"I just saw Avatar" Thread

[Tom Lowe]

Shawn, you will have to read the books yourself. I think it might have been from Myths to Live By. I posted that info about the soldiers and missionaries being upset by local religions that "mocked" Christianity from institutional knowledge, from stuff I read maybe 10 years ago. The book does not publish the letters, it only characterizes the letters. The broader point is that this idea of a diety born of a virgin who dies a hero's death and is resurrected is very old and wide-spread indeed.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Oh, Shawn, you're in luck. My Myths to Live By was right here on my bookshelf, and lo and behold, one of the passages dealing with this is actually on page 9.

Campbell:

"Comparative cultural studies have now demonstrated beyond question that similar mythic tales are to be found in every quarter of this earth. When Cortes and his Catholic Spaniards arrived in Aztec Mexico, they immediately recognized in the local religion so many parallels to their own True Faith that they were hard put to explain the fact. There were towering pyramidal temples, representing, stage by stage, like Dante's Mountain of Purgatory, degrees of elevation of the spirit. There were thirteen heavens, each with its Savior, associated with a serpent, born of a virgin, who had died and was resurrected, one of whose symbols was a cross. The padres, to explain all this, invented two myths of their own. The first was that Saint Thomas, the Apostle to the Indies, had probably reached America and here preached the Gospel: but, these shores being so far removed from the influence of Rome, the doctrine had deteriorated, so that what they were seeing around them was' simply a hideously degenerate form of their own revelation. And the second explanation, then, was that the devil was here deliberately throwing up parodies for the Christian faith, to frustrate the mission.

Modern scholarship, systematically comparing the myths and rites of mankind, has found just about everywhere legends of virgins giving birth to heroes who die and are resurrected. India is chock-full of such tales, and its towering temples, very like tire Aztec ones, represent again our many-storied cosmic mountain, bearing Paradise on its summit and with horrible hells beneath. The Buddhists and the Jains have similar ideas. And, looking backward into the pre-Christian past, we discover in Egypt the mythology of the slain and resurrected Osiris; in Mesopotamia, Tammuz; in Syria, Adonis; and in Greece, Dionysos; all of which furnished models to the early Christians for their representations of Christ."

 

[Imran Farouk]

Just a question...I'm sure this has been answered before but some but...when you all saw Avatar...

After seeing it...

Where does it stand in everyone's "top X films". So what number would it be?

I've had debates about this film and some people liked it and some people couldn't understand the hype. I do understand where those people are coming from that didn't understand the hype as the tech for this stuff isn't probably as heard of as it should be. Though Cameron has said that he would rather hear comments of the film after this tech talk has died down. I've personally rated this film in my top 10, part of me says that it shouldn't be but weirdly enough, I can place it there even with the script being some what 'cliche' if you will just because it proves that things that were relevant in 1995 are still relevant 14-15 years later. 5 years in development and many of these things that are seen in the film can be placed within society, different cultures falling in love, the mask that some people put on when meeting others etc. its just this mass of underling points....

anyway just wanted to know where people ranked it personally...

 

[dean merrill]

Erich Neumann, The Great Mother would be worth reading too. It's thick, but amazing. Also, check out Jungs Red Book, which just got published.

Avatar is working is many archetypal symbols, and hits home because they symbols are timeless, and also are contemporarily relevant. With our impacts on the planet coming more to the front of global human consciousness, this movie show was we will be missing very soon if we are not careful. we are letting capitalism, consumerism, and blind greed destroy our home (Earth). We can already see the effects of being so far removed from nature on human culture. It is all too common for people to think of "nature" as something separate from them... but as Alan Watts says, "We are born from the earth... the earth "peoples"."

There is a reason why people leave the movie blown away, besides the visual FX/3D, and that is because this story hits at the heart of almost all of the contemporary issues we are faced with. Hopefully it will inspire people to be pro-active in being more culturally and globally aware. There is a new consciousness arising, and to aid its growth we must look at ourselves, and humanity and let go of old habits and modes of thinking.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

Okay, I figured I need to get this off my chest and see what others think, so here goes.

