well said it's hard to find a fair and balianced review of this movie, most lean towards hate or praise.
"Few understand the true formulaic nature of cinema"
Couple problems with that, first of all, you aren't a god of cinema that can see how awesome this movie was while the rest of us poor ignorant fools are just too blind to understand the majesty of this work. Second, good movies make us forget about formula and cliche and immerse us into the film, it's called Fridge Logic for a reason, yes there are cliches in every film, but talented writers and directors hide and manipulate the cliches into appearing new.
This movie was not new, Cameron was ripping off himself, the villains weren't "Logical in their motivations and develop as any other human being." Quatrich is a brutal psychopath, there is a reason companies have psych evaluations, it's to prevent people like him from getting in! And the characters were developed? Okay, what was Jake/Jack/Whatever-The-Fuck's defining characteristics? What about The Chiefs Daughter? BLAND!!! Three hours should be enough to develop a character, The Dark Knight managed that, Mirror Mask managed that. This movie was pure wasted potential, nothing more. And even people who agree with the Na'Vi think that their message was heavy-handed, obnoxious, and misses the point.
"Whoa" Keanu Reeves
First, attacking the author is a worthless argument. Second, no they don't. GREAT movies can do that, but not to someone who knows the formula proper—knowing the act breaks to the rough minute or so is a burden. People who know rarely can enjoy movies afterward.
Quartritch was indeed insane, but he was consistent in his insanity and his motivations were properly spelled out, ergo, his character arc was logical. It may be the logic of the mad, but it is still internally consistent and that is all it is required to be.
"Defining Characteristic" is not as important as a character's arc. This demand shows that you really don't understand how film is constructed and analyzed in cinematic circles. But if you want them, I'd say that it is his military background without actually being in the military proper anymore that helps define him. And Netiri's arc has to do with maturing and facing the harshness of life as well as her mistaken preconceptions. Her defining characteristic is her traditional mindset she is forced to overcome step by step.
As the film's message—well, that's all about how the individual interprets it as it is now in their hands. To me, the intentions of the author(s in this case) are not that important, especially int he grand scheme of things.
If the next comment talks about "Elitist Talk" let me ask you this: Who would you rather have fix your plumbing: Someone who knows what they're doing, or a person who doesn't but has an opinion on it?
Reviewing movies is a lot like Paleontology: The Evidence is there...but no one seems to agree upon it.
I'm not attacking the author, I'm attacking you because you attacked critics of this movie. You. Are. Not. Better. Than. Me! And I'm not going to hear one more thing that even sounds like "You don't understand cinema." (And character traits make us care about the characters, you could have the most fascinating character arc in the world, but if you're working with cardboard, you're not getting anywhere.)
Jake was the blandest most unoriginal hero I've seen in a movie and his arc was bland as well, Refusal Of The Call isn't new, it has been done. To. Death. And it wasn't a subversion, deconstruction, reconstruction, double subversion or anything like that, Jake was duuuuuuuuuuuuuuull. Tell me anything about his character, anything at all would do, anything that makes him distinct and interesting, his arc isn't new or intriguing, he isn't new and intriguing, nothing was new or intriguing. Ex-military isn't new or intriguing, especially since he got over his bias in about two seconds. Try again.
The message was heavy handed, improbable, and ridiculously white and black, and if the Word Of God is that Avatar had a Green Aesop then how is it not important to discussion of the story?
"Elitist talk" What the hell are you talking about? What does that statement even mean and where did it come from?
p.s. It doesn't take a great work to suck you into the world, its called the Willing Suspension Of Disbelief, and it what separates a good story from a bad one.
"Whoa" Keanu Reeves
I'm not attacking the author, I'm attacking you because you attacked critics of this movie.
Which displays that you do not know what Ad Hominem attacks are. You attacked the person rather than the argument. Ergo, it is a logical fallacy.
You. Are. Not. Better. Than. Me!
I Knew It! This is what I meant by "Elitist Talk". Thank you for being predictable.
Unless you are trained in the field of study being discussed, your opinion will always be lesser than someone who has studied it. I may like Membrane or M-Theory as my opinion of higher end physics, but as I am not a physicist so my opinion doesn't hold water. It's that simple.
And I'm not going to hear one more thing that even sounds like "You don't understand cinema." (And character traits make us care about the characters, you could have the most fascinating character arc in the world, but if you're working with cardboard, you're not getting anywhere.)
"I've closed my mind to new information because I am insecure about my own educational background" is, to me, a sign of surrender.
Change is paramount. That is what makes a character Dynamic instead of static. What's more important to Mal Reynolds of Firefly: His sarcasm or his mental/emotional scaring from the War that he has to overcome that expresses itself AS sarcasm?
Conservation Of Detail is very important.
Jake was the blandest most unoriginal hero I've seen in a movie
Which only speaks of your limited exposure to Cinema and thus further destroying the strength of your arguments. In a word? Manos.
Refusal Of The Call isn't new, it has been done. To. Death.
Have you even READ Campbell? Jung? Or are you just trying to use TV Tropes as your sole source of analyzing fiction? Hell, it's not Refusal Of The Call, that's just PART of Jake's journey. It's like your spouting words that you only have the faintest grasp of in order to support an emotional opinion.
Oh, wait, that's exactly what you're doing.
And it wasn't a subversion, deconstruction, reconstruction, double subversion or anything like that, Jake was duuuuuuuuuuuuuuull.
Since when have those things been required to enjoy something? Star Wars is so formulaic its hilarious in light of Campbell and Jung, but it's still one of the best loved films of all time.
Formulaic is not bad.
Of course, Avatar is no Star Wars.
Tell me anything about his character, anything at all would do, anything that makes him distinct and interesting, his arc isn't new or intriguing,
Since you failed to rightly identify what that arc was when I already explained it to you, I doubt I'd be able to find criteria to beat your dogmatism.
and if the Word Of God is that Avatar had a Green Aesop then how is it not important to discussion of the story?
Because Word Of God regarding messages and authorial intent lose their meaning in the grand scope of things. It doesn't matter what's intended, only what the reader takes out of it.
At least, that's the theory of literature I subscribe to. Perhaps you should study literary analysis and find one that suits you?
p.s. It doesn't take a great work to suck you into the world, its called the Willing Suspension Of Disbelief, and it what separates a good story from a bad one.
And aside from a vocal minority who have a problem with the perceived message of it, I have found no factual, identifiable moment where So D is violated.
Reviewing movies is a lot like Paleontology: The Evidence is there...but no one seems to agree upon it.
Hey, my first statement? I wasn't talking about logic, I'm just bringing up the fact that you're a pompous jackass.
And I'm saying that on the internet everybody's the same, you're not better than me because you wasted four years in a lit analysis class. Your knowledge of jargon doesn't mean you know more about the actual subject matter than me, and your ignorant and stupid assumptions about me just prove my point.
I'm not going to hear it because as soon as you mentioned that it stopped being a discussion and started being a fight.
Wow! Comparing this to perhaps the worst movie ever made? Shit, by that logic; man this movie was really well paced compared to Gerry!
And? Old tropes are boring and dull if they don't do anything new with them because we've seen them before and know what's going to happen, suspense makes stories engaging, because we become curious about what will happen. And Star Wars worked because it was played cheesily straight, this movie had no hint of charm or hammyness, everybody Took The Bad Film Seriously.
Arc...uh, what in all the hells on earth are you talking about? The Reluctant Hero? That arc? That really, really overplayed arc?
Death of the Author works better when there can be actual interpretation of the work, Avatar does not provide that.
Suspension Of Disbelief is me wanting a character to survive because I don't want him to die, because I care about the characters, Cameron failed at making me care about the characters. A talented storyteller makes his characters appear alive and active, a talented storyteller interests the audience in the plot, a talented storyteller makes the audience believe that Alderon was destroyed, that the kings brother is plotting regicide. The conflict in Avatar wasn't real, no story's conflict is "real" but I didn't even believe, for one second, that Jake was going to die, I didn't care if Jake was going to die.
"Whoa" Keanu Reeves
Hey, my first statement? I wasn't talking about logic, I'm just bringing up the fact that you're a pompous jackass.
Because I have an education in the subject? Of course! Attack the author because you can't legitimately attack the points and only re-affirm your own emotional pleas again and again in the vain hope that repetition will somehow convince someone that you're right.
That's totally how arguments work!
And I'm saying that on the internet everybody's the same, you're not better than me because you wasted four years in a lit analysis class. Your knowledge of jargon doesn't mean you know more about the actual subject matter than me, and your ignorant and stupid assumptions about me just prove my point.
No. No. and no. The internet is not some grand equality-making sounding board where everyone's opinion is somehow equal. It gives everyone a voice and that's it. The ability to defend your statements without resorting to say, blandly calling someone an idiot without evidence as you have done multiple times now, is the real proof of the strength of their knowledge.
I'm not going to hear it because as soon as you mentioned that it stopped being a discussion and started being a fight.
Ever watch the Argument sketch of Monty Python? They actually legitimately describe what an argument is. Your closed mind prevents an argument from forming. I, on the other hand, know exactly what evidence and arguments can change my position on the film—do you?
If you are unwilling to change, you aren't having a discussion OR an argument.
I knew going in that I could never convince you of the films basic 'average-ness'. I'm only arguing for the benefit of others, who can see the poor arguments and hollow emotional pleas for what they are.
Wow! Comparing this to perhaps the worst movie ever made? Shit, by that logic; man this movie was really well paced compared to Gerry!
I'm glad you admit that your analysis had no depth or scope, concession accepted.
And? Old tropes are boring and dull if they don't do anything new with them because we've seen them before and know what's going to happen,
Proof?
suspense makes stories engaging, because we become curious about what will happen.
Not if your trained in the field, then you only care HOW it is done, because there is no suspsense. You know that the first act will be over in 10 to 20 minutes and thus introduce you to all the characters, you know the when the midpoint whammy is comming, when act 3 begins and so on.
And Star Wars worked because it was played cheesily straight, this movie had no hint of charm or hammyness, everybody Took The Bad Film Seriously.
So what did Avatar do differently? You only have half an argument here.
Arc...uh, what in all the hells on earth are you talking about? The Reluctant Hero? That arc? That really, really overplayed arc?
Again, you have yet to provide evidence that being overplayed by itself is enough to damn it, so stop claiming that it is.
Death of the Author works better when there can be actual interpretation of the work, Avatar does not provide that.
Give it 50 years. Like I said, your analysis has no depth.
