Avatar by James Cameron

I just wanted to say that I thought the whole movie was boring. I had tears in my eyes because of all the yawning I did. I stopped it 30 minutes in, and forced myself to finish it the next day. I was wondering why so many thought it was so great.
I really did not like the CGI much and the whole plot to me was so ordinary and over used. I was guessing what the lines will be 5 second before they spoke them, and was right. One thing I liked was the fact that the military was portrayed as evil....

Some parts were emotionally touching to me and I shared some ideas with the Nav'i girl. But those moments were the only moments that I was able to put myself in the character's shoes. Everything else was just so superficial and predictable.

For me, watching paint dry is more entertaining.


It seemed like "Dances With Smurfs"(only I liked those more)

All in all I personally give it a 3 1/2 out of 10.
 
anart said:
Galaxia said:
For me, watching paint dry is more entertaining.

Well, watching paint dry IS a lot of fun.

I concur. I used to love watching Bob Ross' paint dry. :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMIzuSLx3kE&feature=related
 
I haven't read this forum topic in its entirety, but I loved Avatar. It wasn't only the special effects, or the theme of evil empire vs helpless indigenous. It was the biology of the place, the connection between the planet and the plants, the animals and the people. It was the society of people, all working together, with its shaman, which to me in some repects, mirrors how the Cathars may have lived.

There was a respect for life, all life; whether that life had the ability to kill you or not. And all life had the right to live according to its own understanding and ability. My impression was of Pandora being a STO world in a 3-D environment (with some STS dangers), with its own set of lessons to learn.

A fantasy world of beauty, majesty, equality and danger.

If not for the athletic abilities of the peoples (I was always the last to be picked for the team), I would love to be a part of that world.

I also found it to be a great topic for discussion, in introducing the idea of what it would be like to live in such a world, in sharp contrast to our world, Earth, which (set 150 years into the future) was a dead world. The idea being that humans killed it, hadn't learned any lessons, and were still just as willing to destroy in order to get what they want.

Some compared it to the situation of the Palestinians, and some compared it to what happened to the Native Americans.

So, although some may have found the theme simplistic, I found it to be quite thought provoking. And so, yes, I did love it. And it was refreshing considering the constant garbage being put out by hollywood ponerologists.
 
dannybananny said:
I watched it today, reminded me of native Indians, but it wasn't realistic like most Hollywood movies.....


I can't agree with that. In my experience, realism is the thing you could least expect from a Hollywood movie. Avatar was no exception.

clerck de bonk said:
I watched the movie last night, first time, at home, no 3d... My thoughts during the ordeal:
- have they crammed every(bad) cowboy vs. indian-movie into one?
- without the special effects would this be a film at all?
- the people who watched this at the theaters(big screen, 3d and all) must have been flabbergasted and not able to see it for what it is - rubbish(at best)

notes:
- my spouse couldn't bare to watch the tree scene(had to go elsewere), she had seen the film at the theaters with my elder daughter...
- felt feelings felt "forced"(the little there was due to lack of 3d)

conclusion:
- the 'real deal' at the theaters must have been a "squishfest"

After reading your comment, I felt a strong urge to defend the movie, I wanted to question your expertise on movies and say that you probably felt that way before you sat down to watch it. But after a few minutes, I'm wondering if that urge to defend it comes from the alleged visual and verbal 'drugs'. I didn't feel like there were any, after I came out from watching the movie (in the theatrer and in 3D) but now that I'm reading about other people's experiences, there might have been something.

I suppose I should watch it again at home, in 2D and see how I feel about now without all the other technological tricks.

Skipling said:
I find Approaching Infinity's point about the question of the neccessity for violent resistance very interesting, as it relates to my viewing of the youtube vid linked by Laura on the Helen Thomas article on today's sott. There's a point in the film where you see a woman with a loudspeaker attempting to reason with a tank. Would any of us have done that in Nazi Germany? Maybe the glass is always half empty with me, but does this method ever work? You can't reason with a tank, or a psychopath. But you can expose them. This ties in nicely with another teary eyed moment for me in Avatar, when I pondered my uselessness, shuffling about, worrying about how I'm going to restructure my diet. It was when the Navi tribe were hunting, brave warrior souls. And I contrasted it with my own reality and I just felt pathetic, and I blubbed again. I think the point I'm trying to make here is a sense of impotence in the face of horror. I'm gonna use it as fire to gee myself up a bit.

