Am I The Only One Who Doesn't Like "Avatar"?

Criticising the "originality" of a film is almost always problematic. After all everyone is influenced by something, consciously or unconsciously, and today's productions still very often have the dramatic structure of the ancient greeks.

Or, as Jim Jarmusch said:
"Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is nonexistent. And don't bother concealing your thievery - celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: "It's not where you take things from - it's where you take them to.""

But one thing about theater plays:
The "problem" here is that even when plays are "updated", the groups release the play under the real author's name (in the case of Hamlet, Shakespeare). However, when someone claims that a film is completely their own work, when it merely mimics a classic play, people (imho rightly) get angry.
 
Last edited:
Every story has already been told. New is a matter of perspective and cultural exposure. But as the world gets smaller one gets a better grasp on how the things we perceive as new/original are all variations of something else that is outside of our sphere of what we describe as recognizable and familiar.

In the our industry it's the freshness of the retelling of stories that keeps us coming back. It is most likely this freshness that people claim as their own work, that people own a original.
 
Cracker Funk, I think that I, too, am falling fast in love with you. =P

Anyways, I've been thinking about my last post, and there are a few things I would add to it... not to carry on the argument, but to explore further what I consider an interesting line of thought.

This site is about filmmaking which is all the more reason to mention films that have actually explored this idea. I want to point your attentions to the movie, Pandorum. Okay, not a great movie, but, it does explore the very idea of our species taking itself, as well as others, to a new solar system. I hope to God that if our species ever does pull such a thing off, that it does so under better circumstances than those portrayed in that movie! Personally, I think that we or future generations will have to figure out global warming and creating a more sustainable economy, first. I do not think this planet will become quite the desolate shithole as portrayed in such movies. Taking care of planet earth is Priority One. But, I also suspect that this may be the only life there is in this universe. In that case, who's genome will be smiling when the human genome is safe in another solar system that's alive and well while the crocodile genome is extinct along with this solar system? Actually, I'll bet that both genomes will be extinct. Such is the way of things. Hell, it don't really matter. On the other hand, it's kind of a shame to think that humans will fail to preserve life in the case that this is the only life in the universe... perhaps the only life that's ever been...we don't know. One might dare to hope (for some reason) that if humans survived the death of this solar system, then they might survive the death of this universe, if we live in a metaverse, as, obviously, any number of posters on this thread believe there might be. Does it really matter? I don't know. But, at least our species can ponder such questions, and, maybe, do something about them. In my humble opinion, there's any number of potential screenplays that could be written on the matter, hint hint.



P.S. I haven't read it, yet, but this months National Geographic has an interesting article about human evolution.
 
Last edited:
richy, you touched on a lot of things in that last post of yours, many of them deeply philosophic and some of the top variables in scientific and religious debate - the kind of talking points that are near and dear to my heart. My take on you positions...

The universe is huge, massive even, and saying that is an understatement. I think we often fail to grasp just how large the universe is. The universe has millions, if not billions, of earth like planets (by that I mean life sustaining planets that fall withing the corridor of being just the right distance from it's star). That's ingredient no. 2. If you have some water (ingredient no. 3) then you are on to something. With a mix of energy (a star, ingredient no. 1) and the other two ingredients even the best disagreeing minds concede that the chances are very high that there is some life going on in such a situation.

Is it life as we know it? Probably not. But when you consider the mere size of the universe, the large number of life sustaining planets and the fact that all matter started from the same place (iron on Earth is the same iron that can can be found in the core of a distant star) then it's quite feasible to expect or suspect that there are beings out there that are very similar to us. The differences may stem from the planetary situations that influenced their evolution.

Perhaps you were asserting that there was no other "sentient" life in this massive (an understatement) universe of ours - a sentiment with which I disagree, see the paragraph above. But sentience in itself does not equal life. The capacity to recognize the self does not equal life, though it does plant the seeds for deep arrogance but that's a whole other philosophical discussion. So if sentience itself is not the definition of life then we have found life in our own back yard (our Solar system). We have proof of microbial life, which can be used to start to build arguments, hypotheses, designs and models of the high chance that there is life out there and closer to us than we think.

As for the argument about the last gnome standing, well that's one of those arrogant positions that are brought about by sentience (not having a go at you just making a point). To think that the design of life ends with the human race in this gigantic universe is kind of funny. This is why I think sentience is highly overrated. All things are born, they live and the cease (or die). In the long course of the life of a star - it is born and then is, and while it is do you think it cares or thinks about what it is doing? Does it care that it is the life source of a densely populated planet or planets? Does it care that it's gravitational pull disrupts other things? No. It just is and when it uses up it's resources and dies it just does, leaving all that needed it and relied on it in the dark to face their own ends. The same happens to a microbe and the same a human - though our sentience and humanity allow us to deal with these events (birth, life and death) in our own way...our existence makes no difference to the universe.

