Avatar

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yes but she still gets royalties

I'm going to go anyway but this bothers me.

Tuppence, not much more.

[Elessarina]

It might have a chance for "best special effects" as well, I think.

Well obviously. I think it may well win best picture - Director I think will go to Bigelow with Tarantino as her biggest threat but picture I think is around 65% James Cameron's currently

[Elessarina]

I'm going to go anyway but this bothers me.

Tuppence, not much more.[/quote]

I wouldn't think so - she probably worked for a set fee.. if you buy the score she may get tuppence but I doubt she'll get anything from the film

[Animavore]

Well. I can definitely say that film was a treat for the eyes. The term "eye-candy" has never been so apt. The other nominees at the Oscars, and every other award ceremony, for Best Special Effects needed bother showing up. This film makes the effects of Star Trek look like King Kong (original).
One thing I have to urge is that you see this on the big screen in 3-D because it will lose some impact in 2-D and even more so on the small screen. I certainly intend seeing it again although the next time I'll make sure I'm sitting in a better seat so the screen fills my vision (I asked the girl for a seat in the middle and when I went in I was placed in a seat at the back on the left. That really pissed me off to the point it took some of the enjoyment out of it) and the cinema is less packed.
There are some negative aspects, story moved to fast to get any real attachment to it, and it had one too many writer's conveniences, but the effects and action sequences will more than make up for it (which is why it needs to be seen in the cinema because the make up won't cover up its faults on the small screen).

EDIT: insertion of "Best Special Effects".

[maiforpeace]

The Meaning of Avatar: Everything is God (A Response to Ross Douthat and other naysayers of 'pantheism')

"If you're an author or Ph.D. candidate who had the foresight to propose a book on the philosophy of "Avatar" before the film was even released in theaters, the past week (and the blogosphere) has been very, very good to you." - Dave Itzkoff, NY Times, Dec. 22, 2009

Well, good news for me! I'm an author and a Ph.D. candidate whose book on the philosophy of Avatar, a book called "Everything is God," was published by Shambhala two months ago. I wrote the book not because I got a shooting copy of the script last year, but because, contrary to the cries of some critics, the philosophy of the movie has actually been around, in East and West, for thousands of years.

Roughly speaking, Avatar's Na'Vi subscribe to a combination of pantheism and theism, a view scholars today call "panentheism." As scholar of religion Gershom Scholem observed, panentheism is usually rooted less in faith, as the New York Times's Ross Douthat said, than in experience. Like mystics here on Earth, the Na'Vi have an experience of unity of consciousness with other beings, all of which (themselves included) are really just manifestations of one Being, which they call Ai'wa. Unlike Earth-bound mystics, the Na'Vi have a convenient plug, attached to their bodies, which physically unites them to other beings (such as steeds, winged or otherwise) and to Aiwa Herself/Itself.

Of course, the experience is one thing, the interpretation another. No one can doubt that, for millennia, contemplatives in Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim traditions - among others - have had similar experiences, albeit without the plug-and-play part. These experiences are described in strikingly, though not exactly, similar ways (the "perennial philosophy" scholars postulated a century ago works as a generality, but not in the details). But of course, how we understand such experiences - tickles of neurons, mind-states, prophecy, Unity with the Source oF life - is another matter.

In the Na'Vi cosmology, what's really happening is the Ai'Wa in me is connecting with the Ai'Wa in you. This is echoed in their greeting, "I see you," a direct translation of the Sanskrit Namaste, which means the same thing. ("Avatar" is also from the Sanskrit, though the film plays on the word's two meanings of an image used in a role-playing game, and a deity appearing on Earth.) As the Na'Vi explain in the film, though, "I see you" doesn't mean ordinary seeing - it, like Namaste, really means "the God in me sees the God in you." I see Myself, in your eyes.

Douthat and others don't like this very much. They complain it's a lowering of the human ambition, from an aspirational skyward gaze to an earthbound one, and that the Earth/the One/Ai'Wa cannot provide the comfort, meaning, and guidance that a traditional God-idea can. But this is incorrect for at least three reasons.

