Avatar *Here there be spoilers*

[Distracted]

I just came back from the new James Cameron movie Avatar, and I'm totally blown away. If you think this movie's got anything to do with the kid's cartoon series (I did), you've got a big surprise awaiting you. This was...bar-none... the best SF movie I've seen in over a decade. It's got something for everyone. And notice I said SF and not SciFi. This is true science fiction, not space opera.

SPOILER!!!:

The science is sometimes spotty. I mean, waterfalls coming from FLOATING rocks? Where's the water coming from, people? Duh! But if you can turn off the part of your brain that demands scientific believability, the movie is amazing. You've got eye-popping scenery, classic anthropological science fiction reminiscent of C.J. Cherryh, a wonderful love story, gorgeous well toned-semi nude aliens with cute little tails (yes, it has a double meaning. Let's just say that KTR will love the aliens), weird and horrifying animal creations, a classic "save the rainforest" plot, an intelligent "Gaia"-like planet a la Ann McCaffrey's Petaybee books, huge explosions with armored suits, helicoptors and major firepower, dragons, and Sigourney Weaver. What's not to like, right?

[Distracted]

*bump*

Okay, people! Who saw the movie last weekend? I'm seriously ready to get my geek on overanalyzing this amazing film!

[WarpGirl]

No way my parents will pay for me to see it. So I will have to wait and hopefully when it comes out one of my charming brothers will rent and we'll all watch it at my place over dinner. Sorry.

[Alelou]

I hope to see it, but I may have to go alone since the guys don't seem too interested. (Bether?)

[Distracted]

Be aware that the theater 3-D experience is unbelievable. I seriously doubt that watching this movie at home on DVD will come close, although it will no doubt still be enjoyable. If you have the ability to do so I STRONGLY recommend that you see this film at least once at the theater before the "limited time" 3-D version is unavailable there. JMO.

[Kevin Thomas Riley]

Blue CGI bums notwithstanding ( ) I've gotten a bit miffed at all the hype and the simlistic clichéd message in this movie, so I don't feel like rushing away to see it. Sorry!

[Distracted]

Didn't seem simplistic and cliche to me. And I'd barely heard of it before it came out.

[Kevin Thomas Riley]

I've seen it called "Dances with the Wolves in Space", plus having the the anti-military, anti-War on Terror, tree-hugging (apparently literally) Hollywood mindset. Cameron has even admitted this in interviews. *shrugs*

[Distracted]

I can see how someone might say that, but before you label the movie, go and see it. Yes, it's derivative. Most movies are. The way it's presented is unique, though. It's thoughtful anthropological SF combined with jaw dropping animation. And it has a plot. And the tech is way cool. And the biology is believable for the most part. I didn't see it as "anti-military and anti-War on Terror" so much as "anti-boneheadedly stupid violence against a peaceful people's human rights". That, quite honestly, doesn't apply to the War on Terror in the least. No terrorists that I know of are trying to go up against modern weaponry with bows and arrows. It's more of a statement against the way imperialist governments throughout history have treated indigenous populations... like native Americans, Indians (from India) under colonial Britain, African tribes in virtually every African nation under their European conquerors, and even the Aztecs under the Spanish Conquistadores. No one these days would disagree that the way these people were treated was injustice. This movie is a statement against that old "Might makes Right" philosophy, and that's far from new. It goes back to the old legends of King Arthur. It's a story trope. That's one of the reasons why I like it.

[WarpGirl]

Dang! Time to con 18 year old brother to take me!

[Aikiweezie]

Distracted, Do you think it would be okay to take my 6 year old to see it? He's a good movie-goer. We take him all the time, but I know it's a long movie. Not sure about the violence either. What do you think?

[Distracted]

Hmmm. Six might be pushing it. The violence is mostly off camera, mainly lots of explosions except for the final battle between the good guy and the bad guy. That gets kinda bloody. And it"s pretty scary at times. A couple of sympathetic characters die. You might want to see it first and then decide. It's definitely not a kid's movie, despite the animation.

[Aikiweezie]

Thanks, Distracted! Merry Christmas!

[honeybee]

Well, the fam and I saw Avatar yesterday as our Christmas Eve morning outing. (We had a family tradition for YEARS to see the TOS films together since they sometimes came out at the holidays. We saw "The Whale Movie" as my Mom still calls it - together).

Anyway, I had mixed feelings about it. Like Distracted, I was absolutely blown away by the design and the CGI. From Lord of the Rings to Harry Potter to lots of other films - I've never been terribly impressed by CGI motion capture characters. They always looked so artificial as to break the magic of the film for me. Or they go in to "Uncanny Valley" and just come off creepy. Not so with the Na'Vi and the Avatars - they were beautiful and felt very organic to the film - their world felt real, beautiful and magical to me. I forgot very quickly that the Na'Vi were CGI creations.

I come at the whole eco-story from a peculiar place. I'm Prius-driving vegetarian recycle -er who brings my own bags to the grocery store but I would never go camping because I love indoor plumbing, my iphone, hot baths and comfy beds. I am very fond of civilization and am no luddite. So, I've never been terribly sucked in to the idea of "going native" and "getting back to nature". However, if going native meant living in a world as clean and pretty as Pandora - with as teeth as good as the Na'Vi appeared to have - I'm all on board. Those tree hammocks looked pretty comfy.

The story is very "Dances with Wolves" and "Last of the Mohegans" in space, so it's not terribly original (but what story is? as we all know there are only 56 plots ) - and it's very compelling. The love story feels very real - and they spend some time developing it.

I read on AP wire that Avatar had "hidden" anti-war and environmental messages. HA. If that's hidden, I don't know what obvious is. It's very heavy-handed. And I don't object to the messages, either. They just are heavy handed, that's all. I've also seen some intelligent commentary on the story as a racial guilt fantasy about the white man becoming the "king" of a primitive tribe that turns out to be more civilized that the so-called civilized people. It certainly is that kind of fantasy - for better or worse.

I liked that there was more than one good human - and the scientists studying the Na'Vi - are not "evil" mad scientists - they are complicated. Probably the only complicated characters in the film. But in the end, they mostly tip to the good side. Because I'm fond of civilization and technology, I tend to not like the "mad scientist" trope that is always popping up in Sci Fi. I also think technology is portrayed as both good (the Avatars themselves are way cool) and bad (military stuff) depending on how you use it.

Also, at least a couple of the military people turn out to be on the "good" side - which helped serve the story.

The big flaw? Cartoonish villains. I would say the same about all James Cameron's films - Titanic, Aliens, Terminator - he just doesn't do complex villains. The two bad guys are the stereotypical greedy hateful capitalist and the psychotic Blackwater guy. (It's made very clear in the film that this isn't the official military but a private, corporate-run army.) We never know why earth needs this unobtanium so badly - is there a reason? is it saving lives?

Again, I have no problem with anti-war or pro-environmental messages - but those issues do have layers of complexity that are totally absent from the film. I think it was going for a fairy tale kind of simplicity - and in that it succeeded.

All in all - I really liked it for what it was. And its success will be good for SciFi in general. And I keep thinking about Pandora. So, in that it is a good thing.

[WarpGirl]

Now I wanna see it! Personally I think the concept of "origionality" is somewhat orverrated. Shakespere ripped off EVERY single play from someone. Does that mean he wasn't brilliant? I think not. As for complicated baddies, well... I like them complicated, but I also enjoy a stright-forward greedy or psychotic creep. So long as the other cast has some depth. Also I can even take a flat out peice of blatant bang bang shoot them up like GI JOE if I've got eye candy. So I really can't see me not liking this.