Avatar

[AniNate]

I think Quaritch is more complicated than people give him credit for. I mean, I'm sure he really meant to honor his part of the deal when he offered Jake spine surgery in return for his assistance. He's just single-minded and trigger-happy. Still undoubtedly villainous, but he's not a sociopath.

 

Definitely looking forward to the sequels, whenever they come out.

[Phil in the Blank]

 

That's pretty sociopathic to me....

[AniNate]

 

That's pretty sociopathic to me....

 

Well, yeah, it looks like it to us because we identify the Na'Vi as real people, whereas I'm sure he's been conditioned by RDA to view them as mere obstacles.

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

Well, yeah, it looks like it to us because we identify the Na'Vi as real people, whereas I'm sure he's been conditioned by RDA to view them as mere obstacles.

This is great, but sadly Cameron cares little about actually exploring this type of conditioning. An entire film about that would really have been impressive, it would have given Cameron a chance to dig deeper into how and why people condition themselves and others to hate on foreigners. Instead, he opts for a simple morality tale and then gives Quaritch bad dialogue to hammer home that he's a huge dick. He clearly wants us to hate Quaritch and gives us every reason to. That's not always a bad thing, but here I found it to be too much.

[AniNate]

Guess I just disagree with you there. Quaritch was evil, but he was the "cool" kind of evil where he's just uber-determined to finish his job at all costs. I fully admit to admiring his tenacity in that final battle.

Edited March 19, 2014 by tribefan695

[Phil in the Blank]

This is great, but sadly Cameron cares little about actually exploring this type of conditioning. An entire film about that would really have been impressive, it would have given Cameron a chance to dig deeper into how and why people condition themselves and others to hate on foreigners. Instead, he opts for a simple morality tale and then gives Quaritch bad dialogue to hammer home that he's a huge dick. He clearly wants us to hate Quaritch and gives us every reason to. That's not always a bad thing, but here I found it to be too much.

 

Totally. It reminds me of the RedLetterMedia review for Avatar where he says that one of the two things you need to do to bring the audience along in a movie like this was make the audience hate the villans. In whatever way you can. No matter how cheap.

 

Which is fine and dandy if BO is all you care about. But what I really would had liked was a movie that looked at its themes with a bit more nuance. Cameron does a great job with his direction. I just wanted to care more about the outcome.

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

Totally. It reminds me of the RedLetterMedia review for Avatar where he says that one of the two things you need to do to bring the audience along in a movie like this was make the audience hate the villans. In whatever way you can. No matter how cheap.

 

Which is fine and dandy if BO is all you care about. But what I really would had liked was a movie that looked at its themes with a bit more nuance. Cameron does a great job with his direction. I just wanted to care more about the outcome.

RLM=God. His analysis of the Navi'i and how they were constructed blew me away.But yeah, absolutely agree with everything you say. Especially the part where you didn't care about the outcome. At the end of the day, I didn't care if Quaritch died. Cameron had tried too hard to make me dislike him, and when you can sense that emotional manipulation during a film, you get taken out of it. Plus, his dialogue was too bad for me to really think he was a badass and root for his survival. 

[Plain Old Tele]

I love Quaritch. Nothing wrong with a bad-ass, scenery-chewing villain.

 

(The one line of his that felt awkward in the theatrical edition was when he referred to "fighting terror with terror"... it came out of nowhere. In the extended cut, the line makes sense, because the Na'vi raided the base and killed a few workers.)

Edited March 19, 2014 by 7elemachos

[Jessie]

This is great, but sadly Cameron cares little about actually exploring this type of conditioning. An entire film about that would really have been impressive, it would have given Cameron a chance to dig deeper into how and why people condition themselves and others to hate on foreigners. Instead, he opts for a simple morality tale and then gives Quaritch bad dialogue to hammer home that he's a huge dick. He clearly wants us to hate Quaritch and gives us every reason to. That's not always a bad thing, but here I found it to be too much.

I see where you're coming from, his lines were a little too much but Cameron stated long before the release that he wanted to go for a simple story in which everyone around the world could relate to, if they went deeper into the messages then we would have most likely ended up with a much more appreciated movie critically but it wouldn't have been the biggest film of all time imo. Besides, I don't know who the actor is who played the villain but he sure did nail it.For me, the worst part (or aspect) of the movie was everything to do with Eywa, it took the realism out of it for me as dumb as that sounds but I can see how that connected with audiences on a worldwide level.Still, I love this movie simply because of Pandora itself and the 3D is still amazing, especially the opening shots, him floating out of the cryosleep machine actually fucks with my eyes. Edited March 19, 2014 by Jessie

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

I see where you're coming from, his lines were a little too much but Cameron stated long before the release that he wanted to go for a simple story in which everyone around the world could relate to, if they went deeper into the messages then we would have most likely ended up with a much more appreciated movie critically but it wouldn't have been the biggest film of all time imo. Besides, I don't know who the actor is who played the villain but he sure did nail it.For me, the worst part (or aspect) of the movie was everything to do with Eywa, it took the realism out of it for me as dumb as that sounds but I can see how that connected with audiences on a worldwide level.Still, I love this movie simply because of Pandora itself, it was amazing.

