"Avatar - the movie - will it be classic sci-fi?" Topic

Just saw Avatar this weekend.
I thought it was very well done, and my daughter and I enjoyed it very much, but I would not rank it one of the all time classic SCI-Fi movies.

The aliens were obvious stand-ins for the American Indian. They wore loin cloths, beads, used bow and arrows and wore warpaint when they went into battle. Thier opposition was obviously meant to be the white settlers and US Cavalry enchroaching on thier ancient burial grounds, etc.
So not really a new story line by any means.

But anyway I thought if I had to make a list on my favorite SCI-Fi movies would I include Avatar? For me NO.
When I say classic Sci-Fi movies I think of (and not necessarily in this order):
1. Aliens – directors cut version
2. Blade Runner – either version
3. The Thing – John Carpenter version
(and of course The Thing – original version)
4. The Matrix
5. The Terminator
6. Jurassic Park
7. This Island Earth
8. War of the Worlds – 50's version
9. Forbidden Planet
10. First Men in the Moon

Good fun, but no for me too.

It was basically the very traditional 'misfit and group of mates turns out to be very important and does heoric stuff' story which has been popular for the last few thousand years with some pretty stunning special effects.

If it was any genre at all it was more like a Vietnam movie, but right through it was a case of 'spot your favourite film' in it. I shall try to avoid spoilers, but I enjoyed the Death Star trench run as well as the manned Ed 205s, and was our hero really crowned with a title which was a nod to Galaxy Quest?

Pretty stunning visually of course, esp in 3D.

Independance Day was more in the vein of classic sci fi than Avatar. If I had to pick ten (no order), I'd go with…

1. 2001
2. Dark Star
3. Terminator 2
4. Aliens, didn't like the directors cut, too much fluff.
5. The Day the Earth Stood Still
6. Forbidden Planet
7. Star Wars ep 2.
8. Blade Runner
9. The Time Machine
10. Star Trek – The Wrath of Khan

I'd like to think so! I loved it. Its a big scale sci fi movie, don't get me wrong I like the Terminator movies and the Matrix etc, but to me they are all a bit limited, a bit Earth bound. Avatar implies a big universe with loads going on, and it looks so darn good!

Remains to be seen. Lots of classic sci-fi is pretty trite on the surface, but have little nuggets of thought that could provoke discussion. We'll have to see if any of the ideas in the movie catch on like Chaos Theory in Jurassic Park, or "how would we know if we were in the Matrix."

For me the most interesting idea in the movie was the biological neural net that connected the planet. Now, of course it was a plot device to make the environmental message "sciencey," but will it make more people think about the connections between life on earth? Who knows. Time will tell. I hope it does as I find the Gaia hypothesis fascinating and self evident.

It is an instant classic because it is a monster hit. It is IMHO better than half of the movies on WarWizard's list. Martin has a stronger list but Avatar far outranks any Star Wars or Star Trek dreck.

I haven't seen it, and it's not on my list.
HOWEVER, the fact that it is "Dances with wolves" or "Pocohantas" with spaceships should be no deterrent. After all, we only have 5 real stories in all of fiction, so recycling a classic is hardly a bad thing.

After all, "Forbidden Planet" it "The Temest", even down to the character names.
And "Star Trek" famously recycled old "Wagon Train" scripts.
And "Jurassic Park" is merely another Michale Crichton "When Amusement Parks go Bad" movie.

Remember Tron? Not really? Exactly.

I think what makes Avater notable is it is one of the few Sci-Fi movies with broad mass appeal across age and gender lines. Matched probably only by the original Star Wars. As far as future ranking goes, I suspect the thrill will wear off as better stuff both story-wise and film technology-wise comes along. Look how Titanic was celebrated when it first came out. I doubt anyone would put it on their 10 greatest movies list now.

Remember Tron? Not really? Exactly.

Tron became a cult classic and a big-budget sequel is coming out soon with most of the original cast. This was met with jubilation in the sci-fi community.

I think the Titanic comparison is a good one. Avatar may well be an unforgetable film based on it's visuals/technology, and popularity, but like Titanic, I don't think that will be enough to get it onto future "best of" lists.

A great ride to be sure, but I don't think it has what it takes to be a 'classic'.

I don't think that the Na'vi are simply supposed to be stand ins for American Indians, in fact the Indians suffered primarily because the Americans wanted to colonize their land, not to remotely exploit their natural resources. I think it was much less programmatic than that, the Na'vi standing in for all peoples who lived close to the land and were exploited by technologically superior peoples who saw the land as something to drain dry.

