm not sure this makes any sense, but I won't belabor the point :D

Of course it doesn't make any sense. Guess I forgot my :tongue_smilie:sign to point out the humor.

 

When you see one of these (:tongue_smilie:) it means I'm being "tongue-in-cheek" and striving for some not-too-serious type humor. I didn't mean to offend.

 

I get that, but harping on these left/right issues is rarely funny.

I thought Star Wars was a big yawn, and a really stupid movie. And even the effects were pretty limited. It looks "dated" now, and really wasn't that impressive then. Kubrick had already done better in 2001, as far as I'm concerned.

 

As an "achievement" in cinema magic I think there is no comparison between Avatar and Star Wars. To my mind Avatar marks a huge leap in cinematic art and science.

 

Oh please. Star Wars was a huge special effects leap at the time (very, very dated now, of course). I would agree 2001 was better (Arthur C. Clark, so no wonder. That is like saying Lord of the Rings is a better story than Avatar, but that is to be expected with Tolkien as the author). But Star Wars was a huge cultural phenomenon whether or not we agree. Also, the story touched nerves as it was a classic story line, too. 2001 was too obtuse for most people.

 

I don't think the film was railing against technology. Rather it railed against those people who violate what C S Lewis calls our shared "moral law." It is wrong to steal what is not yours, and it is doubly wrong to kill others in the pursuit of that theft.

 

The "hero" and the scientists (while imperfect themselves) attempted to use technology for the good, as did the female helicopter pilot who would not follow immoral orders.

 

The values represented good over evil. And the message was not that technology is inherently evil.

Actually Lewis called it the natural law. Perhaps you are right. Lord of the Rings may have been more against technology than this movie. I am not sure, but I think they share a similar sentiment. And again, this should not surprise us. I think Rings did manage it without offending anyone, however.

 

The basic idea of the "good" guy and the "bad" guy was muddled as Garga pointed out in her post. The characters were too flat and too extreme. It was hard to care deeply about any of them or any of it. But this simplistic archetype is still well and good, and it is why the Pocahontas story has merit.

So now I'm confused, because first the plot is "simplistic" and now it's thoughtful Christian allegory? Anyway, if you're seeing deeper meanings, why the knocks on the film for being shallow???

 

I do think there is an aspect of Eden and the "Paradisal man" (who is in touch with nature and the divine) that's implicit in the work. Some may see it a Christian allegory, and others might take it for new-age (anti-Christian) tripe. But I think you're closer to the truth in seeing "back to the garden" strivings in the Avatar story.

Hahahaha. FAR from thoughtful and definitely not allegorical. The Christian concept of Eden is timeless. If it is a reality, then it would be expected to crop up in every form of human imagination - all religions and civilizations would touch on the idea. It would be impossible for us to avoid. The Matrix did the very same thing in a very obvious way (probably why it did not appeal to you), and it was purely accidental. The makers of that movie did double back flips to get away from that in the next movies. Whatever you do, these timeless ideas strike a nerve. Hollywood exploits that. What are ya gonna do?

 

The movie represented the human longing to go back to Eden - and the human tendency to blame someone else for its loss (as Adam did).

 

True. Then again, perhaps the film was a little "deeper" than some of your posts seemed to suggest? Yes?

 

Bill

To be honest with you, I tend to over-analyze everything, so I can find the "deep" in anything. It's my superpower. :tongue_smilie:

 

It is a very fun romp, but it could have strived harder (easily) to be less offensive. Making the US Marines bad guys was not a thoughtful thing to do at this point, no matter what. JMHO.

[KidsHappen]

We saw it 2x -- 3D and then 3D IMAX. WOW!!!

 

Okay, the plot was a bit predictable. My thought was, "Oh c'mon!! Why do the aliens need a white guy to save them? White Messiah theme -- again." LOL (No rotten tomatoes, please... :D)

 

But the special effects and cinematography were AMAZING!!! Plus lots of parallels in the story that you can over analyze and use as a discussion with movie lit groups.

 

Well, I think they need the white guys to save them because they are the only ones that know about the other evil white guys. Without the evil white guys there would have been no need for the white messiah.

 

The only time humanity bands together against a common non-white enemy is when we are attacked on our home planet by aliens, demons or natural disasters.

[LibraryLover]

The only time humanity bands together against a common non-white enemy is when we are attacked on our home planet by aliens, demons or natural disasters.

