Avatar

[Shwa]

Mesopotamia had a written code. Maybe Europe of that era did too.

I am not sure what you mean by that. Mesopotamia is a geographical region. Are you referring to a specific culture? According to the current thought, while "civilization" was in it's infancy in the Middle East & Asia, Europe was dominated by tribes and chiefdoms. They could have had some written codes of course, where writing existed. Never underestimate the Druids!

That is fascinating and I'm surprised by your answer. Can you provide examples of community-administered justice ? I'm assuming you mean that the community has more leeway in deciding the punishment than in the past ?

Examples:

Canadian Community and Restorative Justice links

Community Justice Circles - London, ON

Community Peacemaking Circles - Department of Justice

Ontario Community Justice Association

[wyly]

I am not sure what you mean by that. Mesopotamia is a geographical region. Are you referring to a specific culture? According to the current thought, while "civilization" was in it's infancy in the Middle East & Asia, Europe was dominated by tribes and chiefdoms. They could have had some written codes of course, where writing existed. Never underestimate the Druids!

Code of Hammurabi-(babylon), Code of Ur, Assyrian, there are a number of mesopotamian codes/laws...easier to find when there surviving written texts and since mesopotamian cultures often wrote them on stone or clay a number survived...

codes of conduct are normal to any society, finding direct evidence is the difficult part as many who did not have writing but an oral code would have sufficed...

[maple_leafs182]

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.

The movie was about a system that controlled humans without them even realizing they were under its control.

Just like in real life, we have a system that controls us, in which billions are oblivious to or at least don't understand what amount of control it has on us.

We power the system, in a sense we are like batteries, that is why they used humans as batteries.

make a little more sense now?

[bush_cheney2004]

Looks like the Avatar is "racist" crowd is getting better organized. I wonder how Avatar was doing in Haiti?

....You don't have to be a black or Native American observer to see a troubling racial subtext in 'Avatar.' Annalee Newitz, who edits the sci-fi news website io9, notes that 'Avatar' plays not just into standard Hollywood narratives about race but even standard sci-fi narratives about race (the white-savior plot also occurs in 'Dune,' 'Flash Gordon,' 'John Carter of Mars,' and last year's 'District 9,' which is explicitly a parable about racial divisions in South Africa). "Whites need to stop remaking the white guilt story, which is a sneaky way of turning every story about people of color into a story about being white," Newitz writes. "Speaking as a white person, I don't need to hear more about my own racial experience."

http://insidemovies.moviefone.com/2010/01/11/is-avatar-racist/?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl2|link3|http%3A%2F%2Finsidemovies.moviefone.com%2F2010%2F01%2F11%2Fis-avatar-racist%2F

[kimmy]

Looks like the Avatar is "racist" crowd is getting better organized.

I was really offended by the part where Ted Danson showed up in blueface.

-k

[Smallc]

I wouldn't say this movie is a statement about caucasians, but rather about humanity. There are cases where Africans did this to other Africans, and Aboriginals to other Aboriginals. This film is more a statement about humanity.

[bush_cheney2004]

I wouldn't say this movie is a statement about caucasians, but rather about humanity. There are cases where Africans did this to other Africans, and Aboriginals to other Aboriginals. This film is more a statement about humanity.

You're right..."humanity" constructed the concept of races.

[maple_leafs182]

I wouldn't say this movie is a statement about caucasians, but rather about humanity. There are cases where Africans did this to other Africans, and Aboriginals to other Aboriginals. This film is more a statement about humanity.

I agree.

[Gabriel]

Did anybody in here actually enjoy this movie? I knew it was going to be terrible, but my sister coerced me into joining her to go see it. It was as boring, clichéd, predictable, and lame as I had expected It's just mindless CGI, action/violence, one-dimensional characters, etc. Not to mention it has this cheesy semi-political message, but maybe I'm reading more into this film than it deserves with respect to a broader theme/message.

Lame, lame, lame.

[Smallc]

Did anybody in here actually enjoy this movie? I knew it was going to be terrible, but my sister coerced me into joining her to go see it. It was as boring, clichéd, predictable, and lame as I had expected It's just mindless CGI, action/violence, one-dimensional characters, etc. Not to mention it has this cheesy semi-political message, but maybe I'm reading more into this film than it deserves with respect to a broader theme/message.

Lame, lame, lame.

Wow, that is completely the opposite analysis I've heard from anyone who watched it.