First, the Na'Vi are panentheists, not pantheists. In a crucial moment in the film, our hero Jake Sully prays to Ai'Wa, and She appears to answer, in the form of swarms of birds, dinosaur-like creatures, and other forces of nature who work together to defeat the technologically-advanced human invaders. (The sequence is not unlike the Ents defeating Saruman in The Two Towers or the creatures of Narnia defeating the humans in Prince Caspian.) Strict pantheists like Spinoza would never pray to Being. Indeed, the Na'Vi princess Neytiri scolds Sully for doing so, and I myself clucked my tongue a bit when the Na'Vi started swaying and chanting; it kind of confuses the issue.

But panentheists do pray. They pray all the time. Ramakrishna, the 19th century Hindu sage who, through his disciple Vivekananda, is more responsible than any other individual for the popularization of nonduality - from obscure Vedantic texts to best-sellers by Eckhart Tolle and Deepak Chopra - was both a nondualist sage who believed that All is One, and a devotee of the "Divine Mother" who prayed to Her every day. The Baal Shem Tov and other early Hasidim believed that everything is God, but they also prayed to God as if separate from Him. Rumi and other Sufi poets experienced unity, but also loved yearning for the love of an often-distant Other.

Douthat is wrong that nonduality erases God. In fact, "God" becomes seen as one of many ways of understanding Being. Sometimes God is Christ on the cross, sometimes the Womb of the Earth. Sometimes God is Justice, other times Mercy. This is how sophisticated religionists have understood theology for at least a thousand years: "God" is a series of insufficient explanations of the Absolutely Unknowable, a collection of projections and dreams and who-knows-what-else which, neo-atheists notwithstanding, speak to the core of who we are as human beings.

To me, this is more comforting than old school theology, not less. It allows for multiple paths to the holy, radical ecumenicism and pluralism, and a bit less constriction around our favorite theological myths. God as Friend, Father, "motion and spirit that impels all things" - all of these become dances, tools of the inner life which are available when needed, and enriched, not lessened, by being increased in number.

Second, nonduality/panentheism is not less ethically aspirational than sky-god-worship; it's more so. Thousands of years ago, we may well have needed a Righteous Judge in the Sky as a myth to keep us in line. But now, not only is such a thing philosophically untenable ("Where was God in Auschwitz?"), it's actively counterproductive. The sky god tells us that we humans are masters of the Earth; thus, we, like the humans in Avatar treat Earth as a resource to be exploited. The sky god tells us that only this book is sacred; thus we attack those with another book.

Traditional monotheism has indeed contributed to the growth of civilization, but not it is contributing to its downfall. Yes, the way of the Na'Vi is idealized - Avatar is a Hollywood cartoon. But it, not old-school-theology, holds the ideological promise of a more sustainable future on our planet (as well as Pandora). In our post-industrial age, respect for the web of life is more ethically valuable -- and ecologically urgent -- than fear of Heaven.

Third and finally, let's take a reality check. Douthat and others suggest that all faiths are basically myths, and that we should pick and choose among them by their consequences. Forget what's actually true, if Old Testament God is better for ethics than New Ave Ai'Wa, let's stick with Him. Yet, news flash: Old Testament God probably doesn't exist.

Is Ai'Wa any different? Yes. Here's the thought experiment: right now, please raise your right index finger. Now, reflect for a moment and list out all the various motives you had for raising, or not raising, your finger: curiosity, skepticism, doubt, whatever. All of those factors, if you look closely, are conditioned by things outside of "you" - your genetics, your upbringing, what you ate for lunch, whatever. We may not be able to know all these conditions, but the fact is that your action was 100% determined by those conditions. "Free will" exists as a psychological reality, but not as an ontological one. Who really moved? The conditions moved.

The Na'Vi call "the conditions" by the name Ai'Wa. Hindus call it Brahman. Nondual Jews (Kabbalists, Hasidim, and otherwise) call it Ein Sof, the Infinite - the God beyond "God." Yes, God raised (or didn't raise) your index finger. "You" are a psychological phenomenon. It's not God that's a trick of the neurons in your brain - you are.

Unlike traditional theologies, Nondual "theologies," whether from the Na'Vi or the navi (the Hebrew word for "prophet"), actually describe reality. Read up on your popular neurology books, like Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained or Robert Kane's The Oxford Handbook of Free Will. They'll make the point scientifically, rather than anecdotally or experientially. There is no individual self - it's an illusion, a mirage. "You" exist, sure, but you exist just like a wave on the ocean: here one minute, gone the next, and never apart from the ocean itself. And as the nondual teacher Ram Dass says, you're not a wave, you're water.

