Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SF author Greg Egan reviews Avatar

gregegan.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 110 posts

Re: SF author Greg Egan reviews Avatar

#81

Post by Tichy »

DLWormwood wrote: post #80

> the only real flaw in the preposterously humanlike Na'vi is their preposterously perfect teeth. This is an accurate, but unfair, criticism. Humans tend to be most comfortable reading and watching stories about other humans, or barring that, human like creatures. (Think talking animals or Star Trek "aliens.") I seriously doubt a Hollywood film could effectively draw a large enough audience to cover development costs…

Hm, I was thinking Star Wars still wins, because of the Ewoks - they have fur. Nothing on Pandora had fur, I guess the rendering engines still can't handle hair.

So it seems humans can at least identify with cuddly bears.

Re: SF author Greg Egan reviews Avatar

#82

Post by Tichy »

anigbrowl wrote: post #31
nearestneighbor wrote: post #20

What puzzles me is why, with their $237e6 budget, they couldn't afford a decent script.

In a nutshell, the audience for nuanced, elaborately plotted scripts is not as big as that for epic hammy ones. The movie industry ( qua theaters) is not really about movies so much as it is a marketing operation for comfy chairs, sugary drinks, and popcorn. Hence the big-budget movie emphasis on the 'wow' factor, best appreciated via a 75-foot screen. To some extent, it's always been this way. Look at Shakespeare: m…

It doesn't have to be complicated, but at least it should be realistic. For example it bothered me that the flora and fauna on Pandora was completely unrealistic. I don't think horses would have a very good time in the jungle, for example. If it was realistic (ie adhere to evolution theory), then one could still learn something from the movie, even if the plot was shallow.

Likewise in terms of evolution theory, I wonder how/why would loads of animals evolve with a common digital port. Not saying it is impossible, but then the history of that would be seriously interesting (I suppose the whole world would have to be an artificial creation by an ancient high tech race or something).

Instead, this movie dumbs down the common public by reinforcing naive stereotypes.

What amuses me in that context is that for example, the real native Americans did not even have horses before the settlers arrived. This just shows to me how extremely shallow the research for Avatar was. Of course natives have to ride horses and scream passionately and engage in stupid fights and rituals.

It bothers me because as it happens, I consider artificial life to be one of the most exciting things. There would have been so many opportunities here.

Re: SF author Greg Egan reviews Avatar

#83

Post by RyanMcGreal »

fgimenez wrote: post #11

I had to upvote simply because of how brilliant the text width resizing mechanism is. Hint: click the radio inputs at the top of the text.

Clever concept, but it took me a little while to figure out that the left and right margins were independently controlled by the radio buttons to the left of centre and the radio buttons to the right of centre, respectively.

I think a single group of radio buttons to control both sides would have made more sense.

Re: SF author Greg Egan reviews Avatar

#84

Post by randallsquared »

anigbrowl wrote: post #65
gnaritas wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty simple really, most people can't follow a complex plot. For a big blockbuster movie to make money it has to attract the widest audience possible, and that requires dumbing it down so the average person can follow along and not get confused. This technology however, once it becomes more widespread and cheaper, will enable future movies to be made so cheaply that it'll become profitable to chase the more ta…

I'd heard of that film but forgotten about it. Thanks for the reminder.

I saw The Man From Earth a coupla years ago; it's interesting.

Re: SF author Greg Egan reviews Avatar

#85

Post by sever »

seldo wrote: post #2

Many of the reviews of Avatar have focused on the (over-)simplicity of the plot. I don't understand these people. Avatar is packed with so much visual confection that I could barely process half of what I was seeing; I wouldn't have had any brain left over to _understand_ a plot. Who cares about the plot? It's beautiful . Amazingly, wonderfully, brilliantly beautiful.

The point is that the movie could have been so much more. The visuals are incredible, I think the best ever done so far, that's what makes it all the more unfortunate that the story was weak. With a strong plot, and the visuals this movie could have been over the top, goosebumps incredible. Instead I went out of the movie theater sad that all this incredible artistry was wasted and what a shame that was.

I think Cameron lost it. The story was a nothing, and there were a few lines in there so bad, you don't even often see their equal on terrible sitcom TV. They were cheesy video game cut scene bad, only the godhead visual prevented me from wincing.

I'd still recommend for folks to see this movie, it is incredible, but what a shame...

Re: SF author Greg Egan reviews Avatar

#86

Post by archon »

brown9-2 wrote: post #38

Is it a waste to see this movie in 2D?

I've seen it now in both 3D and 2D. You lose some of the wow factor of the visuals in 2D, but it's still beautifully rendered either way.

I also found that the 2D seemed to have more color depth than the 3D, but that might just have been my eyes trying to adjust to the 3D glasses.

