Should I see Avatar?

Serephel

Ok, so I haven't seen this movie yet. I don't much care for the news reviews, I care more about the opinions of a group of strangers on the Internet.

This group.

Hangzhou doesn't have an IMAX. So if I want to see it in 3D, I need to go to Shanghai, which is not difficult. A round trip can easily be done in one day at about 90 minutes by train each way. The cost is negligible. Or, I could see it in 2D at a theatre near me. Or I could say fuck it and buy a $1 dollar DVD bootleg outside the theatre showing it in 2D. Or I can just not see it at all.

What would you vote?

Zlamzambo

I found the movie to be very enjoyable. The story didn’t blow my mind (though still very good with some interesting ideas). The visuals on the other hand where amazing even though I was only watching it in 2D.

Overall if you like Sci-fi movies you should definitely go see it.

NoLonger

I haven't seen it, by my friend Mike did and said that the story was very very generic, and the only significance was the visuals.

Now, I'm sure the visuals are great, but they'll be outdone in a year anyways, so it's not that important.

Drooling Iguana

Avatar was one of the most tedious things I've ever had to sit through. See Sherlock Holmes instead. That movie kicked ass.

god

Even though it was another "white guy joins tribe of non-white natives and becomes the most badass member" movie, I really liked it. I would say to see it in 3-D if it were available closer, but I'm not sure if its quite worth a three hour trip.

Serephel

That's sort of the way I'm leaning, god. I'll probably just see it in 2D in the theatre a few blocks from my apartment. I think if I happened to already be in Shanghai for something, I would try to see it, but I'm not sure if I'll make an entire trip just for that alone.

Behemoth

The story is not original, and the plot is extremely simple. The whole point of seeing it is just for the "experience". So I'd have to say it's 3-D or nothing.

X'o'Lore

I saw it in 2D. It was pretty neat even with that. If you pretend it's the 1980's for the duration of the movie and that you are 12, the plot would be freakin' awesome.

Mish42

I saw it in 3D and 2D, both have their upsides. With the 2D, the visuals were AMAZING... sure, even though it wasn't 3D, it was still beautiful just because you could really see how much time went into designing the world.

3D, I actually was sitting in the 4th row or so, and apparently that totally fucks with the 3D effect. But it was still cool to just experience something new. I hadn't gone to see a 3D movie yet, I'm glad that was the first one I saw.

That being said, I was invited to see the movie a 3rd time in the span of 3 days, and my opinion was "Actually, I really can't take watching three more hours of that movie"

I had very low expectations for the movie, and it really impressed me. Whether you see it in 2D or 3D, it's still entertaining.

Serephel

Lately I am finding more and more reason to go to Shanghai, actually. One of my friends wants to make a weekend trip sometime in the next few weeks, and I have a classmate who will move there for a new job at the end of the month. So I may just try to swing by the imax as long as I'm up there. If the trip happens.

Mish42

Try to get there really early then so you can get a seat in the back. Being in the 4th row was a little overwhelming at some points, and some of the 3D effects were a little wonky way up close.

Serephel

Chinese theaters are weird. You get assigned seats, as if you were in a stadium. And they start from the center and grow from there. So in a theater with only about 15 people, you'll all be sitting right next to each other.

And this is very weird, considering that every other aspect of Chinese life is best described as a clusterfuck.

shakeycat

I saw it in 2D. I'm surprised they didn't use Colors of the Wind, it was very fitting.

And it's awesome, even if the story is generic. I can see how people are getting depressed and wanting to go to this Pandora.

kukopanki

It was basically Pocahontas 2.0.

Serephel

So I've been looking into it a little more lately; there are rumors that the Chinese government is considering shutting down the movie, because it closely parallels government land grabs. Or something. So I may try and see it soon, just in case.

It turns out that there is a theatre or two that shows movies in 3d here in Hangzhou, but they are not IMAX. Is there a difference between a standard movie theatre giving you a pair of crazy 3d specs, and seeing it in the IMAX? Is the IMAX only advantage that it's bigger, or is there some additional technology there too?

If the IMAX has additional technology or bonuses, then I'll make the Shanghai trip. If it's nothing more than a larger screen, then I may save myself several hours of travel and just see it in 3d on a smaller screen here in town.

god

I only saw it on a regular screen, since the closest IMAX was about twice as far as the closest 3d theatre. That I'm aware of, there isn't any difference aside from size.

