Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

"I just saw Avatar" Thread

Really enjoyed everything about it, except - and this is a pretty big except, because it really flattened out the experience for me - the representation of the Navi as stereotypes of Native Americans -

And if this is a deliberate gesture, an effort to allude to historical circumstances, then the stereotypes make this a rather shallow gesture...the warpaint, the ay-yi-yi-yi battle cries, the bone headdresses.

All this imagination poured into the film, and they couldn't re-imagine that? It felt as if imagination hit the limits of cultural stereotypes.

There's so much to like about this film, that this canned representation stood out like a sore thumb.

"District 9" seemed like a much more nuanced representation of xenophobia and, since that is a major theme in "Avatar" as well, I believe it could have been handled more intelligently, given how so much else was so carefully conceived.
 
Meryem Ersoz said:
Really enjoyed everything about it, except - and this is a pretty big except, because it really flattened out the experience for me - the representation of the Navi as stereotypes of Native Americans -

And if this is a deliberate gesture, an effort to allude to historical circumstances, then the stereotypes make this a rather shallow gesture...the warpaint, the ay-yi-yi-yi battle cries, the bone headdresses.

All this imagination poured into the film, and they couldn't re-imagine that? It felt as if imagination hit the limits of cultural stereotypes.

There's so much to like about this film, that this canned representation stood out like a sore thumb.

"District 9" seemed like a much more nuanced representation of xenophobia and, since that is a major theme in "Avatar" as well, I believe it could have been handled more intelligently, given how so much else was so carefully conceived.
Click to expand...
I get what you're saying, it was a pretty darn close correlation but at the same time, Native American's weren't the only group of people to fit that description. I don't think bone headdresses or such things were specific only to Native Americans. I think the overall point is that groups who lived off the land, respected the land, and defended the land have seen their worlds literally disrupted by other groups who have different worldviews and this has happened throughout the course of history. Again, this is where I let my mind get wrapped around the message being conveyed. Native Americans weren't ten feet tall, blue, etc. So, although there may have been pieces of that culture that influenced the character designers, I think there are other influences in there as well.
 
I also don't have a problem with archetypes. They have appeared in storytelling for a long time, whether it's through literature, painting, filmmaking, etc. They are universal. So, that's why many of our stories (films) can sometimes take on similarities. Stereotypes can be derived from archetypes. Every once and a while we come across a very original, brilliant work and even those usually have some basis in archetype, in universal conflicts, etc. Avatar is filled with them, and perhaps for some people, they were a bit too apparent.
 
Steve Sherrick said:
Native American's weren't the only group of people to fit that description.
Click to expand...

That just seems like excuse-making to me, Steve. There's a reason that wags are calling this film things like "Dances With Aliens" and "Custer's Last Stand"...If the stereotype was, say, Maori, it would look and feel like an entirely different movie.

But anyway - I'm just pointing out what I found personally dissatisfying, which I'm sure will have no impact whatsoever on the general audience reception or box office. Mostly, having followed this thread, I think I had higher hopes - I enjoyed "Avatar" but while the visuals exceeded my expectations, I still think "District 9" was a better story. At the end of the day, I think I was more wowed by it, and it didn't suck up so many resources to make.

What I really want to see is the "Making of" when it's released on DVD - hoping that will truly blow me away...if they did a good job with it, undoubtedly it will...
 
Meryem Ersoz said:
That just seems like excuse-making to me, Steve. There's a reason that wags are calling this film things like "Dances With Aliens" and "Custer's Last Stand"...If the stereotype was, say, Maori, it would look and feel like an entirely different movie.

But anyway - I'm just pointing out what I found personally dissatisfying, which I'm sure will have no impact whatsoever on the general audience reception or box office. Mostly, having followed this thread, I think I had higher hopes - I enjoyed "Avatar" but while the visuals exceeded my expectations, I still think "District 9" was a better story. At the end of the day, I think I was more wowed by it, and it didn't suck up so many resources to make.

What I really want to see is the "Making of" when it's released on DVD - hoping that will truly blow me away...if they did a good job with it, undoubtedly it will...
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I want to make sure I'm clear that I don't think this was the greatest story, nor do I think it's Cameron's best work, but I do think the story served the movie okay and the personal surprise for me was enjoying the digital characters.

By the way, I liked District 9 a lot too. Thought they did a really good job with that movie, both technically and with the story.

