Avatar in Three Dimensions

Following swiftly on the heels of my viewing of Disney's A Christmas Carol in 3D, I went to see James Cameron's new, record smashing, hit movie Avatar. I'm not sure what I expected going into the theatre. Certainly the previews showed a visually stunning movie, but one that I suspected would have a fairly straightforward, and thinly veiled, story about military exploitation.

One feature that I was really looking forward to was the supposed innovation in 3D technology. I guess I fell for all the hype. It really wasn't all that impressive. Sure, there are a few sparks and other floaty things that stick out, and some sort of weird holographic computer interface that has prominent screen time for about a second. Other than that I really felt let down. I suspect that the real difference between Avatar and Disney's Christmas Carol in regards to the 3d projection is the forced focus in the former. By that I mean that far too often in Avatar the only thing in focus is the main character. I suppose this is more a limitation of real world camera technology vs. computer animation, but I found it very annoying, especially when the story's pacing flagged and my eyes tended to wander around the frame.

I'm not going to go into a plot breakdown, I'm sure most people have seen the movie already. I will say that the movie is not really anti-war, as some have claimed.

Instead I want to focus on three other areas where I felt the movie failed. They really are nothing more than nits that I'd like to pick, at least when one considers the sheer number of movie and T.V. shows have the same problems or worse.

The first problem is the rubber-faced aliens. While I realize that rubber has been exchanged for CGI, the Na'vi are still just humans done up just to look wierd - and stereotypically tribal, for whatever reason.

My second gripe is the use of the word 'unobtainium'. Even to those viewers who have lives more interesting than a nerdy blogger who knows about many types of literary tropes and memes, the name unobtainium should be ridiculously transparent; the writers of this movie have no imagination, and so they have snarkily decided to co-opt the language of their critics.

And finally, the voice-overs. . .

I once read that a sure sign that you are watching a bad movie is when the voice-over starts - and I cannot say that I disagree. However, I think James Cameron really missed an opportunity with his use of the voice-over. Obviously, the choice to use voice-overs in Avatar was made, just as in the case of the theatrical release of Blade Runner, bcause the producers felt that the audience would be comprised of utter morons who couldn't understand what they were seeing without being told. Once again, I cannot say that I disagree - at least not completely. It baffles me how such a mediocre movie can generate so much box-office revenue while great movies like Serenity barely make back their budget.

That being said, I think there can be a place for character driven voice-over narration. For instance, the video journals are a great time saving device and were vital to protraying a story that takes place over a long period of time in a movie that is only (or should be) two hours long. Used properly, the effect is tasteful and unobtrusive.

The problem is that there are voice overs that clearly are not part of Jake Sully's video journals. In fact, they can only be explained as an omnicient expository device, and as such I found them to be disruptive to my state of suspended disbelief. I feel the extraneous voice-overs could have easily been lumped into the video journal conceit, or omitted alltogether. Actually, I'm not completely convinced that James Cameron wasn't attempting a much subtler effect but had his efforts co-opted by some marketing team.

Rating ***/5

Edit (01/10/11): I've just finished watching the 'Collector's Extended Cut' version of Avatar (2D). I now see that Cameron intended all the voice overs to be part of Jake's video journal. There is, however, still no explanation as to why the normally taciturn and private ex-marine is so verbose when making such an easily accessible recording. Why would he even include his back story if he's just supposed to be documenting his experiences with the Na'vi? I can only assume that the intro and some of the other voice overs are meant to be part of his final message before shedding his human body. The whole movie, including the other video journal entries, is then simply a flashback. Without clear distinction between the two sets of voice overs, things become a little confusing.

A Christmas Carol - Part 2

Last year I started reading A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens. This year I went and saw the new 3D movie starring Jim Carrey!

I highly recommend it, just not for children as it is quite spooky. The 3D is excellent, the computer animation even better than The Polar Express (made by the same people as the Disney's A Christmas Carol, and Beowulf [2007]), and the acting, MoCap or not, is very well done. My one main complaint is that it didn't have as many plot threads as the classic Alastair Sims version had (although I think those were made-up for the 1951 movie anyway). Instead, it had a rather long and nonsensical action sequence for the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come. Oh well, it could have been worse: It could have been a series of senseless action sequences with about three minutes of actual plot like Polar Express.

If I had to rank my favorite versions of A Christmas Carol, I would still place the Alastair Sims version at the top. Second place, though, is a toss-up between A Muppet's Christmas Carol and the Jim Carrey version, with the muppets generally coming out ahead. However, if they ever make a home theatre system capable of displaying the 3D movie as well as the cinema can, then I may have to re-evaluate my list.

Oh, and I still haven't gotten around to reading the last bit of A Christmas Carol, but I know someone who's getting a hard copy for Christmas. . .

Abrams' Trek

I won't go into any length with this review as a.) it would be a waste of both space and time - perhaps in some sort of continuous way - and b.) it is already covered very well over at Ex Astris Scientia.

