Contact
Subscribe


Avatar's Don't Explain

Dec 22, 2009
By .
Movies

I saw Avatar last night. It's pretty much what you expect (superlative graphics, pretty meh story, some wince inducing dialogue). There were several incidences where the CG (especially where creatures were involved) were up to Gollum quality (or maybe even better..)

But here's what fascinated me about the movie: it didn't feel the need to explain things. Most sci-fi falls into the trap of needing to explain things. I'm sure the writer feels like they catering to their geek audience. In reality, that's usually the biggest problem we have with the movie. Their explanation is so far-fetched (or based on ridiculously bad science) that it damages the movie.

Avatar takes a different approach – it gives no explanations at all. There is no pseudo science or exposition about why mountains float on Pandora. Mountains just float on Pandora. Everybody knows that. I found myself enjoying the film more because they didn't explain how the person could control an alien homonculus, they just could.

It's an interesting narrative tool, and it definitely increased my enjoyment of the movie. I didn't spend time thinking "that can't happen" or looking for the (definitely there) problems with science.

It's not a great movie. It is a beautiful one. It's also a movie that doesn't owe you any explanations, and doesn't offer any. I think more sci-fi movies should consider this path.

Last 5 posts by Ezra

17 Comments
Tags

17 Comments

  1. Vedrfolnir  •  Dec 22, 2009 @11:23 am

    Man, I had completely forgotten about that, but you're right, Gollum was INCREDIBLE. You could FEEL the emotion pouring out of the screen while he argued with himself. Fantastic.

  2. Jean  •  Dec 22, 2009 @12:06 pm

    I cannot understand why did this movie earning so much. Too thin on plot too loud on cosmetic.

  3. Scott Dubya  •  Dec 22, 2009 @1:00 pm

    I was surprised to hear the critical acclaim that the movie has garnered, and have been equally surprised at the lackluster response from actual people who have seen the movie. I have never loved a Cameron movie, but I look forward to seeing this one in 3D.

  4. mojo  •  Dec 22, 2009 @1:35 pm

    Sci-Fi movies should be forward-looking and not a rehash of several previous non-Sci-Fi flicks. I was extremely under-impressed, both at the mawkish, thoroughly predictable storyline and the over-hyped CGI.

  5. mojo  •  Dec 22, 2009 @1:39 pm

    One thing I did like: they showed that actual human actors are now superfluous. Record the actor's body shape and movement parameters, sample the voice. Then fire the actor. They're not needed, and you don't have to put up with temperament or "method" or any of that crap.

    This is a definite plus.

  6. Al  •  Dec 22, 2009 @6:33 pm

    Decades of direct to video, animated feature "acting" would suggest otherwise.

  7. Hirvox  •  Dec 23, 2009 @6:03 am

    They’re not needed, and you don’t have to put up with temperament or “method” or any of that crap.

    Yes, it's so much better to deal with temperamental animators instead. Sure, you'll be able to replace the generic action hero whose range of emotions consists of "angry" and "deadly serious". But if you want a complex CGI character to look believable, then you're going to need someone who knows a great deal about body language, psychology, intonation and various other factors. All of that knowledge is worth money, and with money comes the ego. At that point it doesn't matter what you call the guy an actor, a motion-capture specialist or an animator.

    That said, procedural character simulation and animation is only going to get better as time passes. But right now, an actor in a motion-capture suit is one of the most cost-effective ways of making a CGI character look believable.

  8. piperTom  •  Dec 23, 2009 @6:37 am

    Not explaining the science is one thing; not having anything resembling humans in the movie is quite another. Say there's a half-mile wide rock, floating in air. Fine; it's a big universe. Suppose there are people around, but this rock is NOT covered up in scientists trying to figure out how it works. !!! Those aren't people. I don't know who they might be, but they're not related to any humans I know.

  9. Bob  •  Dec 23, 2009 @9:51 am

    Mojo, considering that all the animation was based off of motion captured actor performances, I'm not sure this is the "fire the actors" movie making methodology that you are hoping for.

  10. Bob  •  Dec 23, 2009 @9:52 am

    piperTom, the people in the movie know how it works. They just figure the audience doesn't care.

  11. patrickkelley  •  Dec 23, 2009 @1:24 pm

    If this movie is going to herald the beginning of a fire the actors movement in film making it had damned well better gross well over 300 million dollars or they had better figure out a way to make them a hell of a lot cheaper than this one.

  12. David Schwartz  •  Dec 23, 2009 @11:35 pm

    piperTom: They all already know how it works. How long would I have to follow you around before I overheard you explaining to someone how a car works?

  13. mojo  •  Dec 26, 2009 @1:59 pm

    I'd just point out that motion recording does not require high-salary actors. Any same-sized meat puppet will do.

  14. Jack Marshall  •  Dec 26, 2009 @3:04 pm

    I hate being pedantic, I really do, but there is no such word as "incidences" as you keep using it. The words you want are "instances" or "incidents." "Incidence" means frequency, also the fact of an occurrence, which almost never is used in the plural. You misuse this word a lot, and since you are a good writer, I swore I would flag it the next time.

  15. patrickkelley  •  Dec 28, 2009 @5:54 am

    Thank you Jack Marshall, on behalf of all of us would-be writers who consistently make these kinds of mistakes. We should know better, but we sometimes do it irregardless.

  16. Chris  •  Dec 28, 2009 @8:34 am

    The thing that originally struck me as odd is that "unobtanium" is 20 million dollars a kilo, but the guy has a paperweight made of it. And then I realized that this is a 150 years in the future and we probably haven't completely overcome inflation…

  17. David Schwartz  •  Dec 29, 2009 @2:29 am

    Well, also that's presumably the value on Earth. I would image the cost to get it back figures in there somewhere. The value on Pandora would logically be much lower. But inflation is definitely a factor, 20 million dollars might not be enough to buy more than a few gumballs.