Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

After reading this review; http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte...evenge-fantasy/ ----- it appears that Cameron and Co. are producing a morally repugnant anti-man / anti-capitalist movie. It's a shame too, because the movie looks to be a real visual stunner. Is it too much for Hollywood to get some director's/producers/writers with a heroic sense of life and portray heroic men?!-Heroes with Objectivist values. Sigh....it would've been nice to see Josh Whedon produce 'Avatar' his way...

Edited by Erik Christensen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been following the development of this film for a while. I can fully agree it's pretty much "anti-capitalist, anti-man" propoganda. I'm really not too keen on throwing out those labels too easily, but this deserves it. It's one of the most expensive movies ever made too. So, honestly I hope it fails and fails hard.

The CGI does look amazing and applaud it. But I won't sanction the most advance technology being used to promote the most advanced anti-technology philosophy.

Ironic, though, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HAH! I knew it! I called it just based on the movie trailer that thing thing was going to be extremely anti-man. I guessed just from the trailer the thing would be full of stuff about how bad humans are in comparison to this other ancient culture which exists in harmony with nature and is all peaceful and blah blah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HAH! I knew it! I called it just based on the movie trailer that thing thing was going to be extremely anti-man. I guessed just from the trailer the thing would be full of stuff about how bad humans are in comparison to this other ancient culture which exists in harmony with nature and is all peaceful and blah blah.

Totally agree. As soon as I saw the trailer I figured it was going to be some huge environmentalist piece of crap; kind of like a live action Fern Gully with blue cat people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me, or does the animation look worse than in Jurassic Park - which is now 16 years old? Those dinos looked real - partly because of the mixed use of animatronics. But Avatar no doubt just went for straight CGI, and it just reminds me of the cartoonish look of Star Wars Episode One.

Edited by brian0918

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder - where do these creatures relieve themselves? You'd think they'd be willing to trade the precious underground mineral that they're so unwilling to let anyone mine in exchange for a simple plumbing system. Maybe some sort of sanitation against the disease that no doubt occurs, or water purification.

Ohhh... right, right, I forgot, they live in harmony with the environment. So those outbreaks of disease, those parasites spread through food and water, those are all signs of harmony, and any attempt to break that harmony, say, by attempting to save your own life or better the lives of your families - that is non-sacrificial, and therefore immoral.

And what if just one family in the village wants to sell their land? Who would stop them, and why? Oh, I forgot, they live in harmony, as one - ie, under collectivism.

Edited by brian0918

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are totally stupid!

You don't know anything about this movie. The blue people are more advanced than us. They advanced so much, that they just look less advanced. But we humans are so primitive and dumb with our space travel and ability to clone that we can't see how advanced and right these aliens are.

The movie is right. You guys are so stupid you can't see that! BECAUSE HUMANS ARE STUPID AND BLUE TRIBALISTIC FURRIES ARE SO MUCH BETTER!

:P

:thumbsup:

Edited by Sabre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a live action Fern Gully with blue cat people.

LOL. XD

I also agree the animation, while good, looked fake and "cartoony" still to me. It just looked like something intended to be a kids movie rather than a serious film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, no kidding. I agree marketing this crap to kids would be possibly even more damaging, I was just saying though that the visual style didn't look like something for an adult movie like it was actually intended to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HAH! I knew it! I called it just based on the movie trailer that thing thing was going to be extremely anti-man. I guessed just from the trailer the thing would be full of stuff about how bad humans are in comparison to this other ancient culture which exists in harmony with nature and is all peaceful and blah blah.

I had the same reaction after seeing the trailer. They won't get my $10 for a ticket to this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supposedly, the special effects are revolutionary. It has an 84% on the tomatometer right now, and by reading the snippets it's because of those special effects. Of course, it could also be attributed to the "green" message, which Roger Ebert says is explicit. Who knows.

I'll nevertheless be paying a $5 matinee price to see the effects!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supposedly, the special effects are revolutionary.

Watch the video I linked to above, which shows a clip of an action scene in high definition. It just looks choppy and cartoonish, like the character isn't actually in the scene, and the big monster looks really fake compared to T-Rex from 16 years ago.