[kimmy]

Did anybody in here actually enjoy this movie? I knew it was going to be terrible, but my sister coerced me into joining her to go see it. It was as boring, clichéd, predictable, and lame as I had expected It's just mindless CGI, action/violence, one-dimensional characters, etc. Not to mention it has this cheesy semi-political message, but maybe I'm reading more into this film than it deserves with respect to a broader theme/message.

Lame, lame, lame.

I agree with almost everything you wrote, except for "boring" and "lame". The message was cheesy and cliche, the characters were one-dimensional, the story was predictable, and it was very much an action/violence/CGI movie.

But I don't think it was boring, and it certainly wasn't lame. It was a visual experience pretty much unparalleled in movie history, which to me makes it the opposite of lame.

-k

[Gabriel]

Wow, that is completely the opposite analysis I've heard from anyone who watched it.

Those people aren't sophisticated film fans.

[Gabriel]

I agree with almost everything you wrote, except for "boring" and "lame". The message was cheesy and cliche, the characters were one-dimensional, the story was predictable, and it was very much an action/violence/CGI movie.

But I don't think it was boring, and it certainly wasn't lame. It was a visual experience pretty much unparalleled in movie history, which to me makes it the opposite of lame.

-k

The CGI was pretty cool, but I just don't care about CGI in a movie. Show me CGI in a video game, or something. CGI can't salvage an otherwise boring film. I don't really like extended scenes of action or violence in movies, either - it's a total yawnfest. Give me some plot, give me some story, give me twist, give me character development, give me interesting broad themes (no, not Syriana).

[Smallc]

Those people aren't sophisticated film fans.

Oh well thank you for that. All I can say is that people like it, and critics like it. I can't really say much beyond that.

[ToadBrother]

The movie was about a system that controlled humans without them even realizing they were under its control.

Just like in real life, we have a system that controls us, in which billions are oblivious to or at least don't understand what amount of control it has on us.

We power the system, in a sense we are like batteries, that is why they used humans as batteries.

make a little more sense now?

I understand the metaphorical aspects, but they didn't put it forward as a metaphor, but as an actual power source, which is moronic. As SF goes, the underlying premise was just plain stupid.

And no, nobody controls what I think, thank you very much.

[August1991]

Did anybody in here actually enjoy this movie? I knew it was going to be terrible, but my sister coerced me into joining her to go see it. It was as boring, clichéd, predictable, and lame as I had expected It's just mindless CGI, action/violence, one-dimensional characters, etc. Not to mention it has this cheesy semi-political message, but maybe I'm reading more into this film than it deserves with respect to a broader theme/message.

Lame, lame, lame.

That was exactly my opinion too and if you care, you can look at the OP as proof.

I reckon Avatar's success is due to its appeal to the key '14 year old in Hongkong' demographic, and the smart marketing move to raise ticket prices.

[ToadBrother]

That was exactly my opinion too and if you care, you can look at the OP as proof.

I reckon Avatar's success is due to its appeal to the key '14 year old in Hongkong' demographic, and the smart marketing move to raise ticket prices.

Yeah, the fact that it was a beautiful film had nothing to do with it.

Avatar was no Transformers 2. Say what you will about the story (it was, as many have said, heavily derivative Dances with Wolves), but goddamit, it was a beautiful film to watch. I suspect some folks (you included) just hate it because it attempted to be a message picture. I suspect if it had been inverted, and it was friendly Earthlings battling evil aliens, you'd probably hail it as a brilliant bit of filmmaking.

[Gabriel]

That was exactly my opinion too and if you care, you can look at the OP as proof.

I reckon Avatar's success is due to its appeal to the key '14 year old in Hongkong' demographic, and the smart marketing move to raise ticket prices.

I actually watched the 3D version, which was so gimmicky. It felt like being at Universal Studios in 1990. I also heard today on the news that Avatar is now the highest grossing movie of all time. Anyways ya, sophisticated film fans won't like the movie, which I guess is as obvious a statement as one can make.

[Michael Hardner]

That was exactly my opinion too and if you care, you can look at the OP as proof.

I reckon Avatar's success is due to its appeal to the key '14 year old in Hongkong' demographic, and the smart marketing move to raise ticket prices.

Auguste,

You're smart, so by now you should be realizing that your pop-culture meter doesn't work properly.

