Avatar's flaws, a problem with all of Cameron's films?

[exostrike]

After watching this video: Projector - Titanic 3D (http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/teamt/fbv/projector/34405-projector-titanic-3d) I do feel that Avatar's flaws might be a consistent problem with Cameron's works overall.

bland male leads- while Cameron can write good strong female characters, his male leads had a habit of being rather flat with Jack in titanic being too perfect and Jake being so average. While both actor turn in a good performance, the characters don't really give much meat to develop a complex character.




over-centric on the two leads- Both Titanic and Avatar both centre around a romance and the characters actions. This can lead to the overall events being overlooked or underplayed. It also forces minor characters to the side lines. In Titanic Cameron had great character actors to give the small roles some meat, while in Avatar the plot isn't as centric so the other character get more screen time but the problem remains. This leaves us wanting more of these characters.




subtlety- Cameron has never really been a sublety writer, coming from the black and white world of action movies, I'll move onto unsubtlety villians in a second, but ultimately Avatar is very unsubtle about its message. Yes, some anvils need to be dropped, yes Cameron ramped it up when the executives complained, but still it could have been handled better. Its made worse by the when you consider the background info which reveals how important Unobtainium is. The possablity for moral ambiguity and the question of what RDA is doing is right might have made for a more interesting movie, instead it just that RDA is evil, that the end of it.


Bad villians- Both villians in Titanic and Avatar, Caledon and Quaritch are simply villians to hate and boo at. With no redeeming characteristics and rather poor motivations for their actions. This is part of Cameron's lack of subtlety and action movie pedigree, but both movies really needed a more realistic, multi-faceted antagonist.


style over substance- Cameron is a great technical and action director who can make great action scenes, this can be seen in the sinking but also the Pandoran flora. Expect thats all he's really had, his characters while good and completing are really just archetypes and caricatures that lack real in-depth characterisation or motivations (for example Grace=scientist and avatar driver, loves na'vi and nature, doesn't want it destroyed, end of character). Avatar is ultimetly an action movie that trying to be poltical while lacking intellectual ideas or analysis, partly due to the lack of subtlety and the attempt to make the situation black and white.

Oh, and before any of you ask, not even Cameron can make a 2D film work in 3D.

PS. Does anyone notice the similarity of Bill Paxton's character and Jake when on earth? Beyond the age you could swap the actors and not notice.

[Porthos1]

I sometimes love the angles you take on these threads…it’s like swatting a hornet’s nest. :ndevil:

1) bland male leads
For once, I do agree with you…some. JC’s male actors seem to be designed to enhance and bring out his strong women characters. Jack brings Rose out of her shell/cage in “Titanic.” Jake’s being a “Baby” contrasts with Neytiri, strengthening her role. But both characters, though, take charge when the excrement hits the fan. I think though that both characters could be more complex, but we are dealing with limited time in a movie setting…too much else going on.

2) over-centric on the two leads
Again, I agree and disagree here. In both movies, the focus is on the Love Story centered in a frame of big time events. Remember, both movies are designed to bring in the big bucks; how else to maximize your profit than to make a Love Story and an Action film all in one. Forcing the two young lovers to go through extreme pressure enhances the bond for the audience. And, yes, I am one who wants to see more of the strong minor characters. For me, in “Avatar”, Eytukan was really short changed.

3) subtlety-
Again, agree and disagree. Yes, JC is not subtle with the Avatar story. See above. Where JC shines though, is that the back drop and filler elements really enhance the experience for the audience and this and the strong minor characters provide some very subtle story lines and themes on many levels. We are introduced to the RDA and Unobtainium early when we meet Selfridge, “This is why we’re here. Unobtanium. Because this little gray rock sells for twenty million a kilo. No other reason. This is what pays for the party.” The RDA is a money making enterprise and initially, the audience will see the logic of why they are on Pandora (grey area). It is not until later that we see the RDA as pure evil (black and white).

4) Bad villians- Both villians in Titanic and Avatar, Caledon and Quaritch are simply villians to hate and boo at.

Yes and no; those two are great villains and yes, I will “boo” them because I love them. Caledon is a craven; Quaritch is just a Bad @$$. I would agree that they are just archetypes and caricatures, but again, we need something to prop up the Love Story and then provide the stress needed for the audience. Again, we would run out of time expanding all these great characters.

5) style over substance...(for example Grace=scientist and avatar driver, loves na'vi and nature, doesn't want it destroyed, end of character).

Yes, I agree, but would remind you that he is making art designed to fill the greatest number of theater seats. I disagree about my Grace: She is all you have listed, but is a major bridge to the story line. She also has a bipolar personality and draws a sound view of another minor character, Eywa, to the audience. And she looks damn hot in that Stanford t-shirt!!!

6) Avatar is ultimetly an action movie that trying to be poltical while lacking intellectual ideas or analysis, partly due to the lack of subtlety and the attempt to make the situation black and white.

I totally disagree here. Avatar is a Love Story first and an Action film second. The political, environmental, spiritual, intellectual ideas, analysis and science fictionie aspects are the subtle filler to the story line. The story was not black and white at the beginning; there were various shades of grey until towards the end where Good and Bad were drawn out.

PS. Does anyone notice the similarity of Bill Paxton's character and Jake when on earth? Beyond the age you could swap the actors and not notice.

I would disagree that you could swap Bill for Sam and get the same Jake. IMHO, Bill plays a more outgoing character showing stronger emotions and less moral convictions (Aliens2/Terminater2). Sam plays a person with a strong personality, strong morals, is softer spoken and with real grit (Terminator Salvation).

[exostrike]

PS. Does anyone notice the similarity of Bill Paxton's character and Jake when on earth? Beyond the age you could swap the actors and not notice.

