-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Rottenwatch: AVATAR (82%)
- Thread starter SCULLIBUNDO
- Start date
- Status
CassidyIzABeast
Member
:lol @cameron originally calling joel's character Norm Cheeseman
I absolutely agree there are clear parallels to modern conflicts in terms of going to war (or regime change if you can say that without laughing) for materials humans want. In fact I'd say our war was far more cynical. Just that specific thing about home tree being a coincidence is all I was pointing out.BowieZ said:
EDIT: Oh, the critics above can just read this post too, it explains what I meant without responding to you all individually.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
CassidyIzABeast said:
Dude, Weaver's character used to be called Grace SHIPLEY. :lol
FleckSplat
Member
stuburns said:
That doesn't change the fact that they did the CG work post-9/11 and depicted ash and fire in that way, reminiscent of the twin towers.
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I like that the Iraq war parallels of "shock and awe" and "preemptive strike" were used, which led to another 9/11 style event in the film. War is a never-ending cycle in human history.
Count Dookkake said:
I don't think the 2nd and 3rd movies will come but if they do, I want to see this in the 2nd movie:
A small fleet of supply ships arrive after the defeated human have left. They do not know about the war and news of the defeat due to the lag of space travel. The 2nd movie is about the interaction of the Navi and this small group of human and more in-depth exploration of the planet. Maybe even the Navi is on the offensive end and Jake is trying to save the human.
Why this scenario? This will provide a smallish and smart plot without too much fighting. And not too predictable.
The 3rd movie we all know its going to be The Return of the King Matrix Revolution trees fighting agent smith blad blad blad epic blad so whatever.
BowieZ said:
9/11 wasn't terrorism? Fuck you.
And what war-for-profit war was it in retaliation for? I'm assuming you mean the 2003 Iraq war but that happened after 9/11. If you think Afghanistan then that also happened after 9/11. The one where Kuwait was liberated? I've read enough leftists supporting saddam's invasion that I wouldn't be surprised a scumbag who thinks 9/11 is a "1:1" retaliation (hey, if that doesn't bother you guess than shock and awe shouldn't, just returning the favor, though it still would have to purposely target civilians to match 9/11) would think that's an atrocity of some sorts too.
Edit: oh, wait, maybe you were talking about that war where the US stopped the genocide of muslims. Somehow that doesn't fit either.
Count Dookkake
Member
stuburns said:
It's not a coincidence.
Cameron had the concept before 9/11, but...
Cameron did the execution after 9/11.
Get it?
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
maharg said:
Thank you.
MetalAlien
Banned
Solo said:
Aliens, when the cyro tubes opened for some reason.
Gladiator, when the credits rolled.
Episode 1, when the Lucus film logo showed, you know, before all their dreams were crushed.
That's all I got.
Count Dookkake
Member
maharg said:
You are exaggerating. No one is claiming that.
It has to do with scope.
FleckSplat
Member
maharg said:
Do you think Cameron and crew looked at the footage they had edited together and didn't think of it?
I'm not saying they are exclusive to 9/11, but they evoke it. Since the Iraq war and "pre-emptive war" / "shock and awe" were used in the film it was a clear parallel to me. The gung-ho attitude of the humans / corporatists (the people who got us into the Iraq war) was very clear. That's how I saw the film, and certainly the green themes played a bigger role.
Jesus.
I dunno. Was it? I'm sure many people here will agree with you that it was without doubt "terrorism" that must be "defeated" but I dunno, I just thought the film attempts to get you to think twice about it, is all I'm saying.Chrono said:
And isn't that the point of a film? As an art form? To get us to ask those questions? Without saying "fuck you" perhaps?
PS it's not an "American attitude" to consider 9/11 a pretty defining moment in one's life, and to associate a giant structure collapsing being followed by crying aghast citizens and burning ash allegorical to 9/11.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
So according to an Avatar wiki that unobtanium was used to fuel interstellar space flight? I guess Humans are going to halt their expansion into space and their eventual transformation into a space-faring civilisation because the Na'vi really like their trees. Jake Sully would indeed be a total and utter dick to mislead 'his people' into thinking the humans wouldn't come back and squash them like insects.
But I suppose that's what the sequel is for.
But I suppose that's what the sequel is for.
layzie1989
Member
I liked the idea and parts of Jake losing his identity. The narration sounded desparate and confused (due to good acting or bad acting i dunno 
)
)How, exactly, could you portray the destruction of a building or other large structure in a way that would NOT be evocative of 9/11 to an American audience? When you talk about this particular instance, you're not talking about authorial intent at all, but your own interpretation. Because you can interpret something into a scene does not mean it is part of the intent.
