How Avatar Saved Star Wars

Yes, you heard me correctly. Avatar saved Star Wars, but how, you ask? First a little background. Growing up, I, like so many others, was a Star Wars fan. Perhaps Fan is too weak a word. I wouldn't say that I was an obsessive to the point of excluding other interests, but my fan tendencies maintained themselves well into the era when Star Wars merchandise was practically non-existent, and even rumours of the Timothy Zahn sequel trilogy of books hadn't begun. That was the period when the true fans kept the faith, so to speak. When we were still obsessed with collecting and enjoying Star Wars, even though the public had forgotten. When being a Star Wars fan was no longer common enough to be a humorously accepted state, the way it was, or has now returned to being. It was seen as a strange and unusual obsession to maintain.

I collected the toys and other merchandise, scouring old shops, looking for the long forgotten relics in sun bleached boxes, hidden at the backs of shelves. I recorded the Soundtrack LPs onto audio tape, to listen to again and again. I recorded the films on video from the TV, when Star Wars was shown every Christmas. It was a time when the final official release of Star Wars on VHS (yes, I'm that old) was as manna from heaven!

So what happened? The eternally rolling force of Star Wars, like death and taxes, had not stopped. It had merely slowed to an imperceptible crawl for a few years, only to once more gain momentum. First we had the Special Editions re-released at the cinemas. Some of the changes were galling (We all know the Greedo fiasco, and if you don't, you should!), but we didn't care, Star Wars was back on the big screen! It was a chance to recapture the winsome memories of childhood, and once more publicly appreciate that world. Then Lucas announced the Prequel Trilogy. It was music to our ears, a return to the wonderment of youth, but something was starting to sour...

The planet Naboo, in The Phantom Menace

Firstly, the casting appeared somewhat odd. Ewan MacGregor as Obi-Wan, taking over the mantle from Sir Alec Guinness? Natalie Portman as Luke and Leia's mother? Was 'The Phantom Menace' a good enough title for a Star Wars film? Then the adverts with those terribly over-the-top costumes on Queen Amidala, and finally the release. Anakin Skywalker, A.K.A. Darth Vader, perhaps the most fearsome villain of film history, had become a little boy called 'Annie'. Yoda looked like a badly constructed puppet that would be embarrassed to appear in a Roger Corman film, silly jokes abounded, and... Yes, you know it... Jar Jar Binks.

What had happened? Some terrible flaws had marred our dreams. Many of us felt such disappointment. The second and third films improved exponentially, till the third was almost, but not quite, on a par with it's progenitors. But the damage had been done. They still had moments of childishness that even the cheesiest moments of the originals had avoided, such as robots behaving like the three stooges, or lines that were for blatant comedy, rather than more subtle character humour.

The planet Coruscant, home of the Republic in the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy

It was difficult to hate the prequel trilogy, but it's difficult to say they started with anything but sigh-inducing disappointment in many ways. They were fun, but they were not the gems of old. Was it because we no longer possessed the youthful eyes of wonder that we once had for the originals? Or were they genuinely poorer films? It's a difficult question to answer. The unfortunate truth, however, was that they also tainted the originals by association. I know it's easy to say that they are still the same films (Ignoring the Special Edition alterations) and that the prequel trilogy doesn't change that, but the truth is that it shines a completely different light on the stories told. In that respect, they can't help but change them.

So it was that although I still retained my love of the originals, my fan tendencies waned somewhat. Star Wars was no longer the near-perfect entity it had once been. I found myself no-longer watching the originals much, because I couldn't separate the influences the prequels had on the characters (as well as the Special Edition alterations). It had become a different story.

The planet Geonosis in Attack of the Clones

Then rumours surfaced of a new film. A film from a director who had been waiting for the right moment to return to the silver screen, with a movie of wondrous new excitement that promised to be as ground breaking and fantastical for the new generation, as Star Wars had been in 1977. You guessed it, Avatar, by the director of Terminator, Aliens, The Abyss, Terminator 2 and... okay, Titanic, so not a perfect record, but almost. James Cameron was promising a film that was revolutionary in not only its creation, but in its imagery, utilising CGI and the newly improved 3D techniques in a way never before seen.