 

 

Except in Star Trek.:lurk5:

[KidsHappen]

Except in Star Trek.:lurk5:

 

I am not a big Star Trek fan (shh, don't tell anyone) so I don't know for sure but it seems that the good guys are predominantly human and the bad guys are predominantly alien with a little of each thrown in each side to make it interesting. Yes? In any case, I guess they do blur the lines more than most.

[Margaret in GA]

I have no idea what getting "all up in your grill" means, but I wasn't trying to mock you.

 

I get that the film can be "critiqued." I don't think it was "juvenile" (exactly), rather that it hewed to very common archetypes that Margaret in GA wisely compared to the "Hero with a Thousand Faces" in myth (and popular films) as identified by Joseph Campbell. The characters were not particularly "complex", I'll grant you that.

 

But as a "cinematic experience" there has never (to my mind) been anything quite like it. To lose sight of that magnificence because you don't think it was sufficiently complex (or you don't like the ideology or theology) is I think missing the point that this was a groundbreaking "movie."

 

If you have a point you want to make make it.

 

Bill

 

 

Hey, I got quoted!

 

Spoilers below:

 

The point is, it's a fine story-- one that can be interpreted in several different ways as we've seen here (though we may prefer to consider it shallow and meaningless). And it's a great overall experience. Even though some of the Marines are the bad guys, the good guy is too. Of course, it's his peskly humanistic nature to think for himself and not obey orders that makes him the hero. But, you know. That's my interpretation. ;)

[Spy Car]

Of course it doesn't make any sense. Guess I forgot my :tongue_smilie:sign to point out the humor.

 

Try not to do it again :tongue_smilie:

 

I get that, but harping on these left/right issues is rarely funny.

 

First, I'd suggest the "issues" aren't left/right (not too many "leftists" here on the WTM) rather that there is a wide gulf between the broad main-stream of American thought (which runs the gamut from liberal to moderate to conservative) and the extreme (and sometimes militant) world-views sometimes encountered here.

 

The Yoga thread was but one example (not to tar YOU with that brush) but to deny the reality here (at times) is difficult. Rather than being "harped on" I think most of us bite our tongues, most of the time. But it's not always easy.

 

Oh please. Star Wars was a huge special effects leap at the time (very, very dated now, of course). I would agree 2001 was better (Arthur C. Clark, so no wonder. That is like saying Lord of the Rings is a better story than Avatar, but that is to be expected with Tolkien as the author). But Star Wars was a huge cultural phenomenon whether or not we agree. Also, the story touched nerves as it was a classic story line, too. 2001 was too obtuse for most people.

 

My point was the "effects" in 2001 (1968) were more impressive than those in Star Wars (1977). Star Wars looked "dated" at the time. In contrast, Avatar will never look dated. There was only one brief shot (in a battle sequence) where the compositing showed. Otherwise this was a seamless integration of live action and animation.

 

And the world that Cameron and Company created was utterly magical. Avatar is a feast for the eyes!

 

Actually Lewis called it the natural law.

 

I'd recommend that before you corect me (too late :tongue_smilie:) that you re-read Mere Christianity as you will find Lewis repeatedly uses the phrase "The Moral Law" [capitalization his] to describe his conception of a shared natural law.

 

Perhaps you are right. Lord of the Rings may have been more against technology than this movie. I am not sure, but I think they share a similar sentiment. And again, this should not surprise us. I think Rings did manage it without offending anyone, however.

 

The only people who feel offended by Avatar are those who support breaking The Moral Law when it it done so by people who resemble ourselves. That's the whole point of the movie on a philosphical level.

 

I guess Cameron could have made the "bad guys" Russians or Arabs and made everyone happy (except, perhaps, Russians and Arabs) but the one element that kept the film from being thematically "shallow" is the one that has some peoples panties in a twist.

 

And again, "technology" is not the "enemy" in this film, it's immorality. Big difference.

 

It is a very fun romp, but it could have strived harder (easily) to be less offensive. Making the US Marines bad guys was not a thoughtful thing to do at this point, no matter what. JMHO.

 

The US Marines were not the "bad guys". A "mercenary" (important point of distinction) who was a "former" Marine was the chief villain. Another former Marine (now mercenary) was also the films "hero."

 

The villain violated The Moral Law, the hero came to see the wrong in what was being done (including his own complicity in evil-doing) and redeemed his moral position by going with the good. Classic good over evil stuff.

 

If people are offended that "we" could ever lose or moral bearings then perhaps that "offense" serves a good purpose.

