Avatar

[Totenkindly]

...The last sentence is exactly why I won't do it. When something is "in", it means everybody else is doing it, seeing it, listening to it, buying it ect. Everybody else thinks it's great! So why would I do it, just because everybody else is doing it? Or rather, why would I do something based on what everybody else thinks of it? (unless I had to, like fucking showering or sleeping and eating ) I don't care what everybody else thinks, that's why I won't see it now.

To me, NOT DOING something just because everyone else is doing it is just as reactive as DOING it just because everyone else is. You're still just the tail wagging on the dog.

On the flip side, if I thought Avatar was something worth seeing, for me. I would do it without even thinking about whether or not it was in, cause, hey, I think it might be interesting. Even if it got terrible reviews, I would still see it.

So how do you figure out whether or not it's something you want to see without any sort of information whatsoever to go on?

I usually read reviews and get feedback not to follow someone's like/dislike but to see the reasoning behind WHY someone liked/dislike and then I can translate that into a sensible assessment of whether or not I might find it interesting or not.

Ironically I had no idea what Avatar was about the first time I went. One of my friends just really wanted to go, so I went with her so she wouldn't have to go alone.

Also, I have issues with being like everybody else, or the majority. But that's a whole other show, and my own stupid values.

Ah, there it is.
See my first comment.

I don't like being in the majority much either, I like to stick out a little... but at the same time I don't want to shoot off my nose to spite my face. There are some worthwhile things out there that lots of people happen to like.

 

[Sinmara]

Don't forget Fern Gully!

Hahaha I said after watching it that Avatar is Fern Gully for grownups. ;D

 

[Memphis]

To me, NOT DOING something just because everyone else is doing it is just as reactive as DOING it just because everyone else is. You're still just the tail wagging on the dog.

This is true!

Basically, because I didn't have any initial interest or any interest of my own to see the movie when I first heard of it, I can't bring myself to see it now, just because everybody else is telling me to/doing it.

With things I do find interesting, the thought of somebody else doesn't even cross my mind. Even less what they would think. Hell, my shoes are in odd sizes and I wear them proudly. I got them for Christmas and I really needed a pair of warm shoes and those were the only ones left.

To address your question about how I figure out whether or not it's something I want to see: I make up my mind very fast. Too fast! Sometimes without having enough information. I get very inpatient with researching something I a) don't find very interesting b) already think I've got a grasp on. I put together pieces of information pretty quickly and I trust my instincts. Unless it's a money issue, then I'm very careful with my research.

And I wanna touch upon what you said about finding a reason to go. This is what I'm ultimately doing. At least in my mind. And the fact that it's "in" is just not a good enough reason.

 

[Memphis]

I don't like being in the majority much either, I like to stick out a little... but at the same time I don't want to shoot off my nose to spite my face. There are some worthwhile things out there that lots of people happen to like.

Oh, yes I agree. That's why I said I'll probably see it later.

 

[dani_elle]

I saw it in 3D. It was visually stunning, like stepping into a whole new planet. I think that was very well done.

The second half, however was soo cheesy that I kept guessing what would happen next and kept getting it right.

I think one of the things Cameron did right though was to establish the conflict the main character had when he was torn between both sides.

Would say its worth seeing, at least once (and definitely in 3D.) I don't think I'll go for a repeat viewing though.

 

[Totenkindly]

To address your question about how I figure out whether or not it's something I want to see: I make up my mind very fast. Too fast! Sometimes without having enough information. I get very inpatient with researching something I a) don't find very interesting b) already think I've got a grasp on. I put together pieces of information pretty quickly and I trust my instincts. Unless it's a money issue, then I'm very careful with my research.

Ah... I guess when it comes to money too, I do some pretty decent research. I like to make sure I buy something with endurance, quality, ease of use -- i.e., a good investment. So I can be sort of anal with that sort of thing. (and it pays off ... any cars I buy, or appliances, or services... I've always made good decisions).

But when it comes to art (music, books, movies, etc.), my "liking" of something is more instinctive and holistic anyway -- it's not a deconstructive process, the deconstruction is actually an afterthought, when I have to explain to someone else why I did or did not like it.

And I wanna touch upon what you said about finding a reason to go. This is what I'm ultimately doing. At least in my mind. And the fact that it's "in" is just not a good enough reason.

Oh, I agree with that.

This is the first movie I think I've seen in the theater for months, and I had no idea what it was about ahead of time.

 

[Litvyak]

Please mount my hot blue alien

Wow, someone was caught masturbating to Freud yet again.
Awful review... or whatever this was intended to be.

 

[Totenkindly]

Wow, someone was caught masturbating on Freud yet again. Awful review... or whatever this was intended to be.