However, I will say two things before handing down my judgment. First off, they've extended the engineering section of the Enterprise in order to give the ship an unsightly crotch bulge. Why, I don't know. Perhaps JJ is a fan of Slash fiction?

And my second comment: Red matter?

'Nough said.


My conclusions:

Don't watch JJ Abrams' Star Trek if:
- you liked Star trek in any of it's previous incarnations
- you like movies that make sense
- you like fresh plots

However, go ahead and watch it if:
- you like things that move and/or are shiny
- you like poorly done (and overused) time travel plots
- you need a reminder why you should never work for Mr. Abrams

Rating */5 because I liked Simon Pegg.

To Kill a Mockingbird With One Stonehead

I've been listening to a lot of news-talk radio lately. I prefer my news to be less David Sazuki / Al Gore centric. At any rate, a particular story caught my attention (read it, that article is actually quite a fair overview of the subject). Apparently the mother of a student at Toronto's Malvern Collegiate Institute wants Harper Lee's famous novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, banned from the school library because it contains the racially offensive 'N' word.

Really? You want to ban one of the greatest anti-racism works of the 20th century because it portrays an accurate representation of Racism? You think that by revealing the wrongs in society, even those perceived to be behind us, the message itself becomes bad? That it somehow promotes or propagates the evil?

Well, upon further review, it seems the problem is larger than I first thought. I was never aware that there was any controversy surrounding Harper Lee's novel. But, unfortunately, it seems the book has been banned many times before. Although, it should be noted that objections to the novel centered more around the depictions of rape central to the plot, rather than the language that is now considered politically incorrect, until racial attitudes began changing in the 1970's.

Does anyone else ever feel like we're living in a Ray Bradbury novel?

Or perhaps it's more like a George Orwell novel? Certainly the social movement to redefine certain words and terms as politically incorrect (i.e. taboo) smacks of Newspeak. But what political correctness hasn't managed to do yet is to actually erase the 'N' word from the public consciousness. Who hasn't heard it, even just in passing, thanks to rap music? Blocking access to responsible discourse on a matter does not make it go away. In fact, ignorance may lead to naive acceptance or at the very least to conditions that foster resurgance of the very problem you blindly hope would just go away.

But here I am blithely tip-toeing around the word itself. Let me give you an example of a responsible use of the word:

'Nigger' is a derogatory term that has passed from regular use in the English language because it is offensive to a group of people and its use is generally considered taboo. It refers to people whose level of melanin pigmentation is within the higher range for humans and their skin is therefore darker. Usually one or more of their ancestors originated from the continent of Africa, although this is not universally true. Historically, this term was used by Caucasian owners toward their slaves. After slavery was abolished, the term continued to be used by racists. Any non-member of the group who uses the term 'Nigger' is now suspect of being racist whether the term was used as a slur or not. My advice: don't use the 'N' word.

(Hope that doesn't get censored. . .)

Of course, when writing about historical events, or even current matters involving racism, it would be irresponsible to gloss over the reality of the actions and language used.

Here is a set of quotes by a famous Canadian, former Prime Minister John G. Diefenbaker, that I think are fitting:

". . . he who does not know the past can never understand the present, and he certainly can do nothing for the future."

"Freedom includes the right to say what others may object to and resent... The essence of citizenship is to be tolerant of strong and provocative words."

Today, word has emerged that this latest outburst of insanity has been averted. But for how long, and what of those institutions that continue to ban such books, to suppress knowledge, and subvert future generations? To all those who insist on censorship, on giving up the right to freedom of speech and thought, I have one thing to say:

Baaa!

Edit (05/01/2011) - I have recently discovered that I was not the first to compare the censorship of To Kill a Mockingbird with the world of George Orwell's 1984.

"Recently I have received echoes down this way of the Hanover County School Board's activities, and what I've heard makes me wonder if any of its members can read.

"Surely it is plain to the simplest intelligence that “To Kill a Mockingbird” spells out in words of seldom more than two syllables a code of honor and conduct, Christian in its ethic, that is the heritage of all Southerners. To hear that the novel is "immoral" has made me count the years between now and 1984, for I have yet to come across a better example of doublethink.

"I feel, however, that the problem is one of illiteracy, not Marxism. Therefore I enclose a small contribution to the Beadle Bumble Fund that I hope will be used to enroll the Hanover County School Board in any first grade of its choice."

- Harper Lee in a 1966 'letter to the editor'.

YouTube Star Trek

In celebration of a horrendous case of writer's block on a rare day off from the harvest, I present the following as an homage to my inner nerd who just needed a YouTube break.

First off is a video montage to the theme of Weird Al's White and Nerdy: Star Trek's White and Nerdy (original video here). Poor Data.

Star Trek meets Monty Python

Picard's favorite TV show

TOS crew reaction to new Star Trek (Take that JJ!)

