101 réponses à ce sujet

[addiction21]

Mlow44 wrote...


wow. that comment about the volus is WAY disturbing. You'd compare the Jewish race to the Volus because they're "greedy traders?" You, sir, are an ****

Why dont you read the thread.It was in response to the OP talking about how no aliens were a direct result of basing them off of Human racial/cultural STEROTYPES.
No where am I saying its right, wrong, true or false. But that a case could be made if we were working on STEROTYPES.
So would you actually like to refute any points or continue to take something out of context, that was cherry picked from my post and show your lack of reading comprehension?

[MerinTB]

addiction21 wrote...

"The level of detail that went into creating interesting unique races in ME is astounding.  All Avatar did was just go, "Uhhh.  Let's just make 'em big blue Native Americans."

I can do the same. Asari are just blue females. The drell are just big frogs. How about the geth? Just a rip off from countless other scifi "the robots rise against their creators" races. The Quarians are just the humans from BSG in EVO suits.

We all can make over the top generalizations and then say they suck.

I'm not going to point by point you on this, addiction21, cause we're friends -
but -

It isn't some superficial comparision.  The WHOLE STORY of Avatar has the Na'vi as Native Americans.  I know it's supposed to be spiritually-connected-to-the-land-aboriginals, but the story is about colonials invading America for resources and wanting to displace the native population.

Saying the drell are big frogs or the asari are blue women is overly simplifying that is not justified by the writing of Mass Effect and you know better.

Saying the Na'vi are just big blue Native Americans IS, at least arguably, supported by the story of Avatar.

I stand that it is a fair comparision to say there is real depth to the asari as a species and nothing but surface depth to the Na'Vi.  And Cameron spent more time on Avatar than Bioware spent on ME1 and 2 combined, so he had time to make the Na'vi more original and the story more original.

You can love the movie or hate it, but Avatar's world is extremely cliched regardless.

To be fair, as I did earlier in the thread, ME's universe constantly reminds me of Star Control and Babylon 5, amongst other sci-fi stories.  But ME, unlike Avatar, takes the existing tropes and memes and combines them in interesting ways with good dialog, compelling storytelling, and good acting - all things Avatar fails at.

The only thing, arguably, that Avatar does better is the SFX.

[Heldenbrand]

The best part about why the story of Avatar is cliche is because it actually happened. We helpfully managed to nearly genocide an entire indigenous people in order to gain something in a materialistic sense. That's about as cliche as saying any Vietnam movie is cliche because it's so over done.
And going forward in that comparison, there is absolutely no reason to believe that we wouldn't do the same thing again today given the circumstances and importance of the mineral in question.  The corporation went through extensive measures to reach a diplomatic solution.  Diplomacy failed so a military solution was found.  Rather than simply kill every single Na'vi, they used gas to drive the occupants away in a non-lethal manner.  Everything we currently would do today for both riot control and occupying territory.  If you view it only in a superficial sense, you lose out on everything in between.

Yes, the story was simplistic and it was made so in order to appeal to the widest audience possible. That's the same reason it was cut to give it a PG-13 rating, again, to appeal to the widest audience possible. The movie was a masterpiece in terms of technology and it will be remembered for revolutionizing the industry in much the same way the first talking movie did and then the first color picture did.

As for the details of the movie and background, that's like saying ME2 is shallow if you don't read the codices and listen to any of the conversations. Also consider that they made an entire language for their race, they used detailed biology to construct each creature, they did not attempt to include FTL travel which is a scientific quagmire.

Stop comparing it to ME2. They're both incredible in their respective medias.

Modifié par Heldenbrand, 18 février 2010 - 09:52 .

[addiction21]

MerinTB wrote...

Snip

I see where your coming from and I can get with that. I do not like the "it sucks because I dont  like it" 
So wanna get some waffles later?

[Lucy Glitter]

If anything I'd compare Avatar to the cartoon film, Fern Gully. They are so alike it's not even funny.

[addiction21]

Lucy_Glitter wrote...

If anything I'd compare Avatar to the cartoon film, Fern Gully. They are so alike it's not even funny.

Dont you dare sully the name Fern Gully like that (nice avatar btw is it Ava Gardner? No I do not think it is tho.)

Modifié par addiction21, 18 février 2010 - 10:03 .

[The Black Ghost]

A movie's plot does not have to be entirely original in order to be good. Statistically, the more movies that are made, the harder it will be to make a truly unique plot. Avatar is like Dances with Wolves and Last Samurai, but it does diverge a good deal from both of these, and makes its own place. Its still a good archetypical story, and it was actually done quite well. I dont know why everyone loves to complain about it, it had a few minor low spots, but it was definately a far better than average movie than we usually get. Its not the greatest movie of all time, but for some reason people seem to want to shoot it down just because it was successful and didnt deserve it. There was a great focus on graphics and the actual picture, but that is 1/3 of what a movie is anyways. It excells visually in every way. The other third is sound (dialogue and music)--the music was great and the dialogue was mostly good, except for a few points. The story may be generic, but it is still a good story. Tell me honestly, would you rather watch Pocohantas? If Avatar had been produced first, people would say Pocohantas was a crappy disney ripoff of Avatar.