I would disagree that you could swap Bill for Sam and get the same Jake. IMHO, Bill plays a more outgoing character showing stronger emotions and less moral convictions (Aliens2/Terminater2). Sam plays a person with a strong personality, strong morals, is softer spoken and with real grit (Terminator Salvation).

I mean more visually, the bit with Bill in the sub remined me heavily with Jake on earth with the long, unkept hair and slightly dishevelled appearance.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

i disagree as i loved both of JC's male characters,Jack Dawson of Titannic and Jake Sully of Avatar. they were great in their roles,and both were memorable characters. also,i pretty much disagree with every one of your points,tbh. i'm so glad we all see things differently,otherwise we'd all end up like this thread...derivative and bland in it's objectifying great films.

[prowler]

I would hate seeing if everyone thought the same :/ everything would suck...

[Porthos1]

>I mean more visually, the bit with Bill in the sub remined me heavily with Jake on earth with the long, unkept hair and slightly dishevelled appearance.<

Oops, now I "see" you; yes, very similar.

[tm20]

i disagree on the villians thing, some of his films have the greatest villians ever:
-the Terminator (the terminator, t-1000)
-the queen alien

the other points, i couldn't be bothered reading XD

[exostrike]

i disagree on the villians thing, some of his films have the greatest villians ever:
-the Terminator (the terminator, t-1000)
-the queen alien

the other points, i couldn't be bothered reading XD

I wasn't saying that they were bad villians, just as human characters their rather flat and lack a multifaceted personality.

[Porthos1]

^ I think they were good bad villians. My point was that both characters didn't get enough face time for Exostrike, but I do feel there was more personality than he says. Billy Zane was fabulous and his character became a real jerk. Stephen Lang showed "a lot of heart" and projected a hard core jar head loving his job...and making a character we all love to hate. There were more in both than Exostrike cares to admit. Love 'em.

[RD-701]

bland male leads- while Cameron can write good strong female characters, his male leads had a habit of being rather flat with Jack in titanic being too perfect and Jake being so average. While both actor turn in a good performance, the characters don't really give much meat to develop a complex character.

I thought that Jake's bland-ness was a character attribute rather than a flaw. It could make sense considering his backstory, and I think it also helps audiences (in the US I would imagine largely the same demographic as Jake) project themselves onto a character and follow them through the story. Maybe I'm wrong here...


over-centric on the two leads- Both Titanic and Avatar both centre around a romance and the characters actions. This can lead to the overall events being overlooked or underplayed. It also forces minor characters to the side lines. In Titanic Cameron had great character actors to give the small roles some meat, while in Avatar the plot isn't as centric so the other character get more screen time but the problem remains. This leaves us wanting more of these characters.

I think it's also a matter of time. Avatar is such a long film, that if you focused on many of the minor characters as well, you'd make it even longer. I think in the original script there were more subplots relating to other characters, but they were cut. The romance between Trudy and Norm as an example.


subtlety- Cameron has never really been a sublety writer, coming from the black and white world of action movies, I'll move onto unsubtlety villians in a second, but ultimately Avatar is very unsubtle about its message. Yes, some anvils need to be dropped, yes Cameron ramped it up when the executives complained, but still it could have been handled better. Its made worse by the when you consider the background info which reveals how important Unobtainium is. The possablity for moral ambiguity and the question of what RDA is doing is right might have made for a more interesting movie, instead it just that RDA is evil, that the end of it.

I agree, that Some Anvils Need To Be Dropped, but Avatar was very black and white. There was very little moral ambiguity in the film, which kinda annoyed me... I think there was perhaps more of a chance to incorporate those sort of questions. The good/bad line was also drawn firmly between the humans and the Na'vi (with a small group of humans fighting for the Na'vi)- which could make everything come off as anti-human to some. The fact that the entire operation is at its core explained to be financially based doesn't build up empathy for the humans, it breaks it down. Morally, money is worthless.

Maybe time was again a reason for any lack of clarification; there was a scene (for example) of Selfridge challenging Quaritch, but it was cut.


Bad villians- Both villians in Titanic and Avatar, Caledon and Quaritch are simply villians to hate and boo at. With no redeeming characteristics and rather poor motivations for their actions. This is part of Cameron's lack of subtlety and action movie pedigree, but both movies really needed a more realistic, multi-faceted antagonist.

I disagree that Quaritch is someone simply to hate and boo at; he's probably the character to codify the trope of 'bad @$$' for the next several years. He's a tough character and a force to be reckoned with in the film, and there's a substantial fanbase for Quaritch, even though he's relatively one-dimensional and seems to have no better motivation (at least eventually) than his sadistic quest to destroy the Na'vi.



style over substance- Cameron is a great technical and action director who can make great action scenes, this can be seen in the sinking but also the Pandoran flora. Expect thats all he's really had, his characters while good and completing are really just archetypes and caricatures that lack real in-depth characterisation or motivations (for example Grace=scientist and avatar driver, loves na'vi and nature, doesn't want it destroyed, end of character). Avatar is ultimetly an action movie that trying to be poltical while lacking intellectual ideas or analysis, partly due to the lack of subtlety and the attempt to make the situation black and white.

I think substance is Cameron's style, though when I say substance I mean the immense detail he puts into his films. That doesn't necessarily preclude character backstories and character development; it isn't like Grace gets a whole lot of screen time, so we're not going to learn tons about her. You could strip down any character to a few defining traits the same way and they'd seem equally uninteresting.

[exostrike]

I thought that Jake's bland-ness was a character attribute rather than a flaw. It could make sense considering his backstory, and I think it also helps audiences (in the US I would imagine largely the same demographic as Jake) project themselves onto a character and follow them through the story. Maybe I'm wrong here...


true, Jake really is a bit of an audience avatar, some one who they can connect with. Gives them the feeling that they can live the dream.