Perhaps not for audiences worldwide, but for me, it was possibly a victim of its own hype. You can read my separate review of Avatar for my views on it, but I found it a disappointing lacklustre film. Full of its own self-importance, but ultimately a shallow fair-ground ride with insipid one dimensional characters, not particularly inspired or original visuals, and a heavily recycled plot. Not to mention being more preachy than a Southern American minister exorcising demons in a big white tent with a tub full of serpents.

The planet Kashyyyk, homeworld of the Wookies in the Star Wars films

What amused me post-Avatar, was that when I read a lot of comments and views about the film, those defending it rather vocally used the 'Star Wars Defence'. Let me explain... There are those who feel that the story of Star Wars is especially unoriginal, and that its claim to fame is based around its ground breaking special effects. Especially so the prequel trilogy, claiming that the stories were poor, and it was all about the CGI effects. Then there are the endless discussions about how no story is truly original, all stories have been done before, and Avatar was simply taking an established (and therefore easily accessible) story but repackaging it in the same way Star Wars did. It made its story 'new' by changing the setting.

So the 'Star Wars Defence' is in essence the claim that you cannot complain about an unoriginal film with fancy special effects, if you also say you like Star Wars. It's a difficult argument to counter, as it is true, to some extent, that every story has been told in one form or another (Except possibly the occasional truly original science fiction idea). Having said that, it's like saying 'think up a new piece of music. You can't, because all the notes have been used before.' It's an argument that is impossible to argue against, being simultaneously true and utterly pointless.

The planet Saleucami, in Revenge of the Sith

Personally, I feel that while yes, like any many films, Star Wars can trace its routes to numerous past influences on George Lucas, that is the main point. Many influences. Not one. Like any writer, his stories come from all of the different films and books and experiences he had up till that point. On the other hand, Avatar is a one story film. Dances with Wolves. It follows the template so closely it's like watching a replay with a blue tint.

The computer generated forest of 'Pandora' - Clearly unlike any world we've ever seen before.

On the visual side, Avatar has been praised enormously. People rave about its wonderful exotic alien world to such an extent that I wonder how many science fiction films those giving it praise have seen. It is a world of humanoids, barely different to us apart from their blue skin. A world of blue horses and blue monkeys. Of forests that look like human forests. The only major difference was the 'bio-luminescent' theme that Cameron has become obsessed with from his underwater adventuring. Yet the Star Wars movies have a wealth of worlds of every kind, and especially in the prequel trilogy, worlds that are utterly different to our own.

An Avatar 'horse' - Clearly unlike anything we've seen before.

I read a comment by one individual, stating that the Star Wars prequel trilogy was especially unoriginal, because it was yet another 'messiah' story. I had a think about that. When was the last time you saw a film with a messianic figure, who turns to evil and almost completely destroys the forces of good? It was a minor point, but it got me pondering the prequel trilogy again. The Phantom Menace was clearly aimed at a (primarily) young audience, yet beneath its story of pod-races, fun aliens and adventure, you've got a tale of political intrigue and manoeuvring that is quite intricate. How many kids films do that? Even the story of the human-like Naboo and the Gungans, has a quietly inserted sub-plot of putting aside racial prejudice and fighting together for the greater good. Okay, I'll admit, it's not a big point in the film, but it is a subtle one told through humorous characters, that almost slips by unnoticed (unlike the heavy handed statements from Avatar). It shows how the Star Wars movies can make subtle story points without preaching, or slamming things in your face with a sledgehammer.

Then we move on to Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith. Through all three films we have the running story of how Senator Palpatine is gradually eroding the foundations of the Republic. The political intrigue, the collapse of a free society into a dictatorship. We have the moral ambiguity of the Jedi, the upholders of peace, using an army of clones to protect the Republic. An army of sentient free-willed beings, essentially enslaved to fight and die in a war to protect a way of life they don't even know. We also have Anakin's gradual fall from grace, as both love for a partner and love for his mother pulls him from the path of the Jedi. I don't know about you, but from a character perspective, it is rather unusual to see a three film story arc (six, if you include the original trilogy and Anakin's return), about the positive attributes of love resulting in all-consuming emotions of fear, guilt and anger that turn a film's central heroic figure into an evil character so terrible that he slaughters defenceless children. It seemed to me, that of the complaints that can be levelled at the new films, a predictable and simple plot is not one of them.