Alternate ending of Generations

Data farts in the turbolift

Movie mistakes 1

Mistakes 2

Mistakes 3

Mistakes 4

Mistakes 5

The Sexed Generation

Eragon: an essay on what it means to be cliche

Although it obviously didn't leave much of an impression, I did watch the movie Eragon shortly after it came out on DVD. What I do remember was that I didn't really like it, though I can't remember why. But I do recall the many reviews that state that the movie is a cliched ripp-off of classics like the Lord of the Rings and Star Wars.

With that in mind, let's just say that I never felt a burning desire to read the book.

Then, a couple of weeks ago I chanced upon two separate versions of the book in my favourite place to shop for books: the bargain books section of Mcnally Robinson. One edition was a large white paperback with a picture of a dragon's eye for $3.99 and the other was a large, slightly scuffed up movie tie-in paperback for $2.99. For that price I couldn't resist although I still had doubts that the book would be worth it. So I chose the movie tie in edition.

I'm glad I bought it. In my opinion it wasn't overly cliched or poorly written. At 15, Paolini already had a better vocabulary than I have now, yet I never found the usage to be poor. Some critics have invoked the dreaded term purple prose (dreaded only because no one has ever actually heard of it before outside of a college literary lecture) in regard to Paolini's writing. I must admit, I just don't see it. At no point did the language seem overwrought to me, nor was the 'flow' of the narrative interrupted. And this from a reviewer who has, in the past, abandoned the reading of some books for just that reason.

To cite an example from the second book of the cycle, Eldest, Paolini at one point describes drops of water on a leaf as 'cabochons'. Cabochons are rounded, highly polished gemstones (as opposed to facet cut gems). I think the descriptor is both relevant and appropriate within the narrative, but others apparently do not.

And what does it mean to be cliche by the way. Sure we've seen dragons and dragon riders in fantasy before but these are more good old stand-bys of Fantasy than cliche. A Fantasy novel does not require dragons or dragonriders, yet if we were to suddenly say, "Enough, don't write anymore books with dragon's or dragonriders in them!" wouldn't the genre be missing something? And where would the madness end?

"No one can use swords. Take out all the wizards. Horses are for cowboys, not fantasy heroes. . ."

Would it even be Fantasy anymore?

Now that's not to say that there can't be innovation within the genre. Naomi Novik found a new twist on that theme by setting her Temeraire series during the Napoleonic era rather than a fictional psuedo medieval world. But Eragon is no less 'good' because of the slightly more traditional setting. In fact, the world of Eragon, a magical continent called Alagaësia on an unnamed world, has been fully conceptualized and developed, including a very nice map drawn by the author himself. It isn't even strictly eurocentric as the author based the landscape on his native state of Montana. The government is highly centralized and hardly feudal in the traditional sense. (one nitpick here for Mr. Paolini, should he ever read this blog: The leader of an empire is an emperor, not a king!)

Okay, so I'm fairly forgiving when the fun factor outweighs the trite factor. But let's face it, there's nothing new under the sun. Shakespeare was stealing from existing sources when he wrote his plays. Even Star Wars is based on the structure of the "hero's journey", a pseudo outline supposedly distilled from various classic tales. In fact, it's even been claimed that there are really only seven stories, everything else is just details.

I tried reading a snarky review of Eragon that used terms like 'Gary Stu' and 'gormless'. Unfortunately I think the reviewer was more concerned with being snarky than in giving an honest review. In her defense, she was simultaneously reviewing the movie and the book. Yet she seemed to miss the point far too often. For instance, she claimed that Paolini was lax in his research because Eragon's poor, starving family had a multi-room, wood floored house with a stove, yet real medieval peasants would have a small, one room shack with a dirt floor. I might have agreed with her if this had been a story about real medieval peasants. . .

And finally, lets not forget that it has been 10 years since Eragon was published. Paolini started writting the story when he was 15. It has been reported that he didn't intended for the book to be published, writing, instead, for his own personal pleasure and drawing heavily on his favorite stories by other authors. No wonder it ended up the way it did.

Conclusion: Perfect? No. Completely original and innovative? No. Entertaining and compelling? Yes.

Rating ****/5

Relevant links:

www.alagaesia.com
shurtugal.com
wiki: Criticism_of_the_Inheritance_Cycle (shurtugal.com)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eragon

Quick Update

Wow, no reviews since Friday the 13th, and the first one at that! Both my readers must have assumed something happened to me ;)

I have been working on a few reviews, but I have had other projects on the go. I still haven't thought of anything to say about Lady of Mazes that is worthy of Schroeder's work. . .

Read it. You won't be disappointed.

You may have noticed that I've changed the book listed under 'Currently Reading' without changing the 'Just Finished' listing. Well, that's because I have pretty much given up on The Elysium Commission by L. E. Modesitt Jr.

This is also the first time I've listed two books that I'm currently reading, although that more realistically portrays my habits. I should also point out, in case you were wondering, I do read quite slowly.

And yes, I'm reading The Sword of Truth books because I've seen The Legend of the Seeker. It's a decent show.