My wife and I saw Avatar last night in 3D, and we both totally enjoyed it. Yes, the plot was somewhat simple, and yes, it is a white man's escape fantasy. (I mean, what people would let an outsider lead them into war after only 3 months?) But that doesn't take away from the fact that it is a very good movie, which my non-SF-loving wife loved as much as I did. That last fact speaks to why this film is so successful with audiences.
What really impressed me was that the science behind the movie was so accurate. No Star Trek red matter here. For anyone interested in the science behind the movie, go here. I should note that Cameron's comment about writing science fact instead of science fiction is arrogant and irritating, but in light of how accurate the science behind the film is, I'll give him a pass.
You say the science was "good". Another reviewer (http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2010/01/avatar-the-good-and-the-bad/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Sfsignal+%28SFSignal%29) says the science was "bad".
I guess I'll have to see it for myself to decide!
Posted by: Scott Marlowe | January 02, 2010 at 01:28 PM
Interestingly, the presence of unusual or strong magnetic fields--like those proposed in that article for Pandora--have been linked with presence of ghosts and supernatural happenings (http://science.howstuffworks.com/ghost3.htm). Maybe that explains the Na'vi spirituality and what Cameron is really trying to tell us is that primitive people often mistake science for God.
Or maybe I'm just being contrary because I thought the whole thing was a bit silly, science or no science.
Posted by: Dylan Fox | January 02, 2010 at 04:25 PM
Scott: A major issue John Denardo had with the science of Avatar in that review is addressed in that article I linked to (i.e., the floating mountains). It should also be pointed out any film created by humans will be anthromorphic, which means not only basing animals on earth animals but also creating the major aliens in our own image. And Cameron did this for a very good reason--who'd watch a love story involving slimy alien slugs (or any other totally inhuman alien)?
So obviously there are limitations to how far the film goes in describing how alien an alien world would be. Still, overall I feel the science was pretty accurate, which is more than can be said for most SF movies.
Posted by: Jason Sanford | January 02, 2010 at 04:55 PM
I think, for me, the main reason I enjoyed this movie so much was the sheer epicness of the scope. Not necessarily story-wise, but "world-wise".
I'm a long-time gamer, so the gamer in me was simply breathless when my wife and I first saw this on the night it premiered. I am also notoriously anti-3D, but we went to see this at the IMAX 3D because that's how he intended the film to be seen. (the last film I saw in 3D was Beowulf, and I had a flippin' headache by the time it was over)
In short...I had vertigo several times. I literally had tears in my eyes during some of the wide shots because of how epic that world "looked" and "felt".
I was so moved that my wife and I went back again and saw it the next morning at 11 a.m., again in IMAX 3D.
Storywise...it's typical Cameron fare. It's easy to follow, accessible to the ever-man viewer (your non-sci-fi wife, for example, Jason), and wildly entertaining. It contains stereotypes, story cliches, all by the dozens...but it doesn't stop it from being an eyegasmic experience that (in my case) literally takes your breath away.
I absolutely believe that this is the future of adventure films. Considering that fact that Spielberg, Lucas, and Jackson were all brought on set for Cameron to show off his new tech, and the fact that Lucas and Jackson's special effects companies were both involved (ILM and Weta both did special effects on the film, although Weta did the majority), you can expect to see some pretty innovative advancements in the technology from the leaders of the past generation of adventure film-makers.
Was a little turned off by Cameron's admittance that he was going to do a trilogy of this film...until I read the articles linked here where he talks about the actual science involved in the whole process. I have to admit, it actually makes me look forward to reading the novel and seeing any future films where they actually delve into more of the science of the world/setting (if they were to do so)
Posted by: T.W. Anderson | January 03, 2010 at 08:51 AM
T.W.: Thanks for the great comment. I didn't know Cameron brought Spielberg, Lucas, and Jackson onto his set to learn how this was done. That little fact means we should expect more films like this in the coming years.
And in case anyone want to learn more about the science behind Avatar, here's an article on how they created the films' plants: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-avatar-q-and-a2-2010jan02,0,5033714.story?track=rss
Posted by: Jason Sanford | January 03, 2010 at 09:29 AM
Aye, the whole "directing with a 3D set" really sparked some interest among the big adventure movie makers of the past few decades. It's fairly cool how it's all done...being able to literally see the set through the director's monitor since it's already created in the digital world, and while the actors can only see the green screen/sets (typical of the past), the director can now actually see the set through his monitor, allowing for greater direction that is superior to the old green screen work. I know that's the main reason why the big trilogy of directors have been so interested the past few years. I'm also pretty sure that Jackson was tying in his latest set of digital cameras with Cameron's new technology (don't quote me on that...going off of memory from a year or so back)
Considering Weta did the vast majority of the work on this film, I'd imagine we are in for a fairly gasptastic experience when they finally release the 2 Hobbit films.
Not sure what Spielberg has in the works, but Lucas has that live-action Star Wars series that he's working on. Not sure if the budget will allow for this tech to be used, but in any case...I'm fairly certain the future of adventure movies is forever changed by Avatar. It might not have broken ground with storytelling, but as far as visually...that's a whole 'nother story.
Thanks for the links. It's definitely interesting to read about the science behind it all.
Posted by: T.W. Anderson | January 03, 2010 at 04:52 PM
The science of Avatar is non-existent (not that the Star Trek reboot was any better). Pandora's planetary physics were completely incorrect and so were the lifeforms unless you posit (un)intelligent design.
Of course, that is secondary to the fact that the film channeled the director's inner 15-year old spoiled self-absorbed boy.
Posted by: Athena Andreadis | January 07, 2010 at 07:44 PM
To say nothing of the glaring inaccuracies of mind uploading, mind transmigration and neural plug-ins (which would result in a totally different set of behaviors)... or the equally glaring White Man's Burden -- aka White Soldierboy Gets to Be the Baddest Injun of Them All.
Posted by: Athena Andreadis | January 07, 2010 at 09:31 PM
On the science, the links I posted speak to that (with the caveat that of course filmmakers will make the animals and aliens be earth-like enough that audiences will relate to them). As for the other issues you raise, see Roz Kaveney's examination of the film on Strange Horizons at http://www.strangehorizons.com/reviews/2010/01/avatar-comments.shtml
Posted by: Jason Sanford | January 07, 2010 at 10:01 PM