Avatar

[Moonlight Graham]

Peoples' tastes are funny sometimes. It happens occasionally that a critical favourite, loved by many, arrives and I... don't care for it. Renowned critic Gene Siskel never really liked 'Apocalypse Now'.

Roeper hated Lord of the Rings too. But if you add up all the critics opinions, like rottentomatoes.com does, they are usually pretty accurate as a whole.

[Edward]

Roeper hated Lord of the Rings too. But if you add up all the critics opinions, like rottentomatoes.com does, they are usually pretty accurate as a whole.

Well, sometimes.

If a movie is divisive, then it's not necessarily accurate. Say a movie gets 50 "excellent" reviews and 50 "awful" reviews. No one thinks it's just mediocre, but that's what the score will imply.

[wyly]

Well, sometimes.

If a movie is divisive, then it's not necessarily accurate. Say a movie gets 50 "excellent" reviews and 50 "awful" reviews. No one thinks it's just mediocre, but that's what the score will imply.

I know which reviewers opinion I respect and which I do not...so if one I find myself on the page with likes a movie it's likely I'll like it too...and if a reviewer who I don't agree with dislikes a movie it's likely I'll enjoy it...

[Black Dog]

Alot of my predictions on politics are wrong too. But where is the fun in posting on an Internet forum unless one makes controversial declarations.

I have hedged my comments on Avatar and I must admit that it has done better than I thought it would but I still think that it's no Titanic. Its plot and characters are razor thin. It only has some fancy CGI that is a process still in its infancy. The 3D thing is an old gimmick of Hollywood.

Did you see Titanic?

A movie like The Matrix (that also had fancy CGI) had a confusing plot so people went back to figure it out (and see the effects again on the big screen). Avatar doesn't have such a draw. (BTW, I didn't like The Matrix in part because its basic premise was fundamentally flawed.)

From admittedly limited anecdotal evidence, I can attest that your view that no one will go back to see it again is well off the mark. You're grossly underestimating people's appetite for dreck.

Avatar has a lot of hype and I think it was a really smart move to raise the ticket prices. From Hollywood's perspective, every screen and promotion dollar devoted to Avatar means less available for another vehicle. I wonder how the number crunchers are assessing the Avatar bang for the buck.

It's January. There's not much else out there.

[Smallc]

I can now definitely say that this movie is more than hype.

[GostHacked]

A movie like The Matrix (that also had fancy CGI) had a confusing plot so people went back to figure it out (and see the effects again on the big screen). Avatar doesn't have such a draw. (BTW, I didn't like The Matrix in part because its basic premise was fundamentally flawed.)

I thought the plot in Matrix was quite easy to follow and somewhat predictable. How is the Matrix flawed?

[Alta4ever]

I can now definitely say that this movie is more than hype.

Your right its utter crap.

[maple_leafs182]

I thought the plot in Matrix was quite easy to follow and somewhat predictable. How is the Matrix flawed?

Wait till you come to the realization that the matrix is real

what is the matrix?

Morpheus: Do you want to know what IT is? The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us, even now in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

Neo: What truth?

Morpheus: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage, born into a prison that you cannot smell or taste or touch. A prison for your mind..

excellent movie The Matrix is, as is Avatar, going to see it in again tomorrow.

[bush_cheney2004]

Wait till you come to the realization that the matrix is real...

Omigod...you mean that if a bunch of investors wanting to make a buttload of money from films, comic books, and video games didn't create the The Matrix, we would never know this? Amazing!

I wonder if Superman is real too?

[Shwa]

I wonder if Superman is real too?

Haven't you read Nietzsche? Of course, Superman is real.

[kimmy]

I thought the plot in Matrix was quite easy to follow and somewhat predictable. How is the Matrix flawed?

He said the premise is flawed.

Farming humans as a source of electricity is the least efficient energy solution ever devised. Humans are good at many things, but generating electricity is not one of them. The computing power required to create the elaborate virtual reality "MMORPG" shown in the game would consume far more electricity than the humans involved could create.

The superintelligent machines would have been far smarter to get rid of the humans and pump all that food-sludge into a biomass-type electrical generating plant. They'd get way more energy, and way less hassle.

-k

[ToadBrother]

He said the premise is flawed.

Farming humans as a source of electricity is the least efficient energy solution ever devised. Humans are good at many things, but generating electricity is not one of them. The computing power required to create the elaborate virtual reality "MMORPG" shown in the game would consume far more electricity than the humans involved could create.

