Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Avatar and Star Trek

Let me begin by saying something that my brother recently brought to my attention. No, I have not seen When Harry Met Sally. I just thought the name sounded cool. Whatever.

On to the main topic. I will be assuming that for some reason, you have seen neither Avatar nor Star Trek, and are debating which sci-fi epic you should rent. I am also assuming that you took the time to watch the trailers that I provided in my previous post, so you have a vague idea of what I am talking about. If you (like me) are one of the people who uses rottentomatoes.com to help figure out which movie to watch, I will help you out by providing links to the top critics here and here. You may be saying to yourself, "Wow, both of these movies are incredibly well reviewed. Which should I pick?" And that's where I come in.

Of course, one of the first things you have to think about when picking a movie is time. How much time do you have. Avatar is more than half an hour longer than Star Trek. If you have an extra half an hour to spare, skip this step. If you only have two hours to watch a movie, then your decision is made for you, unless you plan on watching in multiple installments. (Not always a bad idea.) Another important factor when picking movies is who you will be watching it with. Alone? With friends? Family? Strangers? These things matter. Trust me. I'll go into each scenario in more detail, but this is something to keep in the back of your mind. Also, for most movies I would tell you to figure out what time of day you will be watching, but for these particular movies I would say that it doesn't really matter. The last thing you should bear in mind relates to my opinion of these movies. I saw both of them in an Imax theater, (Avatar in 3D) which is the best possible condition to watch a movie. Of the two, Star Trek is the only one I have seen on the small screen.

One final note before I tell you which one you should watch and why. Avatar is one of the most hyped movies of all time. I don't usually get to hung up on hype, but it's worth mentioning in this case, given the box office numbers that Avatar put up. Don't let the hype or numbers make your opinion for you. If the movie is good, it's good. If it's not, it's not. If someone gives you a reason for why they like or dislike it, that's one thing. If your reason to see it is because everyone else in the free world has seen it, that's another. Ok, moving on.

So which should you see? Star Trek. Here's why.

Both plots are ok. Avatar's plot is Pocahontas with aliens. Pocahontas was a great movie. The songs kicked ass. The plot was touching. But that was all it was. Simple, understandable, and a little bit racist. But all of that is fine. Star Trek, on the other hand, is quite complicated. Not because there's any particular twists or multiple character lines to follow, but because of the nature of JJ Abrams. If you have ever watched Lost, then you know. If not, you'll see what I'm talking about soon enough. I prefer Star Trek here because it is more likely to stimulate intelligent conversation. After Avatar, no one was left saying, "But I don't get this." There were definitely people who did not fully understand the plot mechanics of Star Trek. This allows people to talk about it, and try to explain why certain things happened and others didn't. Avatar does not allow for this, because the plot is so linear.

The acting is where Star Trek begins to separate itself from Avatar. The acting in Avatar (with the exception of Sigourney Weaver, who is the shit,) is terrible. As I always tell my friends, Sam Worthington is the second worst actor in Hollywood. (Stay tuned for when I reveal who the actual worst actor is.) His accent changes midway through the film. It was kind of jarring. My dad noticed this as well. We both were confused, and I was disgruntled. There was no reason for it to happen, but it happened anyway. The only other above average performance was turned in by Zoe Saldana, but this was wasted because you never actually saw what she really looks like. But as far as vocal performances go, she was pretty good.