I liked Avatar; the 3D kicks ass. I was simply blown away by the technological achievement. BUT, I was really really disappointed with the dialogue for one, and while the overall intent of the story is good, Jake's character arc left me disappointed. Let's get to the heart of Avatar, well, the heart of Jake really, as that's who it's about.

Dialogue: All of the one liners missed the mark completely...I mean nobody laughed. And I'm talking about a PACKED IMAX theater with people of all ages and backgrounds; this is San Francisco. It was very awkward for moments that were clearly there for a comedic save, but failed. Obviously the film is far from a comedy, but you need quality comedic saves in a dramatic epic like this, and unfortunately, we didn't get them. Maybe it was simply the absence of a contrasting duo ala Pippin and Merry, or R2 and C3p0 perhaps. Too much of the dialogue was overly cliche, and everything out of the bad ass heli pilot chick fell flat on its face. She had so much potential too, at least I thought. Not ALL of it was bad of course, as there were many strong moments and character interactions, but the really bad ones just stood out too much is all.

Story wise: the human militants/villains were too shallow in their quest. Who WOULDN'T want to betray those insensitive douche bags? The film as a whole would have been much more powerful if there was more at stake for Jake; more of a challenge for him to eventually combat/betray the human militants. What about a human love interest, or a need to send money back to his dying mother? ANYTHING! I actually initially thought the heli pilot would be a human love interest for Jake, causing a conflict for him somehow. He had no qualms about giving key strategic information to the Colonel early on which showed his commitment as a marine to do the mission, and I hoped there would be something stronger to keep "on the fence" of the issue at hand until much later in the film. But once he fell in love with Neytiri, there was nothing else to challenge his character at that point; it just became "Stop the bad guys, being a tall blue alien kicks ass. I kick ass. Neytiri is hot."

Basically, there wasn't much of a difference between Jack Sully we saw in the beginning, and Jakesully the Navi hero. Sure, obviously he become one of the Navi, which is a huge change on the face of it, and he helps defeat the humans yada yada saves the day. BUT; was he actually deeply challenged to do so, or was he simply given the time and opportunity to do so? I'm open minded about this, so here's my question; what was really at stake for Jack Sully in this film? How was he deeply changed at his core by the end of the film? What did he discover and learn? At the moment, this is how I see it;

START:
--Jake is a paralyzed marine and is given the task to fulfill his deceased brothers mission to be accepted into Navi culture and to possibly negotiate a treaty. He has a gung ho attitude about the mission, but is also open minded about the task of learning the Navi culture.

MIDDLE:
--Jake learns Navi culture and all the spiritual stuff, and falls in love with Neytiri. It is clear that he now thinks the mission won't work, and is a bad idea.

END:
--Jake helps the Navi defeat the humans by controlling the large dragon thing, and then becomes a Navi permanently. He saves the day by using his inside knowledge about Marine technology, and his new found knowledge as a Navi.

Now I ask: was there really any deep challenge for him? The humans were so corrupt and greedy, it was a no-brainer. Who wouldn't trade being a paralyzed human for being a slick Blue alien with a hot gf? Again, my qualm is that it just seems like Jake was given the chance to do something he was always capable of, without being internally challenged to his core. All of the choices he had to make were obviously choices that didn't require any real debate.

Maybe I'm being a bit critical for a film like this. Clearly, it's about a bigger picture issue. I get that. It's clear. But if we're in the business of telling powerful and moving stories about people, then I feel this one didn't deliver something strong enough, especially when everyone is calling it the best thing since the internet.

You make very good points here. Yet who is powerful enough to give Jim Cameron notes on his own script? I defend the archetypal story choice, but I can't defend its execution, nor do I feel the need to. I saw it twice, will see it two more times at the theatre. Avatar took me someplace I've never been, familiar yes, inspired by things I've seen, yes. But I forgive it of its shortcomings because it broke a lot of new ground. But I'm disappointed that they didn't shoot in 4K. That's a decision that will cost them a few hundred million dollars over the film's shelf life, I believe. Just my sorry-ass opinion.