Suspension Of Disbelief is me wanting a character to survive because I don't want him to die, because I care about the characters,
And with that you utterly fail at analysis. Suspension Of Disbelief is the ability to accept the fantastical elements and events of a story due to immersion in it. In other words, you don't care that the story takes place on an alien planet or has technology that doesn't exist.
You WANT to say that you did not find the characters engaging and thus could not buy into the film, which you have only been alluding to so far in your rantings. In the end, unless you can make a specific reason why this happens, you're just spouting an unsupported opinion.
Which just goes to show that you really don't have an understanding of literary analysis.
Reviewing movies is a lot like Paleontology: The Evidence is there...but no one seems to agree upon it.
Quick Followup: Hell, let me do it for you, since you have shown you don't know what you're doing, I'll help.
You don't find Jake engaging due to his depressive attitude and views. This initially put you off the character as you could not really identify or sympathize with such emotions (or you do not feel they were conveyed properly by the actor or director) and thus, given he was the POV character, this marred the entire perspective of the film.
That would be a legitimate answer and I could not argue with it as it would actually have support in the source material.
Reviewing movies is a lot like Paleontology: The Evidence is there...but no one seems to agree upon it.
I have strong impression that making POV character so "simple" was intentional move by Cameron - so average viewer could easily replace said POV character with himself and FEEL THE EXPERIENCE better. And guess what? IT WORKED, earning tons of money worldwide. So it's not weakness for this type of movie, quite the opposite - it's one of the main reasons for its success.
I was making a statement, a statement that you have proven with your asinine and obnoxious attitude, please tell me, what class did you learn that this is a healthy and productive way to argue with people?
It gives everybody a voice, and that is it, you're pulling out your qualifications, you took literary analysis classes, well then I'm James Cameron, and I say this movie blew, blew, blew.
MONTY PYTHON!!! Wow, with such incredible sources, how could you be wrong? And I'd be willing to change my mind if I heard some convincing arguments.
There are objective levels of quality, you can't say, "I'm better than CWC so you can't criticize me!" That doesn't fly.
Proof? Why do I need proof for an argument about literary quality, you could predict every step of this movie by watching the trailer, that's not high quality film-making. And where's your proof, with your diploma?
The audience want to be swerved, the audience wants to be wrapped up in this work and brought to Pandora, the audience wants to be shocked when characters die and hope for their survival, Avatar was a maze with a wall you could see over, you know what's going to happen, now it's just waiting until the end.
Avatar acted like it was important, it had this attitude of pompous certainty, kinda reminds me of you.
Neverwhere, first season Buffy, Stardust, Spider-Man, Smallville, Heroes, Avatar(The good one), and thousands of others.
Wait, my analysis has no depth, but yours does...uh, why?
I Suspend My Belief that the character isn't real, good storytellers can fool their audience into believing that fictional characters are real, or somewhat real, they make us believe the impossible, and care about places that don't exist.
I don't need your help, and that isn't why I think Jake is boring, I think Jake is boring because:
He has no real beliefs, convictions, resolve, or any of that shit, he's a dull scrap of paper blown around by the winds of story, he isn't very proactive and when he is proactive he's just kinda selfish. Jake never does, stands, or says anything of value, he's a blank, bland slate of a character, Man!Bella in a way.
So? Good marketing techniques doesn't mean the story is quality.
"Whoa" Keanu Reeves
Oh, my... Actually Jake isn't a single bit selfish (damn, he even agrees to help Quaritch BEFORE being offered his legs back). And he has strong, firm beliefs (openly expressed in narration) right from the beginning and keeps them throughout the movie, and he says exactly what's need to be said. If you fail to see this, you're either deaf or blind. Or both.
That's what the man said. You don't like Jake because you can't bring yourself to identify with him, because he displays the emotional facade of a marine, providing you nothing to emotionally grab onto. Got it. You don't need to yell and call people jackasses with blocks of exposition on how predictability equals a bad movie.
Really, Jake isn't selfish? Okay, why did he decide to help the Na'Vi, was it because he related to the plight of Pandora, or is it because he enjoyed his superior body, smoking fine girl, and BEING ROYALTY!!!
And what are these convictions, you do know them, right?
So, he's an emotionally stunted boring character that was written that way to cover up the lacking acting capabilities of Cameron's crew? Kay, I think I got it. And is no one bothered by mister Majin calling me a moron who doesn't know cinema?
"Whoa" Keanu Reeves
I was making a statement, a statement that you have proven with your asinine and obnoxious attitude, please tell me, what class did you learn that this is a healthy and productive way to argue with people?
I knew from the beginning that you were an unchanging zealot. My meticulous destruction of your arguments until this point where your only recourse is to attack the author rather than the arguments only goes to further my true objective: Your reaction to the film is not based on sound logical analysis of the film and relies more on gut reactions that you are unable to articulate.
I'd rather be a jerk than an easily lead pawn.
It gives everybody a voice, and that is it, you're pulling out your qualifications, you took literary analysis classes, well then I'm James Cameron, and I say this movie blew, blew, blew.
I, however, back up my claims through actual display of the medium involved.
MONTY PYTHON!!! Wow, with such incredible sources, how could you be wrong? And I'd be willing to change my mind if I heard some convincing arguments.
Attacking the author rather than the argument, showing you do not even know how to properly argue something. No surprise, really. It should also be no surprise to anyone over the age of 20 that Monty Python's alums are all extremely well educated, and by well educated, I mean Oxford and Cambridge. They are nerds of the highest order and joke about high concepts along with their normal silliness.
I like injecting silliness into debates that are only good for the audience.
There are objective levels of quality, you can't say, "I'm better than CWC so you can't criticize me!" That doesn't fly.
Of course.
Proof? Why do I need proof for an argument about literary quality, you could predict every step of this movie by watching the trailer, that's not high quality film-making.
Actually, it kinda is. Do you know the three act formula? No. The Hero's Journey Model of Storytelling? Google them. Then plot your favorite movies along those terms.
The audience want to be swerved,
Proof please.
the audience wants to be wrapped up in this work and brought to Pandora,
Agreed.
the audience wants to be shocked when characters die and hope for their survival,
No, that is just a SIGN of their immersion in the story and their emotional investment. It further shows you do not know even the most simplistic description of EVERY FILM EVER:
"Chase a character up a tree. Throw rocks at him and then (maybe) let him down." That is every film ever.
Avatar acted like it was important, it had this attitude of pompous certainty, kinda reminds me of you.
That sounds more like a personal problem.
Neverwhere, first season Buffy, Stardust, Spider-Man, Smallville, Heroes, Avatar(The good one), and thousands of others.
That is only evidence that it has been done before, not that it has reached a point of oversaturation to the point of dismissal. Considering how RECENT all your examples are, it shows A) Your Youth and Inexperience, B) Your casual admission that Avatar somehow pushed the trope over the edge and thus from NOW ON we can't have reluctant heroes.
Wait, my analysis has no depth, but yours does...uh, why?
Do you want me to go into the possible philosophical implications of the major events in the film?
Because I can. I don't particularly want to write another film school paper, especially because I know you're not going to listen to it. Your analysis is bad because it lacks specifics. It does not get into the nitty gritty of things. I hate Charmed with the passion of a burning sun, and I can succintly and distinctly tell you why I objectively dislike it and can then go into detail on how the one reason I dislike it lessens the quality of the entire production on a storytelling and narrative level.
Can you do that with Avatar?
I Suspend My Belief that the character isn't real,
...
No.
You suspend your disbelief to accept the story being presented you as the reality of the film.
He has no real beliefs, convictions, resolve, or any of that shit,
a.k.a. "his depressive attitude and views." I'd even go in and throw Existential Quandary of where to take his life next after losing his physicality.
he's a dull scrap of paper blown around by the winds of story,
See above, Existentialism is a pain in the ass.
he isn't very proactive and when he is proactive he's just kinda selfish.
Considering the story is about his actualization, that makes perfect sense and is so far your only legitimate thorn to stick in this movie!
You ARE learning!
Jake never does, stands, or says anything of value, he's a blank, bland slate of a character, Man!Bella in a way.
And now you've lost your points. He took action, therefore he did, stand and says things that drive the story. Your bias is coloring you again.
Phrederic, your hate of this film is as shallow as your arguments. If you're going to vehemently complain about something online, do so from a strong standing.
It IS possible to hate this movie for totally legitimate reasons. You just haven't found them yet and appear to be just yelling louder and louder in substitute into looking into yourself and the film itself to understand why you had the reaction you did and what in the film caused it.
Reviewing movies is a lot like Paleontology: The Evidence is there...but no one seems to agree upon it.
"The story is formulaic in its discovery of the true self in a new culture story-arc. This is not a bad thing in and of itself, as it is all about the execution, and that execution is pretty darn good. Few understand the true formulaic nature of cinema, and the reviews mostly seen here are a prime example of it. Further, they get up on the philosophies they see in it and match it to their own beliefs and thus lose the film in them. In truth, it's a good movie. Not great, just good."
Snobbery.
"Wax on, wax off..." "But Mr. Miyagi, I don't see how this is helping me do Karate..." "Pubic hair is weakness, Daniel-san!"
"Really, Jake isn't selfish? Okay, why did he decide to help the Na'Vi, was it because he related to the plight of Pandora, or is it because he enjoyed his superior body, smoking fine girl, and BEING ROYALTY!!!"
What a dumb statement. At the moment when Jake openly revolted he was outcast, not "royalty"; he had only glitchy warranty-void linkpod to support his "superior body" for some months and no knowledge about possible mind-transfer; his "fine girl" dumped him; and most likely outcome of his actions was a violent death in 2-3 days.
80.82.32.27, you got to understand, people with irrational hatred will twist the facts of a story to suit their own bias with frightening regularity. It's not dumb, it's standard operating procedure.
Reviewing movies is a lot like Paleontology: The Evidence is there...but no one seems to agree upon it.
I have never really understood the notion that a protagonist should be boring in order to allow self-insertion in non-interactive media. I want the protagonist to be a person in their own right. I might have latched on to Jake better had I seen a nightmare of his past or something similar. Also, I find Sam Worthington's voice boring, so his V-logs dragged down the film for me.
Edit: It could also be because I can never really see Jake as a stand in for myself for two very distinct reasons: 1) I like my solitude and would prefer to explore new ground and seek the undiscovered rather than try to make social connections with natives, 2) Jake is white and I am not.