[Foxhound]

After watching this video: Projector - Titanic 3D (http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/teamt/fbv/projector/34405-projector-titanic-3d) I do feel that Avatar's flaws might be a consistent problem with Cameron's works overall.

subtlety- Cameron has never really been a sublety writer, coming from the black and white world of action movies, I'll move onto unsubtlety villians in a second, but ultimately Avatar is very unsubtle about its message. Yes, some anvils need to be dropped, yes Cameron ramped it up when the executives complained, but still it could have been handled better. Its made worse by the when you consider the background info which reveals how important Unobtainium is. The possablity for moral ambiguity and the question of what RDA is doing is right might have made for a more interesting movie, instead it just that RDA is evil, that the end of it.

It was not very subtle. And that was a large turn off for many people.
I wish they would have remained with the RDA being morally gray instead of trying to turn them black. Jake mentioned that you never stop being a Marine, well that should include a large number people in Hell's Gate. I think it would have been interesting to include a scene where some of the sec-ops realize what they have done to show that they are not all evil. The thing is, JC needed people to hate the RDA enough that you would want to see them killed, something which goes against human nature.





Bad villians- Both villians in Titanic and Avatar, Caledon and Quaritch are simply villians to hate and boo at. With no redeeming characteristics and rather poor motivations for their actions. This is part of Cameron's lack of subtlety and action movie pedigree, but both movies really needed a more realistic, multi-faceted antagonist.

Quaritch is a Marine. Marines are shock troops who are trained to KILL. Quaritch is little different then Sully or the thousands of other Marines today. He is trained to KILL. If the Na-vi had been eight foot cockroaches with scorpion tails and eight eyes we would have been rooting for him. Quaritch is just a man trying to do his job the way he knows how.
So I thought he was a interesting character who really needed more on screen character development but the fact he was a career Marine does tell you a lot about him.

I don't like to think of people in the little boxes of black and white. Both sides screwed up.


rather poor motivations
If the arrows sticking into the tires of the dump truck at the beginning means that the Na-vi have been sniping Sec-ops from the forest then things get real simple.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

the only 'flaw' i have any issue with in Avatar,is that there wasn't enough shown of the Na'vi culture,traditions,day-to-day life,history,not even close....but some of that can be fixed by releasing a Fan Edition Avatar CE Ultimate Director's Cut,with all the deleted scenes finished or rendered and put in the movie,sometime in the next four years. i would sell stuff so i could buy that Blu-ray,lol


hell yeahhh!!!!!!!!!!! :inlove: (and a longer swimming scene with Neytiri:embarrassed:)

[Porthos1]

Oh Hell Yeah. I LOVE the Breast Stroke! Wait, don't give me that offended look! I'm a swimmer...its an actual stroke and not some sexual flippant response...although it is Neytiri <bites fist>. Any flaws that may be in the movie was washed away in that one scene only!!!!! I "see" you Ja'k...a MUCH longer swimming scene. <swoon>

[prowler]

hell yeahhh!!!!!!!!!!! :inlove: (and a longer swimming scene with Neytiri:embarrassed:)

maybe in avatar 2 or 3 :inlove: ( consider the ocean is involved )

[Ximphron]

,is that there wasn't enough shown of the na'vi culture,traditions,day-to-day life,history,not even close..

this.

[Eternal Enigma]

bland male leads- while Cameron can write good strong female characters, his male leads had a habit of being rather flat with Jack in titanic being too perfect and Jake being so average. While both actor turn in a good performance, the characters don't really give much meat to develop a complex character.


James Cameron created male roles other men could relate to. The men in these movies never can seem to catch a break and finally it happens for them and that's the story for nearly every man on the planet. These stories are most likely influenced by James Cameron's own life. If you think about it all of the leading male roles have names that start with "J" and are probably alternate versions of James Cameron himself. He most likely sees himself as just an average boring guy like 99% of the male population. The reason he creates strong female roles is probably because that's what type of woman he is attracted to. Some men are attracted to the vulnerable "someone please save me" types, but a lot of men (including myself) are attracted to strong females. I'm not really sure what you mean when you say the male roles aren't complex. They're just acting like normal everyday average men because in reality most men are that basic. In fact, I might even say the men in these movies were too developed and too deep because most men I've met are extremely basic. For example the all their is to life is "titties and beer" mentality. This type of one dimensional one track thinking wasn't seen in either Jack Dawson or Jake Sully even though it's seen in nearly every man here in the real world so indeed these men were very deep characters.

The one thing that Jack does that Jake doesn't do is he talks about a few things from his past for little lessons here and there. Jake Sully basically doesn't have a life worth living on Earth, but when he gets to Pandora everything changes and he forgets about Earth. That's what I would do if I was on Pandora dating Neytiri you'd never hear me talk about my old life. In fact, Jake actually says; "It's hard to believe it's only been 3 months... and I barely remember my old life." This sets us up for possibly having something Jake forgot about from his old life come back to haunt him. That possibly gives us something for future storylines because in the sequels something is going to mess up and they're going to have to overcome something so leaving these little details out of the first movie allows them to play a roll in future installments.



over-centric on the two leads- Both Titanic and Avatar both centre around a romance and the characters actions. This can lead to the overall events being overlooked or underplayed. It also forces minor characters to the side lines. In Titanic Cameron had great character actors to give the small roles some meat, while in Avatar the plot isn't as centric so the other character get more screen time but the problem remains. This leaves us wanting more of these characters.

