lba

kingofsnake
Also lba, I disagree with you. The plot of the film wasn't groundbreaking, but the story-telling was excellent and it was thematically congruent in a way that a lot of movies aren't. Just because the storyarc isn't unique doesn't mean it's mediocre film. If you don't like this movie, it's something you were predisposed not to like. You're not judging it by it's own merits.

No, I am judging it by it's own merits. 10 years is more than enough time to iron out the wrinkles. I'm not saying it wasn't coherent or calling it a bad film because the story isn't 100% original. You put those words into my mouth. I said I don't like the character designs and there were a number of issues I found with the believability of the world he created. I said my problem with it, is that if he's been working on it for 10 years as has been claimed, he could have done better. James Cameron isn't a bad creative, but for the work he's done in the past I expect more from him if the guy has had 10 years worth of time to go over his plot and the world he's creating with it to clear up things that don't quite make sense. I think it's a mediocre film based on that standing.

So my response would be, what changes do you think he should've made? What didn't make sense to you?

Everything that you've mentioned so far, makes sense to me. You seem to have a problem with the panther creature helping the Navi fight the humans. Or that all creatures on the planet have compatible "USB ports".

Your problem is that you completely miss the point of Pandora, the planet moon. It is a planet which is a bonafide Gaia Hypothesis biosphere, unlike Earth where the Gaia Hypothesis is just a poetic idea.

The panthers help fight the humans because the planet's "neural" network has concluded that humans are a global threat, and all non-sentient (or semi-sentient) creatures immediately get the subliminal impulse to kill humans.

All creatures have compatible usb ports because the entire biosphere is an integrated interactive system on a scale never before seen by humanity.

As for that chopper pilot disobeying a direct order but not getting punished... yes I consider that a bad plot point. She could have easily faked system malfunctions, so she could disobey without it being so obvious (except to the audience).

isukun
There were spots in the movie where I took my glasses off and couldn't see any difference in the picture.

Can you point out these points in the movie for me so I can take a peek at them myself, if I ever see the 3D version again.

I can't really think of the specific moments at this point. I went to see the movie at launch, so it's been a while. I just remember is being more common in the shots that didn't have a lot of CG effects and scenery.

The only moments I can recall that didn't have some CG in them was when the protagonist was sitting around his remote bed and that time when the pilot chick broke out her friends.

mlai
Everything that you've mentioned so far, makes sense to me.

Heh, I've not see this film, buuuut...
The main guy has something wrong with his legs right? And it means he can't fight, so they let him do this "Avatar" spying-recon-whatever thing... right?

What I don't get is that they seem to have these amazingly advanced mecha systems- walkers and flyers etc.- and yet this dick is bed ridden? Why?
All that robo-mecha-techa stuff is there to give him 100% ability and yet he's stuck in this old fashioned WW2 invalid soldier paradigm.
So he wouldn't need the Avtar assignment necessarily, and anyone who wanted it could be up for it instead...?

Maybe I'm missing something?

ozoneocean
Maybe I'm missing something?

He doesn't drive an Avatar because he can't fight. He drives one because his brother created it, and then died, and he's the only one with the DNA to sync with it.

You should really see it OO

Even if you don't think you'll like it, at this point it's going to be a cultural thing that you're missing out on. Most of the world's seen it. It'd be like not having seen star wars or something

He also sticks with the wheelchair because he can't afford prosthetics. The high tech mecha stuff is all multi-million dollar military tech and aparently the main character's disability benefits won't cover what he needs to walk again. You don't see the average citizen using rocket or jet technology to go to work everyday, today, either. They CAN make prosthetics that would be like having his own legs back, and they mention it in the film as incentive for the character to side with the military guys, it's just outside of the main character's earning bracket. The existance of better technology doesn't mean it or the medical side come cheap.

ozoneocean
Maybe I'm missing something?

Well, it's easy to understand why you're not aware of all the plot points, if you haven't seen the film.