You've said that the movie is not a classic because it is a familiar story, but then you cite Forbidden Planet, a wonderful film that is more of less The Tempest in space. Many of the greatest movies of all time are just new takes on familiar stories.

Also I think both The Matrix and Jurassic Park were basically popcorn munchers, good fun and with great effects but not particularly well written or well acted. Crowd pleasers, not classics. Actually Aliens is a polished version of the same, a very well-done popcorn muncher.

I think a classic movie has to be something that people watch and regard highly in generations to follow. That usually means at least three of the following four elements:

1) great acting
2) great direction
3) great writing
4) for SF, visionary and/or well-realized view of the future

I think Avatar has great direction and a well-realized view of the future. The writing and the acting somewhat less so, so it's a borderline case.

I'd say that classic sci-fi would be:

1) Alien
2) 2001: a Space Odyssey
3) Planet of the Apes
4) Invasion of the Body Snatchers
5) Blade Runner
6) The Empire Strikes Back
7) The Thing (1982)
8) Close Encounters of the Third Kind
9) Forbidden Planet
10) Back to the Future

Almost making the list was The Time Machine, a wonderful movie with Rod Taylor, and a few others like Men in Black, The Terminator (the low-budget original, a much better movie than the flashy, Arnold-dominated sequels), The Day the Earth Stood Still, This Island Earth, and Monster a Go Go. Just kidding on that last one.

It's hard sometimes to define what's sci-fi and what isn't. Several movies that are borderline sci fi, which I love, but didn't include on the list because I don't think they are full-on sci fi, include The Road Warrior, A Clockwork Orange, and King Kong (original and Jackson remake).

Big budget remake of 'Fern Gully', a twee kids film.
What we ended up with was a big budget twee kids film, I thought it was exceptionally poor and doubt whether it'll ever be a 'classic'….of any sort.

Don't particularly care about Avatar, but speaking for myself, yes, I remember Tron and it happens to be one of my favorite movies of all time! I'm very excited about the sequel, which looks fantastic!

Damon.

A better comparison for Avatar is Iraq, now how would a film go down in which a US soldier does undercover their and ends up driving the US forces out?

I took my wife and 9 yera old to see it this weekend (his and my second time). She told me that there was one line from a James Cammeron movie with Sigourney Weaver that she kept thinking of as the "bad guys" were sent packing.

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

"A better comparison for Avatar is Iraq, now how would a film go down in which a US soldier does undercover their and ends up driving the US forces out?"

That's hardly an apt comparison, but e really can't discuss it here, now can we?

A better comparison for Avatar is Iraq, now how would a film go down in which a US soldier does undercover their and ends up driving the US forces out?

Actually I'd argue that the film covers the European, and especially British, conquests during the Empire phase better, as those were largely resource grabs, with lots of talk about bringing civilization to the heathens.

I can't beleive I forgot Plant of the Apes. One of my all time favorites.
Porfiro I have to disagree with you on the Natrual Resources aspect.
The Gold Rush was one of the main aspects of issues between the "white" civilization and the American Indian. One of the reasons the govt was trying to heard as many tribes onto reservations as possible, with no regard to thier culture, lifetstyle, etc.

And the biological network connection all life on the planet is one of the main Indian beliefs as well.
Do you remember the opening sequence in "Last of the Mohicans", when they bend over the deer they just shot and call him "brother"?

That might explain it if the American war on the Indians began during the Gold Rush and pertained only to California, but it started centuries before, and ranged across the entire continent, for reasons that mostly had nothing to do with the Gold Rush. Remember the Gold Rush was largely over before the Civil War even began.

Also the Indians are pretty far from being the only people who saw a connection of all life on earth. That could just as easily be said about the Maori and Australian aborigines, and many other peoples as well.

"Ghost in the Shell". If it wasn't an anime it would be an all time classic, I think there's still a stigma associated with the animation style.

How about Pitch Black? For some reason that movie struck me as pretty original.

I'd put The Fifth Element on my list too.

I also think The Matrix was pretty innovative- you have to admit that a lot of stuff after it was an attempt at imitation. Of course The Matrix owes Ghost in the Shell and the book Neuromancer for its conception…

Porfiro, yes I agree there were a lot of cultures that felt the same about the connection to all life on the planet, not just the American Indian. So again not a new concept in Avatar.

