Avatar is possibly the most beautiful CGI movie ever!

[heruamon]

tarheel91 said:

Reasonable said:

SHMUPGurus said:

tarheel91 said:

Reasonable said:
Avatar manages to be the most impressive, beautiful use of CGI to create another world, coupled nicely with the lowest level of narrative ambition.

It's not bad, but in a way that almost seems worse it's simply bland. All that effort, all that expense, for something so familiar and obvious. Couldn't Cameron have actually married the ability to deliver a new world with something new to say or show?

What struck me was how much Avatar resembled the latest version of a AAA videogame. The plot's the same, the weaknesses are the same, but the graphics have been improved.

7/10 and the likely candidate for testing your new 3D TV and BR player, but not a great film nonetheless.

What particularly struck me, was how little it did with so much expense, while a film like Moon did so much with so little expense.

*facepalm* If you think ANY story is original, you simply haven't read/watched enough.  Every story has been done before.  What makes individual stories remarkable is the way they're told.  I thought this one was told wonderfully.

That's exactly what I wanted to write in the thread a couple of days ago. Was waiting for someone to post it so I can just quote for truth.

I'll answer you both here.  There absolutely original stories - i.e. plots.  That's easy.  The real question is are there any original themes left?

People often confuse these.  Theme is what the story is about, and while I hesitate to say there aren't any left, I would agree that all the major themes regarding our species currently have probably been touched upon.  But story or plot is the way you tell the theme (although of course a lot of entertainment stories don't even have a theme, which is why they are considered fluff in many ways).

Just an FYI to make this clear.  Therefore, when I say Avatar is lacking in originality I'm pointing out Cameron used a plot that was overly used vs coming up with a more original way to convey the theme (because one thing I will defend in Avatar is that it does have themes, which sets it apart from crap like Transformers right away, and in a good way).

Every year plenty of films and books, etc. come up with new ways to retell the same basic theme - and that's the level of originality I wanted in Avatar.  Of course, with the basic characters and structure Cameron set up for himself he basically painted himself into a corner, but that was his choice, not mine.

As an example look at say The Lovely Bones or The Time Travellers Wife - the books, not the films.  They both used interesting and original devives to explore their themes, even though the themes were familiar.  Or look at Moon, which featured a nicely original feeling plot while exploring existing themes.

A common theme might be 'Absolute power corrupts absolutely' - but there are many, many stories and plots you could use to convey that and yes, it is possible to come up with an original one if you put in enough effort.

As I said elsewhere in the thread, having read Cameron's original treatment I've come to the conclusion that Cameron deliberately settled for very familiar characters and story, to make it easy for people to absorb that and focus on the new stuff, which was accepting the aliens and their planet in a way rarely done before.

And in that he might have been right for general acceptance - but that doesn't change the fact he shyed away from using the tech and money to be more original, and create far more original aliens.  In a sense I don't really see Avatar as SF in a sense, because it does posit for me a truly alien society and how we might interact, instead he uses the SF setting to create a more allegorical tale that is really about the past rather than the future.

But hey, I'm glad people are thinking hard and talking about it - that's a great thing and i'll accept a little aggression anyday vs apathy.  In the end Cameron did put themes in Avatar, and meaning, so it's worth some conversation at least.

 

Plot is simply what happens.  It's the story itself, NOT the story telling.  All basic stories have been covered, period.  I'm not saying that every possible variation has been covered (i.e. I'm sure you could come up with a few more settings to retell Romeo and Juliet in), but the basically every overarching story has been covered.  I think what you're asking for is more along the lines of a more original way to tell this story.  In a way, it didn't.  I've seen a few things where they try to do this whole colonialism thing by making you care about the culture or the world, but none of it really worked.  The world wasn't real enough, the viewer/reader didn't connect enough (that's why something else was always needed ala Heart of Darkness, Speaker for the Dead, Dances with Wolves).  This one did it though.  The world and the people were enough.  It connected to you in a way no world or people had before.  Basically, although it had been done before, this was the first time anyone had done it well.

 

Note: Why are you replying to my same quote twice, but ignoring the most recent one up above?  The one that really challenges most of your argument.

 

@heruamon: I was annoyed because you tried to jump into an argument with just a lot of claims.  You were saying a lot of things as fact, where as we had been using evidence from the film.

Let me counter a few points you made: Trudy wasn't a marine, she was a scientist, and all the scientists were against what was happening. 

I'll quote myself about the captain dude: "I think Cameron also didn't want to distract from the main story by focusing on minor characters too much.  Sure, he could spend 15 minutes throughout the movie focusing on the challenges of the pilot and that one science dude on surviving on the inside, possibly being grilled by their superiors, lying through their teeth, etc., but ultimately that has very little to do with the overall theme.  That's why the captain dude's a caricature, the valuable material is called unobtanium, etc.  All of these things aren't important to the main theme, and they keep the situation universal."

The reason you think the Link thing is cliche is because it's a common attribute in many native belief systems, and all stories of this type try to bring out the value of such a belief system.  Now, to add to that, I'll quote myself again: "First of all, the worldwide network is far from just a way for "unlikely reinforements to charge to the rescue and allow Jake to make a big change permernant."  Primarily, it serves as a tangible form of the idea of interconnectedness so prevalent in all of these colonialism/nature movies.  You see it in Heart of Darkness, Cermony, Dances with Wolves, etc.  It's really common in a lot of native belief systems.  Here, that belief isn't just a way to see things, it's real.  I think it makes one of the hardest parts of this genre to understand much easier to see and believe for Westerners.  Also, it's used throughout the entire freaking movie.  Those "links" between the Na'vi and their horses/banshees?  You have the network to thank.  It's the connection they have with their ancestors."

Geee...I'm sorry, I thought we were all having a discussion on the movie, since you could have had a private conversation with Reasonable thru PM....I'll make sure to respond to no further comments by you.  Secondly, Trudy Chacon was definitely a Marine, so I think you need to go the movie again.

 

See the uniform, the pilot wings, the insignia of a Officer (BTW, Only Officers fly in the US military, except in a very few rare cases, and the Army is the only one that allows warrant officers to fly).  So on that note, I'll leave you to your discussion with Reasonable....have fun.