Posts Tagged ‘Avatar’

"Avatar" looks great (see photo), but the 3D is what really makes it stunning.

IGN.com recently published an article where author Eric Moro compared the 3D image quality of the theatrical version of James Cameron’s Avatar with its Blu-Ray copy being designed for home theater use.

Almost everyone who has seen the movie in theaters praises the 3D technology for making the experience highly immersive, and Moro is no different. That being said, he claims the scenes he was able to witness for the special 3D Blu-ray player looked even better than they did in the theater. You can read the full article here.

So for those who were worried that Avatar was destined to be solely a theatrical experience that would force home viewing to be lackluster by comparison, there seems to be at least a little bit of hope. One report is hardly the final word on the issue, but it does allow for some optimism.

Are we now actively seeking to blur the line between man and machine - as this poster suggests - or do we still fear what could happen if we do (a la Star Trek's Borg)?

By my count there have been three movies released this year that involve the ability to remote control/embody a person or robot (Surrogates, Gamer, and Avatar). All three films deal with this idea differently, but the fact that they were all released within only a few months of each other is intriguing. Somewhere inside these films could lie a connection that says more than any one of them does individually.

In the case of Surrogates, the film makes an argument against the use of humanized robots as a means of living, criticizing in a roundabout way that people (particularly Americans) are on a path to losing their natural desire for human contact. Some might say that living through a robot isn’t actually living (see our review). All in all, the general opinion of the film regarding technology that enables people to avoid actual physical contact is negative to say the least.

Gamer‘s usage of the remote embodiment concept is quite different. For starters, there are no robots; people control other people (prisoners) for use in a virtual videogame experience. So in other words, certain people were able to control other people who had been dehumanized to the point where their lives were worth nothing more than a subjective entertainment value. Obviously, this film’s message is not congruent to Surrogates‘. However, that the message involves the idea of dehumanization by way of technological means does give the two films at least one connection.

Avatar also promotes a different theme with its incorporation of the remote embodiment concept. Instead of making a case against the use of avatars (which in this case are aliens instead of humans), the film actually endorses their utilization. This is most likely due to the film’s apparent theme (suggested in our review), which proposes that an avatar is in fact an allegory for modern telecommunication technologies, and that using such resources ought to be used for the purposes of learning about people different from yourself as opposed to just seeking out like-minded, comparable individuals who aren’t liable to disagree with you. One can reasonably suggest from this that Avatar‘s use of remote embodiment is not about dehumanization but of rehumanization. Thus, those humans in the film who choose to utilize available technology for this purpose are considered the protagonists, and those who do not are considered the antagonists.

If only one thing can be said to connect all three films, it is that they all seem to criticize/warn us about the dangerous path we are on that could lead us to, by way of newer and newer technology, dehumanizing ourselves as well as others. However, Avatar‘s greater message allows us to consider this path less as a straight shot towards doom and more as a double-edged sword. And so, there is no agreement of what will happen, but only an agreement of what can happen. It appears that it is up to us as members of an increasingly technological society to A) retain our basic humanity by not allowing advanced telecommunications to completely substitute direct human contact, and B) use our technological resources to expand the breadth of our humanity by seeking to learn from and understand the different and “unusual.” Personally, it seems that – based on the subject matter of recent sci-fi/action films – there is an increasing trepidation with our society’s increasingly advancing technology, as even this past summer’s Terminator: Salvation sought to ask what will happen if the line between man and machine (i.e. technology) is blurred. The question of whether man as he is defined is inexorably linked to his technology is certainly a relevant one, but alas it is a question for another time.

What do you make of these three films? What conclusions do you draw when considering them connected in some way? Tell us what you think.

Should 'Avatar' be considered exemplary of what Hollywood should regularly strive to create?

Much has been made about James Cameron’s newest cinematic juggernaut Avatar. With the film’s production said to exceed a record-setting $400 million, it has made back roughly 75% of that cost just 5 days after its release (domestic + foreign). The vast majority of that price tag is due to the groundbreaking special effects and 3D presentation (as I’m sure you’ve all heard), which required the kind of technology and personnel that only the likes of a Hollywood studio can provide. Many like to deride Hollywood because of its “gross” financing for projects intended for mass consumption, however on occasion (such as with Avatar) we are reminded that Hollywood is capable of delivering us something truly striking and amazing. Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy is another example that can be referenced from this decade. Big name studios love cashing in on such films, and audiences love paying to see them. When done right (unlike with, say, Waterworld) big budget extravaganzas have the ability, and by all accounts likelihood, to be very notable and even pivotal artifacts within the world of movies. So, then, what could all of this mean? What could the tremendous success of Avatar lead to? Read the rest of this entry »

Short Take: Jaw-dropping visuals, and a list of relevant messages

Director: James Cameron (Titanic)

Screenwriter: James Cameron (Titanic)

Cast: Sam Worthington (Terminator: Salvation), Zoe Saldana (Star Trek), Sigourney Weaver (Prayers for Bobby), Stephen Lang (Public Enemies)

Length: 2h 42m

Synopsis: Humans have landed on an earth-like alien planet named Pandora, where they hope to collect precious minerals that are worth unimaginable sums. Standing in their way are an indigenous people called the Na’vi (pronounced Nah-vee), whose physical prowess and territorial rigidity have made diplomatic resolutions exceedingly difficult. In the mix is a man who is able to take control of his own alien body and permeate the Na’vi’s intense and scrupulous social boundaries in order to persuade them to peacefully make way for the humans. Read the rest of this entry »

A still of Zoe Saldana from "Avatar"

ComingSoon.net has published a transcript of a panel discussion that took place in London involving director James Cameron and the cast of his new movie Avatar. The documented Q and A session is moderately long, and goes into great detail about the film and how its creators felt about it on various levels. The questions are precise and demand complex answers, and said answers are elaborate and insightful. Cameron and the cast seemed to make sure to be as articulate as possible, and as a result they provide a wealth of information about both themselves and the film. The questions range from the typical “how did ___ make you feel,” to discussing the difference between seeing and “really seeing” and their relationship to the film and its story.

If you’re curious and/or interested about Avatar we would like to strongly recommend that you take a close look at this transcript. It contains less than a handful of the most minor of spoilers, which if you’re someone who’s been keeping up with the film they might not be new to you anyways.