What did Avatar lack? Character development of the other Navi and Jake's relations to them. However, people complained about the movie length as it was (jesus, it wasnt like the lord of the rings in length) so they really didnt have time to add in more, although it would have made it better.





And seriously, Mass Effect 2 had a mediocre main story too. One that can be summed up in two sentences.



Evil bugs are stealing humans and one of them is a Reaper. Commander Shepard learns bugs are Protheans and then kills the bugs along with a giant robot.



Mass effect 2s story has nothing on Mass effect 1.

[MerinTB]

addiction21 wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Snip

I see where your coming from and I can get with that. I do not like the "it sucks because I dont  like it" 
So wanna get some waffles later?

As long as the waffles don't come with an Avatar toy.
I'll take a Grunt doll instead!

[Mlow44]

addiction21 wrote...

Mlow44 wrote...


wow. that comment about the volus is WAY disturbing. You'd compare the Jewish race to the Volus because they're "greedy traders?" You, sir, are an ****

Why dont you read the thread.It was in response to the OP talking about how no aliens were a direct result of basing them off of Human racial/cultural STEROTYPES.
No where am I saying its right, wrong, true or false. But that a case could be made if we were working on STEROTYPES.
So would you actually like to refute any points or continue to take something out of context, that was cherry picked from my post and show your lack of reading comprehension?

and you're the one who connected the dots of "Volus are greedy traders" and "Jews." what other conclusion am I to come to when you go "Greedy traders? Sounds like the Jews."

[MerinTB]

The Black Ghost wrote...

What did Avatar lack?

You don't really want me to answer that.

Really you don't.  Clearly you liked the film, and that's fine.

But it was lacking everything but special effects.

[Spacezombie76]

MerinTB wrote...

You can't compare a movie to a game for a "Best Movie of the Year" or "Best Game of the Year" award, no.

But stop saying you can't compare their stories. You CAN.
You can't compare length or gameplay mechanics or such, no.
But writing, acting, directing - yes, you really can.

It's like saying you can't compare ice cream to an apple.
One is a fruit the other is a dairy product, so you can't compare them as fruit or dairy products.
But you can compare them as food - taste, nutritional value, calories, etc.

The "apples and oranges" cliche is bad, too.
If you are trying to say which is the better APPLE, then comparing to an orange doesn't work.
But which is the better FRUIT? Yes, you can compare apples and oranges.

I'd tell some of you to try thinking outside the box, but I'm afraid you aren't even exploring most of the box yet.

See?  You get it.  I'm just comparing the level of creativity between the two.  People are freaking out over Avatar way too much.  I didn't hate the movie, but it's far from being the technological/storytelling marvel everyone is claiming it is.  It just did 3-D a little bit better.

[Luke Pearce]

I saw Avatar twice, once in 3D and another in normal. The 3D was the better experience but it definitely wasnt the best movie of 2009 and doesnt deserve to be #1 highest grossing movie in the world (neither does Titanic but at least I know why that grossed so much).

Honestly, Avatar wouldnt have grossed more than $1Billion if it was directed by ANYBODY else. Only cos of the massive hype surrounding James Camerons return to directing after 12 years made people come stampeding to the cinemas in anticipation.

District 9 though was the best movie of 2009 and I didnt even see it at the cinemas (something always came up and then it was gone...) Im a huge sci-fi fan and I would watch any sci-fi movie out there. Star Trek (2009) is most comparable to Mass Effect but Star Treks story sucked! (same writers as Transformers 2...why???)

[Spacezombie76]

Luke Pearce wrote...

I saw Avatar twice, once in 3D and another in normal. The 3D was the better experience but it definitely wasnt the best movie of 2009 and doesnt deserve to be #1 highest grossing movie in the world (neither does Titanic but at least I know why that grossed so much).
Honestly, Avatar wouldnt have grossed more than $1Billion if it was directed by ANYBODY else. Only cos of the massive hype surrounding James Camerons return to directing after 12 years made people come stampeding to the cinemas in anticipation.
District 9 though was the best movie of 2009 and I didnt even see it at the cinemas (something always came up and then it was gone...) Im a huge sci-fi fan and I would watch any sci-fi movie out there. Star Trek (2009) is most comparable to Mass Effect but Star Treks story sucked! (same writers as Transformers 2...why???)

I loved District 9.  I had a hard time warming up to the "prawns",  but it was a much more rewarding experience than watching the too well designed na'vi; meaning the na'vi were obviously sexualized to appeal to a wide audience, especially the girl na'vi.

I saw some very similar designs between Star Trek and Mass Effect (especially the lighting), but at least you don't fly around in a giant brewery in Mass Effect.

I know a post like this here is preaching to the choir, but I wanted to get some opinions from people who have actually played the Mass Effect games.  Most of my other friends haven't played ME and don't get it when I bring it up.

[Mr.Skar]

Moon is greater than Avatar and District 9. That is all.

[Mlow44]

Mr.Skar wrote...