I think Avatar will be a dud. 3-D just doesn't work.

Mine isn't much better, but I wouldn't have bet against Cameron after Titanic.

[Smallc]

And like I've said, it's one of the rare films that both critics and viewers really seem to like. I'm not sure where these "sophisticated film fans" that you speak of come in...and really, i don't care. It was a wonderful movie to watch, and everyone I know really enjoyed it.

[ToadBrother]

I actually watched the 3D version, which was so gimmicky. It felt like being at Universal Studios in 1990. I also heard today on the news that Avatar is now the highest grossing movie of all time. Anyways ya, sophisticated film fans won't like the movie, which I guess is as obvious a statement as one can make.

"Sophisticated" seems to equate to "people like Gabriel". I'm a regular reader of Roger Ebert's blog, and you won't find too many guys who have watched more films, or has a greater knowledge of film production and history, and he gave it four stars.

[Gabriel]

Look, perhaps it doesn't carry over well in an online forum, but I'm semi-kidding about the "sophisticated" comment I made. Some folks are able to engage in certain types of movies more easily than others. Maybe they're got better imaginations. Some people like shows like LOST and movies like Transformers. I can't stand that TV show and I don't like those types of movies. It's not that I'm "too smart" for them, I just find them too simplistic and clichéd. I have some guilty pleasure movies, but Avatar definitely isn't one of them. And Ebert is very generous with many movies. He must love movies more than anyone!

Edited February 3, 2010 by Gabriel

[Smallc]

Well, I hated Transformers and I loved Avatar, so I don't know how that fits into your categorization.

[ToadBrother]

Look, perhaps it doesn't carry over well in an online forum, but I'm semi-kidding about the "sophisticated" comment I made. Some folks are able to engage in certain types of movies more easily than others. Maybe they're got better imaginations. Some people like shows like LOST and movies like Transformers. I can't stand that TV show and I don't like those types of movies. It's not that I'm "too smart" for them, I just find them too simplistic and clichéd. I have some guilty pleasure movies, but Avatar definitely isn't one of them. And Ebert is very generous with many movies. He must love movies more than anyone!

I don't think he was being generous. This wasn't some sort of sympathy four stars. He made it clear that it is an extraordinary film. Condemning Avatar for its soupy plot line and weak and cliched characterization is kind of like condemning the first Star Wars film for the same sort of problems. In both cases, you bet, strip off the special effects, and it ain't much, but the point of both films isn't the story line, which exists simply as a means of exposing the extraordinary leap forward. Avatar, like Star Wars before it, is a game changer as far as special effects goes. That neither would earn a literary prize for their scripts is not up for debate. That both represent a quantum leap in filmmaking technology is equally certain.

I watched the movie in awe. It was a feast for the senses, one of the most extraordinary and beautiful films ever made. People twenty years from now will talk about it like they talked about Star Wars, because it opens a new chapter on film possibilities.

As Roger Ebert himself said, James Cameron spent $300 million dollars, and it's all on the screen.

[Gabriel]

I don't think he was being generous. This wasn't some sort of sympathy four stars. He made it clear that it is an extraordinary film. Condemning Avatar for its soupy plot line and weak and cliched characterization is kind of like condemning the first Star Wars film for the same sort of problems. In both cases, you bet, strip off the special effects, and it ain't much, but the point of both films isn't the story line, which exists simply as a means of exposing the extraordinary leap forward. Avatar, like Star Wars before it, is a game changer as far as special effects goes. That neither would earn a literary prize for their scripts is not up for debate. That both represent a quantum leap in filmmaking technology is equally certain.

I watched the movie in awe. It was a feast for the senses, one of the most extraordinary and beautiful films ever made. People twenty years from now will talk about it like they talked about Star Wars, because it opens a new chapter on film possibilities.

As Roger Ebert himself said, James Cameron spent $300 million dollars, and it's all on the screen.

I'm not a huge Star Wars fan, anyways. I still think there's more to Star Wars than just special effects. Still, at least you can concede that special effects are the primary appeal of Avatar. I find other movies much more aesthetically pleasing. The director of City of God (Fernando Mereilles or something? I forget, some Brazilian dude) really has a gift for making every shot look great. I think Dany Boyle has some of that gift, too. I guess I'm just not wired to respond to CGI or be impressed by it. I find it lame. Especially without the fundamentals of a good movie - plot, characters, interesting themes, etc.