Re: SF author Greg Egan reviews Avatar

#87

Post by cousin_it »

anatoly wrote: post #79
ars wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All new technologies are first paired with non-risky material. So they use a non-risky script, with nothing objectionable in it. Once the technology matures you can use a better script. The price of better is that sometimes it's worse, that's why it's a risk. If it was a sure thing everyone would do it, but it's not easy to create something great. You can try, and sometimes you'll make it, and other times you'll flop…

Why are you repeating the points Egan already made as though they were novel? He says in his review the same things as you're saying. "Sometime in the next twenty years or so, the technology that enabled Avatar will become cheap enough to risk employing alongside a moderately intelligent script." - it's right there in the review. It's frustrating when this happens: Author: A, yet also B. You may think that C, but I'd…

Digression: I felt this comment of yours sounded much more natural than the Russian translation you posted on your blog, even though you're a native Russian speaker. And people still ask me why I prefer to make complex arguments in English!

Re: SF author Greg Egan reviews Avatar

#88

Post by elblanco »

plinkplonk wrote: post #69
elblanco wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix also rents our pedantic art house flicks so you never have to be troubled by what the rest of us mortals watch for escapism. I'm sure you can find some overwrought deconstruction of modern human sexuality retold as 4 movements of the lives of people in positions of authority but no power, politicians of the modern era in a mock nuclear stand-down, a 30 minute continuous scene of a single flower, in water, as…

"I like movies that have strong plots and not try to insult my intelligence" isn't the same as saying every movie has to be "high art", - or "overwrought deconstruction of modern human sexuality retold as 4 movements of the lives of people" in your words ;-) . What you've done is use the timeworn rhetorical device of taking someone's point of view and try to (rhetorically vs logically) invalidate it by positing an ab…

Well, the story is a combination of typical archetypes retold with pretty pictures. That much I cannot argue about. And I think that what you are really saying by "the plot sucked" is "it's too archetype driven". I'm basing this on:

>I personally found the warmed over "Stupid White Man penetrates exotic closed society and rises to be leader of it, seducing the native woman" plot tiresome, repetitive and tedious

Sure the characters ranged from a bit 2-d (the Col.) to well fleshed out (Neytiri (watch it again if you don't believe me)) and the acting ranged from "will probably win an award it was so good" Saldana to "thanks for showing up and picking up your paycheck" Weaver. But that's nothing different than you'll find in almost every movie -- the principles are fleshed out and the supporting cast is flat.

Why can't we have more 'smart' movies like Erin Brockovich/Schindler's List/Fight Club/District 9/Oldboy/etc. (archetypes of David vs. Goliath, Greed and Bullies) or The Incredibly True Story of Two Teenagers In Love/Léon/American Beauty/Mississippi Masala/South Pacific/Moulin Rouge/West Side Story etc. (Forbidden Love) or Lawrence of Arabia/Dune/Hunt for Red October/etc. (Lovable Turncoat)... you ask? And I'd counter that all of those are as archetype driven as any other well known flick (archetype stories provided in parens).

You see where I'm going with this. Even if you don't agree with all my movie choices as being "good" or "smart" you'll at least have to agree that most movies that are at least reasonably well known are pretty much based on a dissection or aggregation of common archetypes. How many times has Romeo and Juliet been retold almost verbatim? And by and large the audience enjoys these things and says "oh the plot was so good" when really, they are just a rehash of old story ideas. We even group movies into archetype driven categories "love story", "ghost story", "suspense", etc.

So yes, I was being "cute" with my notional art-house flick. But if you want to find something not driven by archetypes, where the artists consciously try to avoid those things, you have to go there, or to France or Italy perhaps. Here, http://www.imdb.com/chart/top this is the top 250 movies on IMDB not by dollars but by rating. How many of these are "smart" movies meaning "not a rehash of archetypes"? Very few if any.

It's pretty simple really, if you don't want your intelligence to be insulted (meaning you don't want an archetype driven story), you end up with a movie about a vapid cowgirl/model with giant thumbs or a movie director that can't focus on making movies because he's too busy with all his mistresses (which is actually just a retelling of the "guy with too many girlfriends archetype"). And given that non-archetype driven movies are typically poorly rated and attended by the open public, either you are particularly "smart" or those movies tend to suck.

Re: SF author Greg Egan reviews Avatar

#89

Post by RiderOfGiraffes »

Massive, massive spoiler alerts!!

If you haven't seen the film and want to see the film and don't want to know every detail before-hand, don't read this thread. It (the thread) has taught me to avoid HN when there's a new film around.

Most likely this comment will sink to the bottom and not serve its purpose of protecting the casual browser (person, not application), but for as long as it stays at or near the top, it may save a few people.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Re: SF author Greg Egan reviews Avatar

#90

Post by elblanco »

ericd wrote: post #63
elblanco wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix also rents our pedantic art house flicks so you never have to be troubled by what the rest of us mortals watch for escapism. I'm sure you can find some overwrought deconstruction of modern human sexuality retold as 4 movements of the lives of people in positions of authority but no power, politicians of the modern era in a mock nuclear stand-down, a 30 minute continuous scene of a single flower, in water, as…

8 1/2?

Is as vapid a retelling of "guy with too many girlfriends" as any other. It simply creates an easily escapable artificial conflict that's better told in the form of a summer teen comedy.

Can't make a movie? Get less drama in your life. Situation movie solved.

It wasn't improved any when they added another 1/2 to it.

Post reply on HN