# Avatar



## WatchfulStorm (Nov 11, 2009)

I've been seeing a few commercials for 'Avatar', a movie which should be coming out soon. I was wondering if anyone else is excited to see it.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 11, 2009)

Nope. Not even rule 34 made Avatar interest me :V


----------



## Sino (Nov 12, 2009)

I'm not excited to see it but I am going to see it just in case it does turn out to be a decent movie.


----------



## WatchfulStorm (Nov 12, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> Nope. Not even rule 34 made Avatar interest me :V



It's sad how quick rule 34 comes into effect. I'm intersted in it because of two reasons besides the obvious. That is it looks military based, and that it's got the aspect of curing paralysis (If I understood the preview correctly), which seems pretty cool to me.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 12, 2009)

WatchfulStorm said:


> It's sad how quick rule 34 comes into effect. I'm intersted in it because of two reasons besides the obvious. That is it looks military based, and that it's got the aspect of curing paralysis (If I understood the preview correctly), which seems pretty cool to me.


 oh its more complex then that... I don't find it interesting ... like at all and not even porn can make it interesting xD


----------



## WatchfulStorm (Nov 12, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> oh its more complex then that... I don't find it interesting ... like at all and not even porn can make it interesting xD


 Porn is usually what ruins things IMO, not makes in more interesting.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Nov 12, 2009)

Don't like TF movies.


----------



## Captain Spyro (Nov 12, 2009)

I'll give it a shot. It LOOKS interesting enough, but so have many others films.

We'll see...

I still have yet to see Battle for Terra though...


----------



## Vaelarsa (Nov 12, 2009)

The new South Park said it best. It's just Dances With Wolves, with marines and cat-people.

Still, the visuals look cool as shit,
so I'm hyped to see it from an aesthetic standpoint.


----------



## Captain Spyro (Nov 12, 2009)

Vaelarsa said:


> The new South Park said it best. It's just Dances With Wolves, with marines and cat-people.
> 
> Still, the visuals look cool as shit,
> so I'm hyped to see it from an aesthetic standpoint.



That's what people said about Disney's Dinosaur. Beautiful looking movie with a gorgeous soundtrack, but...the rest...

Just have to hope Avatar doesn't make the same mistake. I wonder if James Newton Howard is the composer for it...


----------



## Vaelarsa (Nov 12, 2009)

Captain Spyro said:


> That's what people said about Disney's Dinosaur. Beautiful looking movie with a gorgeous soundtrack, but...the rest...
> 
> Just have to hope Avatar doesn't make the same mistake. I wonder if James Newton Howard is the composer for it...


I liked Dinosaur, too.

I'm a sucker for pretty visuals.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Nov 12, 2009)

Looks interesting to me.


----------



## Captain Spyro (Nov 12, 2009)

Vaelarsa said:


> I liked Dinosaur, too.
> 
> I'm a sucker for pretty visuals.



...I'm not the only one!:shock:

Seriously, nothing wrong with that. That's one reason, among many, why LotR is awesome, among other eye-candy movies.


----------



## Dass (Nov 12, 2009)

Imma wait for critic reception. Even if they do have a tendency to be out of their minds.


----------



## Fay V (Nov 12, 2009)

Vaelarsa said:


> The new South Park said it best. It's just Dances With Wolves, with marines and cat-people.
> 
> Still, the visuals look cool as shit,
> so I'm hyped to see it from an aesthetic standpoint.



this ^

I've heard the story is meh and so a commercial came on and I was like "ooh pretty...oh avatar  "


----------



## Stratelier (Nov 12, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> ...rule 34....


Out of morbid curiosity, how long did it take to happen, less than 24 hours after the trailer?



Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Don't like TF movies.


That's about what I was thinking after I saw the trailer first time, looks like the guy got turned into a blue-skinned alien creature.  The news releases, on the other hand, painted a different picture where the blueskin is his "character" that he mentally controls, Ã  la Matrix.  Thus the title of the film.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 13, 2009)

Not looking forward to it.  If anything like what's been leaked online, I'm _really_ not looking forward to it.  It might have some success with its CGI, but the plot-line is not something I can get behind.

