- This topic has 61 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
You don’t like Avatar because of the religious themes? You must dislike most great literature. Or does the fact that they’re overly religious just frustrate you. I, myself, being fairly religious disliked the Na’vis. The copping out at the end made me angry. Let’s just have the Mother whoever-the-Hell pop up and save the day. I wish, just once, it were realistic. Kill most of the Na’vis and give the survivors a few casinos.
Also, the massively cliche agenda, like V said.
Still like it, like I said, just an oh-so-horrible clicheness about it. If it wins movie of the year, I’ll probably be angry even though I enjoyed the movie. Simply because it’s overly-hyped and has a fairly shoddy storyline albeit enjoyable.
Vusys said: It was meh.The humans are almost all over the top comicbook evil. The silly parallels to the current wars and issues with the rainforests are obvious and boring. The story… well.. what story? It’s so predictable.
I found the Na’vi pretty unlikeable with their silly religion constantly getting in the way, with a few forced nods at the end hinting that there’s something to it. The doctor’s deathbed admittance to its reality was pretty lame. It was only when the humans went all super evil destroying their massive tree that they start to be tolerable, if only because the humans are shitheads.
The 3D-ness was nice, mostly. The floating seeds were always blurred and royally messed with my eyes, a few other things like hands waving in front of the screen, and people in the foreground also got blurred like this. It kind of worked once you got used to it, but I didn’t feel like it added anything special to the film.
It’s imperialism, not “humans being super evil.” As a member of what was the largest empire during the years of traditional imperialism, I’d expect you to know more about it. Imperialism was led by corporations like the one in the movie. They did what the corporation in the movie did to the Na’vi and Pandora to the native people of wherever and that land. See: Seminole Wars, West/East India Companies, Colonial Africa, etc. It’s something that still goes on in less direct ways (i.e. Iraq, Vietnam, etc.), and it’s something that most of us seem to accept pretty easily. What a lot of the stuff in this genre (Avatar included) tries to do is get people to see how wrong what’s happening is.
Now, onto that Na’vi’s “silly religion.” That’s the most unsuitable name I could think of. If you bothered to read my post, you’d see it’s one of the few belief systems that actually relate to reality and how it works. Their whole “circle of life” and “interconnectedness” system of ideas isn’t just a way to approach living one’s life, it’s the way the world actually works. I’d hardly call that a few “forced nods” at the end. It’s a major theme throughout. The concept of a link between creatures is always present, whether it’s with a horse, a banshee, or a tree. The concept of the forest making up a “brain” of sorts was introduced early on with the scientist dude hypothesizing that there some electrochemical reaction going on in the trees, and it was developed throughout the movie, both on the Na’vi and human side. It sounds like what the movie was saying didn’t quite line up with your personal beliefs, and while there’s nothing wrong with that, attempting to ignore parts of it to suit your argument doesn’t really accomplish anything.
Oh, I forgot about the “comic book evil” comment. If you look at a lot of the stuff involving the corporation, it’s incredibly general. The thing they want is “unobtanium.” Both the leader and the security dude are complete caricatures. Why? It allows this story to make it’s focus imperialism in general, and not one specific case of it. Because of how generic that portion of the setting is, it allows references to various points in history and justifications used for things that were occurring then as well as allusions to countless pieces of film and literature with similar themes. If you look at other works such as Dances with Wolves and Heart of Darkness, it’s very easy to associate each piece with a specific conflict (with those two being associated with Native Americans and the Congo, respectively). This can limit the scope of the reader/viewer’s thinking, and undeniably limits the message the piece is making.
tarheel91 said:Vusys said: It was meh.The humans are almost all over the top comicbook evil. The silly parallels to the current wars and issues with the rainforests are obvious and boring. The story… well.. what story? It’s so predictable.
I found the Na’vi pretty unlikeable with their silly religion constantly getting in the way, with a few forced nods at the end hinting that there’s something to it. The doctor’s deathbed admittance to its reality was pretty lame. It was only when the humans went all super evil destroying their massive tree that they start to be tolerable, if only because the humans are shitheads.
The 3D-ness was nice, mostly. The floating seeds were always blurred and royally messed with my eyes, a few other things like hands waving in front of the screen, and people in the foreground also got blurred like this. It kind of worked once you got used to it, but I didn’t feel like it added anything special to the film.
It’s imperialism, not “humans being super evil.” As a member of what was the largest empire during the years of traditional imperialism, I’d expect you to know more about it. Imperialism was led by corporations like the one in the movie. They did what the corporation in the movie did to the Na’vi and Pandora to the native people of wherever and that land. See: Seminole Wars, West/East India Companies, Colonial Africa, etc. It’s something that still goes on in less direct ways (i.e. Iraq, Vietnam, etc.), and it’s something that most of us seem to accept pretty easily. What a lot of the stuff in this genre (Avatar included) tries to do is get people to see how wrong what’s happening is.
