Avatar - New interactive trailer released!

[a happy song]

For those interested, go here: http://www.avatarmovie.com/air/

-

When the original trailers for this film came out, I can honestly say I was extremely underwhelmed. There were very little hints at the storyline, simply wave after wave of 'next-gen' CGI for us to go all googly over.

I'm not a fan of CGI, in fact I think it's safe to say I can be one its most vehement protesters at times. My favourite special effect of all time is the Queen Vs. Loader battle at the end of Aliens. Even now that looks absolutely real. The way The Bitch moves is just perfect, every little nuance and mannerism is perfectly achieved, a true lesson in the beauty of animatronics over computer imagery.

However, I cannot deny that the latest show at the effects in Avatar look absolutely remarkable. Also the promise of the new 3D tech and the glowing praise that's gushing in post-Avatar Day (google for info) is only hinting further at the wonder this will inspire when viewed in the intended way.

Also, the new trailer offers us insight into the story and the quality of characterisation. Both of which, I'm happy to report, look up to par with Cameron's best.

Now, I do realise it may not be the most original ideas in terms of storyline, BUT innovation in this regard has never been Cameron's forte. Instead, the guy's films are labours of love that add up to more than the sum of their parts through efficient narrative and well expressed characterisation.

Not only this, but the guy has created some of the most iconic images, lines, set-pieces, characters, etc. in sci-fi history.

I've gone from mildly apathetic to extremely excited and I'm sure this film will be a major hit for more than just the sheen and spectacle.

Roll on Dec 18th!

[Aldaric]

We humans are such jerks. Looks like an awesome movie. I bet there will be a game made from it as well. (If the movie is popular) The game could definitely be cool.

[Spawn of Yanni]

We humans are such jerks. Looks like an awesome movie. I bet there will be a game made from it as well. (If the movie is popular) The game could definitely be cool.

The game is being released before the movie.


You mentioned it, but the story is ridiculous. I mean, for something so "industry-changing" you'd think he could use a better storyline, but eh. I'm still not at all getting hyped up for this, and I can't exactly explain why.

[SlappyMcGee]

When I first heard about this nine odd years ago, I was excited. Everything I've seen since has made me less so. To the point where I am relatively certain that nobody (and by nobody, I mean not everybody) will want to see this. Certainly not enough to recoup a budget bigger than Jar-Jar Bink's earspan.

[otters~1]

I'm not a fan of CGI, in fact I think it's safe to say I can be one its most vehement protesters at times. My favourite special effect of all time is the Queen Vs. Loader battle at the end of Aliens. Even now that looks absolutely real. The way The Bitch moves is just perfect, every little nuance and mannerism is perfectly achieved, a true lesson in the beauty of animatronics over computer imagery.

Agreed with everything in that paragraph.

[a happy song]

You mentioned it, but the story is ridiculous. I mean, for something so "industry-changing" you'd think he could use a better storyline, but eh.

Two things:

1. The 'industry changing' aspect is to do with effects, which have absolutley no bearing on the quality of story.
2. The story is ridiculous how exactly? It's as ridiculous as Aliens, or T2, or any host of critically acclaimed sci-fi films. Looks fine to me.

-

I'm pretty sure that a good deal of the people naysaying this will be pleasantly surprised with the overall quality of the film. I'm also extremely confident it;s going to make a substantial profit.

Time will tell, but I'll be sure to refer some of you back here when you give your opinion proper. ;)

[Spawn of Yanni]

You mentioned it, but the story is ridiculous. I mean, for something so "industry-changing" you'd think he could use a better storyline, but eh.

Two things:

1. The 'industry changing' aspect is to do with effects, which have absolutley no bearing on the quality of story.
2. The story is ridiculous how exactly? It's as ridiculous as Aliens, or T2, or any host of critically acclaimed sci-fi films. Looks fine to me.

Regarding 1, I'm saying that to back up something that's going to be so revolutionary, he really should have used something not so... cliché. That is,

2: From what I can tell from the trailer, this looks like a case of guy works for one side, goes undercover, and realises his side his horribly wrong. It's just a trailer, so sure, there's room for variation, or for me to be entirely wrong, but if that is what the story's like it seems like way too... common? Too - dare I say - Disney? I dunno, it's just not an appealing storyline at all.

