Avatar

[blackhorse]

After reading this article ---- http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/12/11/review-camerons-avatar-is-a-big-dull-america-hating-pc-revenge-fantasy/#idc-cover ---- I will NOT be seeing this morally repugnant garbage.

[Brant Gaede]

After reading this article ---- http://bighollywood....tasy/#idc-cover ---- I will NOT be seeing this morally repugnant garbage.

If this review is true we can take bets how many hundreds of millions of dollars float away into the red out of the half billion investment. I say 350 million or 3.5.

--Brant

[Greybird]

Does any Objectivist-type refrain from judging a created work by, and through, its reviews? (If this spoiler-laden litany of complaints even qualifies as a reasonable review, that is.)

I'm coming to doubt it. ... And some here wonder why those who take Rand seriously aren't, well, very often taken seriously.

I expect a spectacle with "Avatar," and will probably get it when I see it. Cameron has an effective storytelling track record with me, and I'm willing to give this a chance.

[Chris Grieb]

I was not planning to see Avatar. I still don't plan to see it.

[jordanz]

James Cameron is great at making spectacle, but he's a lousy writer. I'm probably in the minority, but I thought Titanic was awful. I, too, will not be seeing Avatar.

[Chris Grieb]

James Cameron is great at making spectacle, but he's a lousy writer. I'm probably in the minority, but I thought Titanic was awful. I, too, will not be seeing Avatar.

Jordan; The biggest problem with Titanic was to cast DeCarpio as the hero. He looked like a 12 year old. There are some good moments in the script. Wallace Hartley's last words as he dismisses the Titanic band always has me sniffing.

[Alfonso Jones]

Does any Objectivist-type refrain from judging a created work by, and through, its reviews? (If this spoiler-laden litany of complaints even qualifies as a reasonable review, that is.)

I'm coming to doubt it. ... And some here wonder why those who take Rand seriously aren't, well, very often taken seriously.

I expect a spectacle with "Avatar," and will probably get it when I see it. Cameron has an effective storytelling track record with me, and I'm willing to give this a chance.

I think the matter is a bit more . . . to pick a much-used term . . . nuanced.

Who watches all movies which come out? Not many of us watch even a sizeable fraction. So, what do you do? Read reviews, see previews, and then make a decision on whether to spend the time/money to watch a given movie.

Now, Rand (and some others emulating her) did have a bad occasional practice of writing about a book based on a review (and, as I recall some accounts from multiple people, based on reports from members of the Collective), and openly declaring that she hadn't read the book (or seen the movie, as the case might be) and would be reading/seeing same. That's a bit different from deciding not to watch something, based on it appearing to be obnoxious in some way based on reviews or previews.

Regards,

Bill Parr

[sbeaulieu]

Despite good or bad reviews, I'm going to see it. Afterward, I'll decide if I like it or not.

~ Shane

[Greybird]

[...] Who watches all movies which come out? Not many of us watch even a sizable fraction. So, what do you do? Read reviews, see previews, and then make a decision on whether to spend the time/money to watch a given movie.

Division of labor, and that's using a tool to gather evidence. Nothing wrong with that — although some reviewers get a grandiose attitude that their writing goes beyond a purely incremental, practical, tool-creating role.

Reviews shouldn't and usually don't fully expose an unfolding plot or dramatic surprises. They aren't at all the same as critiques, which cannot avoid doing so in making comparisons and contrasts. Yet neither kind of writing is a substitute for following the detailed reasoning in a created work first-hand.

You can create your esthetic and conceptual tactics with the use of reviews and critiques, narrowing your field of focus to what's likely to be fruitful or pleasurable. You can't, however, legitimately create your esthetic and conceptual judgments that way.

Now, Rand (and some others emulating her) did have a bad occasional practice of writing about a book based on a review (and, as I recall some accounts from multiple people, based on reports from members of the Collective), and openly declaring that she hadn't read the book (or seen the movie, as the case might be) and would [not] be reading/seeing same.

From John Rawls — where this precedent was set openly and in print — to Burns and Heller, Rand and emulators have done this dozens of times over at least 35 years. Reviews are not enough evidence for legitimate judgments. Critiques are rarely even useful without first-hand knowledge of the work. And neither provides full conceptual chains.

You have to trace these chains yourself if a commentary is to have any lasting value. Rand, showing utter weariness about doing so in those "Letter" days of 1972, knew this task had no valid shortcut, and even admitted that she knew it. Yet she indulged in it anyway — along with pretending later that her take on someone's review provided valid, important conclusions about Rawls himself.