And that's why we're waiting for the sequels as patiently as possible. We want more and that's what the intent was. Making movies is a business and businesses are in business to make money. Creating a box office dominating film like AVATAR is a great way to generate something very marketable to earn a lot of money. The difference between AVATAR and Titanic is that AVATAR can have sequels while creating a sequel for Titanic would be very challenging and damn near impossible. The truth is no one would really want to see the sequel to Titanic so it's overall marketability has already been spent. As for background characters... their purpose is to create an atmosphere since it would be nearly impossible to follow thousands of different lives in a single movie. No one would stay interested in a movie where it was constantly cutting from one group of people to another. Imagine if Neytiri only had 5 minutes of screen time because they were developing so many of the background characters. If you did that then the overall movie itself would become limited because while more background characters may play a part it would be so sparse that it would come off as simple and obviously scripted and we want films to come off as natural and real as possible. In your everyday life there are constantly people in the background while in your life YOU are the "main character" and that's what movies do. They follow the main character. If you think this is really an issue try including everyone at any given time in your real life. That means you must speak to everyone in a grocery store and have some type of interaction with everyone everywhere so that all of the "background characters" can be more developed. (We don't do this in our real lives and that's why they don't do it in movies).



subtlety- Cameron has never really been a sublety writer, coming from the black and white world of action movies, I'll move onto unsubtlety villians in a second, but ultimately Avatar is very unsubtle about its message. Yes, some anvils need to be dropped, yes Cameron ramped it up when the executives complained, but still it could have been handled better. Its made worse by the when you consider the background info which reveals how important Unobtainium is. The possablity for moral ambiguity and the question of what RDA is doing is right might have made for a more interesting movie, instead it just that RDA is evil, that the end of it.

When I saw AVATAR I saw the best movie I've ever seen. I didn't even notice these "messages" until I got online and started reading what haters were saying about it. The messages in the movie already fall in line with my own beliefs so I don't notice them like people who oppose these beliefs would. Alright so why take such a direct approach? You're living in a world where people actually get lost driving to the corner store without GPS. Have you ever heard the phrase; "Keep it simple, stupid!" If you take a movie like AVATAR with an alien interspecies romance (which is really risky) and place an overly complex story in there the chances of creating a successfully marketable film is reduced. When people go to the movies they're looking to be entertained and the greater majority of the population dislikes jigsaw puzzles. In other words they dislike having to think and they would rather have it spelled out for them. Look at the most popular television shows on TV right now and you'll see what I mean. Ten years ago shows like CSI were the most popular shows on television, but now people are looking for something simple or funny and that's why shows like Family Guy are so popular. Me personally I wouldn't be caught dead with such ignorant programing on my television because I enjoy deep and highly detailed content, but I'm seen as strange or unusual because I enjoy thinking. For some reason thinking and being smart is looked down upon in our society so if you create a great in depth movie you aren't likely to break the box office record like AVATAR did. What James Cameron did with AVATAR is he created a movie that has something for everyone. It has technology, space, weaponry, action, war, nature, and under all of that there's a love story. This movie has something for everyone.



Bad villians- Both villians in Titanic and Avatar, Caledon and Quaritch are simply villians to hate and boo at. With no redeeming characteristics and rather poor motivations for their actions. This is part of Cameron's lack of subtlety and action movie pedigree, but both movies really needed a more realistic, multi-faceted antagonist.

The "villains" in Titanic and AVATAR are spot on for people I've actually met. There are a lot of one dimensional people out there in the land of reality.

Have you ever met someone who does nothing more than party and that's it? That's an example of a one dimensional living human right here in the real world.

You have this guy who does nothing more than talk about what party he's going to go to this weekend or who's going to be at the party or what type of beer they're going to have at the party or he can't stop talking about last weekends party. These one track mind one dimensional people really do exist and they can be good or bad.


style over substance- Cameron is a great technical and action director who can make great action scenes, this can be seen in the sinking but also the Pandoran flora. Expect thats all he's really had, his characters while good and completing are really just archetypes and caricatures that lack real in-depth characterisation or motivations (for example Grace=scientist and avatar driver, loves na'vi and nature, doesn't want it destroyed, end of character). Avatar is ultimetly an action movie that trying to be poltical while lacking intellectual ideas or analysis, partly due to the lack of subtlety and the attempt to make the situation black and white.

What you're seeing as lack of developed characters is part of making you want more because when you want more you're more likely to spend money to go see the sequels.

At the end of AVATAR the humans are sent back to Earth and at the end Jake is talking to the camera... Why? They could have skipped right to the part where he is transferred to his Na'vi body. The reason James Cameron did that is so you get to see Jake decide to leave it behind and you see him leave the link room for the last time. Then after he's transferred to his Na'vi body his eyes open and that's the end. The possibilities for what will be in the sequels are endless, but I will grantee that the RDA will return. It would be too easy to pack the humans up and send them home with no future retaliation in the works.



Oh, and before any of you ask, not even Cameron can make a 2D film work in 3D.

I've never seen any movie or anything in 3D... I didn't even see AVATAR in the cinema... and I was still able to connect with the story.

Right now this 3D technology is still basically in its infancy (just a gimmick) and in the future you'll be able to experience movies on a level of reality that we're not able to create yet. When 3D holographic technology is developed imagine sitting on your couch and the actor "on screen" picks up an object and throws it at you. In the future it's likely to look so real and be so convincing that you'll actually dodge the object that was thrown because the holographic display technology is going to allow objects to be seen in a multi-dimentional space, which can allow an object to look like it's being thrown at the audience because the displays in the future will allow objects to be projected to you. For example; in a scene with an explosion future displays will allow them to make it look like objects really fly past you or like there is really smoke in the room. For now we must deal with a gimmick, but in the future this type of technology applied to other undeveloped technologies is going to be as revolutionary as the computer was when it finally became something real. Computers have only recently started becoming real tools that we can use. I remember the 1980's when computers were extremely basic. My first computer was an IBM made in 1984. I remember using DOS and playing basic games, but look at computers now and that's exactly what display technology is going to do.



PS. Does anyone notice the similarity of Bill Paxton's character and Jake when on earth? Beyond the age you could swap the actors and not notice.