I think it was probably just so the author could get some attention for his column and feel more insightful than the mainstream, honestly. This kind of review approach normally is self-seeking.

Then again, he was from San Fran.
Maybe it was all about sex to him.

 

[Kaveri]

Am I the only one who loved the film especially much for its ideology and message?

I saw it in 2D.

 

[Ivy]

Really good article that pretty much speaks for me on the topic of Avatar. And comes up with some pretty darn funny alternate names for it.

http://defamer.gawker.com/5440601/avatar-is-only-going-to-change-some-moviemaking-forever

 

[Totenkindly]

Really good article that pretty much speaks for me on the topic of Avatar. And comes up with some pretty darn funny alternate names for it.

Lol -- I actually consciously noted the Papyrus font at movie's end.

Can't stop laughing: Pr*tty Sh*tty: An Open Letter to James Cameron From Papyrus
"....Goodness knows I’ve worked hard the past 26 years to make a name for myself. And it’s felt great coming to the aid of New Age spa owners, suburban party planners, and young couples looking to save money by making their own wedding invitations..."

can't. breathe. help. me!

I saw it in 2D.

But rejoice -- you still have time to repent! And spend more $$$!

Am I the only one who loved the film especially much for its ideology and message?

From what I can tell, most people are complaining not because they disagree with ideology but because the ideology/message are the same as other movies people has seen and not really any more nuanced or uniquely stated. I can't really say I learned anything I did not believe or know before; however, I have a much more PALPABLE and visceral understanding of what it means to be driven from my home and have things torn from me by people stronger than me.

Tangent: The name "unobtainium" sounds pretty stupid... but when I was reading the Futurist, the author noted that it's similar to the word "macguffin" - it's a term engineers routinely use to describe the "typical, rare, magical substance that everyone wants and no one can get their hands on" in a particular scenario. Here was a case where an inside joke ended up playing pretty poorly in the audience, who just read it as a not-so-creatively coined term.

 

[Ivy]

Lol -- I actually consciously noted the Papyrus font at movie's end.

Word! I think probably many editors did.

 

[Oeufa]

I haven't seen it yet, but I found this rather amusing: http://i.imgur.com/JmRmb.jpg

 

[Totenkindly]

I haven't seen it yet, but I found this rather amusing: http://i.imgur.com/JmRmb.jpg

It's only funny because it's true!

 

[PeaceBaby]

^ LOL , that link was too funny!

Alas, I am doubtful I will be able to experience the 3D immersion. I will try to see if it works for the in-theatre trailers the right way. But 3D hasn't worked for me in the past. So I'm not holding out much hope.

All people with lazy eye should sue James Cameron! I feel discriminated against ...

 

[Phantonym]

I haven't seen it yet, but I found this rather amusing: http://i.imgur.com/JmRmb.jpg

But it doesn't really matter anyway. Old stories are rehashed all the time.

 

[Totenkindly]

But it doesn't really matter anyway. Old stories are rehashed all the time.

It's always an interesting contradiction here.

One problem is our storage and availability of media.
Nowadays a work is created, and it lingers for a long long time or can be accessed/located.
Also, a LOT of works are being constantly created.
That's a lot of general media accessible to the average public.

According to one view of stories, there are only about 40 unique general plots available to western culture.

So under those constraints, and especially with people who spend a lot of time observing media, there's just going to be a lot of rehash.

It always bugged me when I'd watch a critic show and they would bitch about having seen the same thing five times before... but I'd think, "I've never seen any of those other things, so to ME it was new and meaningful!"

That's why sometimes the "big picture / broad minded criticism" (where a piece is compared to every other piece within the genre) is misguided to me; if a piece can be enjoyed on its own, then it's worthwhile. Because for many, especially those without past experience, it IS operating on its own.

 

[Phantonym]

That's why sometimes the "big picture / broad minded criticism" (where a piece is compared to every other piece within the genre) is misguided to me; if a piece can be enjoyed on its own, then it's worthwhile. Because for many, especially those without past experience, it IS operating on its own.

Oh, I agree, especially with the bolded part. And even with past experience you can still enjoy watching them. Comparing can be fun as well and not some negative experience. It's all about the moment you're watching a movie and how you're able to discover something positive and really worthwhile your time. At least it is for me.

 

[MacGuffin]

I wrote on INTPc if you don't see it in 3D (gorgeous) then don't bother.

Titanic was a better film.

 

[Zoom]

Thoughts?

I loved it. It was indeed meaningful to me, on a variety of levels, and I didn't even notice the passing of almost three hours.

Comparison to other movies with a thread of similarity could render many things less magical, and I honestly don't care if some tosser in the past made a movie about natives (terrestrial or otherwise).