It's the pattern Peikoff blindly emulated with his abominable proclamation, in "Fact and Value," of similar illegitimate shortcuts to personal ethical judgments.

That's a bit different from deciding not to watch something, based on it appearing to be obnoxious in some way based on reviews or previews.

This particular "Avatar" commentary didn't, to me, even rise to the level of a legitimate review. It selected evidence to "prove" an external political point, one that has little to do with esthetic success or failure.

If someone uses such a piece to become not only dissuaded, but also part of a crusade against a work, it suggests a shallowness in gathering evidence for any and all such judgments. I'd think any articulate person would be reluctant to proclaim this about oneself to a worldwide Net public.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Greybird

[Alfonso Jones]

[...] Who watches all movies which come out? Not many of us watch even a sizable fraction. So, what do you do? Read reviews, see previews, and then make a decision on whether to spend the time/money to watch a given movie.

Division of labor, and that's using a tool to gather evidence. Nothing wrong with that — although some reviewers get a grandiose attitude that their writing goes beyond a purely incremental, practical, tool-creating role.

Reviews shouldn't and usually don't fully expose an unfolding plot or dramatic surprises. They aren't at all the same as critiques, which cannot avoid doing so in making comparisons and contrasts. Yet neither kind of writing is a substitute for following the detailed reasoning in a created work first-hand.

You can create your esthetic and conceptual tactics with the use of reviews and critiques, narrowing your field of focus to what's likely to be fruitful or pleasurable. You can't, however, legitimately create your esthetic and conceptual judgments that way.

Now, Rand (and some others emulating her) did have a bad occasional practice of writing about a book based on a review (and, as I recall some accounts from multiple people, based on reports from members of the Collective), and openly declaring that she hadn't read the book (or seen the movie, as the case might be) and would [not] be reading/seeing same.

From John Rawls (where this precedent was set) to Jennifer Burns, Rand and emulators have done this dozens of times over at least 35 years. Reviews are not enough evidence for legitimate judgments. Critiques are rarely even useful without first-hand knowledge of the work. And neither provides full conceptual chains.

I'm sorry, but relying on such tools is no shortcut to valid esthetic or logical judgments. Rand knew better, and even said so, but indulged in it anyway — pretending later that her take on a review said something important about Rawls himself.

And it's the pattern Peikoff blindly emulated with his abominable proclamation, in "Fact and Value," of similar illegitimate shortcuts to ethical judgments.

That's a bit different from deciding not to watch something, based on it appearing to be obnoxious in some way based on reviews or previews.

This particular "Avatar" commentary didn't, to me, even rise to the level of a legitimate review. It selected evidence to "prove" an external political point, one that has little to do with esthetic success or failure.

To use such a piece to become not only dissuaded, but also part of a crusade against a work, suggests a shallowness in gathering evidence for any and all such judgments. I'd think any articulate person would be reluctant to proclaim this about oneself to a worldwide Net public.

I'm not certain if we've found something on which we disagree here. I want to make it clear that practical living requires that we make judgments of some sort about movies, books, etc... based on partial information - - - who the lead actors are, previews, reviews, etc... And it's in no way a deficiency to do so. To watch a movie or not is not going to be a momentous decision. What is the cost to me if I decide not to watch the fifth movie in the Rocky series based on seeing the preview and some reviews? Even if it's a wonderful movie - my loss is minimal.

For me to pretend profound knowledge about Rocky 5 based on having seen a preview and some reviews - - that would be the error. And (as both of us have mentioned) that was done by Rand, and emulated by some of her follower/wannabes. But for me to simply decide not to watch Rocky 5 on that basis - is eminently reasonable.

Bill P

[Greybird]

Bill, I shouldn't have given the impression of important disagreement here, because you're talking about quite reasonable tactics for narrowing focus, and I got into thinking more broadly and "out loud."

I'll only make two notes: I added an apparently omitted "[not]" in quoting your posting, because that's what Rand and others have proclaimed, that they will not sully themselves with first-hand knowledge of some works.

And I added some nuances to my own posting — which came while you were quoting an earlier version in full, one that I cannot re-edit. I would ask that we all not simply quote an earlier posting in full. In an ongoing thread, it's rarely necessary.

When we are only allowed one hour to better shape what we write here, some of us end up getting a bit desperate in doing so during the time allowed. Look at the timestamps, folks. Especially if you see someone has posted within the last hour, please do not quote them in full!