Now, onto that Na’vi’s “silly religion.” That’s the most unsuitable name I could think of. If you bothered to read my post, you’d see it’s one of the few belief systems that actually relate to reality and how it works. Their whole “circle of life” and “interconnectedness” system of ideas isn’t just a way to approach living one’s life, it’s the way the world actually works. I’d hardly call that a few “forced nods” at the end. It’s a major theme throughout. The concept of a link between creatures is always present, whether it’s with a horse, a banshee, or a tree. The concept of the forest making up a “brain” of sorts was introduced early on with the scientist dude hypothesizing that there some electrochemical reaction going on in the trees, and it was developed throughout the movie, both on the Na’vi and human side. It sounds like what the movie was saying didn’t quite line up with your personal beliefs, and while there’s nothing wrong with that, attempting to ignore parts of it to suit your argument doesn’t really accomplish anything.
Oh, I forgot about the “comic book evil” comment. If you look at a lot of the stuff involving the corporation, it’s incredibly general. The thing they want is “unobtanium.” Both the leader and the security dude are complete caricatures. Why? It allows this story to make it’s focus imperialism in general, and not one specific case of it. Because of how generic that portion of the setting is, it allows references to various points in history and justifications used for things that were occurring then as well as allusions to countless pieces of film and literature with similar themes. If you look at other works such as Dances with Wolves and Heart of Darkness, it’s very easy to associate each piece with a specific conflict (with those two being associated with Native Americans and the Congo, respectively). This can limit the scope of the reader/viewer’s thinking, and undeniably limits the message the piece is making.
You’re right. But I think the film is too entertaining to really try to tackle such a serious issue like imperialism.
I was referring specificity to their deities, which felt forced; not the interconnection of the forest. I just came away remembering that every time they were mentioned it was either the military scoofing over it, the scientists treating it as an alien culture, or the Ta’ri treating it just a little bit too seriously. I think my problem is that there was no development, and really, there couldn’t have been in a mere 2 hours 40 minutes. Compared, for example, to the wormhole gods in DS9 which were explored over the course of 7 seasons.
I’m going to IMAX to see it in 3D today.
I’m not expecting much, but that just makes it easier to impress me I guess.
We’ll see. I’m more excited about watching CGI in 3D for the first time rather than the actual plot
The visuals were good, but the story line was utter crap. Man comes to appreciate the indigenous tribe and then witness how utterly evil and materialistic humans are. Come on, we’ve seen this kind of story play out so many times I could puke out a better plot. I’m not even sure if this was a parallel to the Conquistador or the French/British invasion of North America. Anyways plot wise, I could argue 2012 was more in depth, but visually it was stunning.
I dont think a played out story means it was crap. I personally liked the story. Yeah, we have all heard it before, but the way it was presented was good. But thats just me.
Gujju said: I dont think a played out story means it was crap.It is when it’s another thinly veiled political message from Hollywood to show their contempt for dictatorial Americans. Really, as if any corporation would have the balls to demolish a civilization over a rare commodity. It’s just stretching the notion how corrupt corporations are and (SURPRISE) the military is in on it.
*Epic Facepalm* So what you said, Tarheel, is supposed to make me feel that Avatar was better? Just because you think something doesn’t necessarily mean people have to see it your way. Why do you always have to go apeshit on me when I speak out my feelings that are completely different than yours? I used to care what you think. Now I feel it’s absurd. Seriously. Be a little more open, and stop being such a narrow-minded prick.
OT: Have you ever felt a movie was too long? That’s how I judge a movie, based on how into it I was, and whether I wanted more. Avatar made me feel it was too long. King Kong felt too long. Casino Royale and The Dark Knight did not feel like the 2 hours and a half they were. Those were good. Avatar was average IMO.
Arladerus said: *Epic Facepalm* So what you said, Tarheel, is supposed to make me feel that Avatar was better? Just because you think something doesn’t necessarily mean people have to see it your way. Why do you always have to go apeshit on me when I speak out my feelings that are completely different than yours? I used to care what you think. Now I feel it’s absurd. Seriously. Be a little more open, and stop being such a narrow-minded prick.He wasn’t being narrow-minded. Nor was he being a prick.
He was refuting what you said just as you refuted what he said.Stop being so easily offended.
Na, wasn’t just this occasion, so I guess you don’t have the backstory, but still. :/ ter both of you.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.