While Jake was on Earth life was supposed to seem limited and boring. He lost his ability to walk so he needed to come off as the "I've got nothing to lose", "Everything has been taken from me", and "I hate the world" type while trying to get across just how much life sucks in the future at the same time. In Titanic Bill Paxton's character was an enthusiastic underwater explorer looking to strike it rich by finding the legendary necklace Rose was wearing. That's the whole reason he brought her on his dive so she might be able to show him where it was on the ship. I do not see a connection between these characters at all.

[Porthos1]

^Wow, nice post! :applouse::applouse:

[RD-701]

When I look at things in depth, there isn't really anything about Avatar's 'message' that I disagree with- anti-imperialism, environmentalism, etc. I just don't like the way it's presented. There's no grey-and-grey morality, and in real situations like those in Avatar, there is a huge amount of grey-and-grey. We're not even supposed to question what those humans are actually trying to achieve with that unobtanium, or how they can improve their world with it. We're not supposed to question the true motivations of what the motivations of the humans are, and how they feel. We're not supposed to question where they are mislead, by others or themselves. They're just evil.

Likewise the Na'vi are more or less just good. Some might say they're a "Mary Sue Race". But at least there's an explanation for the way the Na'vi are- their physical (and spiritual) connection to their environment. But humans are still going to be defined by human nature.

In the end Avatar is a film that gets us to cheer for the Na'vi, and rightly so- but at the cost of cheering against humanity, as an enemy. I find that a particularly odd message for a film that is in part intended to hopefully increase ecological awareness.

Maybe I'm taking the whole thing wrong. For me, humans are a part of the ecology, but are treated as very seperate by many people... so perhaps that connection was far from Cameron's mind when he was writing the script. On the other hand, humanity are ultimately the stewards of Earth, for better or worse, so you could say "doom the humans, doom the Earth". Maybe it can be seen as a cautionary tale, i.e. if we don't fix up our act now, in future we'll become an overpopulated, poverty-ridden bunch of Planet Looters that nobody will weep for, and for good reason.

The thing about wanting more of characters is a good point, Eternal Enigma... but a lot of these characters also die. Eytukan- dead. Grace- dead (kinda). Trudy- dead. Quaritch- dead. Tsu Tey- dead, etc.

Also, I think it is pretty degrading to men as a whole to say that most men are nothing more than "tits 'n beer, lulz!". Even the people I know who fit that archetype most closely (and there aren't many, but maybe that's my selection bias) aren't entirely defined by it. While as a generalisation modern men may be lacking in some areas (such as emotional understanding), they're not basic people because they're men.

Also, I fully support James Cameron's recurrent creation of strong female characters. I'd do exactly the same if I wrote fiction (hot helicopter pilots <3).

[Raidrik]

finally someone sees it....

[Porthos1]

RD701, I have to agree that there is no grey-grey in Avatar, but I think that is done on purpose. At first, it is grey and grey as you do not start picking “sides” until towards the middle of the movie. Grace starts as a B@#$h, Quaritch a redneck jarhead and Selfridge kind of sets himself up with his “Blue Monkey” speech to Jake, but we do not think any of them as “evil.” Remember, the humans are not being depicted as criminal; it is the corporation in which the humans are working that is depicted in this fashion. Unubtainium is being mined because of the price of the metal…price could be driven by many things and it is not important in our story, IMHO. It is this price that drives the actions taken. Then things get black and white.

“Mary-Sue”? Dem’s fighting words!:nangry:

I’m more of a “Whole Package ‘n Glen Garioch Whiskey” kind of guy and am offended if you thought I was just a simple "tits 'n beer” guy. But you like Trudy, so I'll let it slide. :)

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

"Mary-Sue"? Dem's fighting words!:an-angry:





i second that...grrrrrrrr

[RD-701]

At first, it is grey and grey as you do not start picking “sides” until towards the middle of the movie. Grace starts as a B@#$h, Quaritch a redneck jarhead and Selfridge kind of sets himself up with his “Blue Monkey” speech to Jake, but we do not think any of them as “evil.”

Hmm, good point. Even Jake starts out working for Quaritch. But isn't it still a forgone conclusion that he'll 'defect' to side with the Na'vi?


Remember, the humans are not being depicted as criminal; it is the corporation in which the humans are working that is depicted in this fashion. Unubtainium is being mined because of the price of the metal…price could be driven by many things and it is not important in our story, IMHO. It is this price that drives the actions taken. Then things get black and white.


But look at it this way, we'll make a comparison to oil; oil companies 'mine' oil because they can sell it at a profit. But there's a demand for oil, because pretty much all of human civilisation currently runs off of it (and burning it spews added CO2 and soot and all sorts of nasty stuff into the atmosphere, etc, but that isn't my point in this case). Therefore the use of oil- to humanity, not to the oil corporations, is its utility as an energy source.

Now the unobtanium is insanely expensive, and that's why the RDA mines it (and that's why, as Selfridge explains, everyone is on Pandora- they're all RDA employees, of course). But its value to humanity as a whole is far more intrinsic; it is useful. It can be used in power generation, in transit networks, and probably a whole slew of other useful applications as well.

Now, assuming that unobtanium is about as important to the Earth of the 2150s as oil is to us today (albeit in a different way), removing a supply of it could have dire consequences. Not only could that resource be integral to human society, infrastructure, economy, etc, but it could, in the process of improving the standard of human infrastructure and soforth, allow the strain on the ecosystem to be reduced, and ecological damage to be repaired.

When we're introduced to the reason for the unobtanium operation, it is explained that money is the motivation. This makes us distinctly unsympathetic- I think, morally speaking, money is worthless to us. We're never made to consider what the supply of unobtanium means to the human race, or even Earth as a whole.

And also, I agree, humans are never de-facto made the villains. It's just that if you're a human, you're either fighting for the RDA (bomb the tree of souls, kill people, mine the forest without a care) or you're fighting for the Na'vi. It's totally them-and-us, black-and-white, etc.