The planet Felucia, in Revenge of the Sith

I decided to give the prequel trilogy another go, and after such a long gap of time, I felt myself once again being drawn into that wonderful world of excitement, mystery, danger, imagination and creativity. I could see those points above when I first saw the prequel trilogy, but at the time I felt they were overshadowed by the faults. Watching them once again, after time for the hype to die down, I found the story was capable of overshadowing the flaws.

I'm not blind to the problems (Which I won't go into, they're well documented by many others over the years). They're still terribly flawed in many ways, in comparison to the original films, but they are worthy of standing beside them. And their story provides an interesting new perspective on those old films, especially when we once again meet Darth Vader, Yoda, The Emperor, and Obi-Wan.

The planet Utapau, in Revenge of the Sith

My conclusion? That beneath the flawed surface of the prequel trilogy, is a wealth of ideas and characters of interest and enjoyment. Whilst Avatar is just someone else's story told with blue people, with the most elaborate of façades. Avatar has helped show me by comparison the depths of the prequel trilogy, both in their superior story telling, and their superior visual splendour and imagination. As a result, I have also been able to recapture my joys at watching the original trilogy. In short, for me, Avatar saved Star Wars.

Avatar (2009) - Movie Review - 5/10

It's Colourful

Okay, okay, I'm fully prepared for the fact that most people will completely disagree with me on this review, but here goes...

Crippled ex-marine Jake Sully gets offered the job of replacing his dead twin brother, who was a scientist involved with the Avatar project on the planet Pandora. The avatar project involves putting one's consciousness into the body of a genetically modified and grown body that is part human, part native Na'vi (The name given to the indigenous population). Supposedly the expense of creating this simulacrum, is the reason Jake was offered the job of replacing his brother, as only his DNA makes him capable of using it. Cue the Pocahontas/Dances With Wolves story of Jake as he gradually learns the ways of the perfect eco-friendly natives and ends up helping them against the evil greedy humans who are strip mining parts of Pandora, and especially want the area underneath the giant tree-home of the Na'vi.

Firstly the good stuff. In 3D, Avatar is admittedly visually stunning. What is relatively revolutionary about Avatar, is the way in which it was filmed, as opposed to what is seen on screen. Every performance of an actor was stored digitally when they were filmed on stage, including facial expressions (A technique that has been used for some time). The director, James Cameron (This is his first feature film since the hit Titanic) was then able to go back after initial filming with a 'virtual' camera. He could run around on the sound-stage, and on the screen of this 'camera', 'see' the actors and the alien world in a rough 3D form, as powerful computers generated the image live, based on the position of his camera in relation to the position of the actors when they had done their real performance previously. The obvious benefit for a director, is the ability to go back and endlessly tweak camera angles and movement, where before the only opportunity would be during initial shooting.

The 3D technology, and performance capture technology have been refined and built upon in the last few decades through various films, and in most recent years with director Robert Zemeckis' Polar Express, Beowulf, A Christmas Carol, etc. However, Avatar has taken it to a stunning level of reality, finally creating characters that look (for the most part) quite real. They appear to have just made it across what is termed the 'uncanny valley', where CGI character performances don't quite look real enough for the human eye, and make us feel disconnected from them. Though this is usually a problem when trying to replicate actual humans (As in the Zemeckis films). Perhaps Cameron's trick here has been to utilise creature designs that are essentially human, but not quite, so we the viewers don't feel as alienated by their performances.

The world of Pandora is eye catching, filled with bio-luminescent colour most especially in its night scenes. Films such as Outlander have utilised such creatures (And even included brief glimpses of such worlds) but not on this scale. This was all heavily influenced by Cameron's obsession with under-sea exploration, from which he wanted to bring the bio-luminescent life to the surface of an alien world.

