Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The copter pilot was the "Everyman" character. This character was essentially the avatar for the movie viewer. Therefore there was no need to "flesh things out" since the veiwer knows what's going on and that's all that matters for the "everyman" character. The "everyman" character allows the viewer to place themsleves in the role of the "everyman" character and "be in the film". The idea is that the copter pilot did what a lot of the viewers wanted to do, and thats why she was the "everyman" character.

GG

generalgrog wrote:The copter pilot was the "Everyman" character. This character was essentially the avatar for the movie viewer. Therefore there was no need to "flesh things out" since the veiwer knows what's going on and that's all that matters for the "everyman" character. The "everyman" character allows the viewer to place themsleves in the role of the "everyman" character and "be in the film". The idea is that the copter pilot did what a lot of the viewers wanted to do, and thats why she was the "everyman" character.

GG

Respectfully, I don't believe that AT ALL.

Typically you don't have a minor side character be the protagonist and even if you do you have to flesh the character out and make them real.

generalgrog wrote:The copter pilot was the "Everyman" character. This character was essentially the avatar for the movie viewer. Therefore there was no need to "flesh things out" since the veiwer knows what's going on and that's all that matters for the "everyman" character. The "everyman" character allows the viewer to place themsleves in the role of the "everyman" character and "be in the film". The idea is that the copter pilot did what a lot of the viewers wanted to do, and thats why she was the "everyman" character.

GG

Makes sense to me. I was too busy thinking "Yeah! Do the right thing, betray those evil guys!" to wonder whether her actions made sense or whatever.

Taken from Wiki:

In literature and drama, the term everyman has come to mean an ordinary individual, with whom the audience or reader is supposed to be able to identify easily, and who is often placed in extraordinary circumstances. The name derives from a 15th century English morality play called Everyman.

The contemporary everyman differs greatly from his (or her) medieval counterpart in many respects. While the medieval everyman was devoid of definite marks of individuality to create a universality in the moral message of the play, the contemporary storyteller may use an everyman for amoral or, to some ways of thinking, immoral purposes.

Ahtman wrote:So was the Black Hills being sacred but guess what happened there? Knowing a species holds something sacred doesn't mean you think they are right, especially if you look at history.

Yeah, the Black Hills happened anyway. Pointing out that things don't actually work like they do in the movies means that just about every movie is a fail. Is that actually your point?

Actually it isn't that universal considering the extreme parallels to US history. And as with many stories that are told and retold, it is in the telling that makes it special, not the just the fact that it has been retold. This didn't tell it very well. It brought nothing new other than technology used in filming it to the table.

What's history got to do with this being a classic story? Most commonly told stories have no real parallels to the real world. Again, is your complaint that the events of the movie wouldn't happen in real life?

No, it is bad storytelling no matter how much you wish it were otherwise. It wasn't even really foreshadowed. As you said, you just assumed it. The characters are so paper thin you could see exactly where everyone was going as soon as the credits were finished.

I assumed it because that's how this story goes, and Cameron was cluey enough to know that we know that's how it goes. I mean, were you surprised when Luke blew up the Deathstar, or when John McClain was reunited with his wife?

Again, you are making excuses that don't hold water. Your summary isn't any more obtuse than the one you were rallying against. People are also complaining in real life as well. I'm not sure why it would matter unless it is somehow supposed to be a way of minimizing the arguments just becuase they are online. Of course that would minimize a defense as well. Either way it is an unnecessary distraction from the discussion.

Folk out in the real world that I've talked to liked it, or didn't like it and gave reasonable reasons why (my favourite criticism was 'hippy claptrap').

The only place I've seen people making criticisms that are missing the point is on-line.

It isn't a question of complexity and never has been. You are adding goal posts.

Oh come on. You said fleshing out characters was the sign of a good screenplay and director. I said that characters can be overdrawn and it can hurt the flow of the movie. I haven't added any goalposts, and it wouldn't make any sense for me to add goalposts. You're the one trying to establish the film's failings... so you'd be the one setting goalposts.

