Avatar - Finally saw it.... I remain underwhelmed.

[pepperlandgirl]

@Omniscient

It’s intended to be accessible for all ages and enjoyed by as many people as possible in order to expose all those people to a new type of film making. Being original and edgy would have put off a lot of the people who enjoyed it just fine. You seem to think your snobby biases are somehow the only valid ones.
.

Is it possible to defend Cameron’s magnum opus without resorting to snide comments?

Toy Story 3 is also intended to be accessible for all ages, and the plot can’t get more basic. We’ve all seen it hundreds of times before in movies, books, and even songs. But it’s a really good film–probably one of the best of the year. It also looks pretty amazing, though granted it’s not an amazing spectacle as Avatar was meant to be. Vague spoilers for TS3 in the next paragraph.

The difference is that the characters are well-drawn and three dimensional. Woody has a genuinely difficult choice to make. It’s genuinely tragic when Buzz is reset, and even more amazing, his Spanish “persona” and the Buzz we know and love are actually two distinct characters. We mourn for what the toys have lost as Andy grows up, we’re afraid for them and with them, and we understand their motivations.

Cameron doesn’t give us the opportunity to be emotionally invested in those characters or that world. Who cares? Really, who cares about these people/aliens? What is our attachment? None of the relationships are developed at all. Most of the time is spend introducing Jake to the world, and as a result, all the characters are types, not people. Now, you may personally not mind if you’re watching cardboard cutouts move around a three-dimensional world. That’s fine, some people don’t need the emotional investment to receive pleasure from a work of art. But some people do, and Cameron failed spectacularly on that level. Which is strange, because I think he knows how to create an emotional investment. I think that Terminator and Aliens both work really well as films because even if there were weaker plot elements, we really do care about Sarah Connor and Ripley. They’re not just bodies moving through a scene with no purpose beyond providing exposition to the audience about the world they supposedly live in.

It’s not like I’m inclined to hate James Cameron. I even find ** Titanic** extremely watchable. But like George Lucas, he’s forgotten he’s a storyteller. The CGI etc should exist to serve the story and build a world around the characters, not be the story and completely dominate the characters to the point that they could literally be replaced with characters from other movies (like Fern Gully) and there would be no discernible or qualitative difference. You, Omniscient, may not subscribe to theory of film making, but that doesn’t mean that those of us who do are revealing ourselves to be “snobs.”

[drastic_quench]

@Omniscient

Not all movies are created to serve the same purpose. Cameron has been pretty adamant that Avatar was intended as a 3D spectacle, first and foremost. I understand the urge to compare a big screen experience to a home one, but I think this is more analogous to a black and white versus color experience.

*Avatar *is trying to be to 3D what Wizard of Oz was to color. I’m not saying the two movie are equally good and the jury is still out on how ubiquitous 3D will become, but you need to see the two films in their intended format to really “get it”. The wow factor of something so new is a fundamental part of the process.

I’m sure there were old codgers and housewives in 1956 saying they didn’t see what all the hype was about watching Oz on their 10 inch black and whites.

I’m not even a big fan of Avatar, but I dig this analogy. Well put.

[gonzomax]

It would be hard after all this time to come up with a plot that was brand new and never used before. We have been writing stories and plays for a thousand of years. I don’t look for originality. Plot twists are enough to make a movie a hit, like Shawshank and The 6th Sense. Adventure stories have even less to work from. The plot was fine and of course predictable.

[Omniscient]

@pepperlandgirl

Is it possible to defend Cameron’s magnum opus without resorting to snide comments?

Toy Story 3 is also intended to be accessible for all ages, and the plot can’t get more basic. We’ve all seen it hundreds of times before in movies, books, and even songs. But it’s a really good film–probably one of the best of the year. It also looks pretty amazing, though granted it’s not an amazing spectacle as Avatar was meant to be. Vague spoilers for TS3 in the next paragraph.

The difference is that the characters are well-drawn and three dimensional. Woody has a genuinely difficult choice to make. It’s genuinely tragic when Buzz is reset, and even more amazing, his Spanish “persona” and the Buzz we know and love are actually two distinct characters. We mourn for what the toys have lost as Andy grows up, we’re afraid for them and with them, and we understand their motivations.