 

To be honest with you, I tend to over-analyze everything, so I can find the "deep" in anything. It's my superpower. :tongue_smilie:

 

I get that. I'd just caution that there are times to cool ones super-power, get out some popcorn and enjoy the movie.

 

Bill :lurk5:

Edited January 21, 2010 by Spy Car

[Tea Time]

My point was the "effects" in 2001 (1968) were more impressive than those in Star Wars (1977). Star Wars looked "dated" at the time. In contrast, Avatar will never look dated. There was only one brief shot (in a battle sequence) where the compositing showed. Otherwise this was a seamless integration of live action and animation.

 

And the world that Cameron and Company created was utterly magical. Avatar is a feast for the eyes!

Certainly it was a feast for the eyes. Again, it enjoys the most money and technology ever, so that is what it should do at least. At the time of Star Wars, I was a kid living in a small town so I do not recall it being dated at all, but this is not my area of expertise, so I will delegate that to others. While effects are compelling they do not probably make it for me like they might others. I did not find Avatar's "world" really all that more wonderful than, say, Middle Earth or Narnia. I thought the "dogs" looked like chucacabras (another point I laughed out loud). These are obviously just personal opinions though - no true or untrue about it.

 

I'd recommend that before you corect me (too late :tongue_smilie:) that you re-read Mere Christianity as you will find Lewis repeatedly uses the phrase "The Moral Law" [capitalization his] to describe his conception of a shared natural law.

Ditto.

 

"Now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to called the Law of Nature. Nowadays, when we talk of the 'laws of nature' we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But the the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong 'the Law of Nature' they really meant the Law of Human Nature."

 

"....They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."

 

"Some of the letters I have had show that a good many people find it difficult to understand just what this Law of Human Nature, or Moral Law, or Rule of Decent Behaviour is."

 

So, from that perspective he moves to the other term only after pointing out what it was originally. I prefer the classical term because when you refer to that term you anchor the idea to nature and when you transfer the term to "moral" then it is easily dismissed by those that do not believe the "moral" law is anchored to anything. So, there is good reason for me to hold to the Classical Term.

 

The only people who feel offended by Avatar are those who support breaking The Moral Law when it it done so by people who resemble ourselves. That's the whole point of the movie on a philosphical level.

 

I guess Cameron could have made the "bad guys" Russians or Arabs and made everyone happy (except, perhaps, Russians and Arabs) but the one element that kept the film from being thematically "shallow" is the one that has some peoples panties in a twist.

 

And again, "technology" is not the "enemy" in this film, it's immorality. Big difference.

 

The US Marines were not the "bad guys". A "mercenary" (important point of distinction) who was a "former" Marine was the chief villain. Another former Marine (now mercenary) was also the films "hero."

 

Did you just suggest that people who are offended by this movie are immoral? :tongue_smilie:

 

He could have made the villains some version of a future military that was not "real" or something related to the UN instead of the Marines if he wanted to. This can and will be used nefariously by some people, sadly. You can deny that, but it is true and could have been avoided.

 

The villain violated The Moral Law, the hero came to see the wrong in what was being done (including his own complicity in evil-doing) and redeemed his moral position by going with the good. Classic good over evil stuff.

 

If people are offended that "we" could ever lose or moral bearings then perhaps that "offense" serves a good purpose.

But this is exactly what Christianity says (not that we could but that we WILL) and people really don't like that message coming from Christians, do they?

[LibraryLover]

I am not a big Star Trek fan (shh, don't tell anyone) so I don't know for sure but it seems that the good guys are predominantly human and the bad guys are predominantly alien with a little of each thrown in each side to make it interesting. Yes? In any case, I guess they do blur the lines more than most.

 

Non non non. First let me say, I am not a Trekie, so let someone else fill you all in. But. Borgs bad. Very bad. And warrior Klingons. There are good Klingons, but not good Borgs...OK. There are far more highly evolved speciies than humans in ST. Fer realz.

[Spy Car]

Certainly it was a feast for the eyes. Again, it enjoys the most money and technology ever, so that is what it should do at least. At the time of Star Wars, I was a kid living in a small town so I do not recall it being dated at all, but this is not my area of expertise, so I will delegate that to others.

 

I seem to annoy you when I play my "expertise card" (so I will :tongue_smilie:) but I'm a second-generation film-maker and have spent my career working in film and video here in "Hollywood" and do know in some measure what I'm talking about.

 

And I was in college when Star Wars was released, and I know that the "special effects" (while an "advancement" in some respects) were pretty poor if fooling the eye is the ideal. That's why it looks dated now.