You can have character develpment without it being overly complex. There is a distinct difference between simple character development and a complete lack of it. As for Aliens, did anyone do anything that just didn't make sense? No, within the diegisis of the film everyone's actions fit what we knew and were shown of them. That is different than this in the we are really shown nothing and told nothing, we are just supposed to accept it.

I have no idea how much more development you'd need to have a character see a sacred artifact of the na'vi being destroyed and not want to be a part of it.

Apples and oranges. Those movies were bad (worse really) but for different reasons. There is also a difference between explaining the complexities of a plot and creating a believable character development. Transformers had no character development whatsoever: everyone was the same at the end as they were at the beginning. It didn't suck becuase they made Sam to complicated. If you want to talk about plot development that is fine, but that isn't what we have been discussing here at all. Again, you are changing what the discussion is about. As for Hans Gruber, we actually do get some information on him so it isn't as if he is just a parer suit, which is one of the reasons he is remembered. There is another key difference: he didn't have a radical change at any point in the film. If had just suddenly turned and decided to not go through with it for no reason it would have been bad. He starts as a bad guy and ends as a bad guy.

What about Maclean's wife? At the beginning she hated John, at the end the marriage was back on. Basically, she fell in love with again because he killed a pile of criminals. It makes no real world sense, but that's only a problem if you form the idea that a good action movie needs to make real world sense.

What matters is making sense according to the narrative.

Besides getting dangerously close to ad hominem again, you are just flat out wrong. You are proffering your personal opinion as absolute fact. You, and this suprises me, are only able to view this from one very myopic perspective.

I cannot see for the life of me how saying an argument is obtuse is ad hominem at all. I'm challenging the quality of the argument, not the arguer. You've then said my argument is myopic... is that an ad hominem?

You seem more intent on seeing at as you would see it in real life and not through the eyes of the characters in the film. And again you want to make it about the morality of the incident, which no one is arguing. You keep pretending that people are supporting the action when no one is. And again this discussing has never been about the assualt on the tree, you keep attacking those critical of the film for something we aren't even arguing.

No, I'm not looking at it how I'd act. I very much doubt I'd act like that at all. I'm looking at it in terms of how the character would act.

And how many soldiers involved with that left the military and turned traitor to their country because of it?

Hardly any, if any at all. I read a while back about the 100,000 odd Germans that were declared traitors during WWII. There's been hesitation in Germany to remove the charges entirely, out of concern that some might have committed acts that harmed other Germans. But no incident has been found where any of the declared traitors threatened German lives. But that's real life.

In real life I'm also left wondering how many wives fell in love with their husbands again after he shot up a bunch of criminals in an office building...

Well having studied Native American history for four years in college I really didn't know that. Thanks for taking something that was actually more complicated and making it into a bumper sticker.

Yeah, and if you were presenting a series of lectures on the history of the Lakota I'd expect a much more complex story. In the context of a three hour action adventure movie with parallels to Native Americans among other things, any more detail would likely bugger things up.

You just said a few sentences ago you were the one making the assumptions. My problem is that you have to guess in the first place.

You don't have to guess. The narrative is very heavy handed and explicit in making the mercs out to be utter bad guys and the na'vi out to be very innocent and nice. Having a character tied to the main heroes decide to leave the mercs and throw her lot in with them doesn't need that much explanation.

If it were actually trivial you wouldn't be putting so much energy into poorly defending it.

When something trivial is claimed to be bigger, the argument is justified even though the original issue remains trivial. If I were to claim a mispelled word of yours made you the worst poster on Dakka, the mispelling would be trivial despite your defence of the charge.

But setting that aside, if we go by this reasoning we should shut down every book club, film club, literature course, film course, art course, ect ect. The details matter. Personally choosing to ignore them doesn't change that fact. You don't have to be a Professor of English or Film Studies to care about these things. It isn't trivial becuase it is systemic of the failings of the film as a film.

If we go by the reasoning of this thread, where character arcs need to be spelled out explicitly for every character who does anything at all during a movie, and should never do anything different to how people actually act... then we should stop making films. Especially no more action films.