Perhaps that's fine, or even a good thing, from a cinematic, storytelling standpoint (if you need to drop some anvils). Personally though, I didn't like it.


“Mary-Sue”? Dem’s fighting words!http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2012/03/9.png


I said some could regard the Na'vi as 'mary-sues', not that I do. Some people do though.


I’m more of a “Whole Package ‘n Glen Garioch Whiskey” kind of guy and am offended if you thought I was just a simple "tits 'n beer” guy.

Where did I insinuate that you (or anyone else) were a "tits 'n beer" guy? I'm sorry if it appeared that way...

[Eternal Enigma]

When I look at things in depth, there isn't really anything about Avatar's 'message' that I disagree with- anti-imperialism, environmentalism, etc. I just don't like the way it's presented. There's no grey-and-grey morality, and in real situations like those in Avatar, there is a huge amount of grey-and-grey. We're not even supposed to question what those humans are actually trying to achieve with that unobtanium, or how they can improve their world with it. We're not supposed to question the true motivations of what the motivations of the humans are, and how they feel. We're not supposed to question where they are mislead, by others or themselves. They're just evil.

It isn't that a grey area is nonexistent because what I believe we're seeing in the movie where we come in is the point when the humans have obviously stepped over the grey area just like we do in real life. The point is Pandora is a moon with an abundance of life and it should be a policy that if we find a world with life on it we shouldn't rob that world or its inhabitants of natural resources. How would we feel if aliens came here and depleted our world of water? Humans bypass the grey area quite often. Look at the oil companies of today or the United States government. In 2009 both of those giants made record profits. In fact, in 2009 the United States federal government earned more money than any other entity in the history of the world while Americans are suffering. This type of situation where there is no grey area is very real.



Likewise the Na'vi are more or less just good. Some might say they're a "Mary Sue Race". But at least there's an explanation for the way the Na'vi are- their physical (and spiritual) connection to their environment. But humans are still going to be defined by human nature.

The Na'vi are primitive and seem to lack the "cut throat" society that we have and this is appealing for those of us who are sick of how society is. Although they may come across differently in the sequels. You should also keep in mind the fact that they were able to defeat the humans and they've had other times of great sorrow when they needed Toruk Makto and perhaps they have wars between clans. So they may not be as "Mary Sue" as some may believe.



In the end Avatar is a film that gets us to cheer for the Na'vi, and rightly so- but at the cost of cheering against humanity, as an enemy. I find that a particularly odd message for a film that is in part intended to hopefully increase ecological awareness.

AVATAR was intended to spread awareness yes, but it also shows that if we continue to be as unconscionable as we are now that we might take our destructive ways to some other world and destroy it just like we're currently doing to our only home now.



Maybe it can be seen as a cautionary tale, i.e. if we don't fix up our act now, in future we'll become an overpopulated, poverty-ridden bunch of Planet Looters that nobody will weep for, and for good reason.

Exactly...



The thing about wanting more of characters is a good point, Eternal Enigma... but a lot of these characters also die. Eytukan- dead. Grace- dead (kinda). Trudy- dead. Quaritch- dead. Tsu Tey- dead, etc.

Which means the sequels will give new characters or even background characters from the first movie a chance to play a bigger role.



Also, I think it is pretty degrading to men as a whole to say that most men are nothing more than "tits 'n beer, lulz!". Even the people I know who fit that archetype most closely (and there aren't many, but maybe that's my selection bias) aren't entirely defined by it. While as a generalisation modern men may be lacking in some areas (such as emotional understanding), they're not basic people because they're men.

I'm not sure where you're from and yes there are men with more substance to them, but I live in the south where most of the guys here are just simple country boys and they are nearly identical to one another in regard to how they think. I know not all of them are like that because I'm not like that, but I work on computers for a living and recently I had a guy come in with a computer that had a virus and he wanted me to save/rescue the pictures of titties he had on it. He wasn't worried about his work related files or the tax receipts or the copy of the deed to his property he was just worried about the pictures of titties that can easily be found online... or on his wife. So again I'm not sure where you're from, but a lot of the men where I live are very basic and they have adopted the "titties and beer" mentality. Most of the men I've ever met are like this. You can talk to these men about football, sex, or hunting all day long, but if you try to talk about science, space, politics, or anything of high intellectual value it goes above their heads. It may not be that way where you live, but that's how it is where I live.



Also, I fully support James Cameron's recurrent creation of strong female characters. I'd do exactly the same if I wrote fiction (hot helicopter pilots <3).

Absolutely! (blue alien goddesses <3)

[Tsyal Makto]

^ What he said. 100%. :nwink:

[RD-701]

It isn't that a grey area is nonexistent because what I believe we're seeing in the movie where we come in is the point when the humans have obviously stepped over the grey area just like we do in real life. The point is Pandora is a moon with an abundance of life and it should be a policy that if we find a world with life on it we shouldn't rob that world or its inhabitants of natural resources. How would we feel if aliens came here and depleted our world of water? Humans bypass the grey area quite often. Look at the oil companies of today or the United States government. In 2009 both of those giants made record profits. In fact, in 2009 the United States federal government earned more money than any other entity in the history of the world while Americans are suffering. This type of situation where there is no grey area is very real.


I agree and disagree; people can and do step over the line, but even then there's a greyness about the non-greyness. Look at the people who liberate countries in times of revolution, for example; often, they commit pretty bad acts as well, and sometimes falter on the very principles for which they fight. In a war you can be fighting someone, someone who is intent on killing you and whom you are intent to kill; but that person is defending their country, they believe they are fighting for a better future, or for more freedom... they are defending their family, their community... yet at the same time they support an ideology that threatens to destroy what you are fighting for, and are willing to kill whoever or whatever gets in their way. Or for example a totalitarian regime, led by despots who for some unfathomable reason truely believe that they have improved the greater good for their people. Or an imperial power, believing that their patriarchalism will uplift 'savages' and benefit them.