I guess that is why it Avatar does not seem like a film that is "new" to me. Yes the 3-D, special effects, etc were excellent, but the overall plot/storyline seemed something that had been done so many times before. But for the current generation it may become one of their "classics" I suppose.

I agree on the Fifth Element. One of my favorites also.

Avatar's story is not original, but that doesn't make it weak in and of itself. Heck, it borrows a lot from the tale of John Smith and Pocahontas. Star Wars borrowed from classical heroic literature on many levels. What separates it from "Jason and the Argonauts" are the other elements Lucas added – especially the technical breakthroughs in production. If you look at the original production artwork, you'll see that it owed a lot to campy 1940s and 50s medieval movies. Had he gone with that, there would've been one movie and it'd have been rated lower than "Battle Beyond the Planets."

That said, I was pretty disappointed that Cameron chose to reuse certain imagery from his own movies.

In any case, the "timeless" (ie; endlessly recycled) plot is probably one of the things that will ensure that Avatar is considered a classic. As can be seen, humanity has been in love with certain tropes for centuries and that isn't likely to change, so a movie that can appeal to future generations will be considered a classic by default.

Wyatt

I realized that I never addressed the thread topic… I thought Avatar was amazing visually, I'd go so far as to say it has the most seamless blend of CGI and live action we've seen to date. For that alone it will most likely be considered a classic ground breaker. Lots of plot holes, rehashed story… that could be said about quite a few of the 'classics'.

Ask me ten years from now.

;-D

It's certainly a big box of visual candy. The whole background alone is a miracle in itself. It's one of the most technically amazing movies I've seen in years and the technology in the right hands could throw the limits of filmmaking even further.

A lot of this reminds me of how Star Wars helped create a new level of technology to make films.

As much as I liked the movie, I do not think it will become classic.

I am with the "liked the movie, at no risk to become a classic" crowd

So

- recycled story (more than a bit derivative from that Rosseau "noble savage" horse puckey)

- modest acting

- predictable ending

- kid-butt graphics and setting

I think it will be remembered, but alas will not achieve classic status

I got to see Avatar this weekend…and I thought it was a great movie on many levels. Maybe not an instant classic, but not to be easily forgotten either. I think the comments about it being just another dances with wolves remake are relatively simplistic. There's whole other levels, how everything is connected to everything else, inter-relations, destruction for expediency, and so forth. If anything, it could be construed as a "green" movie. But a pretty fantastic one IMO.

The year was 1977, spring I believe, and I was a lad of 11yrs. I waited in line, a huge line, to watch Star Wars.

I watched it and was stunned, excited, and from that second…forever hooked on science fiction.

If asked the topic question of "do I think it would be a classic", well of course I would say yes. But how many over 40yr olds would answer the same, at that moment in time?

Of all those people who watched Star Wars, how many would say it would be one of the most beloved movies of all time? I would hazard a guess that the answer would not be as uniform and clear cut as it would be assumed.

My Dad, a real scientist (NASA, DOD, etc. engineer),in 1977 thought Star Wars was a silly space western with aliens and lots of flashing lights. Ask him now, and he would say how much it moved him and was an instant classic.

Truth be told, dear ol dad liked Alien better…especially when Ripley is in her underwear…remember the late 70's was all about disco, tight pants, and butterfly collars.

Anyway…is Avatar an instant classic, for many reasons yes.

There is much to consider when making a statement like that, but to compare the level of competition that Star Wars had in the 1977 to the movie opportunities of 2010, there is little to start with. Today's audience is much larger, is interested in long term potential (games, sequels, etc.), and much more…which all started because of Star Wars and the toy/collectible market created by the same.

IMO Avatar will be the movie that others are measured by for some time…a comparative time as Star Wars, considering the shortening of technology (the bar is much higher in 2010 and requires much more to push the envelope).

I have seen Avatar 5 times.

So I liked it.

I would watch it again today, the next day, or in any portion later (a measure of a classic in my book…if scanning through channels and a movie is on, and you watch it from that point regardless of where it is in the film…that is a classic)

So if you are asking for a personal opinion of if Avatar will be a classic…yes.

************************ edit *******************************

Hey I went back and reread some of the comments; wow what a crowd.

I liked the old B/W science fiction classics also, but we move on. I liked playing on the swing set as a little kid, and it left good memories…we move on. The layers of experience in life builds and develops our outlook on life…some people it seems are stuck in one time of their life for whatever reason. And that is cool and fine, just do not expect the rest of us to hover in that time freeze with you.