But as a film reviewer, I care less about what movie becomes the biggest of all-time and more about how good a movie can be. If Cameron really simplified it to make more money, then I think he should get his priorities in order. But regardless, even if his priorities are in the correct order, that doesn't mean that I should give him a pass on what I find wrong with the film.As for the argument about worldwide audiences not understanding it, I don't think that is fair. I think worldwide audiences can appreciate a more nuanced storyline; they are not mindless drones who need to be force fed everything. And if that truly is the case, then what is up with all of the allusions to the European/Native American conflict. Certainly, worldwide audiences don't understand the history of America and how Europeans brutally destroyed an entire culture. Yet, Cameron makes it clear through interviews that he was hoping to get that message across. The point is that he could have added more complexity to his film. 

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

I love Quaritch. Nothing wrong with a bad-ass, scenery-chewing villain.

 

 

Depends on the villain.If it's The Joker, I'm down. Because even though he stole every scene and was a total bad-ass, I also thought there was more interesting stuff going on with him. Quaritch, eh. 

[Plain Old Tele]

But as a film reviewer, I care less about what movie becomes the biggest of all-time and more about how good a movie can be. If Cameron really simplified it to make more money, then I think he should get his priorities in order.

 

He simplified it to appeal to as many people as he could. He wanted a broad global audience.

[Jessie]

But as a film reviewer, I care less about what movie becomes the biggest of all-time and more about how good a movie can be. If Cameron really simplified it to make more money, then I think he should get his priorities in order. But regardless, even if his priorities are in the correct order, that doesn't mean that I should give him a pass on what I find wrong with the film.As for the argument about worldwide audiences not understanding it, I don't think that is fair. I think worldwide audiences can appreciate a more nuanced storyline; they are not mindless drones who need to be force fed everything. And if that truly is the case, then what is up with all of the allusions to the European/Native American conflict. Certainly, worldwide audiences don't understand the history of America and how Europeans brutally destroyed an entire culture. Yet, Cameron makes it clear through interviews that he was hoping to get that message across. The point is that he could have added more complexity to his film.

Yeah I won't disagree that this couldn't have been better, but despite all the internet hype, I wasn't expecting much from this and I was pleasantly surprised with what I got. From the sound of your review, im guessing you loved District 9?

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

He simplified it to appeal to as many people as he could. He wanted a broad global audience.

Why though? Why does it matter how many people you appeal to? The answer usually is because of money. A director who's striving to make a truly great film does not necessarily care about how many people will like it, but how much will people like it. A director more concerned with the business side cares about the amount of people who enjoy it more. Now of course, I'm being a bit unfair. After all, Cameron spent like $300 million on this film. He had to make sure his audience was broad to get money back on his film. And that's fine, but let me ask you then, what was the real purpose of the film? Why did Cameron spend so much money if he knew that in order to make money back, he would need to simplify his concept? Was it because his interest lied more with producing a visual FX breakthrough than with actually making a great film? I personally think so. I think he wanted to make a good film, I'm not saying he didn't. But I think he cared more about the visuals than anything else, and once he realized how much money that would take, started chipping away at any complexity in the film. That's fine, but it irks me. 

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

Yeah I won't disagree that this couldn't have been better, but despite all the internet hype, I wasn't expecting much from this and I was pleasantly surprised with what I got. From the sound of your review, im guessing you loved District 9?

I've only seen parts, but from what I've heard, it sounds like my kind of film. I plan on watching it at some point, but I have others to get through first.And don't get me wrong, I liked what I got too. Just didn't love it. 

[Jessie]

I've only seen parts, but from what I've heard, it sounds like my kind of film. I plan on watching it at some point, but I have others to get through first.And don't get me wrong, I liked what I got too. Just didn't love it.

You'll love the first hour.

[Plain Old Tele]

Why though? Why does it matter how many people you appeal to? The answer usually is because of money. 

 

Not necessarily. You want to reach a wide audience. You want to tell a universal story. You feel you have a message that's important enough to reach as many as you can.

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

Not necessarily. You want to reach a wide audience. You want to tell a universal story. You feel you have a message that's important enough to reach as many as you can.

Fair enough, but do you feel like his message (the nature/environmental stuff) couldn't have gotten through with a little more complexity? Do you think that world wide audiences need a simple morality tale to understand this message? Do you think a universal story is just a simplistic one? 

[Plain Old Tele]

Yes, yes, and maybe.  In terms of "realism", I don't think Quaritch is very far-fetched at all, compared to other colonizing military commanders throughout history.

Edited March 19, 2014 by 7elemachos

[Jessie]

Fair enough, but do you feel like his message (the nature/environmental stuff) couldn't have gotten through with a little more complexity? Do you think that world wide audiences need a simple morality tale to understand this message? Do you think a universal story is just a simplistic one?

Well to be fair, I think the worldwide audience do. Titanic wasn't exactly subtle with its messages, just like Avatar and the dialogue at times by the posh was very 'in your face' and Star Wars was as simple as it gets. They are arguably the biggest worldwide phenomenons in box office, all of which have simple stories. There are a lot of dumb people in the world and making a complex film eliminates that large chunk of audience, you need them to hit these heights.