Edited by brian0918

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, based on how cartoony the animation looked I have not yet understood why there is so much talk in the commercials about this movie saying things like "movies will never be the same again!" or things like that. With how many amazing special effects have been in so many movies, I don't know what they plan to pull out in that movie to try to top everything else by that wide a margin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course, it could also be attributed to the "green" message, which Roger Ebert says is explicit. Who knows.

Nothing beats the hypocracy of the environmentalist and anti-capitalist "artists".

I love it when the wealthiest people hate money and the environmentally minded filmakers fly in jets, have huge crews building huge sets.

Its like the whole Copenhagen conference thing.. whatcha get when you put together 1000's of limos and hundreds of private jets? A climate conference!

Bah!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it, the Hollywood "community" is really pushing for this film to do well. It is an original (i.e. non-sequel) vision and new IP that was heavily invested in. They want it to do well so it encourages more investment in original big budget projects.

...so take the reviews with a grain of salt.

The story appears completely irrational from what I can tell so far. There's gotta be something in there that rings true to hold the film together right? It may be that the focus on the relationship holds it together... or, maybe there's more to the story then has been relayed so far. It sure looks non-sensical though. The "evil" corporate thugs go to pillage an otherworldly resource that is so valuable... err.. more valuable than the cost of getting there, and having a planetary war over?! No trade is possible? No rational communication might save money, equipment, lives, etc? We have become technological genius' but reverted to savage killers at the same time? That can't be it, I hope.

I'll go see it in IMAX 3D just to see how ground breaking the technology really is though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it just me, or does the animation look worse than in Jurassic Park - which is now 16 years old? Those dinos looked real - partly because of the mixed use of animatronics. But Avatar no doubt just went for straight CGI, and it just reminds me of the cartoonish look of Star Wars Episode One.

I've always maintained that properly utilized animatronics/puppets like in JP or the creatures in Jim Henson movies look much more realistic than a lot of CG. I mean after all they... really exist. As good as computer animation looks it is still ANIMATED by someone. The motion, texture, and the way it looks within the scene just still don't quite approach the level of believability. When you see a reptiles skin in reality, the color is a little dull, it has erratic scratches and folds, and it's dirty. But most CG is so streamlined and given such unrealistic "flow" in it's movement. It really takes me out of the illusion. Especially when the movie approaches the level of damn near everything being CG like is the case with Star Wars I-III, and apparently this thing.

I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be as boring and predictable as everyone is saying. Seems like all it has going for it is loads of superficial glitz and meaningless action. That's enough for many people (Spiderman 2/3).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be seeing it tomorrow. I am quite sure I will disagree with its explicit philosophy, but I'm going to let myself get lost in the visuals and characters that, from what I hear, are very well-developed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it just me, or does the animation look worse than in Jurassic Park - which is now 16 years old? Those dinos looked real - partly because of the mixed use of animatronics. But Avatar no doubt just went for straight CGI, and it just reminds me of the cartoonish look of Star Wars Episode One.

Avatar looks better and seems more Oist friendly than the new Iron Man 2 movie that's coming out. Check out this mess; http://link.brightcove.com/services/player...tid=57699172001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have known a long while about this movie from interviews and reviews. It all boils down to it being a paean to the image of the Noble Savage. I plan on seeing this movie to critique it ideologically at Aristotle's Lighthouse.

It really does sadden me because of the missed opportunity. And I agree that CGI just does not equal the visual cohesion that Henson's Animatronics achieved, CGI always seems out of place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice that a lot of people seem to be claiming that CGI just isn't totally realistic (yet?). Two movies off the top of my head that achieved that realism, in my opinion, are Minority Report, and the 4th Harry Potter movie (specifically, the dragon). It's possible these days, as far as I'm concerned, it just doesn't happen consistently. I assume it has to do with the quality of the animation studio hired.

I also wasn't very impressed with the trailer, but, Hollywood conspiracy aside (which sounds implausible to me), the reviews are very positive for the special effects. Maybe there's something the trailer didn't show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...