Avatar

[Birdjaguar]

I saw it yesterday and thoroughly enjoyed it. It will be for the aughts what Star Wars was to the 80s. It has set a new standard for Sci fi movies. I liked the 3D experience to. Movie makers have learned that audiences do not need to be "poked" by suddenly protruding objects for it to be effective. i suspect that the larger screen Imax version would be even better, more immersive. It is a movie for teens that cna be enjoyed by adults. It is not an adult movie. Like Star Wars it has a teen oriented story line.

I only wish that it had gone on for another hour or so and had the Navi do some interesting stuff with the gaia network.

 

[El_Machinae]

My favourite sci-fi novel series (The Golden Age trilogy by John C. Wright) has a gaia computer network, too. Well, not a computer network, but an integrated ecology that was 'upgraded' to have signal transduction that lead to complete sentience & consciousness. The people who built it figured 'we need all those plants & funguses anyway, might as well make it into an entity'. Though, being gaia, she mostly just thought deep thoughts. Having more philosophers is of value, to their minds.

I'd wondered at the evolution at the Na'vi, since they weren't six-limbed & four-eyed. If I didn't know better, I'd think they were created intentionally by gaia as a self-conscious guardian species for the planet.

 

[MobBoss]

I'd wondered at the evolution at the Na'vi, since they weren't six-limbed & four-eyed. If I didn't know better, I'd think they were created intentionally by gaia as a self-conscious guardian species for the planet.

Great observation El_Mac and I noticed this myself. Another commonality of the fauna was the jaw structure and fangs....I wondered why the Na'vi only had canines when most of the other critters had an over-accentuated jaw structure and/or bony plates for protection.

 

[_random_]

If this part of the background story is even remotely true, the humans will return to Pandora in about 15 years and blow the living crap out of every Na'Vi in order to get this substance if the natives try to deny them access to the mineral.

I can't think of a better way to set up a sequel.

 

[aelf]

Does it annoy anyone else when people analyze a movie like this?

I mean, it's interesting and all, and if you're a fan of the film - it may be exciting that it is breaking records financially.. but all that just means that a lot of people are paying to see this thing - it doesn't speak anything at all about the actual quality or content of the film itself.

Don't get me wrong, it was a good movie and I enjoyed it - but when I see popular media discuss a movie that just came out, they are always saying stuff like: "It made $60 million in 3 days. WOW!"

Crocs were bought by millions too - doesn't mean they're any good.

Like.. is that just something that grabs a lot of people? "OMG, it's popular, I have to see it/get it/buy it too!". That doesn't really work on me. A lot of things that are popular are CRAP. Am I the only one here who doesn't care?

Actually, I would argue that it does mean they are good. They may not be 'good' to you, but your're not the final arbiter of whats good and what isnt. If a product...like crocs for example, is wildly successful, the its also obvious that a great many people found them to be 'good' for whatever reason.

Yes, but it seems to be that you use something being popular as a reason to label it crap, which I think is an error. I really dont understand the reluctance of some people to deny obvious success as 'good'. If it wasnt any good, then it shouldnt have been a success.

No, I start with a blank slate, and label it good or bad only when I experience it in some way or other.

This reminds of the thread I made about this very same subject. Here's what I said:

Why should it matter to the buyer whether a book is a best seller?

My first thought is it's a good indication of acclaim. It's economics. If plenty of consumers are making the choice, chances are it's a rationally good choice in terms of providing utility to the buyer. Let the market decide, right?

But then I thought that no matter how classical your economic opinions are, surely you can't equate books and artworks with simple commodities. For sellers, yes, they do seem to have the tendency to think that way. But for the buyer (unless you're a pure investor)? Surely a book of fiction or an art work does not 'perform the same service' to everyone. 100,000 people may love a book, but you might not. So why should it matter if the cover says that it's a New York Times Bestseller? Seems like a good time to remember not to judge a book by its cover.

The point is, if 100,000 people choose a book because of the utility that they perceive they get, why should it matter to you? If everyone loves a washing machine, for example, it's probably a good reason to believe that it gives you good value for money. But a washing machine offers pretty much the same use value to everyone. Not so works of art.

If a large part of the value of art lies in the subjective experience, why should it matter how millions of other pedestrian observers think?

