someonecompletelyrandom

Do you really expect James Cameron to have an "original" story? Well made sure, but most of his films were influenced by other work.

Urban Hat€monger ?

If expensive guff like this is the future of film i'm spending my time reading books & going to the theatre.

__________________

Neapolitan

I hope to see the film, it looks interesting.

Well I don't know any band that ever claimed Nickelback as an influence, I mean hoestly who do know that claimed Nickelback as an influence? just curious, I would love to know.

wrong that's Sam Peckinpah

__________________

VEGANGELICA

I liked Avatar very much, partly because of the luscious visuals and the interesting biological connections among organisms, and partly because of the pleasurable message that vanquishing the unscrupulous (U.S.-sounding) military is a good thing.

I had wondered how well the anti-military element of the movie, in which humans are the bad guys, would go over with the U.S. public. Apparently quite well. Since I usually think people are pro-human above all else, this was a nice surprise.

I did feel the handling of the environmentalism theme was rather heavy-handed, but I couldn't help but gloat with anti-Iraq war satisfaction when the movie had the evil military man quote President Bush's failed preemptive war slogan, "We're going to shock and awe." Ha!

@ Keyleigh...yep, I felt the blue avatar guy was quite attractive, too. Lovely eyes...used very effectively in the movie. Also, the two main female characters were charismatic, too. I especially like the scene where the main female blue character and Jake finally meet. Interspecies love is a step in the direction of loving others not because of their classification but because of who they are.

@ Conan...I felt the movie was well-paced, too. I liked watching the military action unfold. Revenge can be oh so pleasurable to observe.

ABOUT AVATAR SEX:

Hmmm...at first during the movie I had missed the importance of the warning given to the avatar, as he inspects his tail: "Don't play with that, or you'll go blind." Maybe the tail works like human male genitalia, used for both urination and procreation...except the blue humanoid-like species use the tail for communication and procreation.

ABOUT THE COSTUMES:

While watching the movie, I snorted with derision at the prudishness of our civilization because, if you notice, all female blue creatures are given a tiny costume (beads, feathers, *something*) to strategically cover up their tiny bosoms.

What's next: films of cows with black rectangles over their udders?!

"Avatar" stands as a testament to humanity's discomfort with basic human physiology and development, which rely on breastfeeding and (gasp) breasts. Discomfort with something so basic to our biology is a disappointing part of our culture.

__________________

Arya Stark

Lol. You took on my way of writing. xD
I can now focus a little better on your posts, Erica!
<3

__________________

MB Journal.
Azucar y Especia. My blog.

VEGANGELICA

Ah!

I see now.

Plan: I will keep each sentence separate.

<3

__________________

FETCHER.

Well if you're never going to the pics again, I'm going to ask you to go, then you can't say no. Cos then that means we're not friends.

So pessimistic Rikki, so pessimistic.

__________________

My Journal.
Last.Fm if your interested...

Guybrush

It's don't think it's a brilliant film. It's much too clichè-ish for that. It's space Pocahontas, every character in it behaves like a total stereotype, the main character fulfills a prophecy, David vs. Goliath story with martyr deaths, love story develops - conflicts - gets together before end, etc etc etc.

I mean the whole thing is fairly predictable and so unoriginal that it can't really be brilliant to me. I've seen this movie before many times, it just didn't look as nice. What's good about it is that it's the usual clichèd Hollywood crap done right. And it looks pretty good.

Some of my student friends rip a bit on the biology in the film. I don't because it's a fantasy film. They may strive for realism, but it's not going to be priority number 1. Still, it puzzled me a bit when they'd made this gorgeous jungle, where were the herbivores and smaller prey species? Where were the smaller bird like creatures? I felt like all I saw was medium to large carnivores except for those rhino-like monsters. They should hire me as a consultant for their next film, I think.

__________________
Something Completely Different

VEGANGELICA

Good point about the absence of the smaller creatures, Tore!

I assumed some animals ate those floaty-seeds of the ancestor trees and all that lush vegetation...but you're right that none were shown. Maybe each additional creature cost too much to produce for the budget. At least there were those fairly smallish bird-like creatures at the beginning...like a flock of purple flamingos flying over water.

Like I mentioned in a previous post, it makes sense to me that the avatar tail has dual purposes, communication and procreation, since the human male genitalia are used for both urination and procreation.

However, I thought the whole "transferring of thoughts through the neural network of the planet from one body to another" was hard to believe...but it made sense in that humans had created a machine to do the same action (transfer the sentience from a human to an avatar). So, at least the movie was internally consistent.

The biological conundrum that troubled me was this, Tore. Remember Jake's blue avatar floating in the tank at the beginning? Since it had a brain of its own, it should have had its own naive awareness if it were conscious. "Sentience" certainly doesn't appear to be a spark that can be tranferred from one brain to another, let alone leave a brain, so that avatar, with its own brain, would have had its own neuronal activity and thus its own self. I felt sorry that it was taken over by someone else's mind.

Oh, definitely, you should be hired as a film biologist consultant!

__________________

Guybrush

Good point about the "empty" avatar body, Erica I guess the explanation must be that in the movie, a sentient life has a soul, a memory of who they are that can be transferred from one body to another (what Eiwa does to Jake). But that a body grown in a lab doesn't!

One thing that supports the fantasy in the film is the deity Eiwa. It seems all tree-like life at least is supposed to be connected through a super-network where every tree is like a neuron and like a brain, the network can store memories. The other animals can tap into these with their "tails" or head tentacles which I think might be a better description as they're all connected to the head (the blue guys seem to braid their hair around theirs).

This is of course pretty fantastical, but there's the scene where Grace is dying and she says Eiwa is real and that she's there with her. It could mean the network is real, but I got the feeling she meant a specific deity. Jake later prays to Eiwa for help and asks her to tap into Grace's memory to learn what the "sky people" are like. The prayer gets answered later in the film when all the animal life, starting with a herd of those rhino beasts, start attacking the humans too.

So the way I see it, there's some deity or super conscience within that memory bank which has direct control over the actions of at least all non-sentient animal life on Pandora. If life on Pandora was by Eiwa's design, then that could explain a lot of weirdness - such as why animals have developed a universal way in which they can be connected to by the blue guys. Do the animals ever tap into Eiwa? We never see it in the film. All they use their head tentacles for is to be connected to by the blue guys, something they don't seem to initially do willingly .. at least not the flying mounts.

However, I think Eiwa is supposed to have been created from life on Pandora and not the other way around. I don't think it's a designer as such, but it would be a good explanation for some of the biological mysteries.

__________________
Something Completely Different