[Aldaric]

You mentioned it, but the story is ridiculous. I mean, for something so "industry-changing" you'd think he could use a better storyline, but eh.

Two things:

1. The 'industry changing' aspect is to do with effects, which have absolutely no bearing on the quality of story.
2. The story is ridiculous how exactly? It's as ridiculous as Aliens, or T2, or any host of critically acclaimed sci-fi films. Looks fine to me.

Regarding 1, I'm saying that to back up something that's going to be so revolutionary, he really should have used something not so... cliché. That is,

2: From what I can tell from the trailer, this looks like a case of guy works for one side, goes undercover, and realises his side his horribly wrong. It's just a trailer, so sure, there's room for variation, or for me to be entirely wrong, but if that is what the story's like it seems like way too... common? Too - dare I say - Disney? I dunno, it's just not an appealing storyline at all.

I don't understand why he has to go undercover to see how terribly asshole-ish the humans are being. "We can sell this for a lot of money, and their home is on a big deposit of this stuff. Hmmm I know lets just commit a genocide!"
Also, the faces of the alien race look similar to the the face of that thing that wants the girl to cut the baby a little in that movie... Dammit I forgot the name, but it is the one about the girl in the Nazi camp and there are fairies and a maze.

[SlappyMcGee]

I'll hedge bets on Avatar's American Opening Weekend Gross. It needs to be doing Dark Knight numbers to not turn out like another Heaven's Gate, so the betting will start 1:2 relatively high.

[a happy song]

I'm pretty sure if you were being honest with yourself yanni, you;d find plenty of stories you love that are generic and common, but are just told so well that it doesn't matter.

More than the sum of it's parts = success sometimes. Not everything has to innovate at all to be good.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I have a feeling that I'm going to end up seeing this movie one way or another, and that fills me with a certain amount of dread. Pretty much going along with what Yanni said, the story they hint at in the trailer looks like it's bound to piss me off. In fact, I can't see, given the material presented in the trailers, how it won't be stupid Disney-league garbage. They're going to romanticize the shit out of the low-tech tribe (y'know, pretend that terrible mortality rate, total lack of medicine, ultra-violence, gender inequality, lack of education, etc., aren't problems, and probably throw in some fluffy magic crap to keep the kids interested; the usual) and cast the humans in the agonizingly trite light of pathologically violent greed, and then give an ending that presupposes that the humans don't just come back next year with the same funding, having screened their team for nutcases beforehand, and glass the village without meaningful opposition. Harvest tens of millions of dollars from the same sheep, pay some producers to make exactly the same movie in a different setting, rinse, and repeat.

[a happy song]

I have a feeling that I'm going to end up seeing this movie one way or another, and that fills me with a certain amount of dread. Pretty much going along with what Yanni said, the story they hint at in the trailer looks like it's bound to piss me off. In fact, I can't see, given the material presented in the trailers, how it won't be stupid Disney-league garbage. They're going to romanticize the shit out of the low-tech tribe (y'know, pretend that terrible mortality rate, total lack of medicine, ultra-violence, gender inequality, lack of education, etc., aren't problems, and probably throw in some fluffy magic crap to keep the kids interested; the usual) and cast the humans in the agonizingly trite light of pathologically violent greed, and then give an ending that presupposes that the humans don't just come back next year with the same funding, having screened their team for nutcases beforehand, and glass the village without meaningful opposition. Harvest tens of millions of dollars from the same sheep, pay some producers to make exactly the same movie in a different setting, rinse, and repeat.

Heh.

I can see why this film is gathering such heated hatred toward it. it's certainly much 'cooler' to take the above stance than say "hey, this CGI heavy (INSTANT HATE) looking sci-fi epic with it's archetypical characters and generic storyline has drawn my attention to it and I'm actually quite excited!".

:(

[SlappyMcGee]

I have a feeling that I'm going to end up seeing this movie one way or another, and that fills me with a certain amount of dread. Pretty much going along with what Yanni said, the story they hint at in the trailer looks like it's bound to piss me off. In fact, I can't see, given the material presented in the trailers, how it won't be stupid Disney-league garbage. They're going to romanticize the shit out of the low-tech tribe (y'know, pretend that terrible mortality rate, total lack of medicine, ultra-violence, gender inequality, lack of education, etc., aren't problems, and probably throw in some fluffy magic crap to keep the kids interested; the usual) and cast the humans in the agonizingly trite light of pathologically violent greed, and then give an ending that presupposes that the humans don't just come back next year with the same funding, having screened their team for nutcases beforehand, and glass the village without meaningful opposition. Harvest tens of millions of dollars from the same sheep, pay some producers to make exactly the same movie in a different setting, rinse, and repeat.