Cameron doesn’t give us the opportunity to be emotionally invested in those characters or that world. Who cares? Really, who cares about these people/aliens? What is our attachment? None of the relationships are developed at all. Most of the time is spend introducing Jake to the world, and as a result, all the characters are types, not people. Now, you may personally not mind if you’re watching cardboard cutouts move around a three-dimensional world. That’s fine, some people don’t need the emotional investment to receive pleasure from a work of art. But some people do, and Cameron failed spectacularly on that level. Which is strange, because I think he knows how to create an emotional investment. I think that Terminator and Aliens both work really well as films because even if there were weaker plot elements, we really do care about Sarah Connor and Ripley. They’re not just bodies moving through a scene with no purpose beyond providing exposition to the audience about the world they supposedly live in.

It’s not like I’m inclined to hate James Cameron. I even find ** Titanic** extremely watchable. But like George Lucas, he’s forgotten he’s a storyteller. The CGI etc should exist to serve the story and build a world around the characters, not be the story and completely dominate the characters to the point that they could literally be replaced with characters from other movies (like Fern Gully) and there would be no discernible or qualitative difference. You, Omniscient, may not subscribe to theory of film making, but that doesn’t mean that those of us who do are revealing ourselves to be “snobs.”

Hey, I concede that the movie could have been better. There were a lot of elements that frustrated me, the ones you cite are some of them. This isn’t something I have a quarrel with and I don’t think everyone who criticizes Avatar is a snob. However I stand by the comment because some of the comments in this thread fit the description. Many of these same snobs can be found in the 3D movie threads complaining about the technology and denigrating those who appreciate them. Unfortunately it’s en vogue to bash everything mainstream. That people will rant and rave about how crappy the movie was who didn’t even see it in 3D is particularly irksome and snide.

[pepperlandgirl]

@Omniscient

Hey, I concede that the movie could have been better. There were a lot of elements that frustrated me, the ones you cite are some of them. This isn’t something I have a quarrel with and I don’t think everyone who criticizes Avatar is a snob. However I stand by the comment because some of the comments in this thread fit the description. Many of these same snobs can be found in the 3D movie threads complaining about the technology and denigrating those who appreciate them. Unfortunately it’s en vogue to bash everything mainstream. That people will rant and rave about how crappy the movie was who didn’t even see it in 3D is particularly irksome and snide.

Fair enough. I don’t think we’re really in disagreement then, I just wanted to point out that it’s possible to dislike the film (a lot in my case) while recognizing what it accomplished and generally being a fan of Cameron’s work.

[msmith537]

Yeah, we get it. It’s the highest grossing movie ever because all the Avatards went and saw it 30 times so they can pick apart the minutiae of every frame.

I would agree that seeing it on HBO (even on my 50" screen) isn’t nearly as impressive as seeing it in IMAX 3D. It’s still visually very impressive though.

I would also agree that the story fell a little flat somehow. And it wasn’t just the derivative Dances With Wolves / Last Samurai in space plot. Or the cardboard cutout stock characters. It was like the other characters treated Jake Sully in whatever way was necessary to advance the plot. One minute he’s a moron. Then he’s accepted. Then he’s a hero. Then he’s a traitor. Hero again. Traitor again. I never felt we really got much insight into his struggle or conflict trying to juggle the N’avi, the scientists and the military. Everyone just seemed to accept him and forgive him all too easily.

@spark240

“Unobtainium” is obviously a self-deprecating joke–it’s the filmmakers hanging a little sign that says PLOT DEVICE. It would have been stupid if the rest of the movie was assiduously serious and realistic, but in context I think it was the cleverest thing about the film (that is, not very clever, but worth a moment’s grin).

They could have called it “mcguffinite”.

[Trepa_Mayfield]

The problem with the plot isn’t just that it’s trite and unoriginal–Omniscient is right, good movies can be those. The problem with the plot is that it is fundamentally flawed, because, if you think about it, you have more reason to sympathize with the villain (the Colonel) than the hero.

If you’re making a simple movie, the hero has to be heroic and the villain has to be villainous. The colonel was not villainous enough, and Jake Sully was not heroic enough. Even ignoring all the other problems the plot had, that right there is enough to brand it as bad without the spectacle.

[Swords_to_Plowshares]

@pedescribe

The colonel was not villainous enough, and Jake Sully was not heroic enough. Even ignoring all the other problems the plot had, that right there is enough to brand it as bad without the spectacle.

Genocide isn’t villainous enough?

[Driver8]

I have to agree with the opening post. My tastes aren’t usually completely out of the mainstream: this is probably the first blockbuster with Academy acclaim that I didn’t in some way enjoy. But for me the overwhelming feeling after watching this movie was a sense of dullness. It felt lifeless, like they were just going through the motions in terms of characters, drama, etc. In comparison Titanic was an excellent movie and completely compelling. Recent spectacle movies such as Star Trek have been much more engaging to me. I don’t even like the Star Trek franchise that much, but the movie just worked on every level: pacing, characters, drama, the spectacle, etc.