It's all good Meryem. Hope I didn't come across as dismissing your viewpoint. I think it's got validity to it, it just affected us differently I guess. I suppose one of the things that can be said about this movie is that it has led to a lot of people talking about it and some movies can't even claim that. :-)
 
Steve Sherrick said:
nor do I think it's Cameron's best work,
Click to expand...

I'll agree wholeheartedly there...still one of my all-time favorite films is "Ghosts of the Abyss" - that really blew me away, especially because 3D was really innovative back when he made it.

Having a 9 year old daughter, I think I go to too many 3D films these days - Hannah Montana, Up, etc etc, we see them all... to even feel that this is a new technology anymore.

They've already hooked the kids! And that, in my estimation, is why 3D is here to stay, in this incarnation, they will have the first generation weaned on a steady diet.

Thanks for the chat.
 
Sorry if some of this has been said, but I got through 110 posts here and couldn't read another 200. I thought the 3D was really good and the skin texture of the creatures was good also. But I've seen a LOT of 3D movies in the last 3 years and I just don't see this as being that much better than Meet the Robinsons, Toy Story 3D, and most recently A Christmas Carol. Someone about 3,000 posts back said something about this being the same story as Fern Gully, which I totally agree with. Personally, my first reaction was that it's a remake of Dances with Wolves from 1990. I don't think Avatar holds a candle to The Matrix in terms of the genius that went into the Matrix story... AND the Matrix had kick-ass ground-breaking effects. I think Avatar pushed things farther, but not like Star Wars and The Matrix. So I'm putting my Oreo cookies and Vaseline back on the shelf for this one. My Two Cents.
 
Oh, one more curious note. In the pre-movie commercials both the Marines and (I think) the Army had promotional commercials. I thought that was ironic given the total military philosophy bashing this movie handed out. I would have thought the military would do their best to disassociate themselves from this one. Did these commercials run in anyone else's market in the U.S. or other countries?
 
Tyler Black said:
Sorry if some of this has been said, but I got through 110 posts here and couldn't read another 200. I thought the 3D was really good and the skin texture of the creatures was good also. But I've seen a LOT of 3D movies in the last 3 years and I just don't see this as being that much better than Meet the Robinsons, Toy Story 3D, and most recently A Christmas Carol. Someone about 3,000 posts back said something about this being the same story as Fern Gully, which I totally agree with. Personally, my first reaction was that it's a remake of Dances with Wolves from 1990. I don't think Avatar holds a candle to The Matrix in terms of the genius that went into the Matrix story... AND the Matrix had kick-ass ground-breaking effects. I think Avatar pushed things farther, but not like Star Wars and The Matrix. So I'm putting my Oreo cookies and Vaseline back on the shelf for this one. My Two Cents.
Click to expand...

On the 3D front, I have to agree. The 3D was good and was mostly not used as a gimmick. But none of it was groundbreaking in a way that was better than other 3D films over the past couple years. If Avatar would have been released back when the hype machine started churning, it would've been amazing. I've seen most all the 3D films released in the past few years and therefore I guess I'm desensitized from the 3D experience somewhat. Avatar made great use of 3D, but not any better than what we saw with Meet the Robinsons, Coraline, or A Christmas Carol. To me, what was most impressive about Avatar was the combination of technologies to bring it all together. The CG environments were impressively detailed, but this is just a natural progression of the technology and from the looks of what else is coming, we can expect this level of detail or realism with more upcoming films as well.

They definitely didn't gamble with the story at all. It is about as generic as you can get. Call it Pocahontas, Fern Gully, Dances with Blue People, Delgo, Smurfs 2.0, etc..

I do like many of the cool little concepts intertwined within the generic story, like the way the Navi can join with other lifeforms. As detailed as the environment was, much of it still had the full-on CGI feel to it. Much of the character movement had that mo-cap / CG robotic essense or lack of peripheral motion. The facial animation was very well done. I still felt the eyes of the Navi were "cartoony". The technology used is impressive, but we're still not quite at the point where a CG character is 100% believable. Oh and I cringe every time they say "unobtanium". BTW, last time I checked, Oakley held the TM on "unobtanium".

Anyway, now that I've said all that, I still have to say that the movie is incredible on many levels. I do really like the spiritual elements. To me, the spirituality of the film is what makes it great. Not the 3D, not the incredibly detailed CGI, or the "seen it before" basic story this is based on.