I'd rather base my initial opinions on those who are more experienced and knowledgeable about what makes a piece of art good, and that would mean eschewing popularity as a yardstick at all and instead reading and critically judging reviews as the basis for judging whether it's worth my time. At least these 'experts' have a wealth of relevant experience and aren't as likely to be bamboozled by cheap tricks that work on those who don't know much.

 

[useless]

Good movie, graphically. But plot? I cannot help but make comparisons to Dancing with wolves.

 

[Newbunkle]

Well they're both very simple stories. I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of tale has existed in some form for as long as stories have existed.

 

[Leonel]

Good movie, graphically. But plot? I cannot help but make comparisons to Dancing with wolves.

What's wrong with Dances with wolves?

 

[Onionsoilder]

Just saw this today, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. The graphics/special effects were quite good, the cinematics captured the emotions perfectly... so what if the plot wasn't very unique, it is still a very well-done movie.

 

[Patroklos]

That's the odd thing, its the closest system but it can't be the first time they've been to a new world or met alien lifeforms. So they must have access to other supplies of unobtanium, though small. Though the ship they came on is 1/4 the size of their old ships its not the first one of its kind.

The first ships didn't use unobtanium, thats why they were four times the size of the new ships. Unobtanium is found only on Pandora at the time of the plot.

 

[Newbunkle]

Great observation El_Mac and I noticed this myself. Another commonality of the fauna was the jaw structure and fangs....I wondered why the Na'vi only had canines when most of the other critters had an over-accentuated jaw structure and/or bony plates for protection.

Don't forget those blue lemurs. There were also some blue deer-like critters running from the gunship the first time they landed in the jungle.

 

[Karalysia]

Unobtanium is a stupid word. So is Pandora.

 

[Winner]

Unobtanium is a stupid word. So is Pandora.

... and your username.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Unobtanium is a stupid word.

Its supposed to be, its a parody.

So is Pandora.

Meh, take it up with the Greeks.

 

[Bill3000]

Look, if you're expecting an original and compelling plot, you're in the wrong freaking genre. There really is no such thing as excellent literature or even a genuinely original, good, compelling plot in fantasy or sci-fci in any artistic format. Star Wars isn't considered a good film because it is awesome story telling, for god's sake. And if you're whining about moralizing in sci-fi, why on earth do you like Star Trek? (directed at no one in particular)

That's not the point of this movie. The point of this movie is to be immersed in the fictional world, and in that it succeeds beyond it's wildest dreams and far more than any sci-fi or fantasy film to date. The plot may be cliche but it's not bad enough such that it ruins the immersion.

 

[El_Machinae]

Don't forget those blue lemurs. There were also some blue deer-like critters running from the gunship the first time they landed in the jungle.

They had six limbs! Four hands, two feet.

Look, if you're expecting an original and compelling plot, you're in the wrong freaking genre. There really is no such thing as excellent literature or even a genuinely original, good, compelling plot in fantasy or sci-fci in any artistic format. Star Wars isn't considered a good film because it is awesome story telling, for god's sake. And if you're whining about moralizing in sci-fi, why on earth do you like Star Trek? (directed at no one in particular)

That's not the point of this movie. The point of this movie is to be immersed in the fictional world, and in that it succeeds beyond it's wildest dreams and far more than any sci-fi or fantasy film to date. The plot may be cliche but it's not bad enough such that it ruins the immersion.

You should read the series I mentioned. The Golden Age trilogy by John C. Wright. It's genuinely good, and more layered than most people realise.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

The Na'Vi would probably have made more sense had they legs and two pairs of arms, like the avatars of many a Hindu god.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Its supposed to be, its a parody.



Meh, take it up with the Greeks.

When I first heard it (Pandora) I thought they stole it from Borderlands. Then I heard he had been writing it for 10 years...

 

[Mirc]

When I first heard it (Pandora) I thought they stole it from Borderlands. Then I heard he had been writing it for 10 years...

Well there was a Pandora planet there, right? But anyway, yeah, as Cheezy said, the name itself is at least some 2700 years old... Anyhow, I can see how you made the connection, since they have a Pandora planet there too.

Oh I'm so incoherent today!

 

[Winner]

Pandora is also a minor moon of Saturn, orbiting at the edge of the ring system.