Avatar

[jschild]

Just saw the movie.

The Visuals - Nothing compares to it, and it is a must see in 3D. George Lucas should cry in shame for his worlds pale next to the breathtaking beauty that is Pandora.

The Story - It is Dances with Wolves (or any similar movie) but the story is really well told. Unoriginal but really well done.

I've also noticed some people complaining about the supposed eco-message. There isn't much of one other than don't destroy nature to get to her goodies. There are a whopping 3 total references to our actions on Earth.

There are zero references to Global Warming. It's more just a continuation of don't destroy the rain forests/forests/oceans/etc theme that has been done since the first Westerns that showed us wiping out the Buffalo.

Awesome movie and well worth the movie. If you plan to see it, go to the movies and see it in 3D. This is not a movie to watch at home.

[Fencerjared]

Like you said, I didn't really get an overwhelming "eco-message," except for the references to humanity's dying world. The message I did get, and which was actually jarring enough to completely taking me out of the story at times, is the old "noble savage" cliche. As if, because the Nav'i eschew technology, they are better than us. That's one of those old hippieisms I can't stand. Why should I feel bad that I like computers?
To me, the Nav'i were completely unambitious, and never would have left the bounds of their world to explore their place in the universe. So, their culture is different, but not superior. That's illustrated in the way they need a human to defeat the other human adversaries; if their native ingenuity was enough to defeat the invaders, they would have. I wish the story had focused on a blending of the cultures to the betterment of both, instead of telling technophile humans we "are incapable of seeing."

On the story itself, as opposed to the message, I felt it was done ok (I kind of think Fern Gully did it better... anyone else remember that?), and visually the movie was absolutely stunning. I just wish that wasn't the best feature of it.

[jschild]

The message I did get, and which was actually jarring enough to completely taking me out of the story at times, is the old "noble savage" cliche. As if, because the Nav'i eschew technology, they are better than us

Actually the point isn't eschewing technology, it's living with the planet, instead of against it. IE, don't tear down all the trees, build houses and homes among them.

To me, the Nav'i were completely unambitious, and never would have left the bounds of their world to explore their place in the universe. So, their culture is different, but not superior.

Yes, but which culture tried to force their way of life on the other? Only one did that, both in the movie and many times in reality.

That's illustrated in the way they need a human to defeat the other human adversaries; if their native ingenuity was enough to defeat the invaders, they would have. I wish the story had focused on a blending of the cultures to the betterment of both, instead of telling technophile humans we "are incapable of seeing."

No, they needed a person who understood how to fight the humans, an enemy they had no idea how to fight. And the "incapable of seeing" directly related to the fact that we did not understand their culture, or their planet.

The point isn't their way is superior to the humans (except learning to live within their means), it's that it was THEIR way of life and they were entitled to it. Not having a different group to take their homes away and destroy their way of life.

Again, it's not a hippie message, it's historical fact.

[Fencerjared]

It was very much about eschewing technology. The Nav'i said that we were "incapable of seeing" because our "cups were full." That is not "we did not" or "we chose not to" understand their culture, that is a "can't" statement. The only humans that could understand their culture, in the end, are ones who gave up technology and filled its place with local culture/worship, which was only possible with Nav'i bodies.

I agree that in the movie, humanity should never have been there as conquerors. I don't support actions of that sort now, and if I were alive in that future I wouldn't support it either.

Yes, the cliche of the "Noble Savage" is a hippie myth. Mankind was never better to the earth than they are now, there just weren't such huge populations in industrialized or industiralizing nations as there are now. In the case of the Nav'i, how do you think they evolved those awesome control mechanisms (trying not to give spoilers here, though the details are not essential to the plot)? If all they did was live in complete harmony with their world, they wouldn't have evolved/developed mind control of their beasts of burden, or even had beasts of burden. The major difference between the Nav'i and us is that their method of controlling their world is ingrained, while we require tools to do similar things. In fact, if we were basically unkillable by the local fauna (I never saw a scarred Nav'i) and our world was a temperate paradise, we probably wouldn't have technology either.

So yes, it would be better if we lived more sustainably. In our case, it's ironic that the very technology that let us rise to the apex of the food chain got us into this mess, and now has the best chance of getting us out again at this point (if people would get off their asses). Yes, indigenous peoples are entitled to their culture and don't deserve someone destroying it (for money least of all), but that was a small part of the message of the movie; it was mostly about how technology corrupts humanity, and how we should live more like the Nav'i, instead of the good things technology can do.