This is an extremely important distinction in literary analysis. There are absolutely things in this movie that appear intended to invoke parallels with modern warfare, but the destruction of the home tree seems too integrated into the story to assume it was added post 9/11 as some kind of attempt to pander to 9/11 panic.
I'm sorry, but it is. The rest of the world has been dealing with shit like that forever. It's representative of American insularity to tie that imagery so clearly and strongly with 9/11 regardless of how similar or dissimilar the attack itself is to the event itself.
As an allegory for 9/11 it doesn't even make any sense. The Na'vi can't in any way be considered equivalent to America. The roles are exactly opposite of what you'd expect for that.
There are so many reasons to NOT consider it part of the intent that it invoke 9/11 that treating "omg ash and fire, NINEEELLELLELEVVEN" is just kind of ridiculous. Again, my point is not to diminish the fact that it DOES create that reaction for you, but simply to point out that it's a pretty weak analysis.
Seeing a bicycle might remind me of how I got all scraped up falling off mine when I was a kid, but I'm not going to blame the rider of that bike for that.
This is an extremely important distinction in literary analysis. There are absolutely things in this movie that appear intended to invoke parallels with modern warfare, but the destruction of the home tree seems too integrated into the story to assume it was added post 9/11 as some kind of attempt to pander to 9/11 panic.
BowieZ said:
I'm sorry, but it is. The rest of the world has been dealing with shit like that forever. It's representative of American insularity to tie that imagery so clearly and strongly with 9/11 regardless of how similar or dissimilar the attack itself is to the event itself.
As an allegory for 9/11 it doesn't even make any sense. The Na'vi can't in any way be considered equivalent to America. The roles are exactly opposite of what you'd expect for that.
There are so many reasons to NOT consider it part of the intent that it invoke 9/11 that treating "omg ash and fire, NINEEELLELLELEVVEN" is just kind of ridiculous. Again, my point is not to diminish the fact that it DOES create that reaction for you, but simply to point out that it's a pretty weak analysis.
Seeing a bicycle might remind me of how I got all scraped up falling off mine when I was a kid, but I'm not going to blame the rider of that bike for that.
Biff
Member
Avatar was my first 3D movie ever (not including red/blue glasses or amusement park 3D movie rides). I loved this movie. Easily in my Top 5 of all-time and stole my MOTY from District 9.. And a big part of that is because of how amazing the effects were.
With that said, are all 3D movies this well done? Or was there just a LOT of effort (read: budget) into making the 3D effects so immersive for Avatar?
There was a 3D trailer for Alice in Wonderland, and the effects looked like shit. That first Avatar scene with the air bubble coming into focus was amazing.. Better than anything that AiW trailer had to offer, but maybe the actual movie will be much better.
With that said, are all 3D movies this well done? Or was there just a LOT of effort (read: budget) into making the 3D effects so immersive for Avatar?
There was a 3D trailer for Alice in Wonderland, and the effects looked like shit. That first Avatar scene with the air bubble coming into focus was amazing.. Better than anything that AiW trailer had to offer, but maybe the actual movie will be much better.
Count Dookkake
Member
Pro-tip: Movies can refer to more than one bit of history, sometimes even in the same sequence or image. IIRC the 9/11 shot then leads into a Trail of Tears shot.
No one has said this.
maharg said:
No one has said this.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Saw the 3D version yesterday (as in the 19th). I went into the cinema with really low expectations on the actual movie, thinking that I'd probably just get a cool 3D experience out of it, but wow, I was completely blown away by how good it was! The story was really cliché and predictable, but the way Pandora and its inhabitants were realized blew my mind. Never ever before have I seen such convincing CG characters (even though you could still tell they were indeed CG). The 3D aspect of it was cool as well, but it didn't make or break the movie. I really liked it, but I still think 3D has some way to go before it reaches its full potential. I want to feel like I'm really there, and today's resolution and frame rate don't allow that to happen.
Anyway, Avatar has easily passed D9 as my movie of the year.
Funny (and annoying) fact:
In the Swedish version, part of one of the lines of dialogue in the beginning of the movie (during the speech about how dangerous the Pandora is, I believe) is translated to "planeten Pandora" ("the planet Pandora"), even though it's not a planet but a moon. I don't remember exactly what the English line was, but I don't think it mentioned it being either of them, it just said "Pandora", so I don't know why the Swedish translator felt compelled to insert that little piece of inaccurate information there.