And the comment of "a US solider sides with the Iraqi fighters to kick the US out", I can promise you that there would be no time that we could ever get along in any form at all.

Some people blurt without regard to the result or blurt to be noticed…that sort of comment is what got Jane Fonda on the great wall of hate.

How can you possibly compare an alien culture on a different planet to Iraq? Because of oil? Wow.

Way to make a political statement in a science fiction popular movie thread, well done.

Titanic is a good comparison. I saw it in the theater, and was blown away by the effects. Couldn't care less about the story. Have no desire to see it again.

Same with Avatar. Same with The Matrix, for that matter.

But I've seen every movie on WarWizard's list and every movie on Martin's list multiple times. The same goes for Star Wars ep 1, Planet of the Apes, and The Fifth Element. I can watch and enjoy all of those time and time again, but I doubt that I'll ever watch Avatar again.

Jeez, 28mmMan, you've seen Avatar 5 times already? Just goes to show, different strokes.

Depends how you are defining classic. I take it from some of these lists that most people here are defining "classic" as representing a turning point in sci-fi cinema of some kind.

I certainly don't agree with the majority of movies on these lists if the definition of "classic" is all-time best.

As far as Avatar goes, it was an effects piece. It was a very spectacular and intense effects piece, but like all effects pieces they don't age well and are rapidly eclipsed by newer stuff as technology improves.

Remember how impressed people were with the effects in Jurassic Park when it first came out? Now nobody cares and the film has little to stand on when you're not captivated by the effects. Avatar is a little better in that regard, but not enough to earn a permanent "classic" rating.

American Indians, Colonial powers invading, Iraq….Lack of care for the environment, Mercs (like private security companies bad)…..

Aside from all the preachy stuff it was entertaining, but a lot of it was tied to the visual treat, not the plot.

Can anyone even quote a truly great one liner from the movie (not used in previous movies?)

It is certainly no Star Wars or even Star Trek IMHO.

Only time will tell……..

No, I enjoyed it, but mostly because of the strong visuals, which in the long run won't let it hold onto its position – at least with SciFi fans. There was little in the way of memorable dialogue (odd from the director of "The Terminator" and "Aliens"), and there was no point in the entire movie that wasn't predictable.

I have no desire to be preached at by James Cameron about something about which he actually knows little or nothing. Though I haven't seen the film, what I've read about it indicates the characters are cardboard, the action is predictable, and everything boils down to typical Hollywood stereotyping with a MESSAGE delivered via sledge hammer. All of this leads me to believe the praise for the film results from the spectacle aspect, and possibly the agenda. (Case of the latter praising a film far above any merit: Happy Feet. HORRIBLE movie, but touted by the usual suspects as "a classic" merely for its agenda).
So whether it becomes a "classic" depends on whether the spectacle will hold up over time, because I suspect the message, story and other aspects will begin to fade as the 3D glasses come off.

But then, it all goes to how are we defining "science fiction" in terms of a film? And how are we defining "classic"? To my 14-year-old son, anything made before 1980 is suspect (with the exception of the original Star Wars), anything from the '80s is largely "old," and anything made with gee-whiz-bang special effects and lots of violence is "awesome." (On the other hand, he thought that Avatar "wasn't that good." Go figure.) So many declarations of "classic" are made by people who can't see much past their own birth as being of any value. They blind themselves because of visual effects, modern language and styles, and can't see deeper into the true qualities of a film: story, character, plot, direction. My son has an excuse— he's 14, and can believe that G.I. Joe is a great movie, but Up is stupid. (Yes, that's his opinion.) I, however, am 44, and prefer to consider all the elements of a film before rendering judgment.

So if "science fiction" means "any movie involving science fiction tropes, whether the science is remotely accurate or not" and classic means "stands out in terms of both story, character, plot and effects", then my list is as follows:

1. Star Wars (the original theatrical release, thank you very much)
2. The Empire Strikes Back
3. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
4. The Day the Earth Stood Still
5. The War of the Worlds (George Pal)
6. The Thing From Another World (1950s)
7. The Invasion of the Body Snatchers (original 1950)
8. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (Disney)
9. Metropolis
10. Forbidden Planet

All are superior films to most anything made today. I still like Alien and Aliens (which is better than the first one), Terminator, T2, Back to the Future, The Time Machine (George Pal), The Last Starfighter, Tron, Close Encounters, E.T., Planet of the Apes (Heston), etc., etc., and there are great films among them, but they're not my top 10.