The Na'vi are primitive and seem to lack the "cut throat" society that we have and this is appealing for those of us who are sick of how society is. Although they may come across differently in the sequels. You should also keep in mind the fact that they were able to defeat the humans and they've had other times of great sorrow when they needed Toruk Makto and perhaps they have wars between clans. So they may not be as "Mary Sue" as some may believe.


It's made pretty clear that the Na'vi aren't a perfect people, which really makes them that much better. They're seen to be jealous, to have prejudices, they disagree and fight among eachother, etc. They're implied pretty clearly to have interclan warfare, but the backstory makes it sound like it is highly ritualised (not that it stops it from being conflict, and at least sometimes turning lethal).

We don't really know what caused the Times of Great Sorrow though- they may be the fault of the Na'vi (somehow), or be some kind of externally-motivated phenomenon, like a series of volcanic eruptions reducing available resources and creating conflict among clans. Or maybe some other aliens were after unobtanium there...



Which means the sequels will give new characters or even background characters from the first movie a chance to play a bigger role.


Perhaps, but that doesn't stop people from wanting more of the characters that died in the first film.



I'm not sure where you're from and yes there are men with more substance to them, but I live in the south where most of the guys here are just simple country boys and they are nearly identical to one another in regard to how they think. I know not all of them are like that because I'm not like that, but I work on computers for a living and recently I had a guy come in with a computer that had a virus and he wanted me to save/rescue the pictures of titties he had on it. He wasn't worried about his work related files or the tax receipts or the copy of the deed to his property he was just worried about the pictures of titties that can easily be found online... or on his wife. So again I'm not sure where you're from, but a lot of the men where I live are very basic and they have adopted the "titties and beer" mentality. Most of the men I've ever met are like this. You can talk to these men about football, sex, or hunting all day long, but if you try to talk about science, space, politics, or anything of high intellectual value it goes above their heads. It may not be that way where you live, but that's how it is where I live.


Darn... wow... ok... I feel sorry for you there. That sounds really disturbing.

I live in South Africa (I can see Pandora from my house!), we're not a particularly educated country, nor would I say that our culture is highly intellectual, but I don't think I've ever encountered someone like that. Perhaps I simply manage to avoid people who are so inclined.

Still, I think it is another case of black-and-white thinking- or at least painting a picture of many from the few worst examples.

Also getting back to the whole grey-and-grey thing; South African history is a pretty good example of it. As a white person, I'm sure many black people think of me as some kind of racist, "monopoly capitalist", who just loves taking away people's human rights based on the colour of their skin. While there are white racists here- many of them (after all, someone had to instill the policies of apartheid), I can't stand them at all and they're a source of shame.

Another example here is the leading political party for over a decade, famous for being a major part in the struggle against Apartheid, but that has failed to deliver services to many disadvantaged people across the country in the years since.

[Foxhound]

Recently I had a guy come in with a computer that had a virus and he wanted me to save/rescue the pictures of titties he had on it.


I live in the south and I highly insulted by that persons lack of brains. Its idiots like that who are giving Southerners a bad name. For the record I can't stand beer or understand sports and thinking about sex is immoral and wrong in my opinion so some of us Southerners aren't all bad.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

I live in the south and I highly insulted by that persons lack of brains. Its idiots like that who are giving Southerners a bad name. For the record I can't stand beer or understand sports and thinking about sex is immoral and wrong in my opinion so some of us Southerners aren't all bad.







well,i am a transplanted Pennsylvanian to the great state of Virginia,since 2002,and i like both beer and sports, and thinking about sex,in moderation of course. :embarrassed:

[Raidrik]

I concur. Born in New Mexico and grew up in a sub/un-urban area of Florida (if I walk a mile in any direction, I bump into Ocean, Mangroove forest, rivers; or scrubwood), so I've never lived in a 'Classy/Northern' region in my live. Heck, the farthest North I've ever gone was the family property in Virginia, and its in the Backwoods's Backwoods.

But I'll tell yah, all it takes is a bad movie or a few individuals to make and maintain a stereotype. Once had a conversation with some Snowbirds from NYC, and they bluntly and honestly said

"Why do you have more then 3 teeth? Don't you people lose them often?"
(I haven't lost a single tooth as of yet, and I don't plan on it)

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

as always,a highly satisfying and flawless film,that leaves me breathless and wanting moar....much moar!!! :):in-love::inlove:

[Alan Black]

OP, dude, man, BRO - let me tell ya my opinion.

I agree on almost every single point you made.
Most fans do, of course, know about those flaws, as none of them qualify for rocket science. And, again, most fans and people who enjoyed the movie were also able to let those flaws rest for one reason alone - AVATAR managed to captivate them.

YES - AVATAR is no Shakespeare!It needn´t be.
But I will be the first to admit that a bit more polishing on the major aspects (dialogue, character, plot,...) would have been a great addition.

And yes, I am very well aware of the direction JC wanted to take with this, we all are - he wanted to fill those seats, he wanted HUGE, he wanted BIG, and he got BIGGER - B.U.T., all of those goals are no excuse for the lack of depth on certain departements.
A better, more polished, more sophisticated AVATAR COULD have been made.

BUT - and I am just as certain of this - Cameron simply can´t be the one to make it better.

He simply lacks the abilities to carry his projects anywhere near OSCAR material. He could live a hundret years and still, he would not be able to go deeper. Not when the projects at hand are his own from the very beginning. (but I have to give it to him, the sequels he creates on other directors foundations tend to be much, much better and original!)

