• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo

Avatar


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#31 alexd

  • Guest
  • 106 posts
  • 7

Posted 31 December 2009 - 12:38 AM

I enjoyed the movie in 3d. I feel like I would want to see it again just to pay more attention to some of the details.

As far as the natives go when we compare what each culture had the natives CAN UPLOAD! That must be worth something.

They have an all seeing associate in the planets life who looks out for them.

They have the technology they need.

I would have been interested if there was some indication of how history was transmitted.

They have figured out how individuals can have the ability to fly through the air on the backs of beasts they communicate with. They do not have to get oil changes!

Last I heard having the ability to extend your physical mind into a larger system might be worth something.

The head scientists protests that the corporate and military types are short sighted and do not see where there really valuable things were. This is about inefficient values blinding one to possibilities.

There is a writer at Forbes who took a very narrow view of how the movie was clash of cultures. His arguments required being of that culture. He thought it was better that we invent, create business etc. I would have to say that the idea of "necessity is the mother of invention" holds true until you reach the point where things are working well. You do not try to solve what is not perceived as a problem. It could be inferred that the natives standing up against the military are themselves a piece of problem solving. So the natives have a method of organization that beats our response to Katrina.

They don't need lawyers! That alone should suggest they have a more advanced society.

I do think that that the natives should have been more like the other creatures that were depicted. At least an extra eye on each side of their heads. I know conssesions in the appearance of characters to make them more available to the audience but it could have been edgier.

Edited by alexd, 31 December 2009 - 12:46 AM.


#32 KalaBeth

  • Guest
  • 100 posts
  • -3

Posted 04 January 2010 - 07:08 PM

Eugene - thank you. 'Cause of your "white magic" speech there, I was able to lay aside the gripes and actually enjoy the movie.
Lesson learned... just pretend the Na'vi are h+ colonists with an advanced biological AI caretaker great-gramma built. ;)

Camerons Navi seem to be a tribe more advanced and worth to be protected than some so called cultures here on earth, and iam not talking about the bushmen and other indigen tribes, they have my respect, i think you know what i want to say...


Well of course. That's what the movie is trying to get you to believe. That's why it leaves out all the messy things that really happen in tribal hunter-gatherer societies - like infanticide (no resources to spare for the imperfect), constant tribal warfare and thieving, incredibly wasteful hunting practices (google "Buffalo Jump" sometime), kidnapping and rape/enslavement of women from the neighboring tribe considered normal, the constant threat of starvation, etc etc etc. It's human to wrap our past in a warm cuddly blanket of loving illusion.... but Hobbes was right. It was nasty. brutish, and short.


.... as our descendants will likely say about us.

#33 JediMasterLucia

  • Guest
  • 708 posts
  • 221
  • Location:Everywhere and Nowhere on the WWW, The Netherlands

Posted 11 January 2010 - 08:44 PM

I saw avatar 3D last Saturday with a friend of mine and i liked the movie.
The nature and the animals were cool and the humans were this time the bad guy, they to forced the Na'vi to go because of the ore under their tree (a lot of money)
The "uploading" technology they used in the movie was interesting :-)

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#34 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 08 February 2010 - 07:59 AM

I watched the movie yesterday, I loved it.
Yes, the technology wasn't so amazing and I'd believe they would send a med-center too if they can send all the weaponry..

I think the biggest fault was the humans being mean and brutal just for ore as well as not trying to learn more about the culture beyond how to get the ore out of them.

I don't think technology was seen as evil, but sure when it is attached to the people in that way it will probably be seen as its people by some which is bad.

My boyfriend found this article: http://nasu-dengaku....com/264707.html
I think if this was implied, the movie would have been so much more "transhuman friendly" as people here ask. Other then that, it was just a movie, a great one in my opinion but what I mean by just a movie is that the political war here is kind of nonsense.

#35 Grail

  • Guest, F@H
  • 252 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Australia

Posted 08 February 2010 - 11:11 PM

Simply put, I will never pay to see this movie.

I refuse to support anything preaching a Malthusian Greenpeace message. Which this does in spades. "Technology is evil! Only primitive existence is good!"

I am sick to death of Hollywood pushing and preaching the abandon technology! It's the only way to save the planet! meme.

Yeah, woopie! It pushes the envelop... by condemning everything that made it possible and trying to make you feel guilty for existing in an advanced society.

Think of it what you will. This movie is a direct assault on everything that Transhumanism is about, while trying to masquerade as a technological tour de force.

And it would have been so easy to make it a positive statement too. If the Navi had simply been a POST-Technological society that had chosen to lead a simple life, it would have been everything it claims to be and isn't.


Interesting how you can have such a fervent opinion on the movie without actually having seen it. It seems to me that whomever you got your information from greatly misunderstood the film, or only loosely understood it enough to form great misconceptions about it through reading negative reviews.

#36 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 09 February 2010 - 07:16 AM

Val, you should watch the movie.
It never says technology is bad, just some people are. It's actually the group of scientists which made the most technological thing shown there (The Avatars) who save the day.

#37 JediMasterLucia

  • Guest
  • 708 posts
  • 221
  • Location:Everywhere and Nowhere on the WWW, The Netherlands

Posted 09 February 2010 - 04:46 PM

I saw it last Saturday again and I still loved it.
Technology itself isn't bad.. it is the way people are using it. (fighting wars is always bad, it costs a lot of human lives.)

It is the greed in this movie that is bad.