Now, if we actually demand "science" from our science fiction, almost all science fiction gets eliminated— and certainly Avatar would be, as the "science" aspect of it is just plain silly (with the possible exception of the spaceship, which I understand is based on actual proposed designs). "Unobtainium?!?" That's a classic science fiction joke used to point out how silly these movies are. (Did Cameron not know it was a joke?) The word actually means a substance with inexplicable "magical" properties that for some unbelievable reason naturally exists only in one place in the whole frickin' Universe— an idea which is fundamentally false and flies in the face of everything we know about the Universe and physics. Note that also this stuff is supposed to be a "magical" energy source, more powerful than anything known. Huh? Nope. There is no way a naturally occurring compound of any type offers more energy potential than a straight matter-antimatter reaction— or for that matter, a fusion reaction, or even in all likelihood a simple fission reaction. It's not physically possible— at least not in this Universe. And any compound that can occur naturally will occur in other places— in fact, it will be remarkably abundant. The whole premise of Avatar is about as unscientific as one can get. It's purest fantasy. Again, that doesn't mean it's a bad film— there's plenty of stupid stuff in my top 10 list (the only film with any "science" validity on it is probably 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea!). But it would rule it out of a list concentrating on "science" based movies.

So, we're left with allowing "science fantasy" films, which goes back to my original list. I just don't see Avatar having the "half-life" to sustain a placement as a classic SF film.

PS to 28mm, re the Iraq comment. Uhm… that's exactly the message James Cameron is making in Avatar. It may be a gorgeous spectacle, but it's point is largely an over-simplified stereotypical mantra: corporations and military bad, quaint indigenous people and nature good, and "we're just after their [insert slogan topic of choice.]" That the situation is intended to be analogous to Iraq is pretty clear. Doesn't mean it is or isn't a well-made movie, but the message of a film is indeed integral to the discussion of a film, especially if the message is so clearly overt. It would be like trying to talk about Dr. Strangelove without discussing the Cold War.

I agree with the general sentiment that the story just didn't have enough meat on it's bones, so to speak, to hold up as a 'classic'. There was one interesting and semi-novel concept (the Avatars themselves) and the rest was hum-drum in terms of ideas. The fact that the script was produced via plot-a-matic(tm) doesn't help either. It was certainly a fun movie to watch but it tread virtually no new ground. That's why it won't be a classic- it does nothing to redefine the genre (like many of the true classics have done) or make people actually think- so no staying power.

-Will

Sci-Fi movies with a message always deliver it with a hammer. I've seen The Day the Earth Stood Still on several lists here, and it would be on mine too. And in case it wasn't obvious through the whole film, Klaatu lays it all out at the end. So that can't really be a point against Avatar. Delivering the message with a hammer in an entertaining way, that's the trick. Whether Avatar did that or not is obviously a matter of taste and politics.

However, I find it funny that some people seem to be FOR the destruction of the environment and natives for monetary gain and can't believe that white people would ever be shown as bad guys. It's really hysterical.

I strongly suspect in ten years people will wonder why such an ordinary film grossed the money it did.

jpattern2 makes a good point. The sci-fi movies I listed, and some others I have watched numerous times. And I would watch them again.
But after I left the theater I asked myself, would I want to watch "Avatar" again, and the answer for me was "no".
It was enjoyable, but it was not something that left me with "wow, I would like to see that one again"!
Nothing against anyone that would enjoy seeing it again, it's just that it did not have that appeal for me.
And actually I probably would not have even seen it the first time expect:
1. I had free passes.
2. I heard so many people exclaim how great it was.

I strongly suspect in ten years people will wonder why such an ordinary film grossed the money it did.

Because the bad guy, while on fire, jumped into a giant robot while his spaceship was crashing, then leaped out of the crashing spaceship in the giant robot while everything exploded. Only then did he take the time to put out the flames that were burning him. And lo, it was awesome.

By the way I was really glad to see Stephen Lang in Avatar.
He did a great job in Gettysburg and Gods and Generals. I know a lot of people were disappointed in Gods and Generals but I thought the portryal of Stonewall Jackson was excellent.

"How can you possibly compare an alien culture on a different planet to Iraq?"