Like kingofsnake said, creating an avatar is a very expensive undertaking and they're customized to sink with a specific person. Since the protagonists brother was killed after being accepted into the avatar program, the military was now faced with the prospect of throwing away a multi million dollar blue torso or use this disabled soldier who was genetically similar enough to sink up with the hybrid. The military actually liked that idea because all the personnels working on the avatar program were scientists and they saw this as an opportunity to get one of their boys into the project. The military also offered to pay for an expensive spinal column surgery, after completing the mission, that would have reconnected the damaged nerves, thus allowing the protagonist to walk again with his own two legs. Why rely on prosthetics, when you can make the originals work again?

Product Placement
. . . this disabled soldier who was genetically similar enough to sink up with the hybrid.

If I remember correctly, they were identical twins, so genetically they should be identical.

Product Placement
The military also offered to pay for an expensive spinal column surgery, after completing the mission, that would have reconnected the damaged nerves, thus allowing the protagonist to walk again with his own two legs. Why rely on prosthetics, when you can make the originals work again?

Plus The Company owns pretty much everything, including health insurance. Fixing his legs was probably deemed "not medically necessary" or else they figured he was too expensive to cover, so they dropped his coverage. Thus The Company (and its shareholders) saves some money, and a Marine who was injured in the line of duty gets screwed. The wonders of a private-sector health care system.

I finally saw the movie. Yeah, I know I'm late. And I didn't see it in 3D. Nothing I see is ever in 3D thanks to a blind eye.

All I can say is it was the most expensive cliche I'd ever seen. What an awful story. I might have been able to accept its unoriginality if it wasn't the same stupid guilt trip I've been getting since junior high. I'm tired of movie makers trying to tell me I'm not in touch with nature, and another group of people is better than me because they can talk to plants or something.

The worst part is that pretty much EVERY step was PREDICTABLE. You could tell how the entire movie was going to end before twenty minutes of the movie had gone by. After that, it's just watching how pretty they can make things until it gets to the ending you were expecting.

At least the movie had that going for it. It was nice-looking. Those mechs were even a little cool. But criminy, the 3D must have been awesome for so many people to swallow that tripe of a story.

Sorry, I just had to rant. I'm done now.

Hawk
The 3D must have been awesome for so many people to swallow that tripe of a story.

It was awfully pretty to look at.

@ Hawk:

Sorry but I never get this attitude towards summer movies.

So... it's okay to buy your 999th comic book which tells the exact same superhero story with the exact same character your grandfather grew up with...

And it's "sophisticated" to go watch Hamlet or Cats or Lion King stage play for the 99th time, even though you know the lines by heart...

But if a movie has a story theme that you've seen somewhere before, then "omfg I've been cheated of $10-12 and 2 hours of my life~!!"

Sorry but I never get this attitude towards summer movies.

Especially since it's a 180 on his stance on other movies. I guess cliche and environmental themes are only OK if they come from certain studios.

I get the impression it's just another case of someone going in expecting and wanting the movie to be bad, so they cling to the elements that wouldn't normally bother them in other films.

mlai
@ Hawk:

Sorry but I never get this attitude towards summer movies.

So... it's okay to buy your 999th comic book which tells the exact same superhero story with the exact same character your grandfather grew up with...

And it's "sophisticated" to go watch Hamlet or Cats or Lion King stage play for the 99th time, even though you know the lines by heart...

But if a movie has a story theme that you've seen somewhere before, then "omfg I've been cheated of $10-12 and 2 hours of my life~!!"

No, the difference there is that when it watch Hamlet on stage it's not pretending to be something else. It's Hamlet. And I walked in expecting Hamlet.

This is all about expectations. When a movie costs that much, earns that much, and is talked about that much, I expected something really good. I thought maybe it would be something new and incredible, with at least a few surprises. I'll betcha if I saw the movie without any prior knowledge of it I might have liked it. But I still wouldn't have thought it was awesome.

And like I said, I didn't see it in 3D. I think that's a factor. Most of the people I've talked to admitted the story wasn't great, but they loved the 3D.

It also doesn't help that I saw it months after everyone else.

It had a few other factors working against it as well. I've never liked Michelle Rodriguez. I tried to put that behind me for this but she didn't have a very good character in this movie either. It bugged me that it was deep immersion in the Na'vi culture that turned others against humanity, but for her it was looking at them from a helicopter and saying "Screw this." Weren't any other pilots bothered by this genocide?