#38 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

Posted 09 February 2010 - 07:17 PM

Avatar is already by far the highest grossing movie ever, with current gross at U$ 2.2 billion, against 2nd Titanic's U$ 1.8b: http://www.boxoffice.../?id=avatar.htm

#39 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 09 February 2010 - 10:12 PM

I'm surprised there aren't more comments about the computer graphics - 3D has been around for decades so that is not news. I think that only 10 years ago people could only create single frames of this quality with computers and now everything is coupled with realistic physics! Did you see how the plants moved when the "helicopters" landed??? It looked exactly like the real thing, only with alien plants. Holy smokes hoe beautiful!! I think the only thing that cannot be recreated yet is photorealistic synthetic people as the "uncanny valley"is still there...

http://en.wikipedia..../Uncanny_valley

Edited by platypus, 09 February 2010 - 10:14 PM.


#40 bacopa

  • Validating/Suspended
  • 2,223 posts
  • 159
  • Location:Boston

Posted 09 February 2010 - 11:04 PM

Simply put, I will never pay to see this movie.

I refuse to support anything preaching a Malthusian Greenpeace message. Which this does in spades. "Technology is evil! Only primitive existence is good!"

I am sick to death of Hollywood pushing and preaching the abandon technology! It's the only way to save the planet! meme.

Yeah, woopie! It pushes the envelop... by condemning everything that made it possible and trying to make you feel guilty for existing in an advanced society.

Think of it what you will. This movie is a direct assault on everything that Transhumanism is about, while trying to masquerade as a technological tour de force.

And it would have been so easy to make it a positive statement too. If the Navi had simply been a POST-Technological society that had chosen to lead a simple life, it would have been everything it claims to be and isn't.

I agree with this critique, plus the dialogue was terrible and I hated the Saturday morning cartoon like war dialogue...you know stupid war cries and mindless back and forth war cry dialogue.

I actually was feeling pretty anhedonic when I saw this film, so I think I hated it more given this problem.

#41 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 09 February 2010 - 11:18 PM

Simply put, I will never pay to see this movie.

I refuse to support anything preaching a Malthusian Greenpeace message. Which this does in spades. "Technology is evil! Only primitive existence is good!"

I am sick to death of Hollywood pushing and preaching the abandon technology! It's the only way to save the planet! meme.

Yeah, woopie! It pushes the envelop... by condemning everything that made it possible and trying to make you feel guilty for existing in an advanced society.

Think of it what you will. This movie is a direct assault on everything that Transhumanism is about, while trying to masquerade as a technological tour de force.

And it would have been so easy to make it a positive statement too. If the Navi had simply been a POST-Technological society that had chosen to lead a simple life, it would have been everything it claims to be and isn't.

I agree with this critique, plus the dialogue was terrible and I hated the Saturday morning cartoon like war dialogue...you know stupid war cries and mindless back and forth war cry dialogue.

I actually was feeling pretty anhedonic when I saw this film, so I think I hated it more given this problem.

I don't agree with it at all. Where was the anti-tech, anti-transhumanism stuff? You didn't think that the scientists were the heroes of the film? I didn't get an anti-tech feel from it at all; I got an anti-greed, anti-militarism message, which is fine as far as I'm concerned. I agree that the characters were two dimensional; too bad they couldn't have done a better job there. Maybe you would enjoy it more if you saw it when you were hedonic. Even though the plot was derivative, it was incredibly beautiful and just fun to watch.

#42 JediMasterLucia

  • Guest
  • 708 posts
  • 221
  • Location:Everywhere and Nowhere on the WWW, The Netherlands

Posted 10 February 2010 - 01:43 PM

Avatar is already by far the highest grossing movie ever, with current gross at U$ 2.2 billion, against 2nd Titanic's U$ 1.8b: http://www.boxoffice.../?id=avatar.htm

Avatar has like other films a strong fan base who are going every time they could to see it again. :p

#43 Grail

  • Guest, F@H
  • 252 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Australia

Posted 10 February 2010 - 10:06 PM

Simply put, I will never pay to see this movie.

I refuse to support anything preaching a Malthusian Greenpeace message. Which this does in spades. "Technology is evil! Only primitive existence is good!"

I am sick to death of Hollywood pushing and preaching the abandon technology! It's the only way to save the planet! meme.

Yeah, woopie! It pushes the envelop... by condemning everything that made it possible and trying to make you feel guilty for existing in an advanced society.

Think of it what you will. This movie is a direct assault on everything that Transhumanism is about, while trying to masquerade as a technological tour de force.

And it would have been so easy to make it a positive statement too. If the Navi had simply been a POST-Technological society that had chosen to lead a simple life, it would have been everything it claims to be and isn't.

I agree with this critique, plus the dialogue was terrible and I hated the Saturday morning cartoon like war dialogue...you know stupid war cries and mindless back and forth war cry dialogue.

I actually was feeling pretty anhedonic when I saw this film, so I think I hated it more given this problem.

I don't agree with it at all. Where was the anti-tech, anti-transhumanism stuff? You didn't think that the scientists were the heroes of the film? I didn't get an anti-tech feel from it at all; I got an anti-greed, anti-militarism message, which is fine as far as I'm concerned. I agree that the characters were two dimensional; too bad they couldn't have done a better job there. Maybe you would enjoy it more if you saw it when you were hedonic. Even though the plot was derivative, it was incredibly beautiful and just fun to watch.


Exactly my view.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users