If you want "the protagonist to be a person in their own right" then you probably just don't want insertion. Also 1) Jake hardly made any connections except, you know, the thorough one to the Neytiri))) And he spent most of his time doing exactly what you said: exploring new ground 2) Everyone is blue in his avatar form)))
Film protagonists are all about creating someone that can be sympathized with, not self insertion. Someone good and skilled, but downtrodden and generally worse off than the audience is. Jake's Pet the Dog is...quite honestly, barely exists. I can easily see why you would not sympathize with him that strongly, and I think your insertion would have improved things and created more emphasis on other elements that would compliment the whole picture and could work really well.
Reviewing movies is a lot like Paleontology: The Evidence is there...but no one seems to agree upon it.
My insertion would have wondered into unknown lands on Pandora. The Na'vi would probably the last people that I would ever want to be around for the reason that I love technology. There is also the fact that I could never see eye to eye with the Na'vi on their religion as (to me) the very fact that their god is scientifically provable makes it no god at all. The truth is that any friends I made on Pandora would almost certainly be human, and the most likely candidates would be whoever managed to smuggle a PS 19 on to the ship. If I was dragged into the conflict I would try to be a peacemaker, I would try to bridge the gap between the two cultures (rather than drive a wedge between them as I feel Jake ultimately did). I would do this for two reasons 1) I feel that both side could benefit as humanity (as presented in the film) needs to relearn that their is a beauty to nature and the Na'vi should at least be given the option of something other than the hunter-gatherer lifestyle 2) if your race has only stone age technology, never declare war on people capable of accelerating mass to relativistic speeds.
I think a third reason I have trouble relating to Jake is that at the end he thinks he has won the war. He has forgotten mankind's most noble and most horrifying trait, we are the Determinators of the animal kingdom.
"My insertion would have wondered into unknown lands on Pandora"
What? ANY land on Pandora was unknown for a newcomer.
"There is also the fact that I could never see eye to eye with the Na'vi on their religion as (to me) the very fact that their god is scientifically provable makes it no god at all"
Well it's not religion in our sense, so what's the problem?
"If I was dragged into the conflict I would try to be a peacemaker, I would try to bridge the gap between the two cultures"
You don't even understand true nature of the conflict)) It was not between two cultures to begin with.
"rather than drive a wedge between them as I feel Jake ultimately did"
No he didn't. Quite opposite, he made future peace and cooperation possible.
"1) I feel that both side could benefit as humanity (as presented in the film) needs to relearn that their is a beauty to nature"
So who's stopping them? Scientists were allowed to stay, thanks to none other than Jake ;)
"and the Na'vi should at least be given the option of something other than the hunter-gatherer lifestyle"
As if they don't have such an option...
"2) if your race has only stone age technology, never declare war on people capable of accelerating mass to relativistic speeds"
So nobody did)) Besides after RDA expulsion Pandora acquired all the tech to do the same))
"I think a third reason I have trouble relating to Jake is that at the end he thinks he has won the war. He has forgotten mankind's most noble and most horrifying trait, we are the Determinators of the animal kingdom"
And you have forgotten that: 1) Corporation is not the mankind 2) There were humans on both sides in the final battle 3) Radio Pandora on air! ;)
Wow, you're the most pretentious, obnoxious, and though I hate this word, elitist prick I've ever seen, that's pretty damn impressive. I'm sorry you wasted four years of your life studying something that's completely useless, but really, you need to reach down, grab tight, and pull that stick out of your ass.
You want a step by step analysis of why this film sucks? I hate to revisit this film, but I'll do it.
You're given very little idea of what Jake's character is beyond what's needed to set up the story, i.e. he's a cripple, he doesn't like being crippled, and he has nothing to live for. None of those things help me feel for Jake and understand him, do I pity Jake, a little bit, do I understand why Jake does what he does? A little bit. Would it have been nice to see both Earth and Jake when he could walk so we could actually understand his (and the rest of humanities) plight and feel for his loss? Yes, yes that would've been nice, making the humans more than extremely flat villains and give Jakes turn more emotional depth.
The villains motivations are simple and vile (Corporate dudes greed) or non-existent (Quatrich's...blood thirst? Devotion to his men? Greed? Desire to expand humanity? All of these?) and you can pretty much tell who's going to be good and who's going to be evil from the very beginning, eliminating potential future conflict. The Na'Vi are shown to be awesomely superior super beings that are just better than humanity in every way from an early level, and Jake clicking with them so rapidly, yet again, cut away at the drama (For such a long movie, there wasn't much conflict more complex than spear versus gun).
The Na'Vi are a pretty flat civilization, Hollywood Native Americans, and Neytri just seemed to be a bog standard Pocahontas-esque love interest, if a bit more Tsundere than most.
There are too many useless and underdeveloped characters, (Michelle Rodriguez, the extra scientist, evil corporate bastard) that are detrimental to pacing, don't add conflict, don't really even add much of anything, there roles could be compacted and reduced, and artificially bloat an already quite long story.
The final fight and many of the Jake/Na'Vi scenes could've been easily cut down, or removed. This film tried to be an Epic, but it's juvenile plot and dull acting really killed any chance of that, this movie failed at whatever it tried to do, and there's nothing more to it.
"Whoa" Keanu Reeves
Wow, you're the most pretentious, obnoxious, and though I hate this word, elitist prick I've ever seen, that's pretty damn impressive.
Yeah, And?
Look up Ad Hominem if you please.
Even if I am an elitist prick, does that in any way change the nature of my arguments? No? Then why bother?
I'm sorry you wasted four years of your life studying something that's completely useless,
I didn't spend four years of my life studying something compltetely useless!
I spent five.
but really, you need to reach down, grab tight, and pull that stick out of your ass.
Rather than you getting over the fact that someone educated in a field of study inherently has a stronger base to work from in an argument involving said field? I don't argue physics and you shouldn't argue movies.
You want a step by step analysis of why this film sucks? I hate to revisit this film, but I'll do it.
I'll get my red pen, then. It's schoolin' time.
You're given very little idea of what Jake's character is beyond what's needed to set up the story, i.e. he's a cripple, he doesn't like being crippled, and he has nothing to live for.
And that's actually good. The first 10-15 (20 if you're pushing it) minutes of a film are designed to tell you several specific things: 1) What the lead character Wants (physically and/or emotionally) 2) What is preventing the lead character from attaining what he wants 3) The overall style and tone of the film
That is all that is required of it.
You are refusing to read into what the injury is doing to Jake's mental state, and that lack of depth is destroying you. It's not that he is a cripple, that is only a symptom of his greater problem of having no where to go with his life. He doesn't know what he wants. He doesn't have "Nothing to live for" otherwise at least one mention of a sucicide attempt would be mentioned (if there was, do quote it).
None of those things help me feel for Jake and understand him,
Personal emotional appeal. Unassailable in such a discussion, but worthless to anyone who isn't you.
do I pity Jake[?] [A] little bit[.] [D]o I understand why Jake does what he does? A little bit. Would it have been nice to see both Earth and Jake when he could walk so we could actually understand his (and the rest of humanities) plight and feel for his loss? Yes, yes that would've been nice,
That I'd actually agree with. Like I said, I do think this movie could have been better. However, there are run-time considerations to take into account.
making the humans more than extremely flat villains and give Jakes turn more emotional depth.
I disagree with you on the flatness of the human villains, largely due to historical precedent of more advanced cultures screwing over and destroying more primitive cultures to serve their own needs.
Unless you want to call Real Life flat...
The villains motivations are simple and vile (Corporate dudes greed) or non-existent (Quatrich's...blood thirst? Devotion to his men? Greed? Desire to expand humanity? All of these?) and you can pretty much tell who's going to be good and who's going to be evil from the very beginning, eliminating potential future conflict.
Darth Vader would like a word with you.
As for the villains motivations, Greed is a good one, but it is only superficial to get the characters to the location. For Quatrich, it is more about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and a complete dehumanization of his opposition. His stress drives him to do whatever it takes to "Win" and thus end the conflict on their little piece of (what he deems) hell, and his dehumanization allows him to be cruel to whatever he needs to be. He has a goal, he has faults, and (oddly enough) he has strengths. Ergo, he is a fully developed character.
Really, those three things are all you need.
The Na'Vi are shown to be awesomely superior super beings that are just better than humanity in every way from an early level,
Except technologically, socially, philosophically...
The Na'Vi are lucky they don't really have to worry about sickness.
God that's a stupid bit of Expanded Universe Info. Wouldn't that mean that any parasite or virus brought by humans that manages to effect the Na'Vi would wipe them out completely?
Bah, whatever.
and Jake clicking with them so rapidly, yet again, cut away at the drama (For such a long movie, there wasn't much conflict more complex than spear versus gun).
A good quarter of the film is dedicated to his integration into his culture. It may have been handled in montage for most of it, but there were enough specific incidents to keep the duration of time believable.
That and he was working on a deadline.
The Na'Vi are a pretty flat civilization, Hollywood Native Americans, and Neytri just seemed to be a bog standard Pocahontas-esque love interest, if a bit more Tsundere than most.
Rarely do Pocahontas-esuqe love interests have such an epic falling out as they did.
Further, to the American mind it is hard to see any indigeounous culture and not think either ''Native American" or "African" as if those were the only varieties of stone age, down-to-earth culture available.
To be fair, once you reach that level of primitive, some things become universal—dress style being one of them. Aboriginal Sri Lankan culture, Aboriginal Australian, Aboriginal New Guinean and Aboriginal American culture in the same climate zones tend to dress similarly, for one.
There are too many useless and underdeveloped characters, (Michelle Rodriguez, the extra scientist, evil corporate bastard) that are detrimental to pacing, don't add conflict, don't really even add much of anything, there roles could be compacted and reduced, and artificially bloat an already quite long story.
I disagree with you, heavily, as each character's roll fills out a narrative function. Michelle Rodriquez acts as their transport from place to place on Pandora and thus needed to be there. The scientist was need to aid in the escape and act as an inside source of information. The corporate bastard was there to remind everyone why they were there and get a nice "My god what have we done" realization.
Null Hypothesis are impossibly hard to prove, you're better off saying that they were poorly performed and hackneyed (which, to be fair, the were rather trite). But this is not en ensemble cast of a TV show or Novel. This is a Heroes Journey, not all characters can undergo the same amount of development. If you're lucky, in this mode of storytelling, it'll happen with 2-3 characters.