Behemoth

The IMAX theater is closer than the regular theater I went to. I've heard some people say it's IMAX or nothing, but I think you'll be fine with regular 3D.

Serephel

You Saw What in ‘Avatar’? Pass Those Glasses!

If you thought that “Avatar” was just a high-tech movie about a big-hearted tough guy saving the beguiling natives of a distant moon, you might want to check the prescription on your 3-D glasses.

Since its release in December, James Cameron’s science-fiction epic has broken box office records and grabbed two Golden Globe awards for best director and best dramatic motion picture. But it has also found itself under fire from a growing list of interest groups, schools of thought and entire nations that have protested its message (as they see it), its morals (as they interpret them) and its philosophy (assuming it has one).

Over the last month, it has been criticized by social and political conservatives who bristle at its depictions of religion and the use of military force; feminists who feel that the male avatar bodies are stronger and more muscular than their female counterparts; antismoking advocates who object to a character who lights up cigarettes; not to mention fans of Soviet-era Russian science fiction; the Chinese; and the Vatican. This week the authorities in China announced that the 2-D version of the film would be pulled from most theaters there to make way for a biography of Confucius.

That so many groups have projected their issues onto “Avatar” suggests that it has burrowed into the cultural consciousness in a way that even its immodest director could not have anticipated. Its detractors agree that it is more than a humans-in-space odyssey — even if they do not agree on why that is so.

“Some of the ways people are reading it are significant of Cameron’s intent, and some are just by-products of what people are thinking about,” said Rebecca Keegan, the author of “The Futurist: The Life and Films of James Cameron.” “It’s really become this Rorschach test for your personal interests and anxieties.”

The “Avatar” camp isn’t endorsing any particular interpretation, but is happy to let others read the ink blots. “Movies that work are movies that have themes that are bigger than their genre,” Jon Landau, a producer of the film, said in a telephone interview. “The theme is what you leave with and you leave the plot at the theater.”

Mr. Cameron might have opened the door to multiple readings with his declaration that “Avatar” was an environmental parable. In a news conference in London in December, he said he saw the movie “as a broader metaphor, not so intensely politicized as some would make it, but rather that’s how we treat the natural world as well.”

In a column for the Christian entertainment Web site movieguide.org, David Outten wrote that “Avatar” maligned capitalism, promoted animism over monotheism and overdramatized the possibility of environmental catastrophe on earth. At another site that offers a conservative critique of the entertainment industry, bighollywood.breitbart.com, John Nolte wrote that the film was “a thinly disguised, heavy-handed and simplistic sci-fi fantasy/allegory critical of America from our founding straight through to the Iraq War.”

Not surprisingly, the religious overtones of “Avatar” were of interest in Vatican City, where the film was reviewed by Gaetano Vallini, a cultural critic for L’Osservatore Romano, the daily newspaper of the Holy See.

In his review, Mr. Vallini wrote that for all of the “stupefying, enchanting technology” in the film, it “gets bogged down by a spiritualism linked to the worship of nature.”

In a telephone interview, Mr. Vallini said his widely reported review might have been overemphasized because of the publication it appeared in. His assignment to write about “Avatar” was not an attempt to advance a particular agenda, he said, but rather “a compulsory choice” given the anticipation surrounding the film.

Ultimately, Mr. Vallini said, “the movie doesn’t provoke many emotions,” and its observations about militarism, imperialism and the environment “are just sketched out as themes.”

“It is Cameron’s narrative choice,” he continued, “as he is aware of the fact that the visual aspect widely compensates for this lack.”

Other viewers say that issues of imperialism are central to the film. In a post on the science-fiction Web site io9.com, Annalee Newitz, the site’s editor in chief, wrote that “Avatar” depicted “the essence of the white guilt fantasy, laid bare,” a dimension she said it shared with movies from “The Last Samurai” to “District 9.” (Critics have also said that “Avatar” copied story elements from the movies “Dances With Wolves,” “Pocahontas” and “Ferngully: The Last Rainforest”; the Poul Anderson novella “Call Me Joe”; and the “Noon Universe” book series by the Russian authors Arkady and Boris Strugatsky.)

In movies like “Avatar,” Ms. Newitz wrote, “humans are the cause of alien oppression and distress,” until a white man “switches sides at the last minute, assimilating into the alien culture and becoming its savior.”