Then there were trite things like "Pandora" and "unobtainium". Yeah, I know what was mentioned about unobtanium in this thread before. But, seriously? That's the name they're going to use for this purely McGuffin plot device? I wouldn't mind if this was a comedy, but it's not.

At its heart, I think the central concept of inhabiting an alien body is a rather cool idea, I just wish they had done something better with it.

Sorry, I didn't like the movie. I wanted to. I had a friend who worked on it. And after he worked on Alvin and Chipmunks I felt like he deserved a good one. But if it's any consolation he got to work on a successful movie.

Hawk
Then there were trite things like "Pandora" and "unobtainium". Yeah, I know what was mentioned about unobtanium in this thread before. But, seriously? That's the name they're going to use for this purely McGuffin plot device? I wouldn't mind if this was a comedy, but it's not.

As you know, I've not seen this film, but there IS a certain sensible logic to using names like that.

Initially I thought it was obviously very stupid too, but when you think about it most real elements and compounds all have rather silly names that were just given to them because they mean something to a certain scientist for some reason. Calling something "unobtainium" actually makes perfect sense in light of that. Look at some names of real elements: "Titanium", "Uranium", Plutonium- named after mythology, one because titans were big and strong and the other after Uranus, Roman god of the underworld, Pluto- same deal... for some equally specious reason. Or "Magnesium", "Magnetite", "Manganese" (and the word "Magnet" ) and other such similar sounding metals- they're all named after the island they were found on and various superficial similarities.
The gas ether is named after the fictional substance that was meant to exist outside of the planet all throughout outer-space and heaven etc.

So the use of "unobtainium" for a name isn't jus logical, it's very likley that something WILL eventually actually be called that. And given the mythological origins of the names of most planets, why isn't it likely they'd do the same thing with such an alien planet as that? It's not like the ancients decided to name all the planets after Roman versions of Greek gods, most of that naming was done millennia after the ancient Greek and Roman culture was long gone. So again- it's perfectly logical.
If the alien creatures also use the names, you put that down to translation, because they obviously wouldn't speak English.
----------------------

The real problem with this sort of SciFi is that the aliens are always based on human beings with two legs, two arms, fingers, faces, one nose, toes, two eyes... All those things are products of earth evolution. MILLIONS of years of it. Early life looked nothing like modern life. Even insects are modern creatures that share big similarities to us.
The fact that most aliens are basically mutant humans is the biggest McGuffin ever and could only be like that if there were some sort of God-thing happening. ^__^


...STill haven't seen it, but that doesn't mean I can't argue like the pissy wanker I am :)

ozoneocean
The real problem with this sort of SciFi is that the aliens are always based on human beings with two legs, two arms, fingers, faces, one nose, toes, two eyes... All those things are products of earth evolution. MILLIONS of years of it. Early life looked nothing like modern life. Even insects are modern creatures that share big similarities to us.
The fact that most aliens are basically mutant humans is the biggest McGuffin ever and could only be like that if there were some sort of God-thing happening. ^__^

That's one of the biggest problems with Star Trek. If they want an alien they take a human and change the ears a bit or put some bumps on their forehead. BOOM! Klingon! My friend tells me Star Trek justifies it by saying that humanoid DNA was scattered throughout the universe, but I think that's blatant retconning to cover the show's earlier budget limits and/or lack of imagination. It really makes you appreciate the effort they put in on Star Wars to make some truly non-human muppet aliens.

It's nice that they made the Na'vi a certain amount bigger than humans, but you're right, they were still VERY human.

That aspect has never really bothered me too much. It is entirely possible that particular attributes are better suited to more intelligent life. It makes sense that an advanced organism would have many of the same features we do and would have at one point needed to overcome the same obstacles we did.

The use of the word unobtainium seems far less likely to me. It defies all naming conventions for elements and compounds. It would be far more likely to see it called anephictium or something like that, rather than unobtainium. Even so, though, the name isn't an accurate descriptor for the material, so the name really doesn't make any sense.

Hawk
It's nice that they made the Na'vi a certain amount bigger than humans

Yes, size is an important factor- usually every creature magically has the same size ranges as us- them as well as their children! Varying that is a start

isukun
That aspect has never really bothered me too much. It is entirely possible that particular attributes are better suited to more intelligent life. It makes sense that an advanced organism would have many of the same features we do and would have at one point needed to overcome the same obstacles we did.

