Rob and I have returned from seeing Avatar. His verdict? It’s just bad. Mine? It’s very silly, with horrifically bad science and yet, if you are a visually based person, it is worth seeing on the big screen in 3-D.
If you are a logic based person, then skip this film.
Question: If every life form on the planet has nostrils in their necks and six limbs, why do the Na’vi have noses like we do and only four limbs?
Question: Where do the feathers on the bow and arrows come from since we never see a feather creature, ever.
Question: Kiss? What is this thing you call kiss, James Cameron? I mean really, there are HUMAN cultures that don’t have kissing.
I could go on. That said, it’s some damn impressive CGI.
I love your comment on the feathers. I haven’t seen it yet, but I expect to just turn off my brain and watch the visual spectacles, like I did for Transformers. (You are a bunch of huge powerful robots and you hand the most important thing to a HUMAN to protect? Come on.)
I haven’t seen it yet so I don’t have a dog in this race one way or the other, but here’s a guy who’s an astrophysicist giving his thoughts on the science of Avatar. FWIW.
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43440
I threw all logic out the window when they reached the floating mountains, which supposedly blocked all tracking signals but still allowed them to maintain radio contact with their mole in the base. And you know, they could still FLY through the mountains with their all-metal space ships. That being said, the film was still damn impressive visually, and I would still like to see what a talented writer can do with this technology.
To say nothing of being able to maintain a link to the avatars…
Yes. (Aliens with DNA which can be combined with human DNA in any meaningful way? Really?) But visually stunning. The night scenes are perfect for anyone who has ever wondered what it would be like to live in a black-light poster.
I appreciate your insight as always.
I will not be seeing AVATAR as I am not the intended audience for it. I believe it was created for a bunch of 20-something (or younger) nerdy computer game playing geeks who have never been on a date. Instead of writing it as a nerdy computer game playing geek, we have a hunk in the part. What’s his handicap? He’s handicapped! Suddenly he is the avatar for the audience- so they all can imagine themselves as this hunky guy, instead of the loner at the computer who has to hide his porn from his mom.
I encourage these guys to get away from the monitor in their basement lair, and head out into the real world and meet some real women- but AVATAR is not where they should go to do it. Try a bar or nightclub. Find a woman with friends so your friends can get dates, too. Give it a shot, guys!
I’ve said more than I was going to- too many of my friends think AVATAR is the best thing since sliced bread. I like sliced bread much better than I would AVATAR.
Happy Holidays!
PS Just saw an advance screening of CREATION, with Paul Bettany as Charles Darwin. Very interesting- didn’t know much about the man, and this was a sweet film about an odd subject matter- the writing of THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES, and the affect it had on his personal life. Lovely performances by his real life wife Jennifer Connelly and a young actress who plays his daughter (don’t get me started on kid actors- typically I don’t believe they should exist. But this girl was quite wonderful.)
Can’t imagine this film finding an audience, but stranger things have happened.
FYI- The editing feature your site uses will not function for me. It will not hold the cursor at any point long enough to actually do any editing. The text constantly jumps in the window, never allowing you to modify it. I was going to add to my post, but I can’t fight technology- See? I’m not the computer geek James Cameron wants me to be! There’s your proof I shouldn’t see AVATAR!
Seems to be a pretty straightforward AJAX editor to me… should work in anything post IE5, Firefox 1, Safari 1 etc… even iPhone, if you have the thumb-patience. In short, if Gmail works, Mary’s editor should?
Sorry. You triggered the tech. support side of me that I thought I’d whacked on the head and hidden in a cupboard many years ago…
Actually the site doesn’t render properly on the iPhone at all. Not mine at least. Looking around a bit there seems to be at least one plugin for making WordPress sites iPhone friendly, I don’t know what would be involved to implement something like that.
Yikes – you’re right! I just grabbed mine and took a look. I was assuming the iPhone is ok as it just runs Safari, and my laptop is happy in that.
Still, it’s something in the header that’s stopping the iPhone from picking up CSS in general, so probably not the same issue. As a rule I’ve found AJAX etc. to be far more reliable than obvious no-nos like Flash on sites for iPhones. That doesn’t work at all, of course.
God, you can tell I’ve been up all night working on WordPress sites. I’m gonna take my programmer hat off now and go to bed.
So is Avatar better or worse than Legend (1985) ?
Better. I find Legend unwatchable. Avatar is engaging, but you have to disconnect the logic circuit in your brain.
Supposedly Cameron intends to explain the similarities, including genetics, between the Na’vi and humans in the sequel – should there be one.
For me the biggest plot hole was the shear volume of mass in the form of human technology moved between stars. If you can do that and can return ore (or even refined metals) across stellar distance in enough volume to make a difference, you probably don’t need to mine a planet for metallic resources. Mining Sol’s asteroid belt or cometary halo would have to be easier, cheaper, and faster. Hell, if you can move that amount of mass between stars, you could move large amounts of people to new homes.
Of course, Unobtanium was simply a Mcguffin so Cameron could tell the story he wanted to and I was willing to suspend my disbelief and ride along. I walked out of the theater with a vastly different opinion than you Mary. My review is up on Stonekettle Station.
I don’t think it’s that different. We both agree that the visuals are astounding and that the story is unoriginal.
For whatever it’s worth, the stabilizers on the Navi arrows were made with what look like some kind of insect membranes, like giant dragonfly wings.
Here’s the clearest still shot I can find.
http://www.twotalkingmonkeys.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/avatar-movie-1.jpg
Personally, my problem is that most of the characters are underwritten and bland (compare Ribisi’s corporate tool to Carter Burke from Aliens).
The science in 99 percent of sci-fi/fantasy action adventure doesn’t work, so I don’t really worry about it. As someone said above, once you can move enormous quantities of supplies across interstellar distances, fighting conventional wars for resources stops making sense, you’ve either pretty much inherently already solved most of your energy/materials science problems or there are just far easier ways to get everything you need.
Finally, I’d just say… a person may choose to see a movie like Avatar because they desire to experience the visuals and are willing, with full knowledge beforehand, to live with the flaws in the story or the science. But I’m not sure that makes them a particular type of person overall, as opposed to someone who sees different movies for varying reasons.
My review here: http://telepresence.livejournal.com/163126.html
I haven’t seen this yet (and am not sure I will, as it isn’t exactly calling to me) but in the meantime, for the sake of a reason to leave a comment:
1. ace – my old colleagues at Framestore did some of it!
2. I didn’t see any chickens anywhere near Legolas either.
3. Han Solo would rather kiss a Wookie, but it’s never revealed how the Wookie felt about the situation, so I concur.
More importantly, have a great Christmas, Mary, and hopefully I’ll run into you at some point in 2010!