
Avatar Is Like The iPhone Of Movies - peter123
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/12/19/avatar-is-like-the-iphone-of-movies/
======
bootload
_"... An entire generation of teenagers are now going to have a lifelong crush
on a huge blue woman with a tail named Neytiri ..."_

I went and saw Avatar yesterday and was blown away.

It was as good as when I first saw Star Wars the first time it was shown after
wagging school and catching a train into the city. It was way better than the
first Star Trek feature film first hit the cinema - those close-ups of the
Enterprise still make me cringe. It was as good as Alien and Alien II which
followed. I was trying to think why. Here's some of the reasons.

While most films shy away from the complexity of situations, this one didn't.
I get the feeling Cameron had some unfinished business. A story not told, an
alternate Aliens. The similarities are pretty striking. The film is about
colonisation of a planet, with ruthless company yes-men backed up by Colonial
Marines (or PMC's in this case). It even has Ripley. This time though we see
colonisation and exploitation from the eyes of the conquered. We see what is
lost. We see the consequences.

This isn't a re-make of Aliens two where the Colonial Marines blast away
Ripley's bad-guys. Instead we are shown the complexity of a culture clashes,
the conqueror and conquered. We see the relationship between locals and their
environment, man made corporations and hired muscle and most importantly the
consequences of War. It could be South America when Cortez arrived looking for
gold, it could in the jungles of Sumatra now with timber ~
[http://www.worldwildlife.org/what/wherewework/borneo/people....](http://www.worldwildlife.org/what/wherewework/borneo/people.html)
The film is also is about as anti-mainstream as you'll probably get in popular
culture.

Ask yourself what was the last time you saw a film that painted a beautiful
picture of an environment and culture then see it destroyed in grisly detail
before you... this is no ordinary Hollywood action flic. Sure the good guys
win and the company men get packing. There are weak points in the film. I
noticed even William Gibson was a bit shocked ( _my measure of what good
writing is_ ) ~ <http://twitter.com/GreatDismal/status/6810783279> at name
given to the exploited mineral _"unobtanium"_ ~
<http://twitter.com/GreatDismal/status/6810951397> being mined.

The strength of the film is that it mirrors enough of our own world right now
and that and the richness of the characters and ideas in my mind makes up for
any of the technical shortfalls.

------
ryandvm
> Avatar, like Titanic, is one of those movies you’ll want to see over and
> over.

Wait, what? Am I the only one that thought Titanic was 2 hours of my life that
I regret wasting?

Of all the stories to be told about that fateful night, it was a travesty that
the film was dedicated to the story of two horny teenagers hooking up. Bleh.

~~~
pgbovine
Don't worry, Avatar and Titanic are nothing alike. Titanic is a big-budget
chick flick, Avatar is a pure action/adventure movie without much sappiness

------
Miky
When I saw the title, I thought the comparison was going to be that it was
beautiful and polished, but the storyline/features weren't too amazing.

------
RevRal
What I find amazing is the amount of people who have no knowledge of Avatar.
This movie is an event among events.

And even the author says he only started reading about it a week ago, which I
find amazing. Not at all like the iPhone in this regard.

\----

Downvoters: So, what exactly did I say that merits downvotes?

------
peter123
On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate Avatar?

~~~
sachinag
5\. Saw it in 3D on a non-IMAX screen. I know enough to know that I'm supposed
to be impressed by the CGI in the skin/eyes of the Na'vi and other creatures.
And given that I'm supposed to know that, they (generally) succeeded. The 3D
wasn't really any different than any other Real 3D movie, and I really didn't
see any difference in the quality of the CGI landscapes versus LoTR or even
Jurassic Park (which were just arial shots). The story, of course, is Dances
with Wolves in Space.

I wish I went to Up in the Air instead.

As to the ZOMG: Glengarry Glen Ross could have been filmed in the 1930s, but
it's one of the best films in my lifetime. To say that Avatar changes movies
forever is insane.

~~~
Psyonic
Really? GGG as best film of a lifetime? The acting is spectacular, but I don't
really feel like there is much of a story. Just a showcase for good acting.
Felt like broadway on film.

------
listic
Tech bloggers discussing art with marketing speak is the embarrassment of
technology.

------
swombat
Hyperbole is like the bread and butter of journalists.

~~~
silvestrov
Hyperbole is the iPhone of (trash) journalists.

------
ctingom
I'm disappointed that Jar Jar Binks isn't in Avatar. That's the one thing that
would make it worth seeing.

------
nopassrecover
I haven't seen the movie yet but I saw the trailer a while ago and I just
rewatched it then and from a pure CGI point of view it looks pretty meh. Like
comparable to the first Final Fantasy movie perhaps but not much better. The
first time I saw the trailer (at least two months ago, maybe an early cut?) I
actually commented on how bad the CGI was before realising it was Avatar.
Added to this story just sounds like an old retold story as Arrington
highlights. I'm sure the film is actually really clever and the little I know
of Cameron has led me to think he is a passionate and down-to-Earth guy so I'm
sure it's good but I'm really not getting that impression so far. In fact,
this has to be the most marketed film ever (I see adverts everywhere even
online and in the App-Store as well as tie-ins with multiple TV shows
(Entourage, South Park come to mind)) and this kind of marketing always makes
me instinctively wonder why it's so heavily marketed. I've avoided learning
too much about TC/Arrington because it seems there's often controversy but is
this the kind of site where sponsored reviews ever appear?

~~~
chancho
So you haven't seen the movie and you don't know much about Cameron, Arrington
or his site, and of those four things the one you are most interested in
learning more about is TechCrunch?

~~~
nopassrecover
No, I asked why this movie has been so heavily promoted, and if it's possible
the Arrington/TC review was bought as it seemed a glowing endorsement of a
film that I have not heard great things about elsewhere and which does not
have great trailers. Clearly from the downvotes people think I was attacking
TC et all, but as I've said I'm just asking as I have no idea why this review
seemed so contrary to what I've found elsewhere to date.