Conversely, the acting in Star Trek is rather good, which is an even more impressive feat given the fact that all the characters are already known by fans of the series. The fact that the actors had to work within the confines of roles that had already been filled by previous actors (and some pretty good ones, if you ask me,) is quite impressive. The film is carried by its two leads, Chris Pine as Kirk and Zachary Quinto as Spock. While neither performance is even worth mentioning in Oscar talk, for what they are, (sci-fi action heroes,) they kick ass. If you've seen Smokin' Aces (which I highly recommend) then you know how good Chris Pine is. (He was one of the Tremor Brothers. Yeah. I know.) But this is clearly a breakout role for him. He is funny, cocky, and cool under pressure in all the ways that Shatner was. Here's to hoping he doesn't end his career as the new Priceline Negotiator. Zachary Quinto turns in a performance that is so similar to Leonard Nimoy's Spock that it's kind of weird. However, even you have never seen a Star Trek episode or movie in your life, I think that you will be hard pressed not to enjoy the performances turned in by these two actors. The supporting cast is also quite good, most notably Zoe Saldana, (noticing a theme here?) Karl Urban, and Bruce Greenwood. Karl Urban especially. He's just the man. If you like him, check out The Bourne Supremacy and Doom. Yeah, I said Doom. It's a pretty dramatic role difference, and he pulls it off like a champ.

When it comes to special effects, both of these movies clearly put a lot of time, effort, and money into making sure they looked as stunning as possible. And they both succeeded. However, I found that despite all of the bells and whistles, neither of these movies were the most visually impressive of 2009. (District 9 was.) That being said, they both looked incredible. The 3d effects in Avatar were truly unbelievable. The level of immersion into the world was unlike any other movie. Ever. However, I felt that the world of Pandora looked slightly cartoonish, and it was difficult for me to buy into the setting. It was like I was watching Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, except with more explosions and blue people. This was a major turn-off for me. If they spent so much time on the effects, couldn't they have made the aliens a little more, well alien? (Again, see District 9. The aliens in that movie will rock your socks.) While Star Trek boasted no 3d effects, I found it to be visually impressive enough that the difference between it and Avatar is pretty much negligible. The explosions rocked, the aliens were cool, the ships looked like the kind of thing that's probably going to be rolling off of assembly lines in Michigan circa 2100, and the whole thing felt very seamless. Unlike Avatar, there were rarely moments when I looked at the screen and said to myself, "Well that just looks silly." (Exception: The scene on Delta Vega.) So while the visuals in Avatar were more technologically advanced, I had an easier time believing what was going on in Star Trek based on the effects. What can I say, they just seemed more real.

Star Trek is also much easier to watch with a group of people because of its comedic elements. Avatar is a very serious movie, and when watching it, it is best for everybody to remain silent for all 160 minutes of it. Star Trek is sure to evoke a few laughs along the way, so it won't dampen the mood in the way that Avatar will.

So if you are deciding between these two films, I have to recommend Star Trek. It's simply a better movie. You get a ton more bang for your buck in terms of time. If you are in the mood for a sci-fi action epic, (as I usually am,) Star Trek is definitely the way to go.

All this being said, you should definitely watch Avatar at some point. It is worth seeing once. It will be remembered as an important milestone in filmmaking due to the technical achievements in 3d technology. But don't believe the hype or the Oscar nominations. I would rather see Star Trek than Avatar any and every day of the week.

Boldly going where others have probably gone before,
Harry

8 comments:

  1. Harry.
    1) Watch When Harry Met Sally. It could be the greatest Romantic Comedy of all time.
    2) I love the way you write about my two favorite sci-fi movies of the year. You have a great way of thinking about movies, or film. tee hee. Keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think, in the spirit of good and bad movies, you should comment on some romantic comedies. Although some are corny and some are predictable, there are some that give great romantic tips.

    I also agree with you about the hype of Avatar. Those who haven't seen it truly believe that it's great because of the press it received. This is obviously not a good indicator of the quality of the film. Great call-out on that.

    PS. Great blog name.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AWESOME BLOG. I agree with Christine about the romcom thing!! Especially since your awesome siblings totes want you to watch with them!! The blog is great though!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear "When Harry Met Cinema"
    BRAVO BRAVO BRAVO...You are literally the first person to get me interested in seeing either of these movies. As a non-techno kinda gal who loves historical fiction, psychological drama and romance, your writing drew me in immediately. I love your "ramblings" and your sense of humor left me laughing out loud! Can't wait to read more.
    Can you put a facebook link on your blog so the rest of us can link to your site!!! I am hooked. And by the way, I am so freakin' proud of you. I am over the moon! xoxoxo

    ReplyDelete
  5. Harry,

    I'm not much into movies, but your writing is exemplary! Keep up the great work.