The final fight and many of the Jake/Na'Vi scenes could've been easily cut down, or removed.
Remove the climax of an visual spectacular like this? That's honestly insane.
This film tried to be an Epic, but it's juvenile plot
Epics often have Juvinile Plots, that's what makes them so universal.
and dull acting
I'd quibble on several ground, but I can easily see why you'd say this so I won't argue it.
really killed any chance of that, this movie failed at whatever it tried to do, and there's nothing more to it.
Yes, but can you say what it tried to do and support it with the text?
Reviewing movies is a lot like Paleontology: The Evidence is there...but no one seems to agree upon it.
^"And you have forgotten that: 1) Corporation is not the mankind 2) There were humans on both sides in the final battle 3) Radio Pandora on air! ;) "
That would not change the fact that a large number of people would call for action to keep the supply of unobtainium flowing, the company has a far greater ability to spin the events on Pandora, and that the RDA supposed has more resources and influence than most countries. There is bound to be at least one nation willing to give its troops to add any future excursions to Pandora.
The Na'vi do not have access to relativistic technology because their are no facilities on Pandora capable of creating a ship as it would require post mid-21st century technology and it is not even known if they have any engineers that know how to build or operate such a device. Even if they do have access to such tech, it would not provide any counter measures against such a weapon.
Jake has effectively ended negotiations between the Na'vi and any human that wants or could benefit from unobtainium by 1) Saying that we have nothing the Na'vi want, 2) kicking all the soldiers and corporate guys off of Pandora instead of trying to make a deal. The real problem is that the average person on the Market for unobtainium has far more political sway than the average environmentalist and that now with the supply cut prices will skyrocket giving any company with the resources to build a starship huge incentive to try their own hand at getting a foot hold on Pandora.
My insertion would have wondered into unknown lands on Pandora.
Given the entire area is largely unexplored, that's a little redundant.
Film characters are not meant to be inserts and viewer surrogates that often, they are more following a charcacter that can be sympathized with.
There is also the fact that I could never see eye to eye with the Na'vi on their religion as (to me) the very fact that their god is scientifically provable makes it no god at all.
There's even disagreement on earth about the nature of that, so that's more of a personal opinion. You're entitled to it, certainly, but...
I think a third reason I have trouble relating to Jake is that at the end he thinks he has won the war. He has forgotten mankind's most noble and most horrifying trait, we are the Determinators of the animal kingdom.
I think you're glossing over some details about the nature of the conflict on the home front.
Reviewing movies is a lot like Paleontology: The Evidence is there...but no one seems to agree upon it.
^"That would not change the fact that a large number of people would call for action to keep the supply of unobtainium flowing"
Even larger number of people will try to rip failed corporation apart, because it's easier, faster and more profitable FOR THEM.
"the company has a far greater ability to spin the events on Pandora"
RDA has NO ability to spin anything on Pandora NOW.
"and that the RDA supposed has more resources and influence than most countries"
RDA took huge financial blow and lost much of its influence as a consequence.
"There is bound to be at least one nation willing to give its troops to add any future excursions to Pandora"
The "future" you are speaking about is most likely well over 100 years or more. Anything can happen in these years.
"The Na'vi do not have access to relativistic technology because their are no facilities on Pandora capable of creating a ship as it would require post mid-21st century technology and it is not even known if they have any engineers that know how to build or operate such a device"
Navi have all the human tech left by RDA, including operational shuttle (and more to come with sheduled ships that are completely at Jakes mercy now), working weapon factories and even stored anti-matter fuel reserves - more than enough to prohibit any aggressive moves in near future.
"Even if they do have access to such tech, it would not provide any counter measures against such a weapon"
LOL, do you know approximate angular size of the planetoid-sized target at 4 light years distance? Or even 0.5 light years? 8))
"Jake has effectively ended negotiations between the Na'vi and any human that wants or could benefit from unobtainium by 1) Saying that we have nothing the Na'vi want, 2) kicking all the soldiers and corporate guys off of Pandora instead of trying to make a deal"
WRONG! Not "any" human! Actually, kicking RDA off Pandora made him absolutely free to make deal with any other Terran government or group. And now they must compete on best conditions))
"The real problem is that the average person on the Market for unobtainium has far more political sway than the average environmentalist and that now with the supply cut prices will skyrocket giving any company with the resources to build a starship huge incentive to try their own hand at getting a foot hold on Pandora"
Who needs shitty rock when Pandora hold secret of ETERNAL LIFE! Good enough to turn richest and most influential person into sworn environmentalist)))
The opening of the movie should tell us a bit about the character too, beyond their desire, that may be important, but look at Belle yeah, you learn what she wants, but you also learn she's a self sufficient, clever, tomboy bookworm. However Jake is just...a soldier who want his life back, and has nothing to live for (His brother is dead, I doubt he has a girlfriend since he hooks up with Neyld;fjsakl so easily, and he doesn't seem to have any regrets going to Pandora, he seems depressed). And I don't like making assumptions about what characters are thinking or things that are unsaid, I stick to what I see the characters do, what I hear the characters say, and what I can determine of their emotional state.
That is a problem to me, and since I'm the person who decides how I think of Avatar, that matters a lot.
Run-time considerations that could've been fixed if they'd eliminate a lot of the stupid crap they threw in later.
Sorry, no human being is a Flat Character, every single living person on this planet, living or dead, is a complex and rich in personality, motivation and desire. Cortez didn't seek genocide, he sought fame, fortune, and family. And even if people are part of a culture of privilege doesn't mean that they can benefit from it, do I have to point out to you the many denizens of Rome or England who weren't exactly well off?
Darth Vader (at first) wasn't very complex, he was a tall, imposing, badass, dragon, he didn't get any character development in a New Hope, and anyways Stars Wars was not well written, Star Wars had good acting, a decent pace, and cool action, Avatar had writing equally as bad, bad acting, bad pacing, and average action. And where, in the movie was Quatrich implied to have PTSD? His actions in the movie are the only thing we can judge him on.
They don't need technology, they're wiser, more enlightened, more balanced, more kind, more everything than humanity. And socially? Where did you get that from? They don't seem to have civil war, or infighting of any kind, and philosophically? Uh, where did that ever come up in the movie to support or attack that stance?
But the hangups were getting a handle on his new bod, there wasn't a moral or ethical problem with integration, just a physical one. And training arcs really don't have a whole lot of drama. Making a lot more montages would've saved a lot of time.
Hence Tsundere. Uh, and that's no excuse, the Na'Vi were pretty much every stereotype of a native american (no tribe, just the pan-tribe that's in westerns) wrapped into one. They lived in a jungle, yet they had horses, and flying birds, that must have been tremendously strong to carry around these giant ten foot super men. And the whole message of living in harmony with nature is broken because nature provides everything the Na'Vi would ever need.
Does the scientist and the transport pilot need names, or even repeated viewings? They were plot devices, not characters, so giving them screen time independent of the leads is a waste of time. And if you'd cut this crap you could have added more back story and character development for Jake, or hell, Neglespegle (Who's chemistry I didn't see).
Yes, when Scenery Porn gets in the way of a story, remove it, that last battle may have been impressive, but it could have been cut down tremendously to make way for more plot necessary scenes. This movie tried to razzle dazzle you, and I'm not falling for it.
Epic and Juvenile are not synonyms, or related, epic plots should be grand, sweeping, and life changing, this was much more of a personal journey, sure, Quatrich was killed, but it didn't really prove anything, the Na'Vi's entire military can beat a poorly armed expeditionary force led by a bloodthirsty psychopath. Epics should end with a nation being broken, the world being forever changed. And Avatar really didn't do that.
And no, I can't support this with text since this wasn't written down, and I don't own a copy of the movie (and never will) so I'm playing this by my memory of a movie I saw eight months ago.
"Whoa" Keanu Reeves
The opening of the movie should tell us a bit about the character too, beyond their desire, that may be important, but look at Belle yeah, you learn what she wants, but you also learn she's a self sufficient, clever, tomboy bookworm. However Jake is just...a soldier who want his life back, and has nothing to live for (His brother is dead, I doubt he has a girlfriend since he hooks up with Neyld;fjsakl so easily, and he doesn't seem to have any regrets going to Pandora, 'he seems depressed').
And right there, you undermine your own argument. Remember what I mentioned earlier, that Jake was going through an crisis of what to do with his life? That depression is a symptom of it.
Concession accepted.
That is a problem to me, and since I'm the person who decides how I think of Avatar, that matters a lot.
Indeed, that is true, but without proper support, it is hard to take an opinion strongly, no matter how much emotional investment is put into it.
Run-time considerations that could've been fixed if they'd eliminate a lot of the stupid crap they threw in later.
Such as? You got to cite examples when you make such a claim.
Sorry, no human being is a Flat Character, every single living person on this planet, living or dead, is a complex and rich in personality, motivation and desire.
Clearly, you haven't watched many movies. ;)
I'm Sorry we don't find out that Henchman C or Soldier A don't have deeper motivations.
Those things are reserved for lead characters, and they DO have Personalities, Motivations and Desires. I've already done so for most of the main characters in defining their arcs.
Darth Vader (at first) wasn't very complex, he was a tall, imposing, badass, dragon, he didn't get any character development in a New Hope, and anyways Stars Wars was not well written, Star Wars had good acting, a decent pace, and cool action, Avatar had writing equally as bad, bad acting, bad pacing, and average action. And where, in the movie was Quatrich implied to have PTSD? His actions in the movie are the only thing we can judge him on.
Indeed, and they so someone who has suffered from a LOT of stress and is clearly on the edge of breaking mentally. Listen to his description of the planet, his recounting of how this planet screwed him over, his desire to get this operation over with ASAP because he can't stand this place and its lethality to his men any more, listen to him threaten people who oppose that goal.
The man is not stable.
They don't need technology, they're wiser, more enlightened, more balanced, more kind, more everything than humanity.
Wisdom? On what? What Philosophies do they have? Where is their overall altrusim?
Enlightened? Do you even know what that word means? Just because they are more in touch with their diety does not make them enlightened?
Kind? Tsu-te begs to differ. They're a competitive hunter gatherer society. Kindness is not high on the priorities.
Physically, they are "Better" but mentally, socially, technologically NO.
And socially? Where did you get that from? They don't seem to have civil war, or infighting of any kind,
Tsu-Te begs to differ, expanded media does mention inter tribal conflicts (though they are rare). Further, such 'benign' societies are highly prone to stagnation. The way things go on that planet, their society might be just as old as humanities, but they've seen no need to advance and thus have not.
