Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Avatar, Has Sci-fi Found Its Heaven's Gate?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the wilburies-playing-end-of-the-line dept.

brumgrunt writes "Den Of Geek wonders if James Cameron's Avatar is heading for a fall, and if it will even be a science fiction film, off the back of the previews shown last week. It writes: 'It seems in Avatar that all this gee-whiz science is merely there to draw the "old crowd" in and provide some kind of rationale for a brightly-coloured fantasy-world which reflects the most emetic of the artwork plastered over teenage girls' MySpace pages.'"

14 of 443 comments (clear)

  1. Story? by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wait, what is this story? Looks like some editorial about how Avatar won't be good.

    1. Re:Story? by Anonymous+Cowar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I complain on forums about video games that I haven't even played!"

      In other news, the internet, James Cameron, and the world at large carries on despite the ramblings of some poor little guy who got beaten in middle school by a crowd of little girls wielding Lisa Frank binders.

  2. OR... by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or, Avatar will completely whip ass and this and all other negative critiques will be laughed at and/or forgotten.

    --
    stuff |
    1. Re:OR... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or, more likely, some people will rave about it, some people will rant about it, and the vast majority will just get some entertainment from it and never think twice. I don't really get why this film is being championed on Slashdot - its a film, nothing more. Just because it has a scifi orientated plot doesn't make it something to hold up and worship, there are plenty of decent scifi films out there.

  3. Only On Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Where District 9 is already as great as Star Wars and a movie that's not even out sucks.

    1. Re:Only On Slashdot by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >>>Joss Whedon is a derivative hack who can't help be defile every thing he touches with some sort of adolescent fantasy involving shitty, super-powered, little girls.
      >>>

      Now now. Whedon's not that bad. First-off they're not little girls - they're young women. Second produced two excellent shows (Buffy, Angel), a decent show (Firefly), and a mediocre show (Dollhouse). That's better than a lot of his colleagues. Gene Roddenberry did no better (one hit wonder) and neither did J.Michael Straczynski (another one-hitter) or Michael Pillar (DS9 and BSG). It's simply not possible to make EVERY show a hit. Whedon has no reason to feel shame.

      I have noticed though that Whedon seems to have a foot fetish.
      He spends a lot of time focusing his camera on women's feet.
      Well nobody's perfect. ;-)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  4. Puhlease! by Recovering+Hater · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In Avatar, mankind has the ability to cross the voids of space in an effort to mine a mineral rich alien world. Bring these minerals back for refinemant and use. We have the ability to implant a human mind into an alien avatar body that we have ourselves created and control that persons new avatar body. And yet we can't repair a paralyzed human body? Fail.

    --
    My humor is probably your flamebait
    1. Re:Puhlease! by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not all technological advancement happens at a steady, conformal pace - we can send probes to other worlds, put men in space, travel across the face of the earth in hours and yet we still rely on physicians making judgement calls about diagnoses?

      We can investigate the fundamentals of the universe, the big bang and quantum physics, but we are yet to fully understand every step in the process of photosynthesis - one of the most widely used processes in life on this planet.

      Just two examples.

    2. Re:Puhlease! by jollyreaper · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not all technological advancement happens at a steady, conformal pace - we can send probes to other worlds, put men in space, travel across the face of the earth in hours and yet we still rely on physicians making judgement calls about diagnoses?

      We can investigate the fundamentals of the universe, the big bang and quantum physics, but we are yet to fully understand every step in the process of photosynthesis - one of the most widely used processes in life on this planet.

      Yeah, but being able to understand genetics enough to create an avatar and remote link a mind to it seems to imply a very strong understanding of biology. The level of ridiculousness here would be like saying "Ok, so they have cyborgs in this universe, ones capable of passing for human, the AI's are very advanced, yet they still have people manually flying aircraft and driving vehicles, not just out of a sense of nostalgia but because it can't be done...Wait a sec!"

      People were complaining about Firefly's wild west aspect with office towers and spaceships on one planet and nothing but horses and six-shooters on another. Well, we do have some pretty wild differences on this planet. Just look at the range of human technology depicted in District 9, cell phones in shanty towns. I could make a good argument that a farmer who has no certain access to outside resources would prefer an ox to a tractor since an ox is easier to fuel, two oxen can make more oxen, etc. A tractor could represent a recurring expense he cannot afford. And then to really blow your mind, he could use a solar-powered laptop with GPS to plot the lay of his fields. Hey, the laptop works for a long time if you don't break it and the sun's free...

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  5. Re:Avatar first-impression: by A.+B3ttik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Avatar: FernGully with Mechs.

  6. male chauvanism? by Lexible · · Score: 4, Insightful

    most emetic of the artwork plastered over teenage girls' MySpace pages

    sure... while teenage boys' fantasies get exalted into "real sci-fi"? (like, say the recent star trek movie?) mayhap den of geek should adjust his testosterone obsession by reading ursula le guin, c. j. cherryh, octavia butler, dorris lessing, joanna rush, emma bull, oh and heck, anne mccaffrey. i can't help but imagine that it would nicely leaven the quality of questions about sci-fi he poses.

  7. Three words: by unfortunateson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    James F*cking Cameron

    Has he let us down up until now? Aliens, Terminator, T2, Abyss (not kick-ass amazing, but still a good flick), True Lies... you have to go back to Pirhana to get a stinker, and he was still cutting his chops, and he didn't write it.

    And I don't know what trailer the critic watched, but I'm with Sam Worthington: "This is *GREAT*"

    --
    Design for Use, not Construction!
  8. Re:Heaven's Gate? by tverbeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just because you're a toddler with no knowledge of cinema history doesn't mean the rest of us are. I understood the reference immediately. And it's by making occasional reference to things that happened before you were born (such as this) that history is passed down to youngsters (such as yourself). (I'd make an allusion to Logan's Run, but I fear that would sail over your head as well.)

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  9. a few thoughts by stiller · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1) It's James Cameron. Is this still Slashdot? Do I really have to explain who this is and why he deserves some credit?
    2) IMAX 3D. It's phenomenal. Really, it is. The Avatar preview was one of the most exciting things I've seen, visually, in a long time. It was like playing Doom for the first time. Or the first time seeing bullet time in the Matrix. And I know what you're going to say, "a good film should be enjoyable on any medium". Sure, enjoyable. But would you say that a Rembrandt is just as enjoyable to watch as a monochrome poststamp reproduction? Or that you'd just as well listen to Pink Floyd over the telephone? No, it would ruin the experience. Cameron has always pushed the envelope both visually and technically. T2 and Aliens were mostly just very well designed and executed remakes of the original, mostly.
    3) The plot. Most of us haven't read the screenplay. So we are basing our judgment on a two minute trailer. The premise of "Dances with Wolves" in space doesn't sound exciting, so what? It's exactly that; a premise. Most films are based on a simple premise, it's what you do with it that matters. I personally like the idea of a classic adventure film set it space, but maybe that's me. If you don't like a story about a young man who leaves his home planet to fight with a group of rebels against a technically seemingly superior power by tapping into some mythical power, so be it.
    4) The trailer. I actually agree. I don't think it's well done at all. Too much slow-motion, which completely cripples the motion capture performance. After seeing it, I had serious doubts about going to the IMAX screening. I can only say, I'm glad I went.