 

[M Most]

You make very good points here. Yet who is powerful enough to give Jim CaBut I'm disappointed that they didn't shoot in 4K. That's a decision that will cost them a few hundred million dollars over the film's shelf life, I believe. Just my sorry-ass opinion.

Most of the picture is pure CG and wasn't "shot" in anything other than a computer. I don't think the rendered resolution will cost it one penny, especially when you consider that it's already made over a $1 Billion worldwide in less than a month.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I've read him, well Hero With a Thousand Faces anyways. I'm deeply grateful to him for the discovery of shared myth. Though I found his obsession with the Oedipus Complex to be tiresome after so pages dedicated to it.

This is my reaction as well. I love Joseph Campbell but his over reliance on Freudian psychology becomes a huge distraction.

END:
--Jake helps the Navi defeat the humans by controlling the large dragon thing, and then becomes a Navi permanently. He saves the day by using his inside knowledge about Marine technology, and his new found knowledge as a Navi.

Your analysis is pretty spot on but I'm going to take it a step further. Jake accomplishes nothing except for talking to the tree. They lose the battle. The ground war was a complete waste accomplishing nothing. The air battle accomplished even less. It was Nature that eventually defended itself by its own volition without th Na'vi.

Jake is incapacitated after taking out the large gunship isn't he? And he was the last person airborne. His knowledge of Marine tactics also doesn't really come into play after all he's a marine not a pilot. He wouldn't have any special knowledge of ambushing an airborne formation and his ground war plan: charge cavalry at heavy artillery and machine guns was a sign of gross incompetence.

So Jake rallied the tribes... to be slaughtered. Was himself incapacitated and then Elwah finished the job. Not exactly a rousing tale of heroism. But I was glad they got their asses handed to them. I was curious how they inteded to make any meaningful impact with bows and arrows and was pleasantly surprised to see them all slaughtered.

Tactically they also underutilized their most advanced military vehicle: the small chopper. The small chopper should have been capable of downing the shuttle and should have been held back with a couple of rockets to disable the bomber.

 

[Adil Lahoulou]

Finally saw it. I was one of the naysayers when the trailer came out. My opologies goes out to Tom...

I'm a believer in 3D now. What an achievement. Despite its imperfections it lands squarely on its feet. This for me is hands down the best picture of the year. I didn't much like Titanic and certainly didn't feel it deserved or the oscars but I hope Cameron sweeps this year.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Most of the picture is pure CG and wasn't "shot" in anything other than a computer. I don't think the rendered resolution will cost it one penny, especially when you consider that it's already made over a $1 Billion worldwide in less than a month.

Yes, but unfortunately the live action that was filmed in HD stood out a bit to me. Didn't end up detracting too much, and not sure the general movie going public was that aware of it, but the CG elements actually looked better to me than the live action. The HD footage just gave some of those moments a video feel. I would rather have seen a higher end acquisition format used but I understand this was started four years ago, before RED was a product and before some of the other digital cinema cameras were really streamlined.

In the end, I still enjoyed it but admittedly my favorite parts were when we were in Pandora with the Na'vi. The CG was rendered very nicely.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

Most of the picture is pure CG and wasn't "shot" in anything other than a computer. I don't think the rendered resolution will cost it one penny, especially when you consider that it's already made over a $1 Billion worldwide in less than a month.

Think longer term. In a 4K world.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Think longer term. In a 4K world.

4K wasn't around when they began production right, at least RED 4K wasn't. And it's not the kind of movie where they would have experimented with RED in the early days, I don't think. So it was a timing thing.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

4K wasn't around when they began production right, at least RED 4K wasn't. And it's not the kind of movie where they would have experimented with RED in the early days, I don't think. So it was a timing thing.

I was working with 4K 35mm 17 years ago. While you're right about the timing, I have actually seen better transfers of F-950 footage. I think they over estimated the number of digital projection systems that would be in place when it released.

 

[Tom Lowe]

I don't think the rendered resolution will cost it one penny, especially when you consider that it's already made over a $1 Billion worldwide in less than a month.

All other things being equal, I believe that the film being finished in 2K vs 4K will indeed cost it more than 1 penny in the long run, if you believe, as many of us do, that 4K display is the future.