[jschild]

It was very much about eschewing technology. The Nav'i said that we were "incapable of seeing" because our "cups were full." That is not "we did not" or "we chose not to" understand their culture, that is a "can't" statement. The only humans that could understand their culture, in the end, are ones who gave up technology and filled its place with local culture/worship, which was only possible with Nav'i bodies.

The cups were full simply meant they were set in their ways and were not willing to truly learn anything from another culture. It had absolutely nothing to do with technology.

Yes, the cliche of the "Noble Savage" is a hippie myth. Mankind was never better to the earth than they are now, there just weren't such huge populations in industrialized or industiralizing nations as there are now.

ummm, yes there have been many cultures much better to the Earth. When the native americans first came, they probably had much to do with the die off of many large mammals, but they finally found a balance. And when we came, we promptly upset a balance they had earned. By not listening to them, we didn't learn from their mistakes - you see our "cups" were full and we ignored the majority of what they had to teach us.

In fact, if we were basically unkillable by the local fauna (I never saw a scarred Nav'i)

Actually they were quite killable, did you miss the whole rant she made at him for being a "child", crashing about. He hadn't learned all the lessons that she already had and was thus, childlike.

In our case, it's ironic that the very technology that let us rise to the apex of the food chain got us into this mess, and now has the best chance of getting us out again at this point (if people would get off their asses). Yes, indigenous peoples are entitled to their culture and don't deserve someone destroying it (for money least of all), but that was a small part of the message of the movie; it was mostly about how technology corrupts humanity, and how we should live more like the Nav'i, instead of the good things technology can do.

No, the technology didn't get us into the mess, it was our refusal to pay attention to what effects, if any, our technology had.

There was no "technology corrupts humanity" message - Every single one of the main "good" human characters were those who embraced technology and yet also respected the Na'vi. The only corrupting was by greed and power, not technology. That's always been the single biggest corrupter - as I said - not an original story, but a realistic one.

[Fencerjared]

That is romanticizing the past. Again, no culture has been better to the Earth than we are now. They may have been better for the Earth, in that they lacked the technology to support an unsustainable population or extract the resources from the planet at an unsustainable rate, that is all.
Not only is the example of early native populations causing the extinction of mega-fauna relevant, but indigenous peoples have used fire to transform the land as well.

Originally Posted by Steve Pyne, quoted by National Park Service "Fire on the Prairie" article

So extensive were the cumulative effects of these
modifications that it may be said that the general consequence of the Indian occupation of the
New World was to replace forested land with grassland or savannah, or, where the forest
persisted, to open it up and free it from underbrush. Most of the impenetrable woods encountered
by explorers were in bogs or swamps from which fire was excluded; naturally drained landscape
was nearly everywhere burned.

This was not living in harmony with the world, this was changing it as humans always have. On the other side of the world, Australian Aborigines may be responsible for the lack of diversity in both flora and fauna: flora by fire stick farming, helping cause Australia to be dominated by fire-resistant or even dependent eucalypts almost exclusively; and fauna by the same over hunting of large mammals as our ancestors did, while smaller animals like the Tasmanian devil may have been killed by the introduction of the dingo as a domesticated animal.

The rant she directed at him for being childlike was because his actions resulted in the death of another creature, not because it nearly resulted in his death. If you'll recall, she was perfectly willing to let him die by leaving him in the forest until she got the second sign. So yes, a complete ignoramus could die on Pandora; again, I mention that not once did I see a scarred or wounded Nav'i, except for during combat with humans.

Technology was the driving force behind every reason we were on Pandora. Technology got us there, irresponsible use of technology drove us to seek resources elsewhere, and desire to keep that technology running pointed us toward the unobtanium on Pandora (unobtanium being a science fiction and even real-world engineering trope for any material that is so fantastically useful because of its nearly impossible properties that it is believed not be able to exist.)

Spoiler Alert!

No, they didn't tell us what unobtanium does for humanity, but they don't need to if you know where the term comes from. Also, if you can find Cameron's discussions on the material, you will find it is a room temperature superconductor vital to space travel.

Also, at the end of the movie,

Spoiler Alert!

why did Jake say he was never coming back to the base? If the humans that were left were going to be allowed to stay in the base, wouldn't he be visiting quite frequently? That indicates to me the humans that were allowed to remain on Pandora had to do so off the base, without technology.