This takes us back to the fact that Avatar and other Hollywood movies are mostly unrealistic. I think people in a situation like this would be too afraid of the consequences (death or worse) and would not do it in reality. Some people say they would do it but most of us would be honest with ourselves (at least about this) and would admit that they just couldn't do it. That's one of the aspects I like about movies. There are infinite possibilities and even if it couldn't happen in real life (like trying to stop a tank physically), we can explore - and maybe to some degree experience - what it would be like to do it and be a 'hero' of some sort.

Actually, I just remembered seeing an excerpt from a video from the 80's or 90's. I think it was in Asia where a man (alone) stood in front of a tank and tried to stop it. So it might even be possible in real life although I'm sure that I probably wouldn't have that kind of courage.
 
Nook said:
Actually, I just remembered seeing an excerpt from a video from the 80's or 90's. I think it was in Asia where a man (alone) stood in front of a tank and tried to stop it. So it might even be possible in real life although I'm sure that I probably wouldn't have that kind of courage.

It was during the Chinese revolution of 1989 at Tiananmen Square

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989

What you usually don't see in the videos is that the guy is arrested by the secret police, probably to never be seen alive again.
And the whole world made him an hero and nothing has changed.

It's still why I don't understand the Avatar thing, the powers in place knows game theory too well, to not provoke violence by pushing people in a corner, and thus justify violent intervention and repression. It's a good show, devised to keep the illusion in place.
 
Nook said:
After reading your comment, I felt a strong urge to defend the movie, I wanted to question your expertise on movies and say that you probably felt that way before you sat down to watch it. But after a few minutes, I'm wondering if that urge to defend it comes from the alleged visual and verbal 'drugs'.

I think it's great when we can self-observe our own urges and interrupt our tendencies towards knee-jerk reactions. :thup:

Nook said:
I didn't feel like there were any, after I came out from watching the movie (in the theatrer and in 3D) but now that I'm reading about other people's experiences, there might have been something.
I suppose I should watch it again at home, in 2D and see how I feel about now without all the other technological tricks.

Despite my inclinations towards sci-fi type stories, I decided not to watch the movie. I could then read others experiences without too much bias, I supposed. The various reactions have been interesting to read about. Galaxia's comments were especially refreshing.

From the viewpoint of self-observation, what I find most interesting is what I experience during that time period that starts when I first become aware that there is a "movie named Avatar or something similar", the point at which my mind grants credibility to the idea of investing time with it and the point at which I would be seated comfortably and starting the show, having justified the preparatory stages that got me to this point.

Do you remember any of this from your self-observation practices?

The way I'm tending to see things at present, the differences between many folks, with regard to this movie, split three ways. The first two describe the folks who 'get into it' and afterward, discuss the pros and cons (this point vs that point) of the esoteric or other meanings that the movie supposedly represents. The third suggests an approach that there is basically nothing there but a sequence of still computer drawings and audio. One's own imagination gets drawn in and the mind and perceptions do all the animating and assignment of meaning. Our own fantasies, aspirations, likes and dislikes get projected onto the screen. We get out of it what we put into it, as we seemingly entertain ourselves with fantasy.

Sometimes, I tend to think that to the extent one has come away having thoroughly enjoyed something like this, one's anchor to reality has become obscured and one can possibly have accepted a new cognitive bias that was inserted while one was disassociated because almost any information can work its way into a cognitive judgment.

Has anyone ever noticed him/herself drawing a conclusion or utilizing a "rule-of thumb" based on something that can be traced back to a fictional story? I have noticed this in myself and decided that to prevent it from happening would require keeping the critical faculty of the conscious mind asking questions and analyzing everything instead of just letting go and accepting whatever feels good. But that seems to put a damper on the enjoyment to some extent.

Explaining the cognitive bias/logical fallacy of generalization from fictional evidence, Eliezer Yudkowsky of the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence in Palo Alto, CA has an interesting way of putting it:

[Arriving at] Truth is hard work, and not the kind of hard work done by storytellers. We should avoid, not only being duped by fiction - failing to expend the mental effort necessary to 'unbelieve' it - but also being contaminated by fiction, letting it anchor our judgments. And we should be aware that we are not always aware of this contamination.
Source: _http://singinst.org/upload/cognitive-biases.pdf

So, could we say that as long as there is nothing to 'unbelieve' after this movie, then the main concern would be to consciously understand how this activity fits into our Aim, even if it just functions as a positive disassociation experience?