Fun fact:  90% of the viewers will not notice that the "technology bad nature good" protagonist is only capable of walking due to said evil technology.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 13, 2009)

Correction Rule 34 made Avatar Interesting.


----------



## Armaetus (Nov 13, 2009)

Avatar never held my interest nor would it ever because it's just another anime/manga to live action that will bomb.


----------



## Aurali (Nov 13, 2009)

Which Avatar are we talking about? ._. I see mentions of both in this thread.


----------



## Armaetus (Nov 13, 2009)

This one?







It's obvious they used this crap as a base for the live action abomination.


----------



## Captain Spyro (Nov 13, 2009)

This one, actually.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 13, 2009)

Funny, I could have sworn this was the poster?


----------



## WatchfulStorm (Nov 14, 2009)

Attaman said:


> Funny, I could have sworn this was the poster?



Might as well have been.


----------



## Stratelier (Nov 14, 2009)

To avoid confusion over which Avatar we're talking about here, we should accompany each with its appropriate distinguishing term -- e.g. "Avatar *The Last Airbender*", versus "*James Cameron's* Avatar".



Attaman said:


> Fun fact:  90% of the viewers will not notice that the "technology bad nature good" protagonist is only capable of walking due to said evil technology.


The second trailer makes it clear that the MC gets put into a pod, mentally networked to his corresponding "character" and he controls it from afar.  More than that, it's implied that he even "logs out" of his Na'vi character from time to time to deal with his fellow / superior officers in person.  Like a MMORPG-only-it's-real, if you will.


----------



## Kommodore (Nov 14, 2009)

Fern Gully... _in spehss!_

I think I'll pass.


----------



## Neybulot (Nov 14, 2009)

To be honest, I didn't really give a damn about this movie.

Then I saw it was supposed to be in 3D and ZOMG'd.


----------



## WatchfulStorm (Nov 15, 2009)

Vaelarsa said:


> The new South Park said it best. It's just Dances With Wolves, with marines and cat-people.
> 
> Still, the visuals look cool as shit,
> so I'm hyped to see it from an aesthetic standpoint.



 I actually went to South Park Studios to watch that episode just to see what you were talking about. That was pretty funny.


----------



## goose (Nov 15, 2009)

Is it considered "cool" by modern hipsters and pseudo-intelligent technocrats to be antagonistic towards this movie?

I'm going to watch it because James Cameron is the shit.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Nov 15, 2009)

goose said:


> Is it considered "cool" by modern hipsters and pseudo-intelligent technocrats to be antagonistic towards this movie?



Maybe but I just think the CGI looks terrible


----------



## Attaman (Nov 15, 2009)

goose said:


> Is it considered "cool" by modern hipsters and pseudo-intelligent technocrats to be antagonistic towards this movie?


  No, it's considered being cautious.  When the premise of the movie is that when humanity finds its first alien species (and only a short hop: just five light years away), they immediately go "Lulz fuck you we want to pillage your Planet like we did ours.", it makes me wary.  When Cameron states that the humans are supposed to be what I am, yet the Na'vi are what I want to be, I'm even more cautious.  

When he says he created the Na'vi female protagonist to look hot, that I want to be a Na'vi instead of a human, that the humans ruined Earth and are placing their first encountered alien species under siege because they want to strip-mine the Na'vi's planet for a fist full of dollars, I'm not going to give it the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## goose (Nov 16, 2009)

Attaman said:


> No, it's considered being cautious. When the premise of the movie is that when humanity finds its first alien species (and only a short hop: just five light years away), they immediately go "Lulz fuck you we want to pillage your Planet like we did ours.", it makes me wary.  When Cameron states that the humans are supposed to be what I am, yet the Na'vi are what I want to be, I'm even more cautious.
> 
> When he says he created the Na'vi female protagonist to look hot, that I want to be a Na'vi instead of a human, that the humans ruined Earth and are placing their first encountered alien species under siege because they want to strip-mine the Na'vi's planet for a fist full of dollars, I'm not going to give it the benefit of the doubt.