Ms. Newitz said in an interview that since publishing that post, she had heard from readers around the world who disagreed with her interpretation, which she appreciated. “Just the idea of whiteness is a local phenomenon,” she said. “It’s certainly not in parts of the world where white people are not dominant.”

In China, for example, the film’s imperialist themes have upset audiences who believe that the plight of the aliens, the Na’vi, who are forced from their home by human industrialists, is a parable for Chinese people whose dwellings have been forcibly razed by local governments to make way for new construction. As one pseudonymous commenter quoted on Chinasmack.com wrote: “China’s demolition crews must go sue Old Cameron, sue him for piracy/copyright infringement.”

There is, at least, consensus among “Avatar” critics that good science fiction operates on an allegorical level. In novels like “Dune,” films like “Star Wars” or television series like the recent “Battlestar Galactica,” Ms. Newitz said the fantastical elements of these works offer a place of “narrative safety” to contemplate real-life issues like environmental decay, totalitarianism and torture.

“There’s something very satisfying about being able to think through those issues without feeling you’re actually taking a political position,” she said. “Because you’re not – you’re just talking about stories.”

Over the breadth of Mr. Cameron’s career, he has been attracted to outsize themes. Ms. Keegan said that it was possible to read “The Terminator,” his breakthrough 1984 movie, as an anti-technology polemic, an anti-war film or a modern gloss on the birth of Jesus.

“Or,” she said, “ you could just watch it as a movie where Arnold Schwarzenegger stomps around like a robot.”

Paradoxically, the pileup of arguments surrounding “Avatar” might have made a sympathetic figure out of the outspoken Mr. Cameron, who now finds himself in the underdog position of having to account for every possible message in his ostensible popcorn film.

“Often to his detriment, he says exactly what he thinks,” Ms. Keegan said. “All of that makes him seem outside the Hollywood bubble, even though on paper he couldn’t be more of an insider.”

Ms. Newitz, however, was not sympathetic to Mr. Cameron, who wanted to make a singularly ambitious film, and may have gotten his wish. “It’s like, do you feel bad for Obama?” she said. “He’s the president — he kind of asked for it.”

Behemoth

I must be even stranger than I thought. I interpreted the film as an excuse to create a detailed alien fantasy world in 3-D and that generic story was the only one that wouldn't ruin the illusion of the perfect word.

illithid235

So, I just saw Avatar. I really wasn't expecting much, especially from all the lukewarm receptions it received here. I certainly wasn't expecting it to be as ideologically charged as it was... and I want to use this space to untangle all my thoughts about this.

Let me give you some background, though. That article says that people bring their anxieties to the movie, and I think that's just what I did. Lately I've been really trying to get a broader grasp of Americans' political spectrum. Though I don't know where I stand economically, I generally think of myself as socially liberal. And of course, being socially liberal makes it easy to fall into the liberal rhetoric about conservative viewpoints... essentially, that all conservatives are heartless bastards who care only for tradition and themselves. And I certainly fell into that to some degree for quite a while, but I'm really REALLY trying to step back and see the bigger picture. I want to know how someone who identifies as socially and culturally conservative really responds and thinks about situations. This has been a sort of thing going on in my life for the past couple of weeks. Unfortunately, I don't really know any social conservatives besides my mom, but she's super Christian (like, militant Christian) so her political beliefs are really only informed by that and I don't consider them well-thought out. I know, though, that there are people who are socially conservative who do it from a more reasoned, considered viewpoint, and THAT is the viewpoint that I've been trying to understand.

So, today we're invited to go see Avatar. I've been wanting to see it, but didn't expect much, so we decided to go. On the way, Megan said that she heard someone at work say, "Yeah, that movie was REALLY liberal" in a kinda derogatory tone. So this was much on my mind.. obviously some conservative-minded individuals consider this movie to be propaganda-ish. So I wanted to watch it in that light... what would make someone think this about this movie?

This was the idea that was in my head the whole time as I was watching this movie.

So, as I'm watching it, I'm considering all the multiple things that could make someone say that in such a pejorative manner, and I have a few things running through my head.