I hope I don't give the impression that I have no imagination. I do, and sometimes it's overactive. I just want to 'see' what's going on in this machine. And this is what I think I see happening.
 
watched this movie last night and 90% of the whole movie is a copy paste of the walt disney movie Pocahontas, up to the several characters and their psychology. The plot of this Disney movies is the following.

A party of fortuneseekers from Europe arrive by ship on the eastern shores of the US, who is still nature untouched. As it settles down in a protected area surrounded by hostile natives (or they are pictured as this) one of them is appointed by the psychopath leader of the party to scout the environment and seek contact with the natives to find out what they are after and how best to protect the settlement against them. The scout gets lost in the wilderness and comes in contact with the daughter of the leader of the Indian tribe in the area. Due to her contact with nature she gets a signal (from her contacts with the speaking tree of life) to engage with him and find out what he really is all about. When she brings the scout to the village her father is much opposed to the idea and especially the strongest warrior of the tribe (which is scheduled to marry her, with the consent of her father) is openly hostile to the idea of having the scout around. She (the daughter) convinces though her father and so she is learning this scout (she calls him a child not in touch with his surroundings) the true way of living. In the meantime the fortune seekers are getting desperate to find the fortune they were promised and start to oppose the psychopathic leader. In order to control his troops he claims that the Indians are sitting on a big stack of gold and that they the fortune seekers are entitled to it. The scout is now getting more entangled in a loving feeling for the Indians and more particular for the daughter of the chief. Seeing this the psychopathic leader is trying to stop his flirtations but does not succeeds in this. The next step is that the scout is accused of betrayal of hist own kind and the emotions of the fortunes seekers are beefed up for going to war with the Indians to claim the gold. On the other side the scout is also getting in trouble for his is not completely clear with his intentions: he still hopes he can make some deal with the Indians so that all emotions cool down and some deal can be found. the Indians do not trust him completely and especially the strong warrior (who senses the love developping between the scout and the daughter) stirs up the emotions on the Indian side. When the scout is going from the white settlement to meet the daughter of the chief in an attempt to defuse the threat of war he is seen by the strong warrior and a fight is started between them. Another fortuneseeker (a young naive guy) was ordered by the psychopath to follow the scout and seeing the scout in a fight with an Indian he kills the Indian. the scout is now taken over by other Indians and accused of the murder. the psychopath twists this attack on the scout in a final boost to get all of the fortuneseekers to beat the war drums. the killing of the strong warrior gets the Indians in a war mood also. they send out messenger to surrounding villages to come and join them to attack the settlement and get rid of those occupiers that don't respect nature and their way of living. when the two parties stand on the battlefield and the scout is about to be executed (as the firing shot for the open hostilities) the daughter of the chief throws herself in front of the scout and confronts her father, convincing him that war is not the solution. Her father is ready to bury the axe. The psychopath order the attack then himselves, but the fortune seekers refuse to follow the order. He then takes the gun himselves and when he aims at the chief of the Indians the scout throws himself in the path of the bullet and takes the shot. The psychopath is captured by his own men. The scout and the daughter are now bound to each other by love for always, with approval of the father.

Accept for the ending and the even more black and white characters in this children's movie, this is very similar with avatar.
 
Well, I finally broke down to watch a movie, this movie and something stuck me as heavily symbolic. Did you notice that at the end of their hair they had those little wiggly stringy doo-dads pop out whenever they connected to an animal, tree, or the planet? I liken that to a plug-in adapter. And... through the Work we are Working on our plug-in adapter access that was stripped from our DNA. Plugging into our higher-selves perhaps??? That just stuck me powerfully...
:cool2: :cool2: :cool2:
 
I think that there are some movies that are made to be predictable, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Movies like Avatar are more of an expression of a certain archetype or set of archetypes, as in the Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell. In such an "epic" work as this, for me, it's fun to appreciate how all the elements of the archetype of the hero are expressed in this specific context.