In my own life, as in those of millions of contemplatives from around the world, I have found these ideas to have important practical consequences. Most of my neurosis and desires revolve around making my wave bigger or more comfortable than others - remembering that I'm water is an important counterbalance. My desire for "MORE!" is quieted when I settle back out of selfish desire and into a remembering of the nondual truth. And, just my opinion here, I suspect that if more people chilled out about the superiority of their religious or ideological system, we might fight less.

By my estimation, approximately 700,000 people will see Avatar for every 1 that reads Everything is God. Admittedly, it has better special effects. But let's not think that nonduality is something James Cameron, or Hollywood, made up. It's in the Zohar, the Upanishads, the writings of John of the Cross, Rumi, the Tao te Ching, the Heart Sutra, and many other texts written long before Lumiere's train arrived at La Ciotat. Of course, these millennia-old traditions do not fit cleanly into our postmodern world, and so contemporary people adapt them to their lived experience. But at its core, Avatar's philosophy is not new; it is ancient, profound, and liberating.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well. I can definitely say that film was a treat for the eyes. The term "eye-candy" has never been so apt. The other nominees at the Oscars, and every other award ceremony, for Best Special Effects needed bother showing up. This film makes the effects of Star Trek look like King Kong (original).
One thing I have to urge is that you see this on the big screen in 3-D because it will lose some impact in 2-D and even more so on the small screen. I certainly intend seeing it again although the next time I'll make sure I'm sitting in a better seat so the screen fills my vision (I asked the girl for a seat in the middle and when I went in I was placed in a seat at the back on the left. That really pissed me off to the point it took some of the enjoyment out of it) and the cinema is less packed.
There are some negative aspects, story moved to fast to get any real attachment to it, and it had one too many writer's conveniences, but the effects and action sequences will more than make up for it (which is why it needs to be seen in the cinema because the make up won't cover up its faults on the small screen).

EDIT: insertion of "Best Special Effects".

Told you about the small screen.

I hate crowded theaters, especially when you wind up next to a moron. I went to the third Harry Potter movie with Brenda on opening day and this idiot and his friend sat down next to me and kept talking after the movie started. Brenda leaned over and said, "Do it!" I turned to the guy and said loudly, "Will you PLEASE keep your hand off my leg!" He left.

[Animavore]

I hate crowded theaters, especially when you wind up next to a moron. I went to the third Harry Potter movie with Brenda on opening day and this idiot and his friend sat down next to me and kept talking after the movie started. Brenda leaned over and said, "Do it!" I turned to the guy and said loudly, "Will you PLEASE keep your hand off my leg!" He left.

I was telling everyone I met in the pub last night make sure they see it on the big screen. As big as possible. I'm going into the city the next time I see it. Because the more I've thought about this film since I wrote the above post the more I realise how bad a film this actually is. It cannot stand on its own. If this was a Dances With Wolves type film (ie with a white man befriending a tribe of some kind and assimilating to the point of helping them fight his own people) it would be a straight to DVD Asylum film. I told people last night that if they missed it in the cinema not to bother with the DVD because it would be too late (unless DVD is 3-D and they have a big screen).

[tattuchu]

Once the magic spell of the remarkable graphics wears off, you start to realize this film is not all that great. I went into it knowing nothing about it, not having any idea what to expect at all. What I found as I came away from it was that is was astonishingly beautiful to look at, but the story was somewhat lacking. For something this innovative, it could have, and should have, been more substantial and more satisfying. I wanted to like it much more than I actually liked it.
I remember the same criticisms being made about the first Star Wars film when it came out, but overall the critical response has been overwhelmingly positive here. Peter, in an earlier post, suggested that some were making it a point to tear the film down. I'm not sure this is the case, but there is a sense of disappointment in how much better the film could have been. I read one negative review out of curiosity, and found myself agreeing with most of her criticisms. The difference between us however was that, despite the film's flaws, I still hold a favorable opinion of it overall. I definitely think it could've been improved upon, but I would never go so far as to say it was a bad film.

[Elessarina]

You can strip the layers off many films and the basic story is nothing amazing or new...

A story is made in the way it's told and if that is on an alien moon and in 3D then that is the telling.. you might as well say the Sunflowers only looks good because it is painted in varying colours.

[Animavore]

You can strip the layers off many films and the basic story is nothing amazing or new...

A story is made in the way it's told and if that is on an alien moon and in 3D then that is the telling.. you might as well say the Sunflowers only looks good because it is painted in varying colours.