I'm going to guess you haven't spent a lot of time around pilots, especially military. It isn't that familiar. You get to know faces and names but you aren't buddy buddy. Especially considering the way Sigourney Weavers character feels and acts about the Mercs. Oh that is right, she doesn't like them except this one for no real good reason we are given, but we should just accept it because we need it to happen. Again, fantastic storytelling. Of course, we don't need storytelling when you have a special message that makes us feel better about ourselves because we know they are bad bad people, but not us.

Which actually sounds a lot more like a real reason to dislike this movie. It is a very moralistic and heavy handed movie. I didn't mind that so much but I can see how people might. I suspect the complaints people are giving are likely driven by that more than anything else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyyr wrote:No, it's not. I will admit that my intial analogy was flawed. However lets go with taxing around the intel research team. Do you ever get into detailed business conversations with your taxi driver?

With a taxi driver? No. With an assigned driver who is attached to my team for three months... I might. It also doesn't have to be a detailed conversation - the importance of the tree is the most basic element of their understanding of the na'vi.

I don't really have a problem with the idea that over three months someone in the research team might have mentioned the most basic important discovery about the na'vi.

You are being dense and stubborn because you just can't get past your emotional need to identify with the Navi and feel morally superior. The discussion can't go anywhere else at this point. You will constantly make new excuses or change the argument to a different area. I'm right, you are wrong, it is that simple.

"Avatar" continues to outperform expectations.

Just days ago, execs suggested the Fox-distributed pic was a lock to reach No. 2 on the all-time list of worldwide boxoffice hits by next week.

Incredibly, the forecast proved too conservative.

On Wednesday, "Avatar" passed the $1.12 billion tally by 2003's "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" to become the second-highest worldwide grosser ever. James Cameron's sci-fi epic headed into Thursday with a domestic cume of $374.4 million and a foreign cume of $760.8 million, for wordwide boxoffice totaling $1.14 billion and counting.

Cameron's "Titanic" is the all-time top worldwide grosser, ringing up $1.84 billion in 1997-1998.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3ieb1af40f51f12663a33295bb482cf100

Hopefully it passes up "Titanic" so scifi reclaims its top spot at the box office charts - having the top two highest grossing movies of all time must be nice to have on your resume. Amazing to pull out those kind of numbers since not only are we in a recession but the film is also nearly three hours long and best seen via 3-D. Avatar along with the other great scifi hits this past year like Star Trek and District 9 should hopefully further boost this genre's appeal (fantasy/mythological/comic book movies seem to have been the Hollywood craze since the Star Wars prequels) and maybe the industry is now a step closer to making a worthwhile Warhammer 40k epic

I'm going to see it for a third time this upcoming Saturday; this movie is what the cinematic experience is all about and it looks like both top critics and the general film-going community agrees from the ratings at rottentomatoes.com and IMDB, and the majority of reviews here.

Cane wrote:Hopefully it passes up "Titanic" so scifi reclaims its top spot at the box office charts

Hopefully. It is more entertaining than Titanic.

Cane wrote:Amazing to pull out those kind of numbers since not only are we in a recession

Actually, that is normal. When people aren't happy the seek escapism.

Cane wrote:I'm going to see it for a third time this upcoming Saturday

That is like being the guy wearing the T-Shirt of the band he's going to the concert to see. Don't be that guy.

Ahtman wrote:

Cane wrote:Amazing to pull out those kind of numbers since not only are we in a recession

Actually, that is normal. When people aren't happy the seek escapism.

Avatar's numbers are anything but normal especially for basically being a three hour 3-D movie.

Cane wrote:I'm going to see it for a third time this upcoming Saturday

That is like being the guy wearing the T-Shirt of the band he's going to the concert to see. Don't be that guy.

Nice trolling which is ironic since you were crying foul over perceived personal attacks

Ahtman wrote:That is like being the guy wearing the T-Shirt of the band he's going to the concert to see. Don't be that guy.

That guy still isn't as bad as the guy wearing the t-shirt from the lead singer's side project band.

youbedead wrote:the one thing that bothered me about the movie, ununpentiom an unstable gaseous element that can't exsist for more then a tenth of a second

I think he means "unobtanium".