First of all, I can certainly understand that viewpoint... in certain aspects. There are several parts of this movie that make me kinda agree that it's a bit "liberal". First of all, the way the life of the Na'vi is presented is a very utopian vision of "living with the land." It projects this very comforting idea that these natives are fundamentally connected to their world and all the living beings in it in a way that we couldn't understand. This, of course, isn't really how things happen with any culture.... even though native cultures (and American Indians most readily come to mind as a connection for the Na'vi, obviously) may have been more in tune with nature than the white man, they never achieved THAT level of connection, so the movie kinda exaggerates the connection that natives have with the land.

Second, the film's portrayal of the "conservative" characters... the trigger-happy general and the corporate leader of the mining operation, as well as the reactions of some of the soldiers... seems to me (maybe, I could be wrong) as a typical "liberal" exaggeration of those with a conservative viewpoint. These characters are portrayed with ZERO compassion and empathy for anyone but themselves, they destroy the environment and the indigenous population without hesitation, and revel in destruction and murder. Even though this is the image that typical liberal rhetoric provides of the conservative in support of war, I think (but I don't KNOW, because I have very little contact with conservative-minded people) that this is an exaggeration... no one would really go to these lengths to get what they want, right? This, I could see as a legitimate critique of the film as "liberal". The film picks its sides and is very clear as to whom is bad and whom is good.

But... I know that there are potentially other critiques that could be made, and these are the critiques that scare me (if anyone really makes them). Perhaps this person was thinking "it just portrays these people as ruthlessly dispossessing a species for their own gain, we've never done that... that's just a liberal lie." Or, perhaps, "Just another movie by tree-hugging hippies that tries to promote "the environment". Psh." Or, even more extreme, "That movie sucked... it would have been better if those towelheads.... err... Na'vi... were wiped off the face of the earth like they deserve."

I understand that these are extreme viewpoints... I also know that there are those who would take them. But not everyone. Surely there are those who simply see it as a movie that makes the decision too easy?

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this... but I really don't think so. I don't see how this movie can be read by Americans as anything but commentary and... revision?...on the ways that white American culture has (at least once, depending on your viewpoint) raped a culture to get what it wants. And when someone says "That movie was REALLY liberal" in that tone... it's not that person saying that it's just propaganda to convince us that we've done something wrong, is it?

I know that this isn't really the place to go to get a plethora of totally conservative opinions, but this is the place that I go to get out my ideas into the world. So, my question, really, is what does a rational conservative mind think of this situation? If a person like this was on Pandora, what would they think of the whole thing? What would make someone call this a "really liberal movie?" More importantly, how could someone say it "overdramatized the possibility of environmental catastrophe on earth" without thinking that the way that we tear up the land and remove native people is somehow justified?

Really, this is all part of my plea to try to understand the "conservative" point of view. I hate to break it up into binaries like this, but that seems to be the way that people identify... so, what does this mindset look like?

EDIT: Also, to everyone reading, please take this not as some sort of a challenge but a request for information and discussion. I want to learn more.

X'o'Lore

For my part, I actually felt a little bad for the soldiers and the mining company at the end. Not that I wanted to see them "win", but it was a bummer that no peaceful trade could be arrived at. They didn't get a good moral leader who could just say "enough" and leave on their own when it became clear the Na'vi would not accept trade under any circumstances. No, they get "Captain Guts-Kill" there to push everyone around and make them be "evil" and just try to take what they want anyway through force.

But...as to your question, this movie, to those who try to look perhaps too hard for a deeper meaning, paints corporations as being greedy and evil. It evokes powerful negative histories (as with the Native Americans) and exaggerates them to increase the impact of it and then makes the corporation the bad guy. It is part of the conservative view to believe that the liberal view is very anti-corporation. Which they in turn see as very short sighted since they view corporations and businesses as the entities that support us and our way of life. Hence, calling the movie "REALLY liberal" as if it's such a bad thing. They mean "REALLY anti-corporate" which can further be refined to "REALLY against our way of life".

kukopanki

I think it was a very crude attempt at portraying a message that's very hip right now: the environment. However, I get the feeling that Cameron has no real message of his own that he wanted to transmit; rather, he just wanted to make a hitfilm and decided to grossly copy whatever ecologist ideas he may have observed through the media.

I can't even begin to comment on it's political content because, honestly, it was such a mediocre film that I don't even feel like validating it's lazy attempt at provoking thought. I have the feeling that whatever discussion it starts is not because of the film itself, but rather the buzz that the media has generated around it.

Also, artistically speaking, it was a huge rip-off. I thought it was an obvious copy of Pocahontas, and a number of other things. Here's an article mentioning some other works it steals from.