Not being a Debbie Downer, just flapping poetic about a juicy philosophical debate.

As for your other position on humanity's impact on the Earth - this post will be a blog by the time I am done with that one. So let me summarize by saying this, there will be an Earth here whether we are on it or not. Not unless our sun goes Nova or some rogue black hole comes along there will be a round rock revolving around our star. If we F up were outta here and the next species that can adapt will step up to the plate. If we F up majorly than all spices are outta here, but the rock will remain...at least for a bit while longer (another understatement).

Thanks for getting the creative juices flowing, I think I just broke free of my latest writer's block.

SSK
 
Sentience is overrated? lol. That's a good one.

The ability to truly analyze, question, learn, trade, invent...all overrated eh? Interesting viewpoint.

Yes, we've a lot to learn, and we have some serious *mental and emotional* evolving to do...but I'd say if the rarity of life is (for sake of understanding) 1 in 100...then I'd say the rarity of sentience is 1 in 100,000,000,000. In my eyes...that's how *special* sentience is. Look at the millions of lifeforms on our planet alone...and we are the only species that is sentient.

The difference between sentience and non-sentience is massive. It's quite literally the ability of a species to know it exists. As limited as our minds currently are, we can reach--with imagination and invention--to the vast reaches of the Universe...every other species is stuck in a bubble...a bubble of non-existence. Not having sentience, is almost like not being alive. It is like sleeping without dreams. *That* is how special it is.

Now...what we *do* with it is a different matter. We're only babies...but we will grow and learn. Yes we are not only inventive but bellicose, however, there is far more beauty in our species than distaste (in my eyes).

And as far as the nature of the Universe, and how *choice* doesn't matter (a star will explode, not caring the consequence), this is irrelevant when it comes to sentience. We can mold our own destinies...a Star can not.

And the power of willful thought can literally change the physical world...it's been proven. Where that takes us, is another library of its own.
 
Last edited:
Excellent points, M1chae1. This is why I love this debate.

The initial argument was about life and I injected the position on sentience - which I still stand by as being overrrated from the point of view that a being does not have to have self recognition to exist. I did not say sentience was a bad thing, though it is a heavy responsibility that we still have not grasped properly just yet.

But I like your points and they are some of the very fundamental arguments for sentience - perception, beauty, art, self consciousness. These are some of the things that are at the very core of humanity and could be attributed to sentience. But the problem is they are all biased from a certain point of view. They are limited to what we know and I think you can agree that we don't know everything. But I agree with you it's the ability to recognize, emote and have self awareness that measures the value of humanity (which I was not discounting as unimportant).

My argument is that life does not need sentience to be relevant (even if it exists in this so called bubble that you mentioned). So from this perspective sentience is overrated. If we were to agree to the aregument that we are the only senteint beings in the universe (which we probably are not) our senteince does not amount to a can of beans to anything else in our Solar system, save the next galaxy or the universe as a whole - imagination, dreams and best intentions withstanding. It only means somehing to us. It's not a bad thing per se, but it makes for bad arguments like sentience is life, which it most certainly is not.

I get your argument for choice and the control of one's destiny but like I said in my earlier post - if our star decides to call it a day, right here and right now, I'm guessing all of our sentience isn't going to make much of a difference.

I don't want to blur the lines here though, M1chae1. I have no beef with sentience and kinda like being smart enough to have these types of arguments and share my perceptions and point of view. But to make it seem like it is the reason why there is life is something I would like to debate.

SSK
 
Of course you don't need sentience for life to exist--I don't think anyone is saying that. And I wasn't saying that humanity is in a bubble, actually I was saying we've broken free of that bubble because of sentience, imagination and invention (compared to every other living thing we know). Of course...we *are* in a bubble still...but that's beside this point.

If a being is not sentient, it does not mean it doesn't exist, but to the creature in question, the universe does not exist, nor does itself. A frog does not know it exists...it does not know it *is*...nor does it know that there is more beyond it's lily pad. It only knows what drives it to eat...to mate...to call. The Universe created an entirely different *code* when it introduced sentience. Some call it God, a soul, divine intervention, intelligent design...whatever you want to call it...there is something in sentience that is the most important thing in the known Universe. Without it, we would cease to exist so to speak...when I say 'we' I mean all sentience creatures in the Universe. Yes, we know that you don't need sentience for life or reality to exist...but without sentience, it *might as well* not exist, because it's not even being perceived.

I wish I could explain it even more clearly...but it's impossible. But I can feel it. I can feel the potential, and I can feel how unique sentience is...I am...we are. Regardless of our shortcomings, and regardless of our impact on the Universe...what we've been given is something very very special. We perceive...and that I think is one of the keys to open the many doors to the Universe, our reality, and all of existence. Sentience is a key...a key to many doors...we just need to find them.
 
Well put, M1chae1. You emote very well my friend, I can feel where you are coming from.