    Cousin Max

    ReplyDelete
  6. From the moment I heard "You're not in Kansas anymore!" in Avatar I knew the writing was going to be piss-poor.

    My 10 year old, however, was quoted saying after seeing Star Trek, "That was the best movie EVER!!!!!"

    :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have to agree. Avatar -- which I think is a sci-fi remake of Dances with Wolves -- had great 3D effects but was otherwise rather disappointing.

    Star Trek, on the other hand, was such a nice surprise. I grew up watching the original series with my dad (somehow our lawn tools always ran out of power right when the show was on on Saturday afternoons!) and have found memories of the series. So I was happy when this new film kept the spirit of the show with doses of humor and fun action sequences; answered some questions from the past that connected this movie to the original show; had some real emotional power (the opening sequence is surprisingly touching); but had enough originality to stand on its own. Can you tell I'm a fan of this film?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Alright, so I'm kind of posting my way back in time as I catch up. Thought this one merited a response that you may or may not ever see or come back to. Basically, I agree with your comparison of the two movies. I watched Avatar a couple of times in theaters and was blown away by the visual effects, but have no desire to see it anywhere but on a huge 3D IMAX screen. Star Trek, on the other hand, I've already watched and enjoyed multiple times.

    Still, I think Avatar gets a bad rap. When people critique the plot, it is usually by saying one of the following: "It's just a remake of Pocahontas!" or "It's just a remake of Dances with Wolves!" or "It's just a remake of Fern Gully!" or any one of a handful of other movies I can't remember off the top of my head. The point is that I don't think Avatar is a remake of any of these, any more than they are all remakes of each other. Avatar, like these other movies, is tapping into an almost mythical paradigm of stories that is repeated so often because it speaks to us on a deeper level.

    Before you write me off as crazy, I'm not trying to claim that Avatar is a particularly deep movie. But you have to give me that it's deeper than Star Trek. Apart from the invader-turned-native storyline, Avatar draws from the man-overreaching-himself-in-his-quest-for-knowledge myth, hearkening back to stories like Pandora's Box (like the planet!) and the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden. Those parts of the movie actually kicked off what ended up being like a three-hour debate in my living room once my family got home. That's the power of these myths (or repeated storylines, if you don't buy that word): with relatively little effort, a storyteller is able to provoke thoughts and emotions that are all the more compelling because they relate not only to the world of the story but to our lives and to human life in general.

    I think this is a difference between Avatar and Star Trek. Yes, Star Trek provoked discussion after the movie, but it was all centered around the specific plot: how did this thing happen, why did this other thing happen, that sort of thing. Generally the way those conversations go is that one or a few people in the group understand what happened and they explain the intricacies of the time-travel and whatnot to everyone else, and finally there's a moment where everyone "gets it" and they say, "Aw, cool!" and the discussion is over. Avatar, on the other hand, is the brand of movie that provokes questions more along the lines of "What are the implications of this film?" and "How does this relate to life in general?" and "Do I agree with what the director is saying?" Again, I'm not claiming that Avatar is very profound in the way it does this, but the distinction is there.

    (This may be off-topic, but I think there is a similar distinction between The Matrix and Matrix Reloaded. The first provokes questions about reality and what we really "know" about the world around us while the second just provokes questions like "Woah, who's this Architect dude?" and "What the hell happened??" and "Maybe there's a matrix inSIDE the Matrix!" But I digress.)

    So yea, basically I think that Star Trek is better written, better acted, and has a cooler plot, but Avatar tried to be speak on a higher level, and succeeded more than it gets credit for. This ended up being a lot longer than I intended--obviously I've thought about it a lot. If you're interested in chatting but don't want to waste your other readers' time, let me know!

    Eric

    ReplyDelete