Heh.

I can see why this film is gathering such heated hatred toward it. it's certainly much 'cooler' to take the above stance than say "hey, this CGI heavy (INSTANT HATE) looking sci-fi epic with it's archetypical characters and generic storyline has drawn my attention to it and I'm actually quite excited!".

:(

And that is exactly the problem with the film. People hate CGI Heavy movies. People hate science fiction. (People meaning sheeple.) People love Epics, but only if they're simple and repetitious. Genre-freaks who should get behind this film LOVE deep characters and elaborate original storylines; this film promises to not deliver to them, either.

[a happy song]

Genre-freaks who should get behind this film LOVE deep characters and elaborate original storylines; this film promises to not deliver to them, either.

As I've said countless times: originality is not the defining factor of great sci-fi.

Aliens was hardly original in terms of storyline or characterisation (and certainly nothing elaborate), yet it remains one of the greatest examples of sci-fi ever produced.

Same with T2 in many regards. Same with plenty of excellent Sci-Fi films.

Also, you can't judge the depth of character until you've seen the film. And from the recent featurettes, and based on Cameron's excellent track record of characterisation, depth of character is really not going to be a problem for Avatar.

[SlappyMcGee]

Genre-freaks who should get behind this film LOVE deep characters and elaborate original storylines; this film promises to not deliver to them, either.

As I've said countless times: originality is not the defining factor of great sci-fi.

Aliens was hardly original in terms of storyline or characterisation (and certainly nothing elaborate), yet it remains one of the greatest examples of sci-fi ever produced.

Same with T2 in many regards. Same with plenty of excellent Sci-Fi films.

Also, you can't judge the depth of character until you've seen the film. And from the recent featurettes, and based on Cameron's excellent track record of characterisation, depth of character is really not going to be a problem for Avatar.

Dude, like, ridiculous. Ellen Ripley is probably the best protagonist in the history of science fiction. She's strong, brave, but she also has flaws, and we can identify with those. Fucking Newt? If we can take a moment and look back at the first Alien film, which is probably the superior -film- anyway, think about the robot dying. (Or, I guess, the robot dying in the second movie, though it has less emotional impact.)

Great sci-fi is truly original, and I think that you are mistaken. The reason Aliens works so well are amazing action set pieces, great special effects, and brilliant acting. (The same can be said about T2.) You might point out that this was standard hollywood fare, but it was virtually unheard of in science fiction outside of Star Wars. Not to mention much of the brilliance of the film comes from the genres it eschewed; as far as film goes, science fiction and horror were very separate genres before the Alien series. Like, Philip K. Dick, Heinlein, Gibson, the thing that brings these truly great sci-fi writers together is their ridiculous levels of individuality, simultaneously covering the same themes as settings as others while being wildly different, unique, and imaginative.

And as others have pointed out, the most original thing about this movie is the amount of dollars spent on it. If the plot varies very far from what Tsukatu was talking about, I will be honestly surprised, for a couple of reasons. Cameron never really hid a turtle egg in a minefield with any of his previous films. We mostly get what we came for. And while he hasn't made a whole lot of bad films, he's only made three great films, in my eyes. And the sakes are too high here for this not to be a great film.

As far as the specifics go for your post, you contradict yourself, sir. You mention how little characterization there is in Aliens (which is false, anyway) and then how James Cameron has a track record for fully fleshed out characters and great characterization. So, which is it? Second of all, your comment at the end about my making assumptions about the characterization in a film I haven't seen actually came from a quote of yours, where you describe the appeal (or lack thereof) of the film.

(The three great'ns are T2, Aliens, and True Lies. Titanic was boring, Terminator was neither dazzling nor brilliant, PIranha 2??, and The Abyss was solid but nothing particular.)