The superintelligent machines would have been far smarter to get rid of the humans and pump all that food-sludge into a biomass-type electrical generating plant. They'd get way more energy, and way less hassle.

-k

It was incredibly weak. Why they didn't go with the Dan Simmons Hyperion idea, where humans were essentially used as part of the computer, is beyond me.

[ToadBrother]

Your right its utter crap.

I watched it last night. I thought the thing was just about the most beautiful film I've ever watched, and if it bothers some folks that it's a behavioral pattern of ours to invade other peoples' territory, steal it, marginalize them or force them to assimilate, well, get over it, because that's what we do as a species. Unfortunately, in the real world, there isn't some magic superforce to save people like the Australian Aborigines or the Native Americans.

I kept thinking about the Inca and the Pizarro brothers, and how while a lot of Europeans thought they were doing the Indians favors, some were just plain evil, greedy monsters.

But more than anything else, it was an incredibly beautiful film. Technically, this really is a quantum leap, much as Star Wars was 32 years ago.

Edited January 13, 2010 by ToadBrother

[wyly]

I watched it last night. I thought the thing was just about the most beautiful film I've ever watched, and if it bothers some folks that it's a behavioral pattern of ours to invade other peoples' territory, steal it, marginalize them or force them to assimilate, well, get over it, because that's what we do as a species. Unfortunately, in the real world, there isn't some magic superforce to save people like the Australian Aborigines or the Native Americans.

I kept thinking about the Inca and the Pizarro brothers, and how while a lot of Europeans thought they were doing the Indians favors, some were just plain evil, greedy monsters.

But more than anything else, it was an incredibly beautiful film. Technically, this really is a quantum leap, much as Star Wars was 32 years ago.

it should give a huge boost to future sales of 3D tv...

[bush_cheney2004]

...I kept thinking about the Inca and the Pizarro brothers, and how while a lot of Europeans thought they were doing the Indians favors, some were just plain evil, greedy monsters.

Whoa...hold the phone, and please update this story to include the complete history of pre-Columbian American invasions, greed, slavery, human sacrifice, etc. Think we could make that film today...in 3D?

But more than anything else, it was an incredibly beautiful film. Technically, this really is a quantum leap, much as Star Wars was 32 years ago.

...or Roger Wabbit!

Edited January 13, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[ToadBrother]

Whoa...hold the phone, and please update this story to include the complete history of pre-Columbian American invasions, greed, slavery, human sacrifice, etc. Think we could make that film today...in 3D?

Which, of course, was a perfect justification for wiping out their empires and kingdoms, stealing their treasure, enslaving the populaces, and in the case of the Pizarros, betrayal. The Conquistadors may have spun a good line about delivering the heathens from their enslavement, but all they did was rob them blind and turn them into slaves.

The Spanish, in particular, were immoral bastards who could give a crap about the Indians, other than some of them had a wealth of gold, and the population could be turned to make their early colonies successful. So how exactly that's better than, say, the Inca escapes me. Do you actually think Pizarro was thinking "I'm ending this awful civilization of their's to give them a better life?" Ol' Frankie Pizarro was nothing more than a ruthless, dishonorable gangster.

...or Roger Wabbit!

If you think that Avatar's melding of CGI and live action is just Roger Rabbit style than either you didn't see the movie, or your bloody blind. At any rate, even the critics who felt the plot was lifted from Dances With Wolves are all in agreement that visually this is one of the most spectacular films ever made. Or, we can just take the word of a guy who doesn't like liberals and is incapable of admitting that one of them durned liberals actually produced a visual feast.

Edited January 14, 2010 by ToadBrother

[bush_cheney2004]

Which, of course, was a perfect justification for wiping out their empires and kingdoms, stealing their treasure, enslaving the populaces, and in the case of the Pizarros, betrayal. The Conquistadors may have spun a good line about delivering the heathens from their enslavement, but all they did was rob them blind and turn them into slaves.

You are missing the point entirely....before the Pizzaros there was plenty of identical indigenous actions....going back thousands of years. It is universal....

The Spanish, in particular, were immoral bastards who could give a crap about the Indians, other than some of them had a wealth of gold, and the population could be turned to make their early colonies successful. So how exactly that's better than, say, the Inca escapes me. Do you actually think Pizarro was thinking "I'm ending this awful civilization of their's to give them a better life?" Ol' Frankie Pizarro was nothing more than a ruthless, dishonorable gangster.

Krikey....what do you think Canadian (or American) mining companies are doing this very day?

