Avatar: The Official Blue-Kitty People Discussion Thread

Kind of feel the same as Cryo- the first one was a decent enough VFX spectacle but not much else.

"Obi-Wan Kenobi", although pale and chalky in many scenes, appears to have more of a strategic drabness about it. That is: it's drab until it isn't. I'm not disagreeing here, just adding nuance. I certainly appreciate what Ingram means about the lush fecundity of this new "Avatar" trailer, but I never connected much with all the cliches and eco/military themes in the first one, and I can't get excited about... more of the same. It's just too bad. I'm certainly looking forward to the new Obi-Wan series more.

I wish people would at least try to understand what an avatar is before mindlessly bashing what's probably the best example of one that's ever existed.

I dunno. I'm not against your argument on paper -- the personal trumps the impersonal. I've also seen fans of "Avatar" trying to draw an equivalence with Star Wars: i.e., both involve big, dumb, archetypal storytelling in made-up, fantasy worlds that grew more complex and sophisticated over time. However, Star Wars began in a relatively disarming way, with a good deal of twinkle and charm. "Avatar" presented itself as this BIG CINEMATIC STATEMENT from the start. And James Cameron, compared to George Lucas, is just a shade (no pun) up himself. I think Armond White typically nailed it back in 2009. I don't recall reading his review back then, but it really clarifies why I found the film so disappointing -- even disquieting:

web.archive.org/web/20100113052816/https://www.nypress.com/article-20710-blue-in-the-face.html


"Avatar" never showed itself to me as having the complexity, the beauty, the wonder, the humour, the heft of Star Wars. About the most redemptive thing I can say about it is that it confirms how our interior fantasy lives (i.e., this is James Cameron's psyche writ large) are a great deal more colourful and sensual than what we express, or feel able to display to others, in everyday life. In that way, the film is a beautiful dream, no doubt. One could even see a very clear theme running through the film of sensualism vs. a machinic, imperialist existence. Here, for sure, it is a spiritual cousin of Star Wars. But Star Wars and other movies have just registered more on my radar. I wouldn't exactly call "Avatar" a stupid film, but one that is a bit pompous and lacks a more grounded and ironic touch.


Yeah, sure. But before Star Wars began burning itself out in that manner, it managed to scale some pretty impressive heights and told a relevant, engaging story in the process. "Avatar" seems to have a slightly try-hard, pretentious quality by comparison. The success of Star Wars, and all the depth offered by the prequels, remains staggering anyway you slice it. Maybe the light of Star Wars is so blinding, I have trouble taking other fantasy entertainments seriously.

But, but, but...

Avatar is an avatar. It's about the high concept of itself, the movie, being that avatar. It's like The Matrix being the matrix. It's not confusing to express frustration that vocal critics of these things aren't even engaging with their most crucial and explicitly stated concepts. To be perfectly honest, I'm cringing pretty hard at some of the comments here, but even we are a small representative sample of a larger trend to dismiss insanely complex entities like they were nothing. Armond White's criticism of the avatars having blue skin, for example. Is that a fucking joke? Do I need to spell it out? Avatars in Hinduism are typically blue. "It's the easiest, dumbest escapism imaginable." No, dude. SAYING THAT was the easiest, dumbest escapism imaginable.

Anyway, you can quote the movie and it does what you want within its range of power. It makes you a player. It makes you a god. One can do this with any movie, so any movie can be an avatar, but the point I'm trying to make is that Avatar introduced this ridiculously valuable concept to the public sphere in a way that was comprehensible to us human beings.

Here are the first three listed Wikipedia articles for "Avatar" before the disambiguation page:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar_(computing)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar_(2009_film)

And here's the dictionary definition:

avatar | ˈavəˌtär |
noun
1 chiefly Hinduism a manifestation of a deity or released soul in bodily form on earth; an incarnate divine teacher.
• an incarnation, embodiment, or manifestation of a person or idea: he chose John Stuart Mill as the avatar of the liberal view.
2 an icon or figure representing a particular person in video games, Internet forums, etc.
ORIGIN
from Sanskrit avatāra ‘descent’, from ava ‘down’ + tar- ‘to cross’.

My point is, name a better example of an avatar. I'll wait.

James Cameron's Avatar. But he's sharing with everybody and anybody can drive it. The movie concretely represents millions of people's otherwise abstract will. There's a reason it's the most financially successful movie ever made. It's not hokey compared to the average person's beliefs. And again, I'm baffled by some of the dismissiveness here. It *is* a big cinematic statement. It's practically the main event. You didn't feel impressed? That's on you. Not much else besides a spectacle? Count the things in the movie. There are millions of more *leaves* of all things rendered from scratch than any of us have ever had the guts to even crappily sketch on a piece of scrap paper, damn it!

Back to the main point: It's like...all these criticisms are moot when you consider for one second what an avatar is, and this movie, of all movies, is the one that demonstrated the idea just about as clearly and obviously as possible.

I don’t think the problem with Avatar is so much the story per se- I don’t think the Pocahontas tale is a cliche. To me it’s more about how the characters and the world didn’t resonate much. The Avatar concept as outlined by Pyro doesn’t appeal to me in the slightest- then again I wasn’t brought up as a Hindu so their concept of the divine has always been to me rather strange and unappealing.

I wouldn't say that. It's true that romantic movies/storylines are generally not appealing to men, but it doesn't make it an affront against anyone's manhood.