If it takes a 2-3 hour movie to teach some people the lesson, or at least attempt to communicate, the principle of learning to SEE, and questing for objectivity, which necessarily includes developing conscience to respect life and nature, and having the clarity to understand that the materialistic worldview of conquering and subduing nature that dominates contemporary human civilization is an impoverished philosophy, then I would say more power to James Cameron and those who made the movie.

Such a movie may ostensibly be no different than simply stating that most corporations are psychopathic in nature and only interested in making money whatever the cost. But it's the way the story is told that truly makes the difference.
 
Jakesully said:
I think that there are some movies that are made to be predictable, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Movies like Avatar are more of an expression of a certain archetype or set of archetypes, as in the Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell. In such an "epic" work as this, for me, it's fun to appreciate how all the elements of the archetype of the hero are expressed in this specific context.

If it takes a 2-3 hour movie to teach some people the lesson, or at least attempt to communicate, the principle of learning to SEE, and questing for objectivity, which necessarily includes developing conscience to respect life and nature, and having the clarity to understand that the materialistic worldview of conquering and subduing nature that dominates contemporary human civilization is an impoverished philosophy, then I would say more power to James Cameron and those who made the movie.

Such a movie may ostensibly be no different than simply stating that most corporations are psychopathic in nature and only interested in making money whatever the cost. But it's the way the story is told that truly makes the difference.

It reminded me a bit of Witness with Harrison Ford or Dances with Wolves. Fish out of water in a morally/conscientiously advanced yet technologically not so advanced society. Tolkien's "Ring" and Lucas' "Force" was substituted by seeds. Campbell's storyline pretty well followed......

1 Hero is called on a quest
2 Gets advice from mentors
3 Meets new friends and tricksters
4 Fights Monsters
5 Enters the innermost cave confronts the ultimate evil
6 Learns self understanding
7 Saves the tribe
 
Al Today said:
Well, I finally broke down to watch a movie, this movie and something stuck me as heavily symbolic. Did you notice that at the end of their hair they had those little wiggly stringy doo-dads pop out whenever they connected to an animal, tree, or the planet? I liken that to a plug-in adapter. And... through the Work we are Working on our plug-in adapter access that was stripped from our DNA. Plugging into our higher-selves perhaps??? That just stuck me powerfully...
:cool2: :cool2: :cool2:

Idunno, it didn't seem quite right to me, the way the tall, blue catpeople physically interacted with those poor pterodactyls. :lol:

Even though I am a BIG movie-enthusiast, I did not watch this movie in its entirity. I guess I did not catch on to its vibe. After trying to give it a chance, now when I see James Cameron on a movie it gives me a similar feeling to when I see Uwe Boll on a movie.
 
NoChannelsOnMyTV said:
Al Today said:
Well, I finally broke down to watch a movie, this movie and something stuck me as heavily symbolic. Did you notice that at the end of their hair they had those little wiggly stringy doo-dads pop out whenever they connected to an animal, tree, or the planet? I liken that to a plug-in adapter. And... through the Work we are Working on our plug-in adapter access that was stripped from our DNA. Plugging into our higher-selves perhaps??? That just stuck me powerfully...
:cool2: :cool2: :cool2:

Idunno, it didn't seem quite right to me, the way the tall, blue catpeople physically interacted with those poor pterodactyls. :lol:

Even though I am a BIG movie-enthusiast, I did not watch this movie in its entirity. I guess I did not catch on to its vibe. After trying to give it a chance, now when I see James Cameron on a movie it gives me a similar feeling to when I see Uwe Boll on a movie.

Yeah, plugging into those pterodactyls can be viewed as a self-serving desire for control. It's been a while since I saw the movie and a good question would be is what did the blue people have to offer in return for what they received? Or perhaps plugging in was a way to become "one" so to speak. I dunno either.

I never watched an Uwe Boll movie. What I have read on wiki though shows lot's of controversy, sensationalism, and money motivation. His movies are of no interest to me, from what I've read.
 
I think these kind of utopic civilization such as depicted in Avatar may have been highly influenced by certain ideas shown these documentaries, especially part 2 :

http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=23719.0

I hope I am not spamming with this but I can't help but to see a very clear link between the bonding with earth, the neuro-links to plant, the mind group etc...
 
Back
Top Bottom