Perhaps the biggest problem with Pandora is how un-alien their world is, except for this bio-luminescent theme. Everything is all too familiar. Dog-like creatures look like dogs and sound like dogs. Swinging monkey beasts look like, well, monkeys. Horse-like creatures look just like horses (And sound like Velociraptors from Jurassic Park, so-much-so that one must ask if they even changed the sound-effect). The flying beasts are very pterodactyl-like, though perhaps manage to be the most 'alien' creatures of this world, whilst the 'Thanator' (Supposedly the most ferocious ground-based creature, and the one that Cameron chose to design himself) looks more than a little reminiscent of Cameron's own design for the alien queen in Aliens (The head, certainly). Meanwhile, the Thanator suffers the same problem as the 'horse', utilising Jurassic Park T-Rex sounds, seemingly almost unchanged. The plant life on Pandora is also all-too-familiar when shown in the daytime views, with one or two interesting exceptions. Cameron has been praised for creating an entire world on screen, but I hesitate to say that everything from The Dark Crystal to George Lucas' Star Wars movies have created complete alien worlds with more originality.

There are a mish-mash of unsubtle references in Avatar. The Na'vi pander to every 'native' stereotype you can think of, but primarily Native American and African. Even to the point that they refer to themselves as 'The People' rather than 'The First People' as native Americans now do. The tribal leader is performed by Wes Studi, a native American actor, probably best known for his role as Magua in Last of The Mohicans. Meanwhile, having 'schools' in which the human 'Avatars' try to teach the natives our ways, directly parallels our human past with various populations across the globe, from Africa to America. There are numerous examples of such parallels. The accented English used by some of the Na'vi even sounds like what we would consider an insulting cliché when used in old westerns, or B&W Tarzan movies.

Cameron has also crammed in every politically correct reference he can, including the unsubtle use of having his villainous humans come out with statements such as “We will use Shock and Awe” or “Fight terror with terror”.

Perhaps Avatar's biggest problem is its lack of characterisation. None of the actors fare well in this respect, with possibly only Sigourney Weaver (Alien, Ghostbusters, Galaxy Quest, Snow White: A Tale of Terror) retaining some connection, when in human form. Considering their screen time, the lead characters of Jake Sully, played by Sam Worthington (Terminator: Salvation) and Neytiri, played by Zoe Saldana (Star Trek, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl), are shockingly forgettable and unremarkable. Even the villains are the worst form of cardboard cut-outs. Giovani Ribisi (Sky Captain, Saving Private Ryan) plays the soulless corporate evil, while the Mercenary Commander played by Stephen Lang (A regular 'guest star' actor in numerous TV series) hams it up no-end, coming out with some of the worst dialogue, which is admittedly not his fault. I'm not even sure some of the characters made it to two dimensions. There are no shades of grey in Avatar. The villains are unreasoningly evil without good reason, while the eco-friendly Na'vi appear to be perfect in every way, at one with nature, their world, the animals, the plants... They all even seem to be physically perfect, with nary a short or slightly overweight Na'vi in sight (Perhaps off-screen their species indulge in their own form of eugenics?)

Make no mistake, Cameron is having a good old bash at the now-extinct Bush administration, right through to good ol' Vietnam. As well as trying to tell us all to give up the evils of technology and go be one with Gaia (Sorry, Aywa, the Na'vi equivalent) by hugging a tree. Never mind the fact that he has spent absurdly huge sums of money and used the latest cutting edge technology to create this film. In fact, the whole movie feels as though Cameron has become so in love with showing off what the technology and his new techniques can do, that he almost completely forgot about the non-visual aspects of the film altogether.

Avatar is an enjoyable enough experience for one viewing, but it has to be seen in 3D on the big screen. If you see it any other way, I think you'll miss out on everything positive about the film. In all honesty, I can't think of any other reasons to recommend Avatar, other than the 3D and the special effects. There certainly aren't any characters or story that make me want to re-visit this alien world.