Let's say the year is 2016, and Joe Blow has just purchased a new 70" 4K LCD for his living room. He needs media to play on it. He looks at several movies, including several 4K 3D movies. He decides that "Avatar" will not properly showcase his new 4K display's full potential, so he opts to buy the 4K movie instead of "Avatar." The movie just "lost" more than 1 penny.

And there you have it.

 

[Paul Lee]

I'm glad I wasn't the only one thinking of this. I think I had the Titanic score stuck in my head after the first viewing, but I couldn't even remember Avatar's theme once the Leona Lewis song started. I really like James Horner but Avatar was not his best. Just watch Wrath of Kahn and the music was SO much of a character!

 

[Jeff Coatney]

All other things being equal, I believe that the film being finished in 2K vs 4K will indeed cost it more than 1 penny in the long run, if you believe, as many of us do, that 4K display is the future.

Let's say the year is 2016, and Joe Blow has just purchased a new 70" 4K LCD for his living room. He needs media to play on it. He looks at several movies, including several 4K 3D movies. He decides that "Avatar" will not properly showcase his new 4K display's full potential, so he opts to buy the 4K movie instead of "Avatar." The movie just "lost" more than 1 penny.

And there you have it.

Thank you, Tom. No further questions, Your Honor.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

I was working with 4K 35mm 17 years ago. While you're right about the timing, I have actually seen better transfers of F-950 footage. I think they over estimated the number of digital projection systems that would be in place when it released.

I'm well aware of 35mm, I was speaking specifically about digital video which is what Cameron was determined to use. Had 4K RED cameras been around and were deemed right for the job at the time, perhaps they would have gone that route. Maybe not.

I would agree about the F-950 footage. I have never used the Pace Fusion system, so I can't speak to the implementation of the 950s in that configuration.

 

[Darren Orange]

Spoiler alert!

http://i.imgur.com/JmRmb.jpg



No comment...

 

[ericyoung]

Spoiler alert!

http://i.imgur.com/JmRmb.jpg



No comment...

True, but I don't think Pocohontas was written by Disney either! :laugh:

 

[M Most]

All other things being equal, I believe that the film being finished in 2K vs 4K will indeed cost it more than 1 penny in the long run, if you believe, as many of us do, that 4K display is the future.

Let's say the year is 2016, and Joe Blow has just purchased a new 70" 4K LCD for his living room. He needs media to play on it. He looks at several movies, including several 4K 3D movies. He decides that "Avatar" will not properly showcase his new 4K display's full potential, so he opts to buy the 4K movie instead of "Avatar." The movie just "lost" more than 1 penny.

And there you have it.

Interesting scenario. Also one I don't think will happen. And even if it did, 70 inches is a hell of a lot smaller than any of the Imax screens that viewers are very happily watching Avatar on now. I don't hear a lot of complaints. They seem to be quite satisfied, as is Jim Cameron.

I think you're giving the viewing public - the same viewing public that seems to be quite satisfied with watching both TV and feature material on things like Hulu, on screens as small as iPhones - far too much credit for actually caring about some of the things you (and I) might. Empirical evidence tells me that the average viewer cares far more about seeing things quickly and cheaply than seeing them well. And they don't know or care about things like 4K, 2K, or 1K at all. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Emery Wells]

So I just saw Avatar for the 2nd time. First time was IMAX 3D and I walked out utterly blown away. 2nd time was a smaller RealD screen and while the 3D experience was still good, the overall experience paled in comparison to IMAX.

Even though this was my 2nd viewing, I could feel a different vibe in the theatre. The IMAX audience gave an eruptive applause at the end while the RealD audience just a few smatterings. A good seat position is key in either screen but both are significantly more important for a 3D film over a non 3D film.

In IMAX the edges of the screen seemed to fade away and I was just living in Pandora, while in the RealD screen I was clearly watching everything unfold inside of a rectangular box. I was often removed from the movie when I noticed a character that was very close in z space suddenly get cut off by the edge of the screen. This breaks the 3D experience.

I can also say, there was a great deal of detail in the IMAX screening that just wasn't visible when watching on a smaller screen.

From now on it's IMAX only for me.