It is not an 'element'. It is a catch-all term used by scientists and engineers to describe any material that is hard to make or refine.
It was trademarked in the 90s by Oakley for the silicon rubber nose-piece in their sunglasses, btw (I don't know whether this (tm) has ever been upheld though).

@Sebster: UnOb is not a zero gravity material (in this movie). It is a high temperature superconductor that exists in a natural state (superconductors here have to be made, and involve very rare metallic elements (like Yttrium).) It will levitate or defy gravity in a sufficiently strong magnetic field (and the floating mountains did so as they were chunks of the same, surrounded by dirt, in an area where the magnetic fields of Pandora and its primary Polyphemus coincide - this is what creates the 'vortex flux', interactions of the two magnetic fields AND the unobtanium.). This is the 'scientific' rationale given for it in the fluff.

There are two main reasons why humans can't breathe on Pandora.

1). CO2 levels are at around 18% on Pandora. On Earth (currently) CO2 is a trace gass, less than 0.04%.
2). High (relatively) concentrations of Hydrogen Cyanide, Ammonia and Methane compared to the oxygen content.


I'm used to the concept of geeks deconstructing movies as if they were real life events - they've been doing it for decades - and I just turn off from it.
"I liked it, you didn't - fine by me." is my general attitude. Bitching or whining about it changes nothing, and is merely unconstructive and petty.

Cane wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Cane wrote:Amazing to pull out those kind of numbers since not only are we in a recession

Actually, that is normal. When people aren't happy the seek escapism.

Avatar's numbers are anything but normal especially for basically being a three hour 3-D movie.

That wasn't about the income, it was about the comment of being surprised so many people were going. During down times cinema has historically been a respite from the every day realities. It still hasn't surpassed gone Gone With the Wind or Star Wars in adjusted dollars/tickets sold. Hasn't even passed Titanic yet.

Cane wrote:I'm going to see it for a third time this upcoming Saturday

Ahtman wrote:That is like being the guy wearing the T-Shirt of the band he's going to the concert to see. Don't be that guy.

Nice trolling which is ironic since you were crying foul over perceived personal attacks

Ahtman wrote:

Cane wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Cane wrote:Amazing to pull out those kind of numbers since not only are we in a recession

Actually, that is normal. When people aren't happy the seek escapism.

Avatar's numbers are anything but normal especially for basically being a three hour 3-D movie.

That wasn't about the income, it was about the comment of being surprised so many people were going. During down times cinema has historically been a respite from the every day realities. It still hasn't surpassed gone Gone With the Wind or Star Wars in adjusted dollars/tickets sold. Hasn't even passed Titanic yet.

Fair enough although it looks more like you're trying to strawman for the sake of arguing especially since the recession was just one of the qualities I used to demonstrate Avatar's impressive box office numbers. Thats why I also wrote its impressive because its a three hour 3-D movie. IIRC you already did something similar with a previous post about how I compared Pandora's mother nature energy to the force in Star Wars and psychic powers from Firefly; back then you just conveniently focused on Star Wars and how it doesn't count since its more "fantasy" all the while conveniently ignoring the latter. And yes I'm well aware of the fact that Avatar "hasn't even passed Titanic" since I quoted the article mentioning that earlier.

Cane wrote:I'm going to see it for a third time this upcoming Saturday

Ahtman wrote:That is like being the guy wearing the T-Shirt of the band he's going to the concert to see. Don't be that guy.

Nice trolling which is ironic since you were crying foul over perceived personal attacks

That isn't trolling, it was a joke. I was just joking with you. I thought it was fairly obvious, but I guess not. I don't care if you go see it again, it is your money after all. Have at it. Pointing out an argument is ad hominem isn't the same as 'crying fowl'. They also weren't 'perceived', they were ad hominem.

On this end its fairly obvious you seem to have an agenda of arguing for the sake of arguing and are using to make trolling remarks like the one above in addition to: "You are being dense and stubborn because you just can't get past your emotional need to identify with the Navi and feel morally superior. The discussion can't go anywhere else at this point. You will constantly make new excuses or change the argument to a different area. I'm right, you are wrong, it is that simple.".

Don't be the guy that wants to argue for the sake of it!