 

Avatar in contrast is almost flawless. They didn't attempt to animate "human beings" and that remains the "Holy Grail", but there are still mountains to climb (to badly mix metaphors :D)

 

Ditto.

 

Not ditto.

 

 

[Lewis] moves to the other term only after pointing out what it was originally. I prefer the classical term because when you refer to that term you anchor the idea to nature and when you transfer the term to "moral" then it is easily dismissed by those that do not believe the "moral" law is anchored to anything. So, there is good reason for me to hold to the Classical Term.

 

 

Whatever *your* preferences may be, Lewis did use the term "The Moral Law", just as I said he did.

 

Did you just suggest that people who are offended by this movie are immoral? :tongue_smilie:

 

Touché! :lol::lol::lol:

 

He could have made the villains some version of a future military that was not "real" or something related to the UN instead of the Marines if he wanted to.

 

I'm sure that if he'd made the UN the "bad guys" it would have settled better in some quarters.

 

This can and will be used nefariously by some people, sadly. You can deny that, but it is true and could have been avoided.

 

I denied this? Where???

 

Self-criticism has risks. As does patriotic jingoism. I think we are better off as a society when we can face our flaws rather than attempt to pawn them off on others (like Adam tried to do :D).

 

But this is exactly what Christianity says (not that we could but that we WILL) and people really don't like that message coming from Christians, do they?

 

No, I'm afraid what Christianity proposes it that we should follow The Moral Law, but we can't because we are incapable of doing so, and even if we "fail" (as we must) we can still get a "get-out-of jail-free" card.

 

Which is not "morality" as I see it.

 

Bill

Edited January 21, 2010 by Spy Car

[Aoife]

I did not get to see this in Imax (so jealous) But I saw it 2 times in 3-D and was thoroughly amazed! Being a 3-D artist myself I can appreciate the pure time and talent that it took to create such an unbelievably alive world. I was sucked in from the first site of Pandora and felt my eyes well up several times during the film as the emotion was almost too much for me to take. At the end of the film I didn't want to get up I wanted for it to start again. The CG was the best I have seen yet. to the point where my 12 yo thought they were painted actors! The movements were smooth the textures were so alive and the facial emotions are what sent shivers down my spine! I have always been a fan of Cameron though (Aliens was a super fave of mine) So I have been waiting on the edge of my seat for this film to come out. I just hope it is still playing in Imax when we go up to visit my parents next week so I can add number 3 to my list :P

[LibraryLover]

Oh gosh, Bill, using the UN as the bad guys wold have been perfect! Why didn't they think to do *that*?

[Tea Time]

I seem to annoy you when I play my "expertise card" (so I will :tongue_smilie:) but I'm a second-generation film-maker and have spent my career working in film and video here in "Hollywood" and do know in some measure what I'm talking about.

 

And I was in college when Star Wars was released, and I know that the "special effects" (while an "advancement" in some respects) were pretty poor if fooling the eye is the ideal. That's why it looks dated now.

 

Avatar in contrast is almost flawless. They didn't attempt to animate "human beings" and that remains the "Holy Grail", but there are still mountains to climb (to badly mix metaphors :D)

 

Not annoyed at all - not by real expertise. Just those who think "certifications" of various kinds make experts. Interestingly, movie makers definitely don't have that kind of baggage.

 

This makes perfect sense. I would not attempt to imply that my perspective is anything other than personal preference. Making things look real is definitely the point, and it always amazes me how things continue to improve. It is also kind of sad in a way to look back at the old movies we love and see the flaws so much more than when we first saw them. But that is all part of the package and it is great fun. I love movies makers for what they do. My dd's biggest heart's desire would be to be a film maker. Not easy to get that job. You are very lucky.

 

Not ditto.

 

Whatever *your* preferences may be, Lewis did use the term "The Moral Law", just as I said he did.

 

Nana nana boo boo. :tongue_smilie:

Yes, he did. To make it nice and easy for everyone to understand.

 

Touché! :lol::lol::lol:

 

Exactly. Apparently we are both gifted flame throwers. Not sure I can brag about that.

 

I'm sure that if he'd made the UN the "bad guys" it would have settled better in some quarters.

 

It would just be far more accurate.

 

I denied this? Where???

 

Well, not from the end of a gun in Iraq.

Self-criticism has risks. As does patriotic jingoism. I think we are better off as a society when we can face our flaws rather than attempt to pawn them off on others (like Adam tried to do :D).