I love me some sentience too. Big fan of the sentience. I was just making a point that its existence does not make non-sentient lifeforms irrelevant and to further make an argument against the claim that the absence of sentience makes the existence of the universe irrelevant. The universe was here when we were just ooze, is here with us now and will be here when we are not.

You know there was a take on this in Babylon 5 that I really enjoyed. It went something like...sentience is the manifestation of universe's quest to understand itself. I like that. It does not make sentience and the universe mutually exclusive but makes it most pertinent in almost everything. This is where the passion and sentiment in your posts rings at its loudest and most true. This is why I believe that there will always be sentient life in the universe, be it us or something else.

I really enjoyed these posts, M1chae1. They have inspired me to dig even deeper within myself to make an even juicier story for the set of sci-fi shorts I am writing.

Indietalk.com simply ROCKS!!!

SSK
 
Well put yourself Kosh. And yes, I love the idea that sentience is the Universe's attempt to understand itself.

It's definitely a piece of the puzzle most important to what we know (and what we don't)...without it, we'd never even pose the question...nor would we even know there *are* questions to pose.

Man, I think about this all the time. One of the reasons I'm huge into space and quantum physics...although I've not been blessed with a mathematical mind, nor have I overachieved in academia in general...I feel I have a unique viewpoint which somehow skims the surface of truth...I just don't know how.

I will say I believe in a 'God'...I just don't believe in organized religion. I'm both a creationist and an evolutionist. What 'God' is...I don't know. I just know there is a design to this reality, and whether I learn more after death or not...I know my 'energy' will always be recycled, so maybe since time is infinite...a few zillion years down the road, I'll be 'reborn'...which is cool with me, because if I'm not around to know it, the time gap will go unnoticed.

:)

Cheers.

I enjoy your posts as well.
 
My Two Cents

Hi All--First post here. I have always HATED 3d. Not just disliked, but really truly hated it. With Avatar tho the 3d was the ONLY thing I DID like!
The use of negative depth instead of just stuff flying off the screen was really good i thought. but i didnt care much for the story.
 
Ok guys, I know this thread is almost almost almost dead, BUT I had to say I was just watching "FernGully: The Last Rainforest" at 3:23 in the morning. And I wanted you to know that not only is Avatar like it, theres a scene that is almost identical! Everyone remember the scene when Jake Sully is passed out and the Navi girl is trying to wake him up? They are in the forest and the big giant deforesting equipment is coming straight for them? Thats almost an exact scene from fern gully. Earlier in this thread I had said they were similar, but that scene is a complete ripoff! In FernGully I don't quite remember the characters names because the movie has been on silent while I've been reading a book, but the little tan guy with the blue shirt and blonde hair is stuck in a cobweb on a tree that is actually in motion into the wood chipper, then the little pixie girl is flying around trying to get him out while he's unconscious.

Sorry, like I said its 3 almost 4 in the morning and as soon as I saw that, I felt like I must tell someone.


:sleep:
 
This thread isn't dead at all.

I just took Paul the Oracle Octopus and stuck an Avatar DVD in his tank and he liked it.

Take that, Avatar haters.

Don't hate the top grossing movie of all time ;)
 
Well in ROC, well in.

While the hate embiggens (yeah I said it), Jim Cameron just keeps making mad bank. Yup I am so sure he cares right now, can't sleep, is devastated even.
 
Sucked. Only reason to hate is BECAUSE it was so successful, though. Otherwise, just another piece of crap...not really worth hating. The stupid neon video game aesthetics aside, the blue Earth people chanting in synch (me at that moment - "WTF is this shit? Were people laughing out loud in the theater at this crap?"), and the whole political thrust of this film make me want to vomit in Cameron's Limo.

Such is life. Cameron gets to make a billion dollars, and I get to call him a hack. So we're both happy.
 
Last edited:
Joe Citizen said:
Only reason to hate is BECAUSE it was so successful, though.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your honesty, but this is a mentality I just don't understand.

I do not like the movie "300" one bit. Nor do I like any of the "Twighlight" movies. Okay, so they're not the top grossing films of all time, but you can definitely call them "successful", and there are more than enough people who do like them. But you'll never find me hating on them. If you ask my opinion, I'll tell you, but you won't find me going out of my way to hate on them.

Avatar-haters go way out of their way to tell you how lousy they think this movie is. They dig up news articles and post them on Facebook, as if to somehow legitamize their contempt. That kind of weirds me out. Why does the success of a movie make you angry? And why do you care that there are so many people who do like this movie? I just don't understand.
 
Well, I didn't like it.
I will concede that visually it was spectacular and I really did love that, although I didn't think the 3-D was at all necessary.
The thing is I just didn't like the plot (I'm aware it was simplistic) but it just felt quite weak, especially when it came to some of the writing, I mean, unabtanium (or however you spell it, I never knew), really?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top