I've seen good movies come out with a far worse premise, so I'm willing to take a risk on this one. Although I understand why this "humans are bad" theme is annoying. I've seen people who define themselves as 'furry' spout it several times. Of course until they get bitten by their spirit animal and the bite gets infected or shit like that.


----------



## OhZone (Nov 18, 2009)

OHMY! I liked the Avatar show when it first started airing.  But I got bored with it REAL fast.  It should never have been a long series in my opinion.  It should have been 3 or 4 movies.  That's it.  Not enough interesting material frankly. Maybe this movie will be more to the point!


----------



## SpartaDog (Nov 18, 2009)

I gotta say, I'm really psyched for it. It even comes out on my birthday!

I haven't heard anything about it, actually, at all. But if the critics hate it, chances are I'll love it to death. -shrug-


----------



## SpartaDog (Nov 18, 2009)

OhZone said:


> OHMY! I liked the Avatar show when it first started airing.  But I got bored with it REAL fast.  It should never have been a long series in my opinion.  It should have been 3 or 4 movies.  That's it.  Not enough interesting material frankly. Maybe this movie will be more to the point!



Not Avatar: The Last Airbender. That's getting its own movie too, though, I hear.


----------



## Captain Spyro (Nov 18, 2009)

Novaluna said:


> Not Avatar: The Last Airbender. That's getting its own movie too, though, I hear.



I believe you are correct, and I THOUGHT it was going to be live action.

With M. Night Shyamalan directing...


----------



## Attaman (Nov 18, 2009)

Captain Spyro said:


> With M. Night Shyamalan directing...



Note to self:  Avoid any movies with "Avatar" in their title that come out in the next two years.


----------



## alaskawolf (Nov 18, 2009)

im looking forward to this film, lots of visual eye candy and nice action scenes as well


----------



## KirbyCowFox (Nov 18, 2009)

Captain Spyro said:


> I believe you are correct, and I THOUGHT it was going to be live action.
> 
> With M. Night Shyamalan directing...



It is going to be live action.  And there's already whining about the choice of actors.  http://last-airbender-trailer.blogspot.com/2009/05/last-airbender-movie-pics.html

As for the James Cameron Avatar film, it looks like eyecandy, and I'm going to see it for that.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 18, 2009)

Captain Spyro said:


> I believe you are correct, and I THOUGHT it was going to be live action.
> 
> With M. Night Shyamalan directing...



well the fact that he's confined to a licensed property might not make it a complete wash


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Nov 18, 2009)

WatchfulStorm said:


> I've been seeing a few commercials for 'Avatar', a movie which should be coming out soon. I was wondering if anyone else is excited to see it.



Hrmm.  It looks pretty good.  Well good enough for me to consider going to see it.


----------



## Stratelier (Nov 19, 2009)

Vintage said:


> well the fact that he's confined to a licensed property might not make it a complete wash


I thought the inverse was true.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 19, 2009)

Stratadrake said:


> I thought the inverse was true.



if he can use his acrobatics to shoehorn a twist ending into a licensed property with an already-defined plot then he really is the best director alive


----------



## Azure (Nov 19, 2009)

I've never even heard of this movie.


----------



## BishyT (Dec 10, 2009)

Sorry for bumping this topic, but I thought it'd be better than starting a new topic on the same subject.

I myself am totally hyped for it, as you could probably tell by looking at my latest pic: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3112741/

It could be because i'm a graphics whore who loves having his own eyes raped by millions of polygons, or simply because the Na'Vi look awesome (in my opinion anyways), but I really want to see it! :3



Attaman said:


> When the premise of the movie is that when humanity finds its first alien species (and only a short hop: just five light years away), they immediately go "Lulz fuck you we want to pillage your Planet like we did ours.", it makes me wary.



To be fair, mankind doesn't have a very good history when it comes to treating indigenous people on profitable land with the respect they deserve.


----------



## Meloncat (Dec 10, 2009)

goose said:


> Is it considered "cool" by modern hipsters and pseudo-intelligent technocrats to be antagonistic towards this movie?
> 
> I'm going to watch it because James Cameron is the shit.