Their low level of competion has stagnated their development.
and philosophically? Uh, where did that ever come up in the movie to support or attack that stance?
Their Religion. Religion is a form of philosophy.
And training arcs really don't have a whole lot of drama.
Tell that to Shonen Manga.
Making a lot more montages would've saved a lot of time.
An by "A Lot" you mean 2.
Hence Tsundere.
Ya know what? It's really hard to deal with your responses if you don't quote what you're responding to. Context is quite important in a discussion.
And what she went through is a lot more than what a Tsundere does. He believed Jake used and betrayed her, something utterly unthinkable in their society after what they had done. That's a lot more than "UGH! The Pervert looked at my panties again!"
Uh, and that's no excuse, the Na'Vi were pretty much every stereotype of a native american (no tribe, just the pan-tribe that's in westerns) wrapped into one. They lived in a jungle, yet they had horses, and flying birds, that must have been tremendously strong to carry around these giant ten foot super men.
Wait, so Native Americans originally had horses, riding birds and were 10 foot tall supermen?
That's not evidence, that's jut unrelated bitching. Learn the difference.
And the whole message of living in harmony with nature is broken because nature provides everything the Na'Vi would ever need.
That I actually agree with, and the expanded media makes it worse. Rare viruses and non-existent parasites my ass.
Does the scientist and the transport pilot need names, or even repeated viewings?
If they are needed in different scenes, then yes.
They were plot devices, not characters, so giving them screen time independent of the leads is a waste of time.
You must love Black Box theaters.
They had goals, personalities and obstacles, therefore they were characters.
And if you'd cut this crap you could have added more back story and character development for Jake, or hell, Neglespegle (Who's chemistry I didn't see).
Chemistry is subjective, but your insistence on cutting supporting characters supporting roles is simply impossible to support.
Yes, when Scenery Porn gets in the way of a story, remove it, that last battle may have been impressive, but it could have been cut down tremendously to make way for more plot necessary scenes. This movie tried to razzle dazzle you, and I'm not falling for it.
No, you're failure to suspend your disbelief due to what appears to be political/philosophical problems you have with the film do that.
In other words, to quote (of all things) the Mooninites: "That sounds like a personal problem."
Which means its inapplicable to everyone else. Your opinion is your own if you cannot support it with evidence from the source. Understand this lesson alone and you'll be a better reviewer for it.
Epic and Juvenile are not synonyms, or related, epic plots should be grand, sweeping, and life changing,
Clearly, you have not read many epics. Epics need to work on multiple levels, and juvenile is one of those levels. Why do you think C-3PO and R2-D2 exist?
this was much more of a personal journey,
Doesn't that mean it was "Life Changing?" And the existence of Na'vi-kin disproves "It must change people's lives in the real world."
sure, Quatrich was killed, but it didn't really prove anything,
Killing the bad guy rarely does "prove" anything. Defeating him ACCOMPLISHES something. With that defeat, Jake cemented his ties with his new life and freed the people he came to identify with.
the Na'Vi's entire military can beat a poorly armed expeditionary force led by a bloodthirsty psychopath.
The only thing they lacked was backstage artillery, and the environment they found themselves in for the final battle negated its use—so, no.
Epics should end with a nation being broken, the world being forever changed. And Avatar really didn't do that.
Except for the Na'Vi, their world was indeed changed for ever and their nation was indeed almost broken. Your inattentiveness is your greatest failing.
And no, I can't support this with text since this wasn't written down, and I don't own a copy of the movie (and never will) so I'm playing this by my memory of a movie I saw eight months ago.
Google it. Look for quotes or segments of the script. It might take you 5 minutes, but is totally doable.
Phred, I hate Charmed with a passion equal to yours on Avatar. I sat through 2+ seasons of the thing's "Best" works before formulating my iron clad position on it.
If you really hate this movie, don't just ping it with rocks. Prepare yourself, fight it on your terms and come up with reasons that are utterly unassailable. Reasons that even supporters of the film cannot shoot down.
That's how you hate a story.
Reviewing movies is a lot like Paleontology: The Evidence is there...but no one seems to agree upon it.
"...Stars Wars was not well written, Star Wars had good acting, a decent pace, and cool action, Avatar had writing equally as bad, bad acting, bad pacing, and average action"
Uh, for me Star Wars had zero acting 'cept Harrison Ford and not even remotely close to Avatar in this respect
> and the Na'vi should at least be given the option of something other than the hunter-gatherer lifestyle
Like what? Look what we face NOW: http://bpoilslick.blogspot.com/
and remember, 150 years into the future Jake's ENTIRE homeworld is in MUCH worse condition than that
And right there, you undermine your own argument. Remember what I mentioned earlier, that Jake was going through an crisis of what to do with his life? That depression is a symptom of it.
Unless depression is part of your character CoughIzuruKiraCough, then it's an excuse for him to leave. Once he gets to Pandora, he loses it, and it's never mentioned again, therefore, I call bullshit.
Concession accepted.
Not really a concession, but whatever.
Indeed, that is true, but without proper support, it is hard to take an opinion strongly, no matter how much emotional investment is put into it.
Eventually you'll have to break it down to emotions.
Such as? You got to cite examples when you make such a claim.
I will, further down.
Clearly, you haven't watched many movies. ;)
No, not really, I'm more of a TV and book guy.
I'm Sorry we don't find out that Henchman C or Soldier A don't have deeper motivations.
Uh, buddy, I'm talking about Real Life, no real living human being, like me or, and I'm assuming here, you, is as as flat as those characters.
Those things are reserved for lead characters, and they DO have Personalities, Motivations and Desires. I've already done so for most of the main characters in defining their arcs.
Character is more than motivation, George doesn't really have a motivation, does he have a character? Yes. Jake had motivation, but not character, he couldn't have Character Derailment because he didn't have a character to derail.
Indeed, and they so someone who has suffered from a LOT of stress and is clearly on the edge of breaking mentally. Listen to his description of the planet, his recounting of how this planet screwed him over, his desire to get this operation over with ASAP because he can't stand this place and its lethality to his men any more, listen to him threaten people who oppose that goal.
You're assuming it's PTSD, what happened to garden variety insanity, what guy signs up for going into space to some far off different hell rock? A greedy one, a desperate one, and a psychotic one too.
The man is not stable.
No, no he isn't.
Wisdom? On what? What Philosophies do they have? Where is their overall altrusim?
They took in some random schlub, they seem to get on pretty good with the less asinine humans. And just because you don't seem them discussing philosophy doesn't mean they don't have it.
Enlightened? Do you even know what that word means? Just because they are more in touch with their diety does not make them enlightened?
Does anybody know what enlightened means? They've seemed to grasp at least some of it though, "Take care of the planet, and it takes care of you." of course it's a Space Whale Aesop, since our planet won't send a horde of wild animals to kill alien invaders, well, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't.
Kind? Tsu-te begs to differ. They're a competitive hunter gatherer society. Kindness is not high on the priorities.
One asshole shouldn't damn the whole species, Tsu-Te is a perfect example of the exception proving the rule. He's the Dick Na'Vi.
Physically, they are "Better" but mentally, socially, technologically NO.
They don't seem any dumber than humans, though that's because this movie was written by humans and it's hard to write someone harder than yourself without digging into You Failed The IQ Test. And they don't fucking need technology when they can rape any animal into submission.
Tsu-Te begs to differ, expanded media does mention inter tribal conflicts (though they are rare). Further, such 'benign' societies are highly prone to stagnation. The way things go on that planet, their society might be just as old as humanities, but they've seen no need to advance and thus have not.
Expanded media doesn't count, I'm talking about the movie and only the movie, Dune might've made sense if you know the books, but to an outsider?
Their low level of competion has stagnated their development.
Uh, since we haven't seen the Na'Vi a hundred years ago, you can't really say that.
Their Religion. Religion is a form of philosophy.
But their religion is shown to be true! If they have a correct philosophy that works for them, why do they need anything else?
Tell that to Shonen Manga.
Sorry, training arcs aren't made for drama, they're made for two things, Filler of course, and setting up a Chekhovs Armoury so people don't scream Ass Pull.
An by "A Lot" you mean 2.
Wha? Where did that come from? Why specify two? They could have made the Jake-integrating-with-Na'Vi scenes into a montage.
''Ya know what? It's really hard to deal with your responses if you don't quote what you're responding to. Context is quite important in a discussion.
And what she went through is a lot more than what a Tsundere does. He believed Jake used and betrayed her, something utterly unthinkable in their society after what they had done. That's a lot more than "UGH! The Pervert looked at my panties again!"''
Tsundere is a sliding scale, it can be that simple, but at it's core it's just a person who's either affectionate violent over one persons actions, or a violent person who turns affectionate over one persons actions.
''Wait, so Native Americans originally had horses, riding birds and were 10 foot tall supermen?
That's not evidence, that's jut unrelated bitching. Learn the difference.''
I should've separated those thoughts, but what I'm saying is that the Na'Vi were a very basic, fifth grade level, native american stereotype.
And also, the biology of Pandora made no fucking sense whatsoever.
That I actually agree with, and the expanded media makes it worse. Rare viruses and non-existent parasites my ass.
Kay, that's good.
If they are needed in different scenes, then yes.
Does the Red Shirt who mans the watchtower need a name? Somebody needs to do it, but he doesn't need a name. Do Bridge Bunnies need names? No, they might be in multiple scenes, but they don't need names, or even resolution in their stories.
You must love Black Box theaters.
Sorry, I'm claustrophobic.
They had goals, personalities and obstacles, therefore they were characters.
So? My point is that they were unnecessary characters that didn't further the plot or really do much of anything. Did Pilot Chick even talk to Jake?
Chemistry is subjective, but your insistence on cutting supporting characters supporting roles is simply impossible to support.
Characters who don't further the plot are unnecessary, especially since this was an allegedly story driven movie. And everything is subjective, so that point is bullshit.
No, you're failure to suspend your disbelief due to what appears to be political/philosophical problems you have with the film do that.
Political/Philosophical problems? Nope, I don't like padding in stories, and while I can appreciate beautiful scenery, if it doesn't fit into the story, or I feel the story is just a vehicle for the imagery, I get bothered. And a movie should have to make me suspend my disbelief, I didn't, that's not my fault, that's the movies.
''In other words, to quote (of all things) the Mooninites: "That sounds like a personal problem."