Moon is greater than Avatar and District 9. That is all.

what is Moon?

[Seblun]

Avatar was Smurfs with Pocahontas in space.

[SidNitzerglobin]

Babymax wrote...
Give just one example from any of the Star Wars movies where Lucas created the same level of believable emotion on a CGI character's face that was commonly depicted in Avatar.

Go ahead and keep looking. Too bad you won't find it.

I found it all over Eps I, II, and III personally.  Hell, half the CGI cast of the prequels showed more convincing emotion than the live action characters (I know not exactly a herculean task, but...)  I actually found the cityscapes and sets a lot more impressive in the prequels than Avatar's as well.  

The character design of the Na'vi (or however the hell you're supposed to apostrophize it) were basically 10' tall, slighlty lighter blue, ripoffs of Kurt Wagner/Nightcrawler w/o the >BAMF!< .

I have no problem w/ cautionary tales about the impact of haphazard exploitation of planetary resources and indigenous peoples, but the way in which Cameron does it in Avatar is completely unsubtle, inane, and wrong headed IMO.  David Brooks has put it best so far IMO:

"Cameron’s handling of the White Messiah fable is not the reason “Avatar” is such a huge global hit. As John Podhoretz wrote in The Weekly Standard, “Cameron has simply used these familiar bromides as shorthand to give his special-effects spectacular some resonance.”  The plotline gives global audiences a chance to see American troops get killed. It offers useful hooks on which McDonald’s and other corporations can hang their tie-in campaigns.

Still, would it be totally annoying to point out that the whole White Messiah fable, especially as Cameron applies
it, is kind of offensive?

It rests on the stereotype that white people are rationalist and technocratic while colonial victims are spiritual and athletic. It rests on the assumption that nonwhites need the White Messiah to lead their crusades. It rests on the assumption that illiteracy is the path to grace. It also creates a sort of two-edged cultural imperialism. Natives can either have their history shaped by cruel imperialists or benevolent ones, but either way, they are going to be supporting actors in our journey to self-admiration."

The reason Avatar comes off as cliched is because it was handled as a cliche.  Good works of art can handle well worn subject matter in a manner that respects its audience's intelligence and offers a genuine and unique insight into it.

Mr.Skar wrote...

Moon is greater than Avatar and District 9. That is all.

I'd have to agree here. 

Mlow44 wrote...

what is Moon?

Moon has the feeling of a combo of 2001 and Solaris to me w/ a good bit more humor.  Made for ~$5 million and shot in 33 days, it's pretty damn impressive.  Not at all a 'Splosions and special effects type of sci-fi movie though.

Modifié par SidNitzerglobin, 19 février 2010 - 02:57 .

[RedShft]

The only way I can compare ME and Avatar would be by the enjoyment I get out of each. I enjoyed ME as a source of entertainment incrediably more than I did Avatar. Avatar, although it may have looked nice, had a simple storyline that was in no way compeling. If I was to equate Avatar to a video game it would be one that has focused entirely on graphics (Crysis, Aion, etc) and neglected gameplay and story.

Overall, ME > Avatar, because Avatar was an average movie at best, regardless of what anyone says.

[Spacezombie76]

Mr.Skar wrote...

Moon is greater than Avatar and District 9. That is all.

Oh, crap!  You're right.  How could I forget Moon?  I'm just mad I missed it in theaters.

[Mr.Skar]

Spacezombie76 wrote...

Mr.Skar wrote...

Moon is greater than Avatar and District 9. That is all.

Oh, crap!  You're right.  How could I forget Moon?  I'm just mad I missed it in theaters.

Most of the people I've talked to about the film feel the same way. Even my sister liked it.

[Luke Pearce]

Ive never even heard of Moon. I might try to looks for it next time im in the video store.

[Phaedra Sanguine]

Was reading through this thread and had already seen Avatar and while I thought it was an alright movie, I saw mention of District 9. D9 seriously rocks, in fact, I think it should've beaten Avatar. Just wow.

[Tom Adama]

...a videogame vs. a movie, how can anybody make a case for either?



By the way, I was more entertained and enamored by Avatar because it was a feel good film. An overall great experience (not necessarily an astounding story but it gets the job done).



I loved District 9 also, but that film was more gritty and hopeless than Avatar. It was a realistic look at the barbarism of humanity towards things that are different. I hate films that make humans seem like the good guys, we really are the scum of the scum.



I own D9 on blu ray, but have seen Avatar more. It just resonates more to me, its more my taste because of the level of creativity and awe that went into the film. But D9 has a better overall story. Avatar is the better entertainment.

[The Black Ghost]

District 9's plot was really muddy, and although the premise was unique, it felt disconnected and unfinished (evident if you watch the special features--it was made on the leftover budget of the Halo film that failed). I liked the movie, but Avatar was a finished movie, and just better overall. District 9 didnt give all that much of an emotional impression, and its characters were barely developed at all.

[Mr.Skar]

Luke Pearce wrote...

Ive never even heard of Moon. I might try to looks for it next time im in the video store.

You should, it's gonna be worth it. Sam Rockwell does an amazing job.