I don't think it is fair to simply lump any dislike with the film as being hipster or scientifically-oriented. No more than I could go and say "The only people who'll like Avatar are Misanthropic, environmentally radical Furries". Yet as you see, plenty of people in the furry subculture aren't necessarily buying into it.

For many people it's like what Attaman is describing. The film by what measures we can perceive (Previews, promos, leaked spoilers) centers on a child-like fairytale story with a hamfisted, after school special theme of "Industrialism is evil, the military-industrial complex is evil, humanity is evil, the idyllic and stereotypical notion of the Noble Savage is good". There is no guile, ambiguity or creativity behind it like say the depiction of the Prawn in District 9. Instead, the story is a waifer-thin medium for Cameron to soapbox about his political and social opinions.

This interests some people as much as the opposite (A pro-technology, pro-industry, pro-human simpleminded "Fuck yeah Amerikka" story) would have - which is to say not at all.

Everything points to the renditions of Humanity (Except for Sam Worthington's character, other Avatar-humans, and Sigorney Weaver as the good doctor who is compassionate towards the creatures she created a hybrid of) being soulless babykillers who care for nothing but a profit margin or the chance to kill and rape and massacre big-eyed kitty people.

Everything points to the rendition of the Na'vi being depicted in over the top polish and prestige. They are cuter and cuddlier and sexier than any Star Wars race I can name off the top of my head. They will presumably feature a pristine, harmonious society which never wars with its own species over anything short of justice and self-defense and other righteous stuff. We care about them the same way the endangered Panda or wolf gets more attention than endangered plants, bugs, birds and fish - The D'awww factor. Which is disturbing and perhaps a far better reflection of a negative of humanity than Cameron's shitty plot - We only give a damn about things that are aesthetically pleasing. If they aren't, then they matter little to us.

Now, when you get to the graphics and the technology behind the film - it's goddamn awesome. And no matter how the plot turns out or acting turns out, it will be superb for that feature in and of itself. But good graphics does not a good media make - Else Crysis would have been a lot better. 

What's been rather irritating for me is to see people who are advocates of the film blasting those who don't look forward to it as "judging a film without even having seen it", yet for many their aspirations for Avatar hinge entirely or primarily on -not- having seen it, and instead having seen previous films of Cameron and subscribing to him with a messianic zeal.

Regardless of James Cameron's arrogance this time around or the childish plot, you can enjoy Avatar and Avatar can be a highly entertaining and exciting film. 300 was of a similar situation. It had a stupid plot and stunning visuals, similarly casting a fairytale sort of "absolute good and absolute evil", treating the Persians as a caraciture of a mustache-twirling villain.

And 300 kicked ass. So Avatar could as well, though I think it will be largely a cult classic because of so many factors turning away the general public except for the amazing visuals.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

BishyT: The Native Americans are humans, if I may remind you. And as humans, there is an unwritten history of tribal warfare, conquest and activities which had gone on prior to European arrival which does not justify the cruelty of the United States in its Manifest Destiny, but does do much to deny the disgusting bigotry of the Noble Savage Myth. 

So using that as an example is a poor choice, because you aren't illustrating the human condition of being violent towards indigenous peoples - but rather the human condition of humans being complex characters who find themselves doing and being victims of great malice.

That myth, which Cameron has bought into for the Na'vi, is the same sort of nonsensical garbage as similar ethno-centric fantasies from the "Nordic Aryans" to Afro-Centrics and other ethnic and religious 'nationalists'. It degrades Native Americans into a stereotypical caricature of sinless perfections of the human condition and fetishizes them. Thinking of "The Noble Red Man, he who runs with moon and lives in peace with virginal nature" is in a league as "the mighty negro, who lives a simple and savage existence with a virile and mighty frame", or "the shrewd jew, a wizard of currency and cunning."

Avatar's plot turns me away because it's centered on that arrogant stereotype. 

And yeah this is my first post because I had been meaning to start posting here and I figured the topic that is making me rage would be a good place to start.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 10, 2009)

Update on the film also:  Apparently the stuff we're mining is what allows the near-FTL travel, _does_ allow FTL communication, is a room-temperature super conductor, etcetera.  The Na'vi are sitting on top of it (not all of them, just some of them), and supposedly doing absolutely nothing with it.  They also refuse to move a few dozen kilometers to the right / left / north / south.  