Yeah, it may very well be a personal problem, this is all personal, this discussion means about jack in the grand scheme of things.
Which means its inapplicable to everyone else. Your opinion is your own if you cannot support it with evidence from the source. Understand this lesson alone and you'll be a better reviewer for it.
If I was just to talk about objective fact that'd make me no different from a synopsis, reviews are about the opinion of the critic, it should be supported, but it's still their opinion. And you seem to be under the impression that movies are objectively good or bad, some people can handle bullshit that I can't, and I can handle bullshit other people can't, that doesn't make me or them wrong, it makes me or them have different opinions, that's it.
Clearly, you have not read many epics. Epics need to work on multiple levels, and juvenile is one of those levels. Why do you think C-3PO and R2-D2 exist?
Juvenile should be a very small, minor, level, that's usually pretty superfluous, R2-D2's comedic style was not necessary to star wars, Gimli cracking jokes wasn't necessary to Lo TR, Hiei's snarkiness wasn't necessary to Yu Yu Hakusho.
Doesn't that mean it was "Life Changing?" And the existence of Na'vi-kin disproves "It must change people's lives in the real world."
I meant earth in Avatarverse, Lucky Star isn't epic, still changed peoples lives, Jake's victory might've annoyed Earth, it might've fucked with RDA's bottom line, it didn't alter anything permanently.
Killing the bad guy rarely does "prove" anything. Defeating him ACCOMPLISHES something. With that defeat, Jake cemented his ties with his new life and freed the people he came to identify with.
In epics? Luke beating the emperor proved that self-control is more powerful than anger, Frodo proved the power of the smallest and weakest creature. John McClane proved...christmas is awesome? Heroes should prove something with their actions.
The only thing they lacked was backstage artillery, and the environment they found themselves in for the final battle negated its use—so, no.
No, they lacked a professional military force led by a guy who wasn't fucking nuts. That's what they lacked.
Except for the Na'Vi, their world was indeed changed for ever and their nation was indeed almost broken. Your inattentiveness is your greatest failing.
I'm going to talk real quite so you can hear me...Jake? Wasn't the first person to unite all the tribes. And since the tribes have been united, and then they break apart, there is precedent for this doing jack for the Na'Vi, who don't respect Human technology, so they're not going to use that i.e Na'Vi are going to go back to their previous lives. Your blindness is your greatest failing.
Google it. Look for quotes or segments of the script. It might take you 5 minutes, but is totally doable.
I hope you don't believe I'll actually look back at that horrid movie, because I won't. Because (surprise, surprise) I don't really care about this movie, or this discussion, it's a time waster, nothing more.
Phred, I hate Charmed with a passion equal to yours on Avatar. I sat through 2+ seasons of the thing's "Best" works before formulating my iron clad position on it.
For the love of god, why? Why watch a show you hate, when you can stop, I paid for that fucking ticket, so I was going to sit through that abomination, but why would you sit through even one season if you hated it? Do you have some sort of need to justify your hatred? Why?
If you really hate this movie, don't just ping it with rocks. Prepare yourself, fight it on your terms and come up with reasons that are utterly unassailable. Reasons that even supporters of the film cannot shoot down.
Movie reviews are not Serious Business to me, I don't care enough to do that, I've got better things to do.
That's how you hate a story. I don't want to hate a story, I want to enjoy a story, but if a story already sucks, then I'll do what I can to rob people of the notion that this movie was good.
"Whoa" Keanu Reeves
''Unless depression is part of your character Cough Izuru Kira Cough, then it's an excuse for him to leave. Once he gets to Pandora, he loses it, and it's never mentioned again, therefore, I call bullshit.'
Not really, it just evolves. Remember that monologue naration about living in two dreams and telling the difference between his Avatar life and his normal life?
Yeah, that's called character development.
Eventually you'll have to break it down to emotions.
Not if you know what your doing. My hatred of charmed, for example, is completely unemotional.
Uh, buddy, I'm talking about Real Life, no real living human being, like me or, and I'm assuming here, you, is as as flat as those characters.
Welcome to the movies. We're talking about movies. Characters can and will be flat. Hell, even on TV, you don't find out the inner thoguhts of a cop you meet for a single scene.
Movies simplify things due to time constraints—and then exaggerate them to compensate. It's rather fun to observe, really.
Character is more than motivation, George doesn't really have a motivation, does he have a character? Yes. Jake had motivation, but not character, he couldn't have Character Derailment because he didn't have a character to derail.
I already described and countered this claim, your re-assertion that "Jake has no character" cannot be repeated without trying to counter the previous argument. As I said: Simply repeating your opinion does not make it in anyway true.
Why do you think I called this review "The Truthiness of Reviews"? You are using both Truthiness and Wikiality in your arguments—AS I INITIALLY PREDICTED.
You're assuming it's PTSD, what happened to garden variety insanity
About 100 years of psychological study. Try to keep up ;)
what guy signs up for going into space to some far off different hell rock? A greedy one, a desperate one, and a psychotic one too.
You'd have to provide better evidence that he was psychotic (IE: took pleasure from the pain and suffering of others) before his hellish trip to Pandora. Furthermore, his treatment of his men denies that assessment.
They took in some random schlub,
A warrior, from another tribe as opposed to another scientist that they had seen and rejected time and time again.
Your Bias is showing again.
they seem to get on pretty good with the less asinine humans.
Yet Dr. Grace had to be re-negotiated in...
And just because you don't seem them discussing philosophy doesn't mean they don't have it.
A unified, objectively verifiable religion tends to quash outside methods of thinking.
Does anybody know what enlightened means? They've seemed to grasp at least some of it though, "Take care of the planet, and it takes care of you."
Buddhists around the world are now crying.
Of course, that's not really much of a change.
of course it's a Space Whale Aesop, since our planet won't send a horde of wild animals to kill alien invaders, well, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't.
I keep trying to make Godzilla a real beast, but...
One asshole shouldn't damn the whole species,
One, well respected and high ranking asshole with a group of people who follow and agree with him on the other hand...
And they don't fucking need technology when they can rape any animal into submission.
I'm sure Amputees would beg to differ.
Expanded media doesn't count, I'm talking about the movie and only the movie, Dune might've made sense if you know the books, but to an outsider?
I like that you skip the primary point, so I assume you concede it.
Uh, since we haven't seen the Na'Vi a hundred years ago, you can't really say that.
We can make comparisons to human societies and extrapolate. Low competion and a lack of effective trade does a lot to stagnate cultures. Tokugawa Japan, anyone? The Entirety of the Americas in comparison to Europe and the rest of the Old World?
But their religion is shown to be true! If they have a correct philosophy that works for them, why do they need anything else?
It still makes it a philosophy. Secular Humanists only take in what is verifiable in the real world, making their philosophy similarly as true as the Na'Vi's.
Sorry, training arcs aren't made for drama, they're made for two things, Filler of course, and setting up a Chekhovs Armoury so people don't scream Ass Pull.
I realized something, the Training segment of the film does not qualify as an Arc in any definition that I've found. A few scenes does not make an arc.
Wha? Where did that come from? Why specify two? They could have made the Jake-integrating-with-Na'Vi scenes into a montage.
THEY DID. Your lack of research is hurting your argument.
Tsundere is a sliding scale, it can be that simple, but at it's core it's just a person who's either affectionate violent over one persons actions, or a violent person who turns affectionate over one persons actions.
Yes, because epic betrayal and word of impending war are not reasons a normal person might resort to violence over?
If anything she's Defrosting The Ice Queen. She's more emotional than most, but the arc is identical.
I should've separated those thoughts, but what I'm saying is that the Na'Vi were a very basic, fifth grade level, native american stereotype.
And I'm saying Aboriginal Cultures share a LOT of similarities. Hunter-Gatherer societies are a sociological classification for a reason.
Does the Red Shirt who mans the watchtower need a name? Somebody needs to do it, but he doesn't need a name. Do Bridge Bunnies need names? No, they might be in multiple scenes, but they don't need names, or even resolution in their stories.
Yet, Bridge Bunnies often have them. Further, isn't this the exact inverse of your argument against Jake?
So? My point is that they were unnecessary characters that didn't further the plot or really do much of anything. Did Pilot Chick even talk to Jake?
Yes, your lack of information on the subject has brought you to strike three.
Characters who don't further the plot are unnecessary,
Good thing these do. They transport the lead, they give him guidance and act as foils.
And everything is subjective, so that point is bullshit.
No, not really. If I punch you in the face, I can't really say it's subjective, especially if there is a recording of it.
Yeah, it may very well be a personal problem, this is all personal, this discussion means about jack in the grand scheme of things.
Then why continue? You've made your salient points, I've made my counterpoints—but most of your counterpoints have been woefully inadequate. Best stop now while you're ahead.
If I was just to talk about objective fact that'd make me no different from a synopsis, reviews are about the opinion of the critic, it should be supported, but it's still their opinion. And you seem to be under the impression that movies are objectively good or bad, some people can handle bullshit that I can't, and I can handle bullshit other people can't, that doesn't make me or them wrong, it makes me or them have different opinions, that's it.
Manos begs to differ. As does Attack of the Crab Monsters, It! The Terror from Beyond Space and The Giant Claw. People can objectively see that movies are bad or good, even if they don't like them, they can see they are competently done. For all the negative reviews Kick Ass generated, the performance of Chloë Grace Moretz as Hitgirl is universally applauded.
People trained in film analysis can see more of those objective nuances than those without such training. It's really kinda neat.
Of course, it also destroys your ability to enjoy the average film as you end up subconsciously scanning for act breaks.
Juvenile should be a very small, minor, level, that's usually pretty superfluous, R2-D2's comedic style was not necessary to star wars, Gimli cracking jokes wasn't necessary to Lo TR, Hiei's snarkiness wasn't necessary to Yu Yu Hakusho.
Yet, it gave them character and acted as cathartic moments amidst the horrors of battle.
I meant earth in Avatarverse, Lucky Star isn't epic, still changed peoples lives, Jake's victory might've annoyed Earth, it might've fucked with RDA's bottom line, it didn't alter anything permanently.
Jake abandoned his entire body to join a new culture, that's pretty damn life changing. By illustrating their arcs above, I have described how they changed over time, and thus already destroyed this argument.
Do pay attention.
In epics? Luke beating the emperor proved that self-control is more powerful than anger, Frodo proved the power of the smallest and weakest creature. John Mc Clane proved...christmas is awesome? Heroes should prove something with their actions.