[a happy song]

Dude, like, ridiculous. Ellen Ripley is probably the best protagonist in the history of science fiction. She's strong, brave, but she also has flaws, and we can identify with those. Fucking Newt? If we can take a moment and look back at the first Alien film, which is probably the superior -film- anyway, think about the robot dying. (Or, I guess, the robot dying in the second movie, though it has less emotional impact.)

This is all good stuff, truly, but hardly original. The independent fem with flaws routine had been done many times before.

Great sci-fi is truly original

The reason Aliens works so well are amazing action set pieces, great special effects, and brilliant acting.

I'm not sure why you think the two are related.

Just because Aliens and T2 finally got it right, doesn't make that an original thing, merely an improvement. All the good points you've listed about Aliens exist in what I've seen so far of Avatar.

Amazing action set pieces? - Lots. including the Thanador Chase = check!
Great Special effects? - Check!: http://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/u ... yes-lg.jpg
Brilliant Acting... we'll see, but I like what's been shown so far. It's certainly good enough.

as far as film goes, science fiction and horror were very separate genres before the Alien series. Like, Philip K. Dick, Heinlein, Gibson, the thing that brings these truly great sci-fi writers together is their ridiculous levels of individuality, simultaneously covering the same themes as settings as others while being wildly different, unique, and imaginative.

But we're not talking about Alien, we're talking about Aliens which is a Sci-Fi action film, not a horror. Avatar is a sci-fi/action film with fantasy elements, so we can compare it to Aliens with much more validity. Alien was original. Aliens wasn't in anyway, yet it was still an awesome film. That's entirely the point I'm trying to make.

And as others have pointed out, the most original thing about this movie is the amount of dollars spent on it. If the plot varies very far from what Tsukatu was talking about, I will be honestly surprised, for a couple of reasons. Cameron never really hid a turtle egg in a minefield with any of his previous films. We mostly get what we came for. And while he hasn't made a whole lot of bad films, he's only made three great films, in my eyes. And the sakes are too high here for this not to be a great film.

Once more, how is the plot of Aliens original or actually great? The execution is what makes that film special.

As far as the specifics go for your post, you contradict yourself, sir. You mention how little characterization there is in Aliens (which is false, anyway) and then how James Cameron has a track record for fully fleshed out characters and great characterization.

Erm, no, I said there was no ORGINAL characterisation in Aliens. To quote myself:

Aliens was hardly original in terms of storyline or characterisation

Again, my point is that while Cameron doesn't produce ORIGINAL characters, his characters are always interesting and well fleshed out. It's always been a forte of his. I'm not about to get worried now, especially when the latest footage shows enough of the characters in Avatar to prove to me that he's written them just as well.

(The three great'ns are T2, Aliens, and True Lies. Titanic was boring, Terminator was neither dazzling nor brilliant, PIranha 2??, and The Abyss was solid but nothing particular.)

Aliens = Greatest Sci-Fi action movie of all time.
T2 = Second greatest Sci-Fi action movie of all time.
Terminator = atmospheric and excellently made Sci-Fi thriller
True Lies = Very OTT but fun action movie.
Titanic = Boring or not, you cannot deny the impact.
The Abyss = Underrated gem. lots of great characters, brilliantly acted, well written, amazing set pieces. Just quality sci-fi.

-

Honestly, it just seems to me like it's just cool to hate on this movie.

[SlappyMcGee]

This response should keep me busy until Polyphasic Nap #4. Here goes:

This is all good stuff, truly, but hardly original. The independent fem with flaws routine had been done many times before.

The independant fem with flaws as the principle protagonist? Granted, this was done in Alien first, but her character was solidified in Aliens. It's probably hard to look back at this with some sort of cultural vacuum, but Alien actually made her personality completely silently; what we know about her is entirely from actions rather than speech. Cameron went the other direction with Aliens, making her verbose and a bitch but kind of a badass. I'm just posturing here, because showing me many ind.fem.prot's would be impressive in itself; even since Aliens, men dominate major action roles. This is a quintessentially original move, and one that has not been matched with the level of characterization achieved in Ripley.

I'm not sure why you think the two are related.