Anyway, Avatar has easily passed D9 as my movie of the year.
Funny (and annoying) fact:
In the Swedish version, part of one of the lines of dialogue in the beginning of the movie (during the speech about how dangerous the Pandora is, I believe) is translated to "planeten Pandora" ("the planet Pandora"), even though it's not a planet but a moon. I don't remember exactly what the English line was, but I don't think it mentioned it being either of them, it just said "Pandora", so I don't know why the Swedish translator felt compelled to insert that little piece of inaccurate information there.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
ChefRamsay said:
Nothing to do with budget so much as skill. Tim Burton isn't fit to direct the behind the scenes footage of a Cameron film.
1) Someone could perhaps clarify with their copy of the original nineties scriptment.maharg said:
2) That there existed a main tree in the original scriptment is half the issue... all the directorial elements from the past 8 years that aren't apparent in the script could have been deliberately achieved according to a post-9/11 frame of mind.
EDIT:
I'm not getting into an argument about the personal effects of terrorism, or about terrorism in general. I'm arguing that the film is encouraging debate about said things, and nothing more.Chrono said:
Except I don't want to get banned for unpopular opinions about war and terror, so I shan't be encouraged, myself.
FleckSplat
Member
maharg said:
My original point was that the phrases "shock and awe" and "pre-emptive strike" were used early in the film, followed by a 9/11-style event. Since 9/11 occurred before Bush used either of those terms, I posited that Cameron was trying to say that war is a never-ending cycle in human history. See the Israeli/Palestinian conflict for another parallel. You want more lists?
FleckSplat
Member
maharg said:
See my response above your post.
Count Dookkake
Member
maharg said:
No one is claiming that the scene was added after 9/11.
The claim is that images of 9/11 affected Cameron's depiction of the scene in the final version of the film.
stuburns said:
lolwut?
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Basically, people are saying that the imagery evoked by the destruction of Home Tree is not dissimilar from 9/11 imagery. I don't think that that's so ludicrous.
stuburns said:
I think you're missing what hes saying. While I disagree that he intended a 9/11 analogy in Avatar, what the Count is saying is that it doesnt matter when something was written, or by who, or in what tone, or referencing what, a director can make anything about it allegorical to something relevant in todays world.
Schattenjäger
Gabriel Knight
All batman films are crowd pleasers... He saved the day at the endSolo said:
Count Dookkake
Member
Solo said:
Solo gets it.
UnholySpectacle
Member
When I saw that scene I did not think of 9/11 at all. I think people are seeing what they want to see.
FleckSplat
Member
McNei1y said:
I'm guessing because Battle Angel Alita and some other projects are being considered and Cameron has only done one sequel in his career.
UnholySpectacle said:
Subjective art form is subjective. News at 11.
The Librarian
Banned
Out of all the Cameron films I've rewatched recently (Terminator, Terminator 2, and Aliens), I'd have to rank Avatar below all of them, maybe just above Terminator.
Schattenjagger said:
I would say Batman Begins is MUCH more of a crowd pleaser. The city is saved, the love interest knows his true identity, Batman is a hero, and theres a nice nod to the Joker. TDK in contrast ends with Batman being villified and hunted, the love interest is dead and her blood is on Bruces hands, and you have to figure things are only going to get worse. Complete downer ending.
Expendable.
Member
saw this timely joke on twitter..
What do you call a happy Na'vi father?
What do you call a happy Na'vi father?
A Feliz Navidad
I rather not have him do a sequel for that reason. Only one he did, is the only movie of his I really didn't like. Rather have him go with something new again.FleckSplat said:
Also, even though I don't want to see it happen nor will it. I kind of wish I could watch the back half of Titanic shot with the Avatar equipment.
Count Dookkake said:
Sure. In terms of raw material from which to draw the visual appearance of a building being destroyed maliciously and the aftermath of that, 9/11 provided quite a lot (but is by no means unique in providing ANY), but there are definitely people saying in this thread that that is a sign that events in the movie are allegorical to conflicts more current than the original story idea and possibly even script. Some people are arguing with me who are NOT saying that, but it doesn't change the fact that some people clearly DO think it.
I'd also question the premise that the scene would be substantially different before 9/11. There are really only so many ways an object can blow up, and clouds of ash go without saying when that object was entirely wood. But that's utterly impossible to prove either way.
I'm going to leave it at that, because I think this is just going around in circles.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
If there's not a sequel I'm just going to assume the Humans came back and completely destroyed them all from orbit.
- Status