If you think that Avatar's melding of CGI and live action is just Roger Rabbit style than either you didn't see the movie, or your bloody blind. At any rate, even the critics who felt the plot was lifted from Dances With Wolves are all in agreement that visually this is one of the most spectacular films ever made. Or, we can just take the word of a guy who doesn't like liberals and is incapable of admitting that one of them durned liberals actually produced a visual feast.

I can get CGI in a video game, wherein the poor physics, shading, textures, and scale are to be forgiven. The best laugh (as noted by August1991) is the huge corporate windfall from all the rubes who think the "beautiful message" will save the world.

[Shwa]

Whoa...hold the phone, and please update this story to include the complete history of pre-Columbian American invasions, greed, slavery, human sacrifice, etc. ...

And exactly what "history" are you referring to? Please. Enlighten us.

[bush_cheney2004]

And exactly what "history" are you referring to? Please. Enlighten us.

See "War Before Civilization" by Lawrence H. Keeley, 1996

Here's one of Keeley's examples from pre-Columbian North America:

Contrary to Brian Ferguson's claim that such [inter-tribal] slaughters were a consequence of contact with modern European or other civilizations, archaeology yields evidence of prehistoric massacres more severe than any recounted in ethnography. For example, at Crow Creek in South Dakota, archaeologists found a mass grave containing the remains of more than 500 men, women, and children who had been slaughtered, scalped, and mutilated during an attack on their village a century and a half before Columbus's arrival (ca. A.D. 1325).

The attack seems to have occurred just when the village's fortifications were being rebuilt. All the houses were burned, and most of the inhabitants were murdered. This death toll represented more than 60 percent of the village's population, estimated from the number of houses to have been about 800. The survivors appear to have been primarily young women, as their skeletons are underrepresented among the bones; if so, they were probably taken away as captives. Certainly, the site was deserted for some time after the attack because the bodies evidently remained exposed to scavenging animals for a few weeks before burial. In other words, this whole village was annihilated in a single attack and never reoccupied.

[Michael Hardner]

See "War Before Civilization" by Lawrence H. Keeley, 1996

Here's one of Keeley's examples from pre-Columbian North America:

Contrary to Brian Ferguson's claim that such [inter-tribal] slaughters were a consequence of contact with modern European or other civilizations, archaeology yields evidence of prehistoric massacres more severe than any recounted in ethnography. For example, at Crow Creek in South Dakota, archaeologists found a mass grave containing the remains of more than 500 men, women, and children who had been slaughtered, scalped, and mutilated during an attack on their village a century and a half before Columbus's arrival (ca. A.D. 1325).

The attack seems to have occurred just when the village's fortifications were being rebuilt. All the houses were burned, and most of the inhabitants were murdered. This death toll represented more than 60 percent of the village's population, estimated from the number of houses to have been about 800. The survivors appear to have been primarily young women, as their skeletons are underrepresented among the bones; if so, they were probably taken away as captives. Certainly, the site was deserted for some time after the attack because the bodies evidently remained exposed to scavenging animals for a few weeks before burial. In other words, this whole village was annihilated in a single attack and never reoccupied.

You are absolutely right. There's a confusion, sometimes, wherein people think that Europeans brought violence to North America. In fact, tribal life is infused with unmitigated violence. When you think of it, personal violence is a more natural response to violence against oneself than, say, going to a "justice system" or even a tribal elder for resolution. Therefore, violence just happens within tribes and between tribes.

[Shwa]

See "War Before Civilization" by Lawrence H. Keeley, 1996

Here's one of Keeley's examples from pre-Columbian North America:

Contrary to Brian Ferguson's claim that such [inter-tribal] slaughters were a consequence of contact with modern European or other civilizations, archaeology yields evidence of prehistoric massacres more severe than any recounted in ethnography. For example, at Crow Creek in South Dakota, archaeologists found a mass grave containing the remains of more than 500 men, women, and children who had been slaughtered, scalped, and mutilated during an attack on their village a century and a half before Columbus's arrival (ca. A.D. 1325).

The attack seems to have occurred just when the village's fortifications were being rebuilt. All the houses were burned, and most of the inhabitants were murdered. This death toll represented more than 60 percent of the village's population, estimated from the number of houses to have been about 800. The survivors appear to have been primarily young women, as their skeletons are underrepresented among the bones; if so, they were probably taken away as captives. Certainly, the site was deserted for some time after the attack because the bodies evidently remained exposed to scavenging animals for a few weeks before burial. In other words, this whole village was annihilated in a single attack and never reoccupied.