Cane wrote:Fair enough although it looks more like you're trying to strawman for the sake of arguing especially since the recession was just one of the qualities I used to demonstrate Avatar's impressive box office numbers. Thats why I also wrote its impressive because its a three hour 3-D movie. IIRC you already did something similar with a previous post about how I compared Pandora's mother nature energy to the force in Star Wars and psychic powers from Firefly; back then you just conveniently focused on Star Wars and how it doesn't count since its more "fantasy" all the while conveniently ignoring the latter. And yes I'm well aware of the fact that Avatar "hasn't even passed Titanic" since I quoted the article mentioning that earlier.

You are confusing two different arguments. The Star Wars thing had nothing to do with mystic side of the movie at.

Cane wrote:On this end its fairly obvious you seem to have an agenda of arguing for the sake of arguing and are using

No, I'm arguing because I honestly believe that Trudy is plot device, not a character, and that it is a key example of the films overall structural flaws.

Cane wrote:to make trolling remarks like the one above in addition to: "You are being dense and stubborn because you just can't get past your emotional need to identify with the Navi and feel morally superior. The discussion can't go anywhere else at this point. You will constantly make new excuses or change the argument to a different area. I'm right, you are wrong, it is that simple.".

To be fair, I only phrased it like that becuase the poster i was responding to used phrases like "Your being purposefully obtuse and just completely wrongheaded". Sauce for the goose Mr. Saavik. If you get that reference you gain 10 Internets.

Ahtman wrote:

Cane wrote:Fair enough although it looks more like you're trying to strawman for the sake of arguing especially since the recession was just one of the qualities I used to demonstrate Avatar's impressive box office numbers. Thats why I also wrote its impressive because its a three hour 3-D movie. IIRC you already did something similar with a previous post about how I compared Pandora's mother nature energy to the force in Star Wars and psychic powers from Firefly; back then you just conveniently focused on Star Wars and how it doesn't count since its more "fantasy" all the while conveniently ignoring the latter. And yes I'm well aware of the fact that Avatar "hasn't even passed Titanic" since I quoted the article mentioning that earlier.

You are confusing two different arguments. The Star Wars thing had nothing to do with mystic side of the movie at.

Oh yea you're right, in that instance you strawmanned me counting Star Wars as scifi as being delusional:

"You listed Star Wars as Sci-Fi. That just shows how far you are willing to defend your delusions. It is hard to take anything esle you say about it that serieously when you don't know the difference between Science Fiction and Fantasy."

Well, actually, that instance still seems similar to how you strawmanned my comments about Avatar's impressive box office numbers.

Ahtman wrote:

No, I'm arguing because I honestly believe that Trudy is plot device, not a character, and that it is a key example of the films overall structural flaws.

Characters can be plot devices and it worked out well enough considering she was the pilot of the Avatar team and had experience (flying VFR in the fog, abusing the Earthlings in the final sequence for as long as she could) and enthusiasm over Pandora's landscape ("you should see the look on your faces") particularly the floating mountains. Not to mention she acted on orders she disagreed with that resulted in the destruction of that prized tree and the "Native Aliens". And personally the less screen time Michelle Rodriguez has the better

Ahtman wrote:You are being dense and stubborn because you just can't get past your emotional need to identify with the Navi and feel morally superior. The discussion can't go anywhere else at this point. You will constantly make new excuses or change the argument to a different area. I'm right, you are wrong, it is that simple.

I don't really identify with the Na'vi. I think it might have a lot more to do with me not really identifying with the mercs... I can see how if someone had a reason to identify with the mercs, perhaps being a soldier or just thinking power armour is cool, then the film wouldn't be that enjoyable. But that doesn't mean the film had the structural flaws claimed in this thread.

Anyhow, as you've said, I think we're done here. Cheers for the discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chromedog wrote:@Sebster: UnOb is not a zero gravity material (in this movie). It is a high temperature superconductor that exists in a natural state (superconductors here have to be made, and involve very rare metallic elements (like Yttrium).) It will levitate or defy gravity in a sufficiently strong magnetic field (and the floating mountains did so as they were chunks of the same, surrounded by dirt, in an area where the magnetic fields of Pandora and its primary Polyphemus coincide - this is what creates the 'vortex flux', interactions of the two magnetic fields AND the unobtanium.). This is the 'scientific' rationale given for it in the fluff.