If you had read my next sentence, you would realize that I mentioned exactly why I think these two things are related; they are relatively unheard of in science fiction. Aliens evolved science fiction from the two things it was before; low-budget talk-oriented movies that dealt with the themes of science fiction but rarely the worlds, and atmospheric science fiction that rarely dealt with the themes. Aliens had a big enough budget to showcase the world, had a competent enough director to set the correct atmosphere, and threw away the more direct science fiction jargon for a military setting, with the correct dash of humor and wit. Cameron never abandoned the themes of science fiction, like isolation or Orwellian corporations, but he managed to tell them in an entirely different way that was completely unheard of to cinema. And I am not passing judgement on Avatar, I was merely arguing that from what I've seen, I don't think this will appeal to the average consumer.

Alien was original. Aliens wasn't in anyway, yet it was still an awesome film. That's entirely the point I'm trying to make.

This is depressingly sad, if you honestly believe this. I'm not sure what your knowledge of classic science fiction is, or merely pre-Aliens science fiction, or what Aliens did for science fiction as a viable market, or what the revolutionary special effects (improvement does not disbar originality; it took someone very original to come up with the Large Hadron Collider, even though it's derivative of a hammer), a script that has been featured everywhere since the movie came out, from The Simpsons to Starcraft. But, if you honestly believe that Aliens is not original in any way, show me. I will actively watch any movie that you claim Aliens is derivative of. Show me where they ripped off the idea of holding out a fort from Aliens. Show me where they stole the surrogate-mother nature of Ripley and Newt's relationship, even outside of the realm of science fiction.

Better yet, define originality. Does every idea from an original film have to exist entirely within the film and nowhere else? Can bringing something to a genre unheard of before not be defined as original? Can traditional film be used, or would that be derivative of Citizen Kane?

I'm obviously being hyperbolic, for the sake of proving a point. To say that Aliens isn't original in any way is so absurd to me, because the film is literally steeped in originality.


And for the record, I think that this movie has the potential to be extremely fucking awesome and might be. Like, the odds of it being good are 7/10 for me. But the trailers -were- disappointing from a subjective standing (I wasn't very impressed with the appearance of the Aliens, and I imagine we'll spend three hours looking at them) and I genuinely don't think anybody will go to see this. Because why would they? They don't like originality, and good or bad, I think that's probably where this film comes from; originality.

[a happy song]

This is a quintessentially original move, and one that has not been matched with the level of characterization achieved in Ripley.

Princess Leia? she was a badass fem who was kind of a bitch who mucked in with the lads and took no shit. But yeh, Ripley was the first I can think of in a main role. So that was an original move.

Thinking about it, you're right. aliens IS steeped in originality. I had always known it had raised the bar, but I didn't know it had set it in so many instances. I'd never really thought about it, but I can't recall any Sci-Fi it derives from.

So I'll back down entirely form that part of the debate.

-

Anyway, I thought of something that Avatar's doing that's quite original in terms of science fiction movies: the contrast of Fantasy Vs. Technology. It's a very FF thing, but has it ever been done in such a clear cut fashion in a film context before?

I'm not on form atm, so I'm probably missing something quite obvious....

[Mute Monk]

The primary objective of movies is to entertain audiences while cash flows out of their pockets and into the pockets of the producers/studios.

I'm no film critic, at least not to the extent of those posting before me, and so I'm not aiming for a huge essay-size debate here. For the haters of CGI: grow the fuck up. In the 80s, animatronics was pretty much the fanciest thing going...so they threw it in to every movie they could and milked for it's worth. Now, we've simply developed a new tool to accomplish the same elements and we're stretching it as much as possible.

As stated earlier by atob, it seems now to be cool to hate...not only on this movie, but on any movie that uses heavy CGI. Nobody criticized LOTR for it's relatively heavy use of computer graphics...huge armies, evil spirits, etc. Everybody just wants to be cutting edge...now that CGI is commonplace, it's not cool.

Lighten up, stop analyzing every single detail of this. If you don't think the movie will entertain you, then don't go and see it. I'm certainly not forcing you to. I probably won't see it myself, but that's because I don't see many movies in general.

Come on, guys, it's just a frickin' movie.

[SlappyMcGee]

The primary objective of movies is to entertain audiences while cash flows out of their pockets and into the pockets of the producers/studios.

I'm no film critic, at least not to the extent of those posting before me, and so I'm not aiming for a huge essay-size debate here. For the haters of CGI: grow the fuck up. In the 80s, animatronics was pretty much the fanciest thing going...so they threw it in to every movie they could and milked for it's worth. Now, we've simply developed a new tool to accomplish the same elements and we're stretching it as much as possible.