Silverward

Hasn't that guy figured out that everyone steals from everyone in Hollywood?

Serephel

HAY GUIZ I FINALLY SAW AVATAR



Overall, the movie was fairly predictable. There was never any real tension, no unforeseen plot twists, etc. Really, I just wanted to see the 3D effects, to see what all the hype was about. It took a tiny while for my eyes and brain to fully adjust with the glasses on, though that could be because I was seeing it in China, and the movie had 3D Chinese subtitles floating over everything else. It was an extra layer of weird.

At times the 3D just felt weird to me. It wasn't 2D, but it didn't seem to fully make the transition into 3D. When stuff was supposed to be floating out near the edges of the screen, the floating effect often was negated by the physical real world.

I did enjoy the irony of the mining company actually trying a diplomatic approach at first. Since the diplomatic approach with the Na'vi resulted in Jake and Co. siding with them and fighting against the military, I felt that if the mining company just said fuck it and bombed everything when they first arrived at Pandora years before the story of the movie began, they'd have plenty of unobtanium to go around. The true moral of the story, in my mind, is to simply burn and murder everything and everyone if they are in your way of getting what you want.

kukopanki

Agreed!

Mish42

Well *I* liked it. Sheesh.

X'o'Lore

My dad went back to see it again in 3D. He brought one of my sisters along and she got motion sick. My mom probably doesn't dare even watch the 2D in theaters lest she get sick and at least 2 of my sisters apparently have some issues with the 3D. Not sure about the 3rd.

I get car sick sometimes, but other thing haven't known myself to have issues with other things. I'm tempted to go back and see the 3D just to see if it bothers me any. Also it occurs to me I haven't been on a rollercoaster in years. When summer comes this definitely MUST be remedied.

DrLeopoldStrabismus

I think that Avatar is like Huckleberry Finn. It's an okay story, and whatever, I like it. However, you get these super-polarized factions of society who either love or hate it and see deeper meaning than was ever intended. Meanwhile, the author sits back and laughs at how retarded all of this bickering is. THAT'S the real art - sensationalism. The medium is people.

illithid235

I part agree and part disagree with you, John. Yes, Avatar has become a film that people read in all different ways, and yes, when the film is subjected to all these different viewpoints, the outpouring of interpretations is certainly an interesting object of study in itself.

But to call all of that 'retarded' is a bit reductionist, I think. I feel like what you're saying is that everyone should just watch the movie, enjoy the story, and end it there... that people shouldn't try to look at it as promoting a certain message or being representative of a certain viewpoint.

Now, obviously, I understand that interpretation can get out of hand and produce all kinds of crazy things that really were never intended by the author. However, who's to say the author's intention is the last word on what the text 'means'? Individual interpretation of the text, particularly when that text combines with other audience ideas to produce new meanings than the author thought possible, is, I think, all part of the package of what's fascinating about texts of any media. So while 'reader-response criticism' shouldn't be made the primary mode of engagement of the text and it should be considered responsibly, I still think it's important and not 'retarded' that people are viewing this film in so many different ways. After all, this is the highest grossing film of all time and since media has such a strong effect in either perpetuating or challenging cultural ideas about existence, I don't think it's pointless to think about the different ways this text is taken up by its audience.

That being said, I'm pretty sure that Cameron didn't just make a story about humans on this crazy planet with these big blue natives. Not only does Cameron have his own ideas behind this movie (he's stated that it's an 'environmental parable', but he's also informed by all his own beliefs and ideas about the world, and those choices he made, both conscious and subconscious, shouldn't just be ignored. Obviously they shouldn't be blown out of proportion, either... balance in all things.

EDIT: I guess I should make explicit what my previous words said implicitly: I may have misinterpreted your post. If so, apologies. That's why I said "I feel like you're saying..." No value judgments, just starting a conversation.

DrLeopoldStrabismus

As usual, I think I was being a bit radical. Thanks for the reality check. Okay, not retarded. Let me change my opinion of the many, polarized viewpoints of the movie to, "I think it's fascinating."

This is why I prefer to make decisions in forum, like George Washington.

illithid235

Well, but like I said, I don't think you were totally off. Certainly the polarized 'liberal' and 'conservative' viewpoints can be interesting, but I think you're right in being wary of interpretations that are mostly bogus and WAAAY too extreme. There's a limit to how far it can go.