Ah, okay. So it's valuable as a superconductor, but happens to produce anti-gravity like effects in some situations which explains the floating piece in the bad dude's office and the floating mountains. Was that mentioned in the movie or did you pick it up from a third source?

Anyhow, thanks for that.

Third source: Well, I used to be in the SF industry, and still maintain my friendships in the community. You know how geeks gossip? Weta are no different to the pixel geeks at LFL/ILM.

Parts have been published in a "fluff" book (Activist's guide to Pandora ), some is just what I've heard from my peeps.

The Hallelujah mountains are close to one of the poles on Pandora. This more than anything enables the vortex flux from what I can understand of it.

I know a little about superconductors (very low temp ones) because I have a pair of Yttrium-cobalt superconducting magnets here (just have no Liquid nitro atm). A friend had to make some for her physics thesis - I helped out (the ceramic carrier had to be fired at 1900*C for 7-8 hours and I worked in a ceramics factory at the time).

chromedog wrote:

youbedead wrote:the one thing that bothered me about the movie, ununpentiom an unstable gaseous element that can't exsist for more then a tenth of a second

I think he means "unobtanium".

It is not an 'element'. It is a catch-all term used by scientists and engineers to describe any material that is hard to make or refine.
It was trademarked in the 90s by Oakley for the silicon rubber nose-piece in their sunglasses, btw (I don't know whether this (tm) has ever been upheld though).

@Sebster: UnOb is not a zero gravity material (in this movie). It is a high temperature superconductor that exists in a natural state (superconductors here have to be made, and involve very rare metallic elements (like Yttrium).) It will levitate or defy gravity in a sufficiently strong magnetic field (and the floating mountains did so as they were chunks of the same, surrounded by dirt, in an area where the magnetic fields of Pandora and its primary Polyphemus coincide - this is what creates the 'vortex flux', interactions of the two magnetic fields AND the unobtanium.). This is the 'scientific' rationale given for it in the fluff.

There are two main reasons why humans can't breathe on Pandora.

1). CO2 levels are at around 18% on Pandora. On Earth (currently) CO2 is a trace gass, less than 0.04%.
2). High (relatively) concentrations of Hydrogen Cyanide, Ammonia and Methane compared to the oxygen content.


I'm used to the concept of geeks deconstructing movies as if they were real life events - they've been doing it for decades - and I just turn off from it.
"I liked it, you didn't - fine by me." is my general attitude. Bitching or whining about it changes nothing, and is merely unconstructive and petty.

I must have misheard i could of sworn they said ununpentiom, my bad.

Anyone else notice that when the female pilot flew away from the attack cause she didnt agree the gunner wasnt wearing a mask at all.
Also i kinda find it funny that the guy who hated him the entire time(tsutey) just immdiatly follows his command when he fly in on his big bird. and then his girlfriend immediatly forgives him.
but one thing i wondered is whether ot not sufridge regretted what he did in the end cause when the planes flew off he seemed kinda sad or regretful. Anyone else think that.

Ahtman wrote:
To be fair, I only phrased it like that becuase the poster i was responding to used phrases like "Your being purposefully obtuse and just completely wrongheaded". Sauce for the goose Mr. Saavik. If you get that reference you gain 10 Internets.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

garret wrote:Anyone else notice that when the female pilot flew away from the attack cause she didnt agree the gunner wasnt wearing a mask at all.
Also i kinda find it funny that the guy who hated him the entire time(tsutey) just immdiatly follows his command when he fly in on his big bird. and then his girlfriend immediatly forgives him.
but one thing i wondered is whether ot not sufridge regretted what he did in the end cause when the planes flew off he seemed kinda sad or regretful. Anyone else think that.

One of the Ten Rules of Life young Padiwon,

Chicks dig hot rides, and you will get the respect of your peers. See check this hep cat:

I love my mullets dude.

G

http://imgur.com/JmRmb

ZF-