You know that environmentalism Hammer they drumemd throughout the movie? Yeah.
No, they lacked a professional military force led by a guy who wasn't fucking nuts. That's what they lacked.
1) They were Military Contractors, that's considered "Professional" soldier, as oppose to the US's Volunteer Army. Which can also be called Professional, but under a different definition. Ah, English. 2) And yet, his military tactics were pretty sound given the limitations of the environment and mission objectives.
I'm going to talk real quite so you can hear me...Jake? Wasn't the first person to unite all the tribes. And since the tribes have been united, and then they break apart, there is precedent for this doing jack for the Na'Vi, who don't respect Human technology, so they're not going to use that i.e Na'Vi are going to go back to their previous lives. Your blindness is your greatest failing.
Didn't you earlier say that they didn't NEED technology? Make up your mind already. Jake's lack of precident does not negate his accomplishment and much of the material of the base remains there, as do the scientists. You only saw the film once, and this is the fourth time I've had to bring up your own "Blindness" to the discussion because you do not have proper backing for it.
I hope you don't believe I'll actually look back at that horrid movie, because I won't. Because (surprise, surprise) I don't really care about this movie, or this discussion, it's a time waster, nothing more.
And yet, you keep yammering on and on, digging yourself deeper into a hole you can't get out of. You've already made yourself look like a fool (whilst I have made myself look like an jackhole).
For the love of god, why? Why watch a show you hate, when you can stop,
People kept recommending it to me and comparing it to a show I really loved, (Buffy The Vampire Slayer). I felt motivated to shut them the hell up.
Spite is a wonderful motivator.
I paid for that fucking ticket,
Thank god it was on basic tv.
so I was going to sit through that abomination, but why would you sit through even one season if you hated it? Do you have some sort of need to justify your hatred? Why?
Because I hate professionally. Besides, The Offspring told me that It's Cool to Hate.
Movie reviews are not Serious Business to me,
Which is why your reviews have honestly tended towards "useless to anyone but yourself."
I don't care enough to do that, I've got better things to do.
Then go do them and lurk here no more!
Maybe I can rent your life when I'm done here.
Reviewing movies is a lot like Paleontology: The Evidence is there...but no one seems to agree upon it.
"Not really, it just evolves. Remember that monologue naration about living in two dreams and telling the difference between his Avatar life and his normal life?"
Sorry, but how does that have to deal with depression? I see it more as Shilling The Wesley, (the Wesley being the Na'Vi as a whole), OMG TEH NAVIES ARE LIKE INCREDAWESOME!!!11!
Yeah, that's called character development.
Yet again, unrelated to depression, it isn't really depression, it's the pleasure of being Na'Vi that's important.
Not if you know what your doing. My hatred of charmed, for example, is completely unemotional.
Perhaps I should rephrase it, it'll eventually come down to personal taste. You're not wrong if you like Camp or if you hate it, you're not wrong if you prefer a Deconstruction to a Reconstruction.
Welcome to the movies. We're talking about movies. Characters can and will be flat. Hell, even on TV, you don't find out the inner thoguhts of a cop you meet for a single scene.
Ahem, I believe you said "I disagree with you on the flatness of the human villains, largely due to historical precedent of more advanced cultures screwing over and destroying more primitive cultures to serve their own needs." You can't have real life being flat and real life being complex, choose.
Movies simplify things due to time constraints—and then exaggerate them to compensate. It's rather fun to observe, really.
They don't have to, there have been movies that have had extremely realistic and complex analysis of human lives and relationships, that is one aspect of movies, and it can sometimes be fun to watch.
I already described and countered this claim, your re-assertion that "Jake has no character" cannot be repeated without trying to counter the previous argument. As I said: Simply repeating your opinion does not make it in anyway true.
No, you said ""Defining Characteristic" is not as important as a character's arc. This demand shows that you really don't understand how film is constructed and analyzed in cinematic circles. But if you want them, I'd say that it is his military background without actually being in the military proper anymore that helps define him. And Netiri's arc has to do with maturing and facing the harshness of life as well as her mistaken preconceptions. Her defining characteristic is her traditional mindset she is forced to overcome step by step." You listed a defining characteristic (Kinda) but you didn't tell me jack about the character, please try to remain consistent.
Why do you think I called this review "The Truthiness of Reviews"? You are using both Truthiness and Wikiality in your arguments—AS I INITIALLY PREDICTED.
<Raises Eyebrow> Yes, but personal preference matter in reviews, and I'm not using anything to do with wiki's, this is me talking, me and me alone.
About 100 years of psychological study. Try to keep up ;)
Uh, unless I grossly misinterpreted you, are you saying that mental illness beyond PTSD doesn't exist? I'm not saying homosexuality is a disease, I'm saying a violent, irrational man may have something wrong with his brain chemistry. And PTSD (Most commonly, people respond differently to different things)yes, he does have anger and vigilance, but he's hardly avoiding stimuli relating to the trauma, nor does he have trouble remembering the event.
You'd have to provide better evidence that he was psychotic (IE: took pleasure from the pain and suffering of others) before his hellish trip to Pandora. Furthermore, his treatment of his men denies that assessment.
I don't know what he was feeling, but he seemed to love killing dudes. And what treatment of his men, a two minute speech, I don't remember any of his actions being particularity benevolent.
A warrior, from another tribe as opposed to another scientist that they had seen and rejected time and time again.
An incompetent warrior who didn't know how do to anything they could do and in fact quite aggressive towards them...wait, why didn't they prefer the scientists again?
Your Bias is showing again.
EEEK!!! Quit looking.
Yet Dr. Grace had to be re-negotiated in...
...okay, now that I look at it, their behavior is extremely bipolar, why did none of the humans call them out on it? Ohhhh, because that would imply the slightest amount of self-awareness, never one of Cameron's strong suits.
A unified, objectively verifiable religion tends to quash outside methods of thinking.
Because their god covered every aspect of their life? And they still have to discuss the significance of their god, and their lives, look, sentient, near human beings can talk about anything.
Buddhists around the world are now crying.
What, they say themselves that they have no idea what enlightenment is, my guess is as good as theirs.
Of course, that's not really much of a change.
One of the many reasons I'm not Buddhist.
I keep trying to make Godzilla a real beast, but...
Just nuke Japan a couple more times.
One, well respected and high ranking asshole with a group of people who follow and agree with him on the other hand...
...that's surrounded by a bunch of respectful and diplomatic investigators that tried to build a friendly relationship with them.
I'm sure Amputees would beg to differ.
Do the Na'Vi even have amputees? Their bones are carbon fiber, I would imagine the force that it would take to remove an arm would kill them.
I like that you skip the primary point, so I assume you concede it.
I ignore the primary point because EXPANDED MATERIAL DOESN'T COUNT!!!
We can make comparisons to human societies and extrapolate. Low competion and a lack of effective trade does a lot to stagnate cultures. Tokugawa Japan, anyone? The Entirety of the Americas in comparison to Europe and the rest of the Old World?
But they live in a hunter gatherer society full of aggressive animals, nature provides for them, if they're strong and capable enough to take advantage, and from the way they look, it seems they're stone age, humanity is Not So Different.
It still makes it a philosophy. Secular Humanists only take in what is verifiable in the real world, making their philosophy similarly as true as the Na'Vi's.
And what's the problem with secular humanism. Maybe there are Na'Vi who don't believe in Eywah or Yahweh or whatever.
I realized something, the Training segment of the film does not qualify as an Arc in any definition that I've found. A few scenes does not make an arc.
A few really long and drama free scenes make an arc, or just Filler and Scenery Porn.
THEY DID. Your lack of research is hurting your argument.
Not enough or them, I remember a really dull climbing segment where Jake got his Pegasus...why was that needed?
Yes, because epic betrayal and word of impending war are not reasons a normal person might resort to violence over?
Epic betrayal? The only thing Jake did wrong was to do nothing, which was neither beneficial for the humans or the Na'Vi, or Jake...wait, why didn't he do anything? Oh, to artificially heighten drama.
If anything she's Defrosting The Ice Queen. She's more emotional than most, but the arc is identical.
She's was interested in him from the beginning though.
And I'm saying Aboriginal Cultures share a LOT of similarities. Hunter-Gatherer societies are a sociological classification for a reason.
And I don't think the Na'Vi were much more than a Hollywood example of Hunger-Gatherer, if they acted the exact same, but were Native Americans instead, would it seem out of place?
Yet, Bridge Bunnies often have them. Further, isn't this the exact inverse of your argument against Jake?
My argument is that the Main Character needs a distinctive character and personality, extras don't need names or dialogue beyond, "Rock and Roll", and "Locked and Loaded", or "Get ready for takeoff."
Yes, your lack of information on the subject has brought you to strike three.
Did anything occur during that dialogue? Was character or plot information revealed?
Good thing these do. They transport the lead, they give him guidance and act as foils.
They could've been extras, not characters.
No, not really. If I punch you in the face, I can't really say it's subjective, especially if there is a recording of it.
But my perceptions of that punch are completely my own, nobody perceives something the same way, and to someone who didn't detect the punch, was it real? Was my perception of that punch even real? And I really don't want to further this line of discussion.
Then why continue? You've made your salient points, I've made my counterpoints—but most of your counterpoints have been woefully inadequate. Best stop now while you're ahead.
Because nothing is objectively important, this is a distraction, and while you may perceive yourself as winning, I see myself as the self-trained independent youth fighting a bloated establishment, I'm going to beat you, and prove your five years of study mean nothing.
Manos begs to differ. As does Attack of the Crab Monsters, It! The Terror from Beyond Space and The Giant Claw. People can objectively see that movies are bad or good, even if they don't like them, they can see they are competently done. For all the negative reviews Kick Ass generated, the performance of Chloë Grace Moretz as Hitgirl is universally applauded.
You seem to mistaking technical accomplishments for quality. I'm sorry that you think that way, you're going to miss out on a lot of fun. And aren't you yourself falling into Truthiness if you think universal applause means it's good.
People trained in film analysis can see more of those objective nuances than those without such training. It's really kinda neat.
Nothing is objective, sorry.
Of course, it also destroys your ability to enjoy the average film as you end up subconsciously scanning for act breaks.
No, you just have to look for different things to enjoy.
Yet, it gave them character and acted as cathartic moments amidst the horrors of battle.
Exactly, but it wasn't essential.
Jake abandoned his entire body to join a new culture, that's pretty damn life changing. By illustrating their arcs above, I have described how they changed over time, and thus already destroyed this argument.