To summarize:  The movie is becoming less (but still heavily) ham-fisted villainy, but we're still supposed to sympathize with a single tribe of Noble Savages aliens (so much so that we're supposed to want to be them instead of our real-world race).  There's a heavy "Healthy ecosystem cannot co-exist with advanced technology / tool using" interpretation that can be made.  The director is seemingly - instead of earnestly working for the Na'vi's sympathy - copping out by taking the easy "Main character loves [x] / there is no moral gray in the story / aliens smart humans dumb / Na'vi pretty humans ugly (he stated he made the main Na'vi female 'sexy' on purpose in design)" approaches to make us feel for the aliens.


----------



## Hir (Dec 10, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Fern Gully... _in spehss!_
> 
> I think I'll pass.


I don't know why, but I love this post, and will continue to love it until the end of time.


----------



## icecold24 (Dec 10, 2009)

Holy shit. I just realized it really was a sci-fi Dances with Wolves.


----------



## BishyT (Dec 10, 2009)

Meloncat said:


> BishyT: The Native Americans are humans, if I may remind you. And as humans, there is an unwritten history of tribal warfare, conquest and activities which had gone on prior to European arrival which does not justify the cruelty of the United States in its Manifest Destiny, but does do much to deny the disgusting bigotry of the Noble Savage Myth.
> 
> So using that as an example is a poor choice, because you aren't illustrating the human condition of being violent towards indigenous peoples - but rather the human condition of humans being complex characters who find themselves doing and being victims of great malice.
> 
> ...



No offense, but you completely lost me. 

It still doesn't change the fact that humans havn't had the best track record when it comes to situations like that (hence why we get so many stories saying as such, like that drunken christmas party incident people keep reminding you of just to make you squirm). Heck, I picked the Native Indian example purely due to the paralells between that piece of history and the basic Avatar storyline (something which James Cameron probably did on purpose); "People" from "place A" travel to "place B", "place B" is already occupied by "this tribe" who just so happen to be sitting on "valuable material", which "people" decide to take by force.

Great American West version: "The Europeans" from "Europe" travel to "America", "America" is already occupied by "the Native Indians" who just so happen to be sitting on "gold", which "the Europeans" decide to take by force (causing the aforementioned war I linked to earlier).

Avatar version: "Humans" from "Earth" travel to "Pandora", "Pandora" is already occupied by "the Na'Vi" who just so happen to be sitting on "valuable multipurpose mineral", which "the humans" decide to take by force (causing fantastically rendered battle scenes involving blue elves riding dragons).

But all this is moot because I don't particularly care about the underlying story, or the political overtones or the saturday morning morals...I don't even care if it's directed by James Cameron (the only other film of his i've seen is Titanic and I didn't even watch all of that), I simply want to see Avatar because it looks cool.

When did it stop being that simple?  I'm not asking everyone to love it or anything, to each there own. But what's the point in trying to dissect a movie that hasn't even been released yet? All you're gonna get in the end is a headache. It could very well have a crap storyline littered with clichÃ©s and a predictable Pocahontas ending...but we won't know that until we actually see the movie will we?


----------



## Attaman (Dec 10, 2009)

BishyT said:


> It still doesn't change the fact that humans havn't had the best track record when it comes to situations like that (hence why we get so many stories saying as such, like that drunken christmas party incident people keep reminding you of just to make you squirm).


  The thing is, they're entirely different scenarios.  One is other humans that we've grown up competing with since the dawn of man.  The other is the first encountered sapient alien species, that happens to live within spitting distance of our planet (as its extremely lucky they weren't further out), and holds all kind of potential.  


> Great American West version: "The Europeans" from "Europe" travel to "America", "America" is already occupied by "the Native Indians" who just so happen to be sitting on "gold", which "the Europeans" decide to take by force (causing the aforementioned war I linked to earlier).
> 
> Avatar version: "Humans" from "Earth" travel to "Pandora", "Pandora" is already occupied by "the Na'Vi" who just so happen to be sitting on "valuable multipurpose mineral", which "the humans" decide to take by force (causing fantastically rendered battle scenes involving blue elves riding dragons).