That's not actually plausible though if you're thinking about evolution- which is inherited "change" in response to numerous factors alone and in combination- sex, environment, climate, disease, geography, etc.
Evolution isn't a process leading "too" anything, there are no predetermined ends or likely paths, it's just change itself. Life on earth seems to follow related paths only because we are actually related- Lizards, birds, fish, humans etc all share the same type of skeletons with the same sorts of bones. Even the feather patterns on a bird's wing are similar to the hair patterns on a human arm. And even more varied life like squids or slugs have deeper similarities.

And as far as "intelligence" goes, that isn't really dependent on body shape. We know that Ravens display advanced problem solving abilities and tool usage, even exceeding that of the great apes and the fabled dolphin. Even creatures like octopus have surprising abilities in that regard! :)

Going back to evolution- if certain environmental factors had been different in the earliest days, then all life on this planet would've had a vastly different appearance than it does now. Even bilateral symmetry is an evolutionary artefact that animal life has just happened to retain from those early origins. It could have been very different.

Jeebus, this is an essay!!!!!!!!
Suffice to say that it's not impossible that life elsewhere could look like us only because the universe is almost infinite, but it is extremely improbable.
That said- SciFi with totally alien unhuman creatures probably wouldn't be nearly as interesting or fun.

isukun
The use of the word unobtainium seems far less likely to me. It defies all naming conventions for elements and compounds. It would be far more likely to see it called anephictium or something like that, rather than unobtainium. Even so, though, the name isn't an accurate descriptor for the material, so the name really doesn't make any sense.

What about Thorium? Named after the Norse god for the hell of it... Or Californium or Einsteinium? Element and compound naming doesn't actually follow any proper conventions- you discover it, you name it, for your own reasons. The scientific community is traditionally pretty open to that.

I don't think that mainstream audience would have liked the idea of watching a guy getting down and dirty with a squid girl. Sure you'd find some with the fetish for it but fetish never wins in the fight vs mainstream.

I think that the three most important factors for high intelligent life is the ability to generate complex signals of some sort, being able to manipulate objects around itself easily and effectively and finally some processing power that's capable of taking advantage of those other two features.

For humans those three things take form of vocal cords, hands and the largest brain on the planet. We developed languages that made it easier for us to plan and organized and could create complex tools, using our hands.

Like Ozone said, there are lots of animals around who partially fulfill those same requirements although they can't do it as successfully as humans. It would be silly to think that only creatures with hands and vocal cords, similar to ours could achieve our level of intelligence but we have no idea how another winning combo would look like, since we've never encountered one. Rather then guessing how a successful intelligent alien would look like most directors choose to go for familiar features that the general public can empathize with. After all it's much easier to identify and relate to this:




...as oppose to this:



For the exact same reason, many animals are "humanized" in cartoons by moving their eyes to a forward position, giving them features they don't have, like eyebrows, lips and such. It helps to display the emotions that the characters are suppose to portray.


The whole point of the movie, according to Cameron, was never to tell an epic story. He wanted to create a complex virtual world for us to experience, that featured its own unique ego system and culture. Since all of his attention seems to have been focused on that, it's no wonder that the story took a backseat position, thus resulting in such a generic tale.

P.S.S.
If it helps to calm people down, I read that the name "Unobtainium" started of as a joke placeholder in the script, while they didn't know what to call the element. As time went by, it ended up sticking. This happens very often. I remember how Guybrush from Monkey Island got his name. The creators had no idea what to call him and saved the concept sketches of him under the name "Guy". The paint program from that time used the extension ".brush" and voila.

Product Placement
I don't think that mainstream audience would have liked the idea of watching a guy getting down and dirty with a squid girl. Sure you'd find some with the fetish for it but fetish never wins in the fight vs mainstream.

Very true. The argument isn't that the aliens are wrong (they're entirely typical of all Scifi), it's that if you take things more literally the aliens are more wrong than the names of the element or the the planet.
Afterall, Cameron already MORE than earned his chops in the alien design stakes with his liquid water alien creature concept in The Abyss. He gets the situation better than I do and way before I even considered the idea of it. :)

Product Placement
I think that the three most important factors for high intelligent life is the ability to generate complex signals of some sort, being able to manipulate objects around itself easily and effectively and finally some processing power that's capable of taking advantage of those other two features.