Do we really want to go down this route? Yes of course you can, just as you could argue Avatar is an allegory for the conquest of the Aztecs or the extermination of the Tasmanians or the invasion of the Congo or a diatribe about shoddy aircraft construction standards or is just a ripoff of the rather wonderful book 'The Green Brain' (guess who wins in that one).

You could argue Star Wars is an allegory about Iraq because one lot are mystical types who live in the desert and want to overthrow the Evil Empire. One of them even has a beard. So what?

re unobtanium, I suspect this was a deliberate joke, like so many of the other sci-fi film references. It isn't as overt as Galaxy Quest, but Avatar is a huge take of the whole Sci-Fi genre, like Starship Troopers was.

Funny about the Matrix, I don't even really think of that as a Sci-Fi film, certainly not a classic one and it didn't enter my head in doing the Top Ten. I did agonise over Quatermass and the Pit and The Day the Earth Caught Fire though – still find both those disturbing even after all these years.

Titanic is a good comparison. I saw it in the theater, and was blown away by the effects. Couldn't care less about the story. Have no desire to see it again.
Same with Avatar. Same with The Matrix, for that matter.

Same here I thought Titanic was fantastic when I saw it on the big screen but have never rented or watched it on tv sense.

I don't even think Avatar was as well done as Disney's Atlantis which is one of My favorite films.
I'd also like to mention Dark City, I thought it better than Matrix.

What movie?
This is my take on it. It's a movie that will be forgotten after a while when the next flavor of the month comes along. There will be no long lasting standing for this film, it's a one shot wonder.

No

"Remember Tron?"

Yes I do. Saw it in the theater, own it on DVD.

Yeah, Tron was cool.

No. Story line is actually not all that grand.

But I think the format and presentation will make this the first of many films to come.

mjc

Now, if we actually demand "science" from our science fiction, almost all science fiction gets eliminated— and certainly Avatar would be, as the "science" aspect of it is just plain silly (with the possible exception of the spaceship, which I understand is based on actual proposed designs). "Unobtainium?!?" That's a classic science fiction joke used to point out how silly these movies are. (Did Cameron not know it was a joke?) The word actually means a substance with inexplicable "magical" properties that for some unbelievable reason naturally exists only in one place in the whole frickin' Universe— an idea which is fundamentally false and flies in the face of everything we know about the Universe and physics. Note that also this stuff is supposed to be a "magical" energy source, more powerful than anything known. Huh? Nope. There is no way a naturally occurring compound of any type offers more energy potential than a straight matter-antimatter reaction— or for that matter, a fusion reaction, or even in all likelihood a simple fission reaction. It's not physically possible— at least not in this Universe. And any compound that can occur naturally will occur in other places— in fact, it will be remarkably abundant. The whole premise of Avatar is about as unscientific as one can get. It's purest fantasy. Again, that doesn't mean it's a bad film— there's plenty of stupid stuff in my top 10 list (the only film with any "science" validity on it is probably 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea!). But it would rule it out of a list concentrating on "science" based movies.

Verifiably false. Of course Cameron knows what unobtanium is. That's why he didn't call it Cameronium. He's not so dumb as to google "unobtanium." Note that the sample sitting on the exec's disk only levitates in a magnetic field. The flying mountains sit over a massive magnetic anomaly – a strong magnetic field is needed if Pandora is to survive being cooked by the gas giant's radiation. Unobtanium could be many things – a monopole, a powerful diamagnetic, a room-temperature superconductor. We could have lots of boring technobabble about it but mercifully we didn't. But the science was used to paint the picture we see, and that is masterful movie-making. The plot – yeah, maybe not so compelling. But then again Apocalypse Now was a "re-telling" of Heart of Darkness and look how it's become a classic.

If anything, we should be pleased that Avatar brings so much science to movie SF, something which is pretty much lacking (how much science does District 9 actually have, for example?). And of course, there is the whole consciousness transferrance thing, something which is very SFnal.

Yeah, despite the film's weaknesses which I talked about before, calling it out on using "unobtanium" is really silly.

For a couple reasons:

1. It was either a joke from the scriptwriters/director, or given Giovanni Ribisi's character's general irreverence – a joke on the part of the character within the film.

2. What it was is completely irrelevant to the story. I'm glad that movies are starting not to waste time on stuff like that. One of the things that made MI:3 the best film of the series was they just gave some interesting hints about what the widget everybody wanted was. . . they didn't bother making up a lot of boring technobabble and wasting the audience's time.

Death to technobabble!