  There's a bit of a difference when comparing the two materials.  One is valuable because it's used in currency.  The other _vastly improves interplanetary travel, allows the breakage of science by creating Faster-than-Light communication systems, and is a room-temperature super conductor_.  While it gives plausibility in us wanting the material (put it on any other planet and Scientists would climb over their dead comrades to get their hands on it), it doesn't work well for making the Avatars the sympathetic ones (or at least as well as a gold analogy would be).



> I simply want to see Avatar because it looks cool.


  That's why most people seemingly want to see it.  Regardless of the plot it may-or-may-not have, regardless of the messages it may-or-may-not push, there's always the fact that it has CGI battles and CGI battles are eaten up just as much as non-CGI battles.  

I just can't watch it because "Ooh shiny exploding goodness" can't make up for what may-or-may-not be pushed by Cameron.  If I hear good reviews from my fellow forumites wary on these points ("Turns out we overreacted guys and none of that stuff was in there"), then I might give it a whirl.



> But what's the point in trying to dissect a movie that hasn't even been released yet?


If I go into a movie expecting an action movie, I intend to watch an action movie.  I'd rather tear a movie apart before its release and be sure it's an action(ish) movie than show up at the theatre, go inside, and be treated to five seconds of conflict, ten minutes of soppy "Look at what horror man has caused" montages, and thirty minutes of a romance.  If I'm wrong on the points I'm raising, it can (hopefully) only get better.  If I'm right, I saved myself a few bucks.  



> but we won't know that until we actually see the movie will we?


  We don't know exactly, but we can be heavily hinted at it.  There's a few older versions of the movie that have their scriptments leaked online, we can look at some of the source images / encyclopedia materials release, we can read the interviews, etcetera.  So far, what those _have_ confirmed without a doubt is that:
1)  Cameron wants the Na'vi to be sympathized with more than anything else.
2)  Cameron wants us to wish we were a Na'vi instead of a human portrayed in the feature film.
3)  Cameron had the female Na'vi with the Avatar designed specifically to look attractive (Note:  According to internet polls, the "Tap dat ass" population is about comparable with the "No thank you, I don't want Space AIDS" one).
4)  Humans are on Pandora because it has a super valuable material.  Attempts to peacefully remove the Na'vi either did not work at all or nowhere near the necessary amount to meet the Corporation's criteria (oh yeah:  It's a corporation on the planet, not a major government presence).  As such, instead of prolonging their efforts, they decided "To hell with this, we've got five years before any police force could show up anyways" and started a war with the Na'vi (and, possibly depending on the scriptment, the Planet itself).


----------



## Stratelier (Dec 10, 2009)

Attaman said:


> The thing is, they're entirely different scenarios.  One is other humans that we've grown up competing with since the dawn of man.  The other is the first encountered sapient alien species, that happens to live within spitting distance of our planet (as its extremely lucky they weren't further out), and holds all kind of potential.



Different nuances, same overall story . . . or is it?


----------



## Attaman (Dec 10, 2009)

Stratadrake said:


> Different nuances, same overall story . . . or is it?



Considering one is "Oh shit, there's people here too" and the other is "Holy hell, we're not alone in the universe!", it's different (if also similar) in more ways than one.


----------



## BishyT (Dec 11, 2009)

Attaman said:


> The thing is, they're entirely different scenarios.  One is other humans that we've grown up competing with since the dawn of man.



Which we had no idea even existed until we discovered America, so they were quite _alien_ to us. 






Lol, seewutIdidthar?


----------



## Beastcub (Dec 11, 2009)

it looking cool and having neat fantasy elements is enough for me

i look at art for the sake of looking at it and this movie looks a lot like the kind of stuff i used to spend hours of time looking at when i was active over at elfwood (sci-fi and fantasy art community) when i first got into the internet art community crap back in 2003. 

so i may see it just to oogle at the life like fantasy elements the same way i stared at draco in dragon heart because, like dragon heart, the fantasy elements look well done


----------