Which is why I said that once it loses its 3-D the film will lose most of its impact. No one is disputing what you've said above. It is for those reasons only that I love it. If this was a terrestrial movie about humans it would not work with that script and that pace even if it was well made and had high production. I just think if he had've made the film like it was about a cow-boy who assimilates with Indians ie. forget for a sec about all the effects and take a look at it from the point of view of the story, the film would've went from "impressive" to "epic".

EDIT: Just this second read the director's cut is 40 minutes longer so maybe the full version gives more time to the character development. We shall see.

[Elessarina]

Which is why I said that once it loses its 3-D the film will lose most of its impact. No one is disputing what you've said above. It is for those reasons only that I love it. If this was a terrestrial movie about humans it would not work with that script and that pace even if it was well made and had high production. I just think if he had've made the film like it was about a cow-boy who assimilates with Indians ie. forget for a sec about all the effects and take a look at it from the point of view of the story, the film would've went from "impressive" to "epic".

EDIT: Just this second read the director's cut is 40 minutes longer so maybe the full version gives more time to the character development. We shall see.

But the thing is you CANNOT separate the story and the effects - it's a whole package.. You might as well say "What if someone else directed it?" - that's what Cameron does -he is a sci-fi and special effects nut (he was one of the pioneers of CGI - THe Abyss / T2). Kevin Costner made it - it was Dances with Wolves..Mel Gibson made it -it was Apocalypto, "Disney" (I know it wasn't but you get me) made it it was Ferngully, Terence Malick made it it was The New World - Cameron made it - it was Avatar

[Gawdzilla Sama]

EDIT: Just this second read the director's cut is 40 minutes longer so maybe the full version gives more time to the character development. We shall see.

203 mintues. le Offf!

[Elessarina]

EDIT: Just this second read the director's cut is 40 minutes longer so maybe the full version gives more time to the character development. We shall see.

203 mintues. le Offf!

Woo.. I hope he's going to give us tonnes and tonnes of extras on the special effects etc on the DVD

Apparently now it is the front runner for Best Picture.. I hope it wins i really do this type of film should be rewarded..the movies is an entertainment industry

[Gawdzilla Sama]

EDIT: Just this second read the director's cut is 40 minutes longer so maybe the full version gives more time to the character development. We shall see.

203 mintues. le Offf!

Woo.. I hope he's going to give us tonnes and tonnes of extras on the special effects etc on the DVD

Apparently now it is the front runner for Best Picture.. I hope it wins i really do this type of film should be rewarded..the movies is an entertainment industry

He's launched a new style of 3D shooting, no doubt there. "Alice" is going to come off poorly, I think.

[Animavore]

Which is why I said that once it loses its 3-D the film will lose most of its impact. No one is disputing what you've said above. It is for those reasons only that I love it. If this was a terrestrial movie about humans it would not work with that script and that pace even if it was well made and had high production. I just think if he had've made the film like it was about a cow-boy who assimilates with Indians ie. forget for a sec about all the effects and take a look at it from the point of view of the story, the film would've went from "impressive" to "epic".

EDIT: Just this second read the director's cut is 40 minutes longer so maybe the full version gives more time to the character development. We shall see.

But the thing is you CANNOT seperate the story and the effects - it's a whole package.. You might as well say "What if someone else directed it?" - that's what Cameron does -he is a sci-fi and special effects nut (he was one of the pioneers of CGI - THe Abyss / T2). Kevin Costner made it - it was Dances with Wolves..Mel Gibson made it -it was Apocalypto, "Disney" (I know it wasn't but you get me) made it it was Ferngully, Terence Malick made it it was The New World - Cameron made it - it was Avatar

You seem to be unable to level criticism at this film. Valid criticism that is (as opposed to the nit-picking you could easily go into by talking about what's scientifically impossible and what's not). I think the story was weak. If my senses weren't gooey with pleasure I would've dismissed it. I'm pretty sure when the people who missed out in the cinema watch it on DVD some of them will find it difficult to know what all the fuss was about.
It's funny you mention Cameron's earlier films because they were well paced and had good stories. Probably because they had to use the effects more sparingly so the rest had to be filled with slow introductions and built ups. And maybe this is Avatar's main problem. He spent so much time showing off his (totally amazing in every sense of the word) world (which must have used up some amount of computer power) that he neglected the story.