Perhaps, but all that is still a human-centric view of even the idea of what it means to be intelligent. ...but then you end up getting too esoteric, so I won't pursue that. I'm not qualified or able.

-one more thing though: Octopus are far, far closer to human beings than any alien creature could ever be. And to an alien creature, octopus and humans would probably be considered different members of the same species. That's how far out our ideas of extra-terrestrial life is

Product Placement
If it helps to calm people down, I read that the name "Unobtainium" started of as a joke placeholder in the script,

That's pretty much implicit PP.
The discussion is whether that's a stupid name in the context in the movie. Given real world examples I argue that it's not.

First off, Avatar is more fantasy than hard-core sci-fi and thus shouldn't be judged as the latter.

Film is a visual form of entertainment, and the audience has to rely on visual cues to trigger emotional responses. That said, for we humans to be able to empathize with characters onscreen, we have to be able to recognize emotional visual cues, hence the humanoid characters with human expressions.

Imagine if the aliens were squid-like creatures and when they cried, instead of shedding tears and having their lips tremble, they made a wet, farting sound. Odds are, the crowd would bust out laughing instead of empathizing with them. We have enough problems understanding and empathizing with one another because of skin color (or something purely intangible like differing religions), so making anything too alien would only serve to distance the crowd emotionally.

EssayBee
First off, Avatar is more fantasy than hard-core sci-fi and thus shouldn't be judged as the latter.

Ofcourse, I agree entirely! :)

That's not actually the discussion though.

-The thing is that, what's more likley:
1. The use of the word "unobtanium" for the name of an element, and the word "Pandora" for a planet name.
Or:
2. The idea of humanoid aliens.

I argue the case for the latter.

---------------------------
I don't mean to be rude, or patronising, but a closer reading of the last few posts would've told you that. We've just gone a bit off topic from discussing the the merits of the film.

Hawk mentioned that the use of those aforementioned words was silly. I tried to point out that it wasn't silly at all and used the example of humanoid aliens as an instance of something that genuinely was. Then Isukun questioned the idea that the notion of humanoid aliens was silly.

The film itself is... what it is. As I said, the discussion had gone somewhere else.

I think EssayBee managed to say what I was trying to say in fewer words.

ozoneocean
Perhaps, but all that is still a human-centric view of even the idea of what it means to be intelligent. ...but then you end up getting too esoteric, so I won't pursue that. I'm not qualified or able.

I think no human is qualified for that, really. We may have a pretty active imagination but there's no way for us to tell how an actual multicellular alien life will look like, let alone an intelligent one. I'm reminded of an old debate about whether or not water is necessary for organic life. Most scientists agree that water is essential to fuel the various chemical reactions that cells use to metabolize. All known forms of metabolism require water but the only examples we have of such processes are here on Earth, where water is among the most common substance. Life began in our oceans so it's no wonder why it became such a vital part of our being. I ended up being on the pro water debate party but that's only because I don't know any better. Who knows. Maybe there is such a thing as an organic life that doesn't require any water at all. It sure would be hell of allot different from us though.

But I should shut up about this myself.

ozoneocean
-one more thing though: Octopus are far, far closer to human beings than any alien creature could ever be. And to an alien creature, octopus and humans would probably be considered different members of the same species. That's how far out our ideas of extra-terrestrial life is

Of course we're similar, in the sense that we're from the same gene pool. An alien life would have absolutely nothing in common with us, genetically speaking (which is why I normally end up rolling my eyes whenever I hear of alien/human hybrids).

I would give aliens a bit more credit though when it comes to telling a human apart from octopus (noticing that we live on land while they occupy the oceans is a good start lol!). Although I can see how they might get confused when they encounter someone like this:



...or perhaps him:

ozoneocean
-The thing is that, what's more likley:
1. The use of the word "unobtanium" for the name of an element, and the word "Pandora" for a planet name.
Or:
2. The idea of humanoid aliens.

I argue the case for the latter.

---------------------------
I don't mean to be rude, or patronising, but a closer reading of the last few posts would've told you that. We've just gone a bit off topic from discussing the the merits of the film.