I've seen Avatar 3 times now. And I'm satisfied with that... Hopefully I don't come across as if I'm bashing the movie, because I'm not. I think as a whole the movie is amazing.

As for "The Matrix". It had its moment and did use some groundbreaking FX for the time. As "genius" as it may have been, it had a few mind-numbingly stupid quirks. And unfortunately suffered two sequels that just sucked balls. I truly hope Avatar does not suffer the same fate.
 
But none of it was groundbreaking in a way that was better than other 3D films
Click to expand...

I think the groundbreaking part was the way AVATAR was shot. A semifinished version of the movie could be seen in real time in the viewfinder and on monitors as they filmed. Plus Cameron could walk around the CGI "set" and see where he was on the viewfinder. So if he walked over to a cliff edge he could lean over and look down then switch the camera to helicopter mode and now step off the cliff and fly over a valley. He can add layers of critters into shots by playing with crude models with tracking dots while a CGI Banshee is flying around Pandora as he moves the wire "toy" on the empty set. Camera can re-film this flight path from any angle in this 3-D world. So you walk on the empty mo-cap stage. Drop in your pre-made CGI world. Now walk around in it with your camera and actors and frame your shots like your on location. So is that groundbreaking or not?

PS

I know not every shot was done this way and that there were real sets and large props and hundreds of animators and artist tweeking the results for many months to take it from "animatic to realistic" looking.
 
Last edited:
In 3D + Benjamin Button.

BB was groundbreaking for me, sort of. You would have to accurately define "groundbreaking" and that isn't easy.

All that is missing for motion capture to be flawless, which I would consider a major benchmark, is a little more accuracy recording the mouth. I am practically sold for the rest of the face.

It would have to be considered that representing that data as a humanoid provides some leeway, so it may be hard to gauge.
 
I was just speaking to a couple of exhibitors and distributors yesterday and theyve been telling me of a FIERCE marketing campaign going on behind the scenes to convince exhibitors to go 3D. Basically, Avatar has an approval rating of 100% on 3D vs an approval rating of 90% or so in 2D. Its unheard of any film having that kind of an approval rating. That case study comparison is what they are using to push the technology even further from a business perspective. This film is revoloutionising the business moreso than the art.
 
But that is unfair.

I first saw Avatar in 2D, then 3D.

There were cinematographical setups with no pay-offs in 2D, whereas 3D felt completed. 2D felt continuously upstaged, whereas 3D was far better structured.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
I've seen Avatar 3 times now. And I'm satisfied with that... Hopefully I don't come across as if I'm bashing the movie, because I'm not. I think as a whole the movie is amazing.
Click to expand...

hehe, yes, I've also on 3 times, not sure it's weird goin the 4 th time?
 
Frankly I think the film has no replay value. I have seen it twice and enjoyed it less the second time around. At this point besides the hopefully cool BTS I have no reason to want to buy this movie, on Blu-ray and even more so if it can't easily be viewed in 3D by the time it comes out. Yes I know about the Blu-ray 3D standard.
 
My only complaint about the Native American analogy was that it wasn't even accurate.

I felt the Na'vi were a bit backwards which is an unfortunate symptom that even Native American Apologists have picked up from the propaganda of the day against Native populations. When the Europeans and the Native Americans met neither culture was completely closed to the other. There was a cultural and technological exchange. The Native Americans didn't shun everything European, for example the horse comes to mind as an example of an exchange that vastly changed some native cultures. Nor did the Europeans shun Native American political ideas and medicine. Many of our founding fathers had high praise for native political concepts and attempted to replicate them.

I thought it was a little bit insulting to the Na'vi to insinuate that they were even more xenophobic than the Humans. I would have liked to have seen Sam's character teach the Na'vi a thing or two other than just becoming the best Na'vi ever to live. Fire arms and explosives would have been a great starting point. After all the ground battle was extremely slanted. There was no reason the Na'vi would stop being Na'vi because they adopted superior technology to defend their culture.

It was mostly those who wanted to destroy Native American culture who attempted to portray them as so backwards that they couldn't understand or adopt modern technology. It also worked against Cameron's message that we're being destroyed by our technology. We aren't going to give it all up and move to the woods. That simply isn't going to happen. A far more useful and timely message would be one which teaches us how to use technology without losing our humanity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top