As stated earlier by atob, it seems now to be cool to hate...not only on this movie, but on any movie that uses heavy CGI. Nobody criticized LOTR for it's relatively heavy use of computer graphics...huge armies, evil spirits, etc. Everybody just wants to be cutting edge...now that CGI is commonplace, it's not cool.

Lighten up, stop analyzing every single detail of this. If you don't think the movie will entertain you, then don't go and see it. I'm certainly not forcing you to. I probably won't see it myself, but that's because I don't see many movies in general.

Come on, guys, it's just a frickin' movie.

LotR was sweet. Man, Minas Tirith and shit. We need a thread for The Hobbit anticipation.

[heatwave]

No.
Go see this movie now. In 3D. It is, hands down, better than any movie I have ever seen. Period.
I can't describe it, sorry. Well.... you know those movies that claim to have you "on the edge of your seat"? This is one of those. I was on the edge of my seat. I'm not saying that. You know how there's always that

spoiler

one character that, on the brink of death, says some emotional last words, then slips away? Then after that, the other teary eyed characters begin to walk awa-- hey, wait a sec, it's a miracle! He/she's alive! It's-- No. Multiple (crucial to the plot line) characters are killed off.

Epic action sequences? Yes. Gut wrenching, emotional moments? Yes.

The 3D effects are spectacular. The glasses:

(click here)

Black rimmed, plastic, lightweight, slightly tinted. No lines, or strange colors, etc. Weak sunglasses, if anything.

If you don't think the movie will entertain you, then don't go and see it.

No. In fact, the opposite is true:

If you don't think the movie will entertain you, go see it.

I know this isn't very convincing, I'm just completely blown away. I had a hard time driving home afterwards.
Please go and see it.

[Spawn of Yanni]

Every single review I've read of this has said that the plot is fairly weak, the acting not all that fantastic, and the movie entirely worth it. I'm hoping to catch this in the day and a half I have here after my exams and before I leave for Bahrain, but I don't know if I'll be able to. :(

[SkyPanda]

What gets me about Avatar is the exquisite attention to detail and reality in the odd scene, which really stand out considering the overall derivative, boring, unrealistic shittiness of the majority of the film.

For example, we have a scene where an executive suit is trying to show an officer something on a high-tech computer. He walks over to it, fiddles with it for a few moments, gets harrassed and turns to an aide, saying "can you just do this for me." Or something like that.
Not anything mind-blowingly original, but refreshing enough considering how the majority of films would have handled that scene.


Not much else to say about this film. The 3D is good and the only reason you should see Avatar, but without it, the scenery and action would be mediocre- don't believe any review that tells you that Cameron has imagined a fantastic alien world or whatver. It's pretty much a massive jungle.

Will not appeal to sci-fi fans at all, will not appeal to anyone over the age of fifteen. I reckon Avatar is proof that a freakishly huge budget is as much a curse as a blessing, Cameron probably couldn't afford to not have a generic Disney plot that appealed to as many people as possible.

I can only drool imagining what the film could have been like without budget concerns, and in the hands of a more artistic or visionary team.

[Drathmoore]

It's a pretty good film - I'll give credit where credit is due (I probably have much lower standards compared to the rest of the users on these forums =P). But, if you haven't seen it, here's a summary:

Avatar = Halo Tech + Lost Planet Vital Suits + HEAVY Native American references.

The movie, to me, seems like it's a massive message about Manifest Destiny. How the humans want everything, and the Na'vi see everything as interconnected, and fight to protect it. It seems like it's going on about the gold rush, and the effect this had on the Native Americans, towards the point where they have to fight to survive.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

humans want everything, and the Na'vi see everything as interconnected, and fight to protect it.

Don'cha love how movies involving inter-species conflicts consider each side more or less completely uniform in their beliefs and personalities?
All humans are greedy and are willing to lay waste to relatively defenseless critters to get just about anything. There are next to no exceptions.
Similarly, all Na'vi are (I'm guessing, since I still haven't seen the movie) nature loving and fight only in the interests of preserving a balance that no human whatsoever is capable of understanding. And since a grand total of zero humans can sympathize with the Na'vi without undergoing wacky spirit journeys while immersed in their culture, the two are naturally at odds.