How was Earth, and Pandora as a whole changed forever by the humans, the Na'Vi will die, the humans will become a boast, then a legend, then a myth, their inventions will be eaten by the jungle, and their lives will go on.
"Do pay attention."
To what? You? Rather not.
You know that environmentalism Hammer they drumemd throughout the movie? Yeah.
Oh, you mean the Broken Aesop, ah, I'll keep that in mind.
1) They were Military Contractors, that's considered "Professional" soldier, as oppose to the US's Volunteer Army. Which can also be called Professional, but under a different definition. Ah, English. 2) And yet, his military tactics were pretty sound given the limitations of the environment and mission objectives.
Mission statement is survival, that's the first rule of war, living, his "strategy" jeopardized that mission statement, therefore Quatrich=Not a good leader.
Didn't you earlier say that they didn't NEED technology? Make up your mind already. Jake's lack of precident does not negate his accomplishment and much of the material of the base remains there, as do the scientists. You only saw the film once, and this is the fourth time I've had to bring up your own "Blindness" to the discussion because you do not have proper backing for it.
They don't need technology to be as effective as humans, they could be so much greater. It's a shame they have no respect for technology and will likely avoid that base like the plague, ah well, c'est la vie.
And yet, you keep yammering on and on, digging yourself deeper into a hole you can't get out of. You've already made yourself look like a fool (whilst I have made myself look like an jackhole).
You grossly overestimate your abilities.
People kept recommending it to me and comparing it to a show I really loved, (Buffy The Vampire Slayer). I felt motivated to shut them the hell up.
Ever heard of saying "No thanks" or "I watched it, I didn't like it" and leaving it at that?
Thank god it was on basic tv.
Soooo, you sat through adds too?
Because I hate professionally. Besides, The Offspring told me that It's Cool to Hate.
Not a big punk fan, so excuse me if don't do that.
Which is why your reviews have honestly tended towards "useless to anyone but yourself."
Actually, people generally comment on my reviews, sometimes positively.
Then go do them and lurk here no more!
I ain't lurking, though I have to wonder if your constant attempts to get me to leave are motivated by fear, hmmm, makes you think.
Maybe I can rent your life when I'm done here.
Sorry, you have to reach a certain level of pimpitude before I hand over the reigns, I don't think you're qualified.
"Whoa" Keanu Reeves
Normally, I'd have a long complicated response to that. But I grow weary of this, mostly because I knew going in that this was going to be futile.
I'll just respond to one bit that summarizes the MAIN point.
<Raises Eyebrow> Yes, but personal preference matter in reviews,
Not if you want to be taken as anything more than a voice amongst the masses.
and I'm not using anything to do with wiki's, this is me talking, me and me alone.
Truthiness (noun) 1 : "truth that comes from the gut, not books" (Stephen Colbert, Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report," October 2005) 2 : "the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true" (American Dialect Society, January 2006)
Wikiality (noun) 1. Reality as decided on by majority rule. Based off wikipedia's 'majority rule' fact.
If someone uses words your not familiar with, look them up.
Also, note the irony of your continued vehemence against Avatar vs. mine of Charmed and your reaction to it.
Reviewing movies is a lot like Paleontology: The Evidence is there...but no one seems to agree upon it.
And let this day be own for now and forever as the day the mighty Majin Gojira fell before the prowess of Phrederic, now, send forth and spread this news as far as you can!
You really don't get it, do you? I'm not redefining reality (Which is decided by consensus anyway, if you disagree with the norm then you're delusional), I'm having an emotional as well as a rational problem with Avatar, because eventually, this will come down to preference, nothing more.
Except I got those words right...
Except I'm spending time proving myself superior in a debate, you spent your time watching a crappy TV show, there's a difference.
"Whoa" Keanu Reeves
I'll let the readers decide that.
If you indeed had rational problems with Avatar, you wouldn't have to misrepresent it as I pointed out several times. There were indeed a few times where we agreed, but overall, you had more Truthiness than Truth in your reviews.
You move goalposts, use ad hominem attacks, claim to be able to accurately site a film you've only seen once and refuse to research any further. You rely on logical fallacies and the strength of your emotions to drive you. You admitted to it on multiple occasions—and that is really all you have. Your logic is as non-existent as your evidence. You don't know how to analyze film, and wear it as a badge of pride as though ignorance were something to be proud of.
You are a BAD debater with a poorly thought out opinion that can't be defended in any other way in saying 'No, you're wrong!'
Until you can ascribe a way "How" with proper evidence that CANNOT be interpreted in any other way, and that evidence is strong enough to stand up to scrutiny of even the most casually interested reader.
You will be nothing more than a voice with an internet connection that no one will ever take as anything more than that.
Reviewing movies is a lot like Paleontology: The Evidence is there...but no one seems to agree upon it.
And what's the problem with secular humanism. Maybe there are Na'Vi who don't believe in Eywah or Yahweh or whatever
Na'Vi don't "believe" in Eywa. They SEE. They KNOW. Unless there's some crazy blue guy who doubts his own senses))
It's not a good movie though. It is a beautiful one, but the plot is ridiculous. Great cinematography cannot save a hackneyed film.
It's not that Sully has no motivation. His concept is sound: an handicapped ex-military man given new lease on life via the Avatar Project, and falling in love with the native culture he was asked to infiltrated. It's just that it's so one-note: Sully rarely ever questions if it is good to do what he does, and the movie handwaves that he is betraying his entire species over it, especially when the Na'vi never seem to try and make contact with the humans to begin with. It's an Author Tract to the point of Sully's reward is to be a Na'vi at the end.
Here's the interesting thing: the only good humans are either inhuman (by using the Avatars) or willing to shoot other humans on the Na'vi's behalf (the helicopter pilot.) There's no balance: either humans are genocidal barbarians or Na'vi surrogates. It handwaves how much of Sully's actions might be affected by being in his Avatar, and how much of the planet wants to actively kill humans just for being there. Made even more chilling when it's hinted the entire planet has a Gaia consciousness.
An interesting thing I recommend is to watch Final Fantasy: the Spirits Within as a couterpoint. It's Avatar's exact opposite, dealing with the themes of invasion by a alien force (inverted as they are invading us, and are sympathetic when we know.) and assimilation (Aki's body contains a ghost in it, and she relives their past.)
Then how about "what the hell are you doing Jake"? How about his remarks he needs to wake up? Also i don't see any "betrayal" unless you take Quaritch trolling as a divine truth. As for Na'Vi "neve seem to try to make contact" - watch SE - Na'Vi "knew about humans just enough" to stop trying. And becoming a Na'Vi is a Duty no less than a Reward.
Your next "interesting thing" is just plain wrong. There's a lot of neutral and non-aggressive humans on the base - simple workers, non-avatar science staff. Quaritch "started full mobilisation" after the briefing, and by the faces of the conscripted men walking the jungle you can tell they're not happy being there. And we know exactly "how much the planet wants to actively kill humans just for being there" when even the guilty ones are being escorted to the shuttle without harm. Not to mention that very first human-human killing was made by none other than crazy colonel - so "good" humans shooting other humans was return fire.
I personally found the movie rather condescending and incomplete. Its emphasis on spectacle over substance frankly felt a little insulting; it was like they were saying that they didn't need a deep, complex, original story if they sufficiently distract me with pretty scenery. I mean, I know that's not what they meant to say. It's just how I felt while watching it. =P Also, the impact and consequences of Earth not getting the unobtainium was never really explored, but their initial assertions regarding the magnitude of the need makes the supposedly "happy" ending kind of bug me. Overall, I felt it wasn't a good movie because while the writing was acceptable and the cinematography and visuals breathtaking, it rather falls flat on selling the characters and story. I say this because formulaic only works if you sell it. Shakespeare was formulaic, for example, but his writing really sells the characters and stories well so it works. Avatar actually has a decent set of characters, a great setting, and a potentially good plot, but they were so focused on making the movie pretty that they didn't got that extra mile when it came to the meat of the movie. It's a bit of a shame, really.
Majin Gojira, no offense, but you probably shouldn't accuse someone of making Ad Hominem attacks and then do it yourself. Accusing someone of being ignorant, irrational, and a bad debater is a surefire way to turn a discussion about a movie into a personal argument.
You cannot negotiate with fire.
Mark, that's not exactly Ad Hominem. A normal example of such is "You are stupid, so you are wrong". It's not Ad Hominem if it's "You are wrong, so you are stupid". That may be rude and unkind, but it's not a logical fallacy. Mostly because it's not even a point of argument anyways.
I have nothing to really add to this discussion except that I think "truthiness" is a silly word.
Leave a Comment:
The Truthiness of Reviews
The one thing everyone can agree on is the spectacular level of digital artwork in this film, few of the reviewers talk about the equally detailed cinematography. The 3d elements are not abused (in that there is nothing rushing out at the camera during the course of it), instead of using the 3d to shock and stun, it is used to immerse. Dust, small insects and droplets of water suspended in zero gravity are used to immerse the audience in the film. I hate anecdotes, but this one I must share: I personally swatted at a few of these 3d images as well as other audience members.
The characters, despite claims to the the contrary, do follow basic developmental structure. The problem is that the lead character (and thus the character with the most development) is going through an existential crisis. His injury has robbed him of what he once was, but the death of his brother offers him the chance to step into his shoes and assume that identity. It doesn't fit, and is quickly offered a way back to his old life by Quaritch. It's not just a little thing that Quaritch offers Jake his legs back if he completes his end of the deal. Jake's teaching under the Na'Vi show him a new way of living his life and allow him to discover himself as he really is (hence "Navikin").
The characters and story are weak in comparison to the loving cinematography and special effects, but that does not mean they are non-existent. The other characters largely exist to facilitate his journey, but the performances behind them help elevate their status from "Signposts on the hero's journey" to characters in their own right. Villainous characters are logical in their motivations and develop as any other human being and that is a strength.
The story is formulaic in its discovery of the true self in a new culture story-arc. This is not a bad thing in and of itself, as it is all about the execution, and that execution is pretty darn good. Few understand the true formulaic nature of cinema (Edit: Yes, I'm a film snob, so what? Can you track the formulaic nature of all Hollywood cinema? No? Then why admit your own weakness?), and the reviews mostly seen here are a prime example of it. Further, they get up on the philosophies they see in it and match it to their own beliefs and thus lose the film in them. In truth, it's a good movie. Not great, just good.