 

Self-criticism would be great. Who is gonna start? Because all I see is criticizing others in this movie. We are all guilty of that. I will have to take that up in Confession (as well as work harder tomorrow). What will you be doing to address it?

 

No, I'm afraid what Christianity proposes it that we should follow The Moral Law, but we can't because we are incapable of doing so, and even if we "fail" (as we must) we can still get a "get-out-of jail-free" card.

 

Which is not "morality" as I see it.

 

Bill

Strangely - very strangely, a lot of people are much, much better at keeping the Law after they get that "get out of jail free card." Paradoxical, isn't it?

 

But the fact that you get to pick your own morality is the problem. Mine is not my own and it never will be.

 

We can't play very nice, so I should drop out of this before the thread gets axed. Besides, it is way off topic, and it is not at all what I was hoping to find. Or maybe it is, in which case I need to self examine. As I said before, maybe in another dimension. Have fun.

[Spy Car]

I love movies makers for what they do. My dd's biggest heart's desire would be to be a film maker. Not easy to get that job. You are very lucky.

 

That I am :001_smile:

 

Nana nana boo boo. :tongue_smilie:

Yes, he did. To make it nice and easy for everyone to understand.

 

Did i just get zinged (again :tongue_smilie:?)?

 

Exactly. Apparently we are both gifted flame throwers. Not sure I can brag about that.

 

Oh...go on! :D

 

Self-criticism would be great. Who is gonna start? Because all I see is criticizing others in this movie. We are all guilty of that. I will have to take that up in Confession (as well as work harder tomorrow). What will you be doing to address it?

 

Well, I do my own form of confession and try to learn from my mistakes and transgressions, and attempt to offer apologies or other acts of contrition when I've acted wrongly.

 

Strangely - very strangely, a lot of people are much, much better at keeping the Law after they get that "get out of jail free card." Paradoxical, isn't it?

 

Paradoxical? I'm not sure. But I will grant this can and does happen. Of course in other cases it seems to short-circuit "trying", but if/when religion can make people better able to follow The Moral Law it's all to the good.

 

But the fact that you get to pick your own morality is the problem.

 

But I'm not making my own morality. C S Lewis points out in "Mere Christianity" that we all have a shared Natural Law/Moral Law, Christians and non-Christians alike. There is no "issue" of having different moralities.

 

I just think justice demands being accountable for ones own moral (or immoral) actions, and that the "get out of jail free card" undermines personal responsibility.

 

We can't play very nice, so I should drop out of this before the thread gets axed. Besides, it is way off topic, and it is not at all what I was hoping to find. Or maybe it is, in which case I need to self examine. As I said before, maybe in another dimension. Have fun.

 

Gosh, I think we're playing "nice."

 

Anyway, I'm walking away with this quote for the movie poster:

 

"A Feast For The Eyes" - Tea Time

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

Duplicate post

[creekland]

I'm not reading through all of this thread (got to page 5 or 6) but all I can add is that I now know what a lemming feels like.

 

We adjusted a trip to watch this in IMAX 3D and paid $85 + adjustments for the privilege. What a waste of money for a grade B movie that's a composite of Dinotopia and Pocahontas with a little Star Wars/Trek thrown in. I suppose the animation is good, but when the movie itself is a yawner, it's difficult to drive away saying good things about it.

 

And, for what it's worth, none of us (including 3 teens boys who I THOUGHT would love it) thought it was worth the money. We spent the entire hour back to our hotel wishing we hadn't spent the $$ and wasted our time. The only 'good' point is now we know what everyone is talking about - but we could have done that for $25 in a local matinee.

 

I expected a mediocre plot, great special effects, nudity (I didn't see anything offensive), bad language (not much in it IMO), anti-American theme (missed that too), anti corporate (true, but then again, not without merit in some cases), pro environment (true, but so are we), and anti God (one could argue this point - in allegory - didn't bug us).

 

I didn't expect pure boredom, but that's what we felt. No new thoughts in it anywhere, no characters we could identify with and feel for, and no humor aside from one line I can remember. It was a LONG movie to sit through and a bit of money wasted - hence the feeling of being a lemming. Read a thread, note the top # spot in the ratings, and jump off a cliff 'cause everyone else is doing it while handing money over to someone else to put in the bank.

 

If you think you'd rather watch it through Netflix, please DO! I wish one only had to pay for a movie if you liked it. The last movie I remember being this disappointed about was King Kong (the last remake). Disney makes more enjoyable 3D (usually).

 

While this might be technically better, that sure doesn't make it worth spending the money to watch unless that's your love in life.