Edited December 17, 2009 by Greybird

[Alfonso Jones]

Bill, I shouldn't have given the impression of important disagreement here, because you're talking about quite reasonable tactics for narrowing focus, and I got into thinking more broadly and "out loud."

I'll only make two notes: I added an apparently omitted "[not]" in quoting your posting, because that's what Rand and others have proclaimed, that they will not sully themselves with first-hand knowledge of some works.

And I added some nuances to my own posting — which came while you were quoting an earlier version in full, one that I cannot re-edit. I would ask that we all not simply quote an earlier posting in full. In an ongoing thread, it's rarely necessary.

When we are only allowed one hour to better shape what we write here, some of us end up getting a bit desperate in doing so during the time allowed. Look at the timestamps, folks. Especially if you see someone has posted within the last hour, please do not quote them in full!

There are ambiguities and difficulties caused by the phenomena of people editing posts, of course. I'm not certain that the idea of not quoting the previous post is a good solution. IN such a case:

Party A posts.

Party B responds to this post.

Party A edits their original post.

Now if the edits by Party A are substantial, then that potentially leaves Party B's response looking foolish or disconnected - because it is a response to a post which has been made invisible by Party A editing that post. If Party B quotes Party A's posts (at least the parts relevant to Party B's response) then that problem is avoided.

So I suggest that it is in fact a good thing to quote the post to which you are responding, if your response is really a RESPONSE, and not just another unrelated post on the subject. Of course, it would be ideal to spend the extra time to focus and only quote those parts to which one is directly responding, when that is possible.

What do you think? It seems there are drawbacks each way:

1) If Party B quotes Party A, then what Party A said originally is there "forever." This makes Party B's response more coherent as a response, if Party A's edits were substantial. But if Party A has changed their mind, the quotes from their original post (partial or complete, as the case may be) remain.

2) If Party B doesn't quote Party A, then if Party A changes their post within the hour in ways linked to Party B's prior response, then things are disconnected and incoherent.

Note that the problem doesn't arise if Party A does not edit their post after putting it online. That's, of course, the ideal solution - to not substantially edit posts already submitted.

Bill P

[syrakusos]

I was on IMDB checking some facts and I saw the Trailer for AVATAR, so I watched it. I was swept away... for about a minute... then, I realized that this was just a retelling of an old story and (apparently) with a one-dimensionsal story line. Let me guess: the First People defeat the Marine Corps and keep the village and its nitronium mineral rights. But I'll bet that the second-favorite blue guy gets killed.

The graphics were stunning, and some of the storyline concepts (the avatar itself) are compelling, but, the thing is that with historical fiction or science fiction either way, you have to really work hard to get out of your own context. Really, so much alternate reality (fantasy, western) fiction is just mainstream fiction in costume dress.

[9thdoctor]

If the review’s accurate about the entertainment value, then it may be Cameron’s Waterloo (or do I mean Waterworld?), and if the ideology is so pernicious then it’ll be a flop to applaud. I’ll almost certainly wait for it to come out on video. 60 Minutes did a puff piece on it a week or two ago, and it doesn’t look good to me at all. Cameron’s had great successes though, I remember Peikoff and associates said/wrote nasty things about Titanic, way out of proportion I felt, and look how that one sank…

[John Day]

I'll probably find the film's message to be overbearing, but I'm still very interested in the film from a technical standpoint and I very much enjoy big action movies. I'm not sure if I'll see it yet.

[anonrobt]

This review came online today - http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2009-12/avatar-review-we-have-technology-now-what

[sbeaulieu]

After seeing the movie yesterday, I'm in awe on several fronts.

From a technical standpoint, Cameron and crew outdid themselves. My son and I watched it in 3D...spectacular work on creating a new, believable ecosystem. Simply amazing!

From a storyline perspective, I saw it simply as a setting where corporations were in control using military muscle for security and for leveraging their interests as a last resort. In this movie, unobtainium sells for $20M per kilogram, so greed (in the bad sense) rears its ugly head. The RDS corporate boss (Giovani Ribisi) is willing to displace, by force, the indiginous lifeforms to get at a substantial cache of the rare ore. Conflict.