So you are quoting from one book from 1996 as an example of "complete history?" Come on now, who are you trying to fool? You need to be a little more "complete" than that.

Nevertheless, Keeley's examples are second hand reports of inferences that are based on an intperpretation of evidence that is formed through a particular worldview. Does Keeley also speculate about the possibility that the village suffered a major outbreak of a deadly epidemic disease and to contain the disease it was burned to the ground and the deceased were placed in a mass grave after some unknown morturary ritual?

Probably not eh? Because that wouldn't fit his theory of violence among 'before civilized' peoples. Some of the memorable quotes from that passage are "seems" and "appear" and "if so." These are hardly the words of a "complete history" and more than slightly dishonest.

[Shwa]

You are absolutely right. There's a confusion, sometimes, wherein people think that Europeans brought violence to North America. In fact, tribal life is infused with unmitigated violence. When you think of it, personal violence is a more natural response to violence against oneself than, say, going to a "justice system" or even a tribal elder for resolution. Therefore, violence just happens within tribes and between tribes.

Really? And what informs this opinion? Could you cite some credible sources please? Because it seems to me that you are equating "tribal" with less or no cultural responses that would require mediation and mitigation from those cultural mechanisms or structures.

I doubt that any confusion as you note above is widespread. What is not confused is that the Europeans brought an unprecedented scale violence to North America that has not been evidenced thus far - even with Keeley's meek examples. Nothing even close to the organized scale of slaughter that have been attributed to so-called civilized peoples in Europe.

[kimmy]

The best laugh (as noted by August1991) is the huge corporate windfall from all the rubes who think the "beautiful message" will save the world.

Absurd, Dick. People are not flocking to this movie because they think its message will save the world. They're flocking to this movie to see COOL SH*T in 3D.

If an anti-corporate message was all it took to get liberals to spend money, I think "Capitalism: A Love Story" might have grossed more.

-k

[Michael Hardner]

Really? And what informs this opinion? Could you cite some credible sources please? Because it seems to me that you are equating "tribal" with less or no cultural responses that would require mediation and mitigation from those cultural mechanisms or structures.

It was from Jared Diamond's excellent book: Guns, Germs and Steel.

Here is another article by Diamond wherein he talks about tribal violence:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/04/21/080421fa_fact_diamond

Do you deny that there were wars between the first nations before the arrival of the Europeans ?

I doubt that any confusion as you note above is widespread. What is not confused is that the Europeans brought an unprecedented scale violence to North America that has not been evidenced thus far - even with Keeley's meek examples. Nothing even close to the organized scale of slaughter that have been attributed to so-called civilized peoples in Europe.

It's important that you mentioned 'scale' there, because that precludes any type of categorization of either society being more violent than the other.

I will say, though, based on my readings from Diamond that tribal life was more violent, and contained more unpredictable and unmitigated violence than the alternative.

Edited January 14, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[Shwa]

Very curious use of language. You state this:

...though, based on my readings from Diamond that tribal life was more violent, and contained more unpredictable and unmitigated violence than the alternative.

And this is taken from your cite:

Explains nature of a “public fight,” which is fought in the open between large groups of warriors separated by a considerable distance. It’s often impossible to tell who’s responsible for a kill. For that reason, the target of revenge is not the actually killer but the organizer, or “owner,” of the fight. The highlander explained that people in his clan are taught from early childhood to hate their enemies and to prepare themselves for a life of fighting. His first attempt at revenge was a failure, so he hired men from other villages as allies for his next attempt. Mentions intermarriage between enemy clans. In a battle, each warrior faces dozens or hundreds of enemy warriors, many of whom he’s related to, and some of whom he’s not permitted to kill.

{my emphasis}

So how did you get the "more unpredictable and unmitigated" from the above passage when the violence in the New Guinea Highlands appears to be arranged and regulated according to custom and culture? Did you mean to use the words 'predictable' and 'mitigated' instead and it was just a typo?

It's important that you mentioned 'scale' there, because that precludes any type of categorization of either society being more violent than the other.

Are you kidding me? Even with the mid-range population estimates for New World inhabitants, there is no evidence of the scale of violence in North America as associated with that of a similar population in Europe. For example,

In 1086 England has a population estimate of 1 million souls. In 1066 the Battle of Hastings was fought with a death count estimated at 6 thousand.

More examples.

I will say, though, based on my readings from Diamond that tribal life was more violent, and contained more unpredictable and unmitigated violence than the alternative.

Perhaps you might want to expand your reading material a little more.