[Sapper]

That useless argument above ^ aside. This was a great movie. I saw it in 3D, amazing. This movie is a glimpse into the future of movie making. It has breathed new life into the industry. People now have a reason to go to the theatre now, you can't do the 3D thing at home at least not yet.

The world was astounding and the animation was believable. Great movie, you need to see this in 3D. I don't know if I would want to see it in 2D, I have been spoiled.

[Firemaster]

I just saw it in 3-D, and I thought it was amazing. The biggest part of what I took away was how the 3-D was done. All other 3-D movies, it always felt so gimmicky. In Avatar, the 3-D simply felt like it belonged. So much so that after a bit, you sort of forget it is there and simply accept it.

Although Avatar will not change how movies themselves are done, I honestly believe that it is groundbreaking in that it will change how 3-D is done in movies. Similar in a sense to how Star Wars changed how special effects were done. And to those of you mentioning how it is predictable, I did not mind it so much. There have been so many stories told in movies that now a days it is nearly impossible not to at the least be a bit cliche or copycatish.

[ElvenEnvy]

I saw Avatar today. It was pretty good. A little long and very predictable plot, but the CGI work and twist on the plot were very good.


As for a message. I thought it was about tolerance to other cultures and the evils of imperialism.

[ParaGoomba Slayer]

Originally Posted by Fencerjared

It was very much about eschewing technology. The Nav'i said that we were "incapable of seeing" because our "cups were full." That is not "we did not" or "we chose not to" understand their culture, that is a "can't" statement. The only humans that could understand their culture, in the end, are ones who gave up technology and filled its place with local culture/worship, which was only possible with Nav'i bodies.

I agree that in the movie, humanity should never have been there as conquerors. I don't support actions of that sort now, and if I were alive in that future I wouldn't support it either.

Yes, the cliche of the "Noble Savage" is a hippie myth. Mankind was never better to the earth than they are now, there just weren't such huge populations in industrialized or industiralizing nations as there are now. In the case of the Nav'i, how do you think they evolved those awesome control mechanisms (trying not to give spoilers here, though the details are not essential to the plot)? If all they did was live in complete harmony with their world, they wouldn't have evolved/developed mind control of their beasts of burden, or even had beasts of burden. The major difference between the Nav'i and us is that their method of controlling their world is ingrained, while we require tools to do similar things. In fact, if we were basically unkillable by the local fauna (I never saw a scarred Nav'i) and our world was a temperate paradise, we probably wouldn't have technology either.

So yes, it would be better if we lived more sustainably. In our case, it's ironic that the very technology that let us rise to the apex of the food chain got us into this mess, and now has the best chance of getting us out again at this point (if people would get off their asses). Yes, indigenous peoples are entitled to their culture and don't deserve someone destroying it (for money least of all), but that was a small part of the message of the movie; it was mostly about how technology corrupts humanity, and how we should live more like the Nav'i, instead of the good things technology can do.

I disagree. Technology was the very reason why the main character could become a Navi. I think it was more about how greed and prejudice ("They're just just fly-bitten savages!") corrupts humanity (like jschild said).

[winonavampire]

I saw Avatar 3D last night and I agree with most people here.

The movie is by far the prettiest film I had ever seen. If you didn't "know" 10 foot tall blue aliens didn't exist, this movie would convince you they did. As a matter of fact, if you didn't "know" Pandora didn't exist, you would believe it was real. It was that believable.

As for the story, it was okay. I always liked Ferngully: The Last Rainforest, and all through out the movie, I felt like I was watching an updated, live action version of it.

Although, I didn't see the movie as a eco-hippy message (they were there, just not predominant to me.) I saw the message as "corporate/military take what you want and don't care who you hurt in the process."

A few times, the movie made me feel a little "ashamed" to be American.

Spoiler Alert!

Take out the word "Unobtainium" and replace it with "oil" and you'll see what I mean...

All in all, a highly recommended movie, if not just for the viewing experience.

[dra(gon)]

thde only downfall of this movie is the titel avatar, if there ar sequels what will they have to do with avatar?, sure the navis will visite earth in a human avatar body?
or will the story goes like gurren lagann, the pandora is a huge bioship , or the humans come back, or the sequell play years later with jakes son.
the movie was good for me, sure it was like dance of the wolf, but in that way i saw star trek the movie yesterday and i thought that was an awfull und unispired story.
6 ships of the starfeet destroy in a few seconds green girl dead but no word.
stuipd dead of mom, and stuipd revange story.
it that what time travelers do?

avatar got big + for things that are not tolöd because it comes later or on the dvd.