Hawk mentioned that the use of those aforementioned words was silly. I tried to point out that it wasn't silly at all and used the example of humanoid aliens as an instance of something that genuinely was. Then Isukun questioned the idea that the notion of humanoid aliens was silly.

The film itself is... what it is. As I said, the discussion had gone somewhere else.

Don't worry--I didn't take it as patronizing; I was just putting in my 2 cents, even if it was a bit late.

Regarding unobtainium as the name of an element. . . . This may go beyond the scope of the movie (more "Expanded Universe" type of stuff), but apparently in the original script treatment, it's explained that the name "unobtainium" was just a goofy nickname given to the element because of how hard it was to obtain, and the nickname just stuck. Because of this, it's very possible that unobtainium in truth has a different scientific name. Regardless, as ozoneocean pointed out previously, such matter-of-fact naming (even if corny) is common in scientific circles, so "unobtainium" is really not that hard to believe.

Hawk
The worst part is that pretty much EVERY step was PREDICTABLE. You could tell how the entire movie was going to end before twenty minutes of the movie had gone by.

You're right. If there's one thing the movie needed, it was some sort of crazy Shyamalanian twist. We all know predictable plots can't be good. I only go to movies to be incredulous.

That's not actually plausible though if you're thinking about evolution

Sure it is. We are what we are BECAUSE of how we developed, so it isn't that far fetched to believe that creatures similar to us would have developed in similar fashions and would have similar traits. Not to mention an alien world likely wouldn't be that different from our own. Life builds on the same basic structures and requires the same basic necessities no matter what planet it begins on.

And as far as "intelligence" goes, that isn't really dependent on body shape. We know that Ravens display advanced problem solving abilities and tool usage, even exceeding that of the great apes and the fabled dolphin. Even creatures like octopus have surprising abilities in that regard!

And yet the Raven and the Octopus will never reach the same level of sentience that we do simply because they do not have the physical faculties to do so. Their physical attributes do not allow them to develop, communicate, and build in the same way we do. There is more to our intelligence than just being able to solve problems.

What about Thorium? Named after the Norse god for the hell of it...

Thorium was named based on the color and the location where it was discovered. Californium was also named for the location where it was first created. Einsteinium was discovered as a result of testing early hydrogen bombs and was named after Einstein due to the nature of the material. Each falls into one of the four naming conventions used to name elements. One is to name the element after a mythological figure, usually one which represents the traits of the material. They are also often named after people who discovered or were related to the discovery of the material. Some are named after the location where the material was discovered. The last category names the material based on it's properties using greek, latin, or arabic roots. As I said before, if they wanted to get that idea across, anephictium would be a much more likely name for the material since it means the same thing, but doesn't defy all naming conventions for elements and compounds.

I argue the case for the latter.

I agree, the second is definitely more likely.

kingofsnake

Hawk
The worst part is that pretty much EVERY step was PREDICTABLE. You could tell how the entire movie was going to end before twenty minutes of the movie had gone by.

You're right. If there's one thing the movie needed, it was some sort of crazy Shyamalanian twist. We all know predictable plots can't be good. I only go to movies to be incredulous.

Is that some kind of sarcasm you're attempting? I don't think it was unreasonable for me to want a few surprises.

Hawk
I don't think it was unreasonable for me to want a few surprises.

No, but it is unreasonable for you to base opinions on the quality of the entire film on the fact that it didn't surprise you. There was plenty to like about the story in Avatar regardless of whether or not it was predictable.

So it didn't surprise you-- by that reasoning the quality of a movie would be drastically reduced on repeat viewings.

kingofsnake
No, but it is unreasonable for you to base opinions on the quality of the entire film on the fact that it didn't surprise you. There was plenty to like about the story in Avatar regardless of whether or not it was predictable.

So it didn't surprise you-- by that reasoning the quality of a movie would be drastically reduced on repeat viewings.

I can't believe you're trying to make this kind of argument. It simply wasn't original enough for me and my tastes. Deal with it.

Look, I'm sorry I didn't absolutely LOVE the big popular movie. But movies are subjective like that. My disappointment with Avatar in no way impugns you or your taste in movies. I'm glad you were able to enjoy it so much.