In my opinion, Cameron should have laid the foundation for Avatar (camera, basic scenes,....) but he should have absoluetly gotten another writer to polish the script. Heck, for all it´s worth, I have seen people on this very forum who would have made a better script!
---------------------------------
And still - I enjoyed AVATAR. And I will give Cameron credit where credit is due - he had his scenes (the attack on hometree, the emotions there - pure heartache!) he had his moments. I will watch it another time, and then probably another in the near future. I don´t go looking for flaws, I am the kind of person who can totally immerse myself - but I am not blind. I know what AVATAR could have been!

[lower]

High definition 3D graphics used in this movie really Great!!

style="width: 120px"
|-
| style="height: 20px; width: 120px" | sweatshirts hoodies (http://www.themovieshirt.com/)
|-

[Papi]

I too am not a big proponent of JC's character development skills or use of dialog. That said, you have to look at his work on the whole and give him credit for being a really great storyteller. There are many great films and books in which the plot is completely secondary to the character development. This type of film making is just not his strength. I recently watched Avatar again and while you can most definitely quibble about the one-dimensionality of the characters, you cannot argue that this guy, JC, *knows* how to pace a film. If you look at the movie, there are two main crescendos, the lead up to Jake becoming one of the people and, at the height of the first crescendo is Jake pairing with Neytiri. Next we descend to the low point of the film where we see Jake, Grace and Norm in the cell. Then the film rises again and, I must say, this second crescendo where they escape and Jake becomes Toruk Makto and finally, Jake leads them all into battle ... is simply amazing storytelling and pacing. Then of course the conflict resolves and you have the denouement. JC definitely knows how to tell a story and how to pace it well. I am not a fan of all of his movies, but Aliens, T2 and Avatar were masterful in this regard.

If you challenged many talented writers/screenwriters to write an interesting screenplay in which there were no special effects and further tied their hands by requiring that the entire screenplay take place in a single room with nothing but a table and chairs -- I doubt that JC would come up with the winning submission. It might actually do him some good to try and focus on pure human interaction, but hey, he's got a technique that both works and sells. Oh and, by the way, if you want to see a great film with no special effects, that takes place in just one room with nothing but a table and chairs and wonderful human interaction, watch 'Twelve Angry Men' (1957).

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

no flaws in my book,and that's what counts. i Experience the film,and i want moar!!! :good::):inlove: hell yeahhh!!!!

[Jason 438]

Flaws or no flaws it dosent stop me from loving the flim

[Pandora66]

I saw The Avengers today - this movie will make a ton of money, it will go over $1 Billion worldwide with ease, that being said I thought the story and plot was absolutely paper thin, some people complain that Avatar was too predictable (it was if you watched the last trailer prior to its release, it basically gave away the entire movie, I will avoid watching them for part II and III as I don't trust the studio to not **** this up), while the Avengers was entertaining there is nothing worthy of discussion post-movie, Avatar on the other hand is loaded with topics (environmental, political, religious, race, anti-corporate, pro-women's lib and so on...), I think the Cameron has more to say with the sequels and I can't wait to see where he goes with them, as far as mass market movie makers go Cameron is right at the top of his field imo.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

if i love a film from the very first viewing,i never have a reason to dissect,criticize,second-guess,or do the coulda-shoulda-woulda rountine with the director,writer(s),and producer(s),and it remains an untouchable movie experience forever. there are very few films that have this effect with me,Avatar being the top film Experience of my life,followed by the still awesome 1999 Matrix,and the amazing 1997 Titanic. of course,i have a nice list of great films that i love,but those three film are far beyond,for very different reasons of course,because of the way they effect my thinking. nope,no flaws in my Avatar Experience,just a supreme regret that it had to end,and i have to wait four years for moar.......

40339

[prowler]

No flaws in avatar... Nuff said.

[Jason 438]

Only flaw is that there wasent enough neyney

[Wameyn]

if i love a film from the very first viewing,i never have a reason to dissect,criticize,second-guess,or do the coulda-shoulda-woulda rountine with the director,writer(s),and producer(s),and it remains an untouchable movie experience forever. there are very few films that have this effect with me,Avatar being the top film Experience of my life,followed by the still awesome 1999 Matrix,and the amazing 1997 Titanic. of course,i have a nice list of great films that i love,but those three film are far beyond,for very different reasons of course,because of the way they effect my thinking. nope,no flaws in my Avatar Experience,just a supreme regret that it had to end,and i have to wait four years for moar.......

40339

Very well said Ja'k!

[Scott]

Jim Cameron has no problem creating roles for male leads. You seemed to focus soley on Jack and Jake for your arguement, what about Bud from the Abyss, or the Terminator(the reprogrammed one from T2), or Michael Bein from Aliens and the original Terminator. All these characters had strengths and weaknesses that added drama to the role. Jack was a pennyless wonderer who despite that won the respect and love of a rich society girl. Jake was nearly an empty shell of a man, abandoned by society after his usefulness had evaporated with the shot of a gun. Bud was a homegrown romantic type married to a cast iron bitch only he could love. The Terminator was a machine confronting the task of learning what it means to be a human being.

Jim Cameron villians come in many different flavors. Again you focused primarily on Titanic and Avatar, both being villians without redeeming qualities. Ever heard of Ted Bundy? Did he have a redeeming quality? Or Osama Bin Laden, or Adolf Hitler? But to get past the total villian package, lets look at the Abyss, the villian was a Navy Seal teamleader played by Michael Bein. He wasn't a bad guy at all, he wacked out due to pressure induced sickness. Even Bud didn't want to kill him, and right before he plunged to his death there was a moment where they looked at eachother not as enemies but with great sorrow.

With Grace you missed the most obvious point, that being this is the same lady that played Ripley. Just reuniting this director and actress generated huge nerd nostogia. Jim Cameron knew fans already had an ironclad perception of Grace prior to seeing the movie and he made Grace fit the Ripley persona. Fans loved her!

Case Closed(insert wierd computer sound from the corporate interview scene in Aliens)