** SPOILER **

As a diplomatic effort RDS has funded the Avatar program, which blends human and Na'vi DNA. A human pilot controls the avatar through a mental interface. It is RDA's hope that by using these avatars, they can ingratiate themselves with the locals. They introduced language and schooling, medicine and supplies, etc. The underlying motive was to get the Navi to move from their current location to exploit the unobtainium deposits under their hometree. Sounds a lot like deforestation efforts in South America. Needless to say, their diplomatic efforts failed.

The bulk of the movie focuses on Jake Sully (a parapalegic Marine). He shares, conveniently, an exact genome match to his twin brother (killed), who was a scientist slated to pilot the Na'vi avatar. The twist in the story comes in the guise of a warrior avatar (all previous pilots have been scientists) in the form of Jake. He presents an intel doorway for the dubious Col Quaritch. Promising Jake will get his legs back, the Col has him in his back pocket.

As Jake is integrated into the Na'vi society, he starts to become one of them. He learns their ways, customs, and language. His mindset changes as he falls in love with the Na'vi and his mentor, Neytiri.

Unfortunately, Jake is unable to persuade the Na'vi from moving. RDA implements their military solution. Conflict ensues and it culminates in all-out war.

** SPOILER **

There is a lot going on in this movie outside of the CG spectacle. I would persuade each and everyone of you to view the movie for yourself. Chances are if you listen to critics, you're not getting the full story. If they lean left or right, the takeaways are going to differ considerably. If you're like me, you'll go to a movie simply for the joy of sitting down with loved ones and having a good time. James Cameron spent a considerable amount of time on this story. I, for one, am glad he told it. It was visually engrossing and was able to evoke emotions. That's not CG, that's storytelling.

~ Shane

[Greybird]

I came to a few conclusions last night, after getting home from the movies.

First, that James Cameron remains what I've long believed him to be: one of the goddamn best storytellers in the history of cinema.

Second, that this particular creation of his is a visual, technical, and anti-authoritarian masterpiece.

Third, that I'm tired, beyond being bone-weary, of encountering over thirty years of "Objectivist Correctness" about art — a variety that's just as bad as what is thrown at us from any other corner of our civilization.

Fourth, that I'm truly ashamed, in the court of my own conscience, for letting that "O.C." too often trump my own esthetic responses.

And finally, that I'm fed up, to the point of intellectual nausea, at seeing Objectivist venues being filled with Arguments from Intimidation that are used as a substitute for genuine discussion.

So, goodbye — at least for now — and good luck.

[9thdoctor]

I'm fed up, to the point of intellectual nausea, at seeing Objectivist venues being filled with Arguments from Intimidation that are used as a substitute for genuine discussion.

So, goodbye — at least for now — and good luck.

Which posts on this thread does your evaluation apply to, besides perhaps the first? Ta-Ta, I know I won’t be missing you.

[Brant Gaede]

After reading this article ---- http://bighollywood....tasy/#idc-cover ---- I will NOT be seeing this morally repugnant garbage.

If this review is true we can take bets how many hundreds of millions of dollars float away into the red out of the half billion investment. I say 350 million or 3.5.

--Brant

Have to eat my words. The damn thing is grossing 2 bil and counting. Adjusted for inflation GWTW grossed almost three times as much but this baby is still cooking.

--Brant

[Chris Grieb]

Avatar was nominated for nine Oscars. It is tied with "The Hurt Locker" in number of nominations. Most of nominations are for technical Oscar.

[lamphorn]

Saw it 3 times. Once at a SAG screening on the 20th Century Fox lot with a James Cameron Q and A. While I'm very impressed with the technological achievement of this film, the writing is just kind of lame. The "message" is boneheaded and crowbarred in unnecessarily. Cameron has made good movies before (Aliens, the 2 Terminators), but I wonder if he's jut become rusty in the writing dept.

[Tony]

Cameron has made good movies before (Aliens, the 2 Terminators) but I wonder if he's jut become rusty in the writing dept.

I don't think Cameron's "Aliens" was an improvement over Ridley Scott's original, and I never was impressed with Terminator series.

[Christopher]

I highly recommend the movie. I also must say, "hey guys, be human a little!" We can't think our way into a lot of what it means to be human, we have to realize it through experience. This movie offers some rich experiences that provide food for thought.

Christopher

[Tony]

I highly recommend the movie. I also must say, "hey guys, be human a little!" We can't think our way into a lot of what it means to be human, we have to realize it through experience. This movie offers some rich experiences that provide food for thought.

Christopher

What 'food for thought' did the movie provide?

Edited February 18, 2010 by Red Grant