I guess nobody told the studio it was a 3D spectacle movie only. They seem to have accidentally sold it to regular cinemas, cable on demand, DVD rental companies, airlines, etc.

[even_sven]

Saw it in 3D.

The first thing they tell us in film school is that when others are critiquing your film, you are not allowed to explain what you were trying to do.

You are not to say “well, that frame was supposed to be out of focus to symbolize…” or “That plot point was supposed to be unclear because…” or “I cast a 40 year old to play a high school student on purpose because…”

If the audience doesn’t get it, they don’t get it. It doesn’t matter what you were trying to do, if the audience doesn’t understand and appreciate it, then you have failed. It doesn’t matter if you did something one purpose. If enough people say it isn’t working for them, then you have to think about why you are not conveying whatever you set out to convey.

So I’m not impressed with “Well, it wasn’t supposed to be a good narrative…” I don’t care if you were actually trying to make a bicycle. I went in for whatever reason thinking that I was seeing a film, and for me it failed on that level.

I thought it was a failure. Films are not theme park rides- If I’m going to sit there for three hours, I expect some story. And even if they were keeping the story simple for blah blah blah, I don’t care. The story didn’t work for me. The characters were utterly boring- If I were writing a list of their character traits, I’d only be able to populate it with the vaguest words possible- there was nothing to differentiate the characters as individual, and therefor nothing to make me care about them.

Making a spectacle and making a movie with an engaging plot are not mutually exclusive. There is no reason why you can’t make a children’s movie, based on spectacle, with an engaging plot and real characters…look at the Harry Potter films, for instance. Hardly works of high-art, but they managed to hold my attention.

[even_sven]

I think the problem with Avatar for me is that the characters seemed to exist to serve the plot (and as minimally as possible) rather than the other way around.

Good narrative is pleasurable because of the process of identification, in which we feel as if we are a part of the thoughts and desires of a main character (if you ever watch narrative films that don’t attempt to create identification, they are usually extremely difficult to watch.) In this way, characters become the most essential part of any narrative film.

When writing, you want to ask yourself “what would my characters do?” or “How would my characters react to this?” as you build your plot. It needs to come out of the characters (although of course you may cheat a bit.)

But Avatar looks like it said “Okay, so we need a princess. And the hero needs to fall in love with. So she should be beautiful…and probably plucky…but ultimately good hearted…yeah, that works.” What little characterization there is is just there to keep the plot moving. So ultimately it rings hallow. That identification process is weak, and the film is ultimately unsatisfying.

[Starving_Artist]

@even_sven

If the audience doesn’t get it, they don’t get it. It doesn’t matter what you were trying to do, if the audience doesn’t understand and appreciate it, then you have failed.

But the audience did understand and get it - to the tune of making Avatar far and away both the most popular and financially successful film of all time. Nothing appeals to everyone though, and the fact of the matter is that Cameron never set out to film a great story or an original story or any of the other things Avatar is being criticized for in this thread. Rather he set out to make an extraordinarily entertaining 3-D film, and he succeeded magnificently. The complaints being lodged against the film are valid - from the point of view of the people making them. Nothing wrong with that. But I do think it’s important to keep things in perspectiive and acknowledge that both Cameron and Avatar succeeded fabulously well in achieving what they set out to do.

[Palo_Verde]

I saw it when it was released on DVD. I watched about half of it, got bored and turned it off. I couldn’t believe that was what all the fuss was about.

But obviously my view is a minority one, and that’s OK.

[Red_Barchetta]

@even_sven

I thought it was a failure.

Most everyone else got it, seems you didn’t, by your own standard.

[jackdavinci]

Well I guess you have got to expect either praise or denial.

I mean yeah, this wasn’t a super nuanced film. Were you expecting that? It’s James Cameron with a big budget. There’s going to be a love story, some new film tech, and an iceberg. But. It works fine as an archetypal Star Wars sort of story. And it does so with some impressive new visuals. Plus, it has a neat idea about merging spiritual utopias with technological ones that is somewhat mutually satisfying.

@Stink Fish Pot

The CGI was great. I can’t argue that point. The coloring, the shadowing, the three dimensional appearance of every shot was seemingly flawless.

That alone should have been enough to be impressed! Did you see it in 3D IMAX? I literally had vertigo during the climbing up the vines to the floating mountains scenes and the flying scenes…

@Stink Fish Pot

No matter how good CGI is, it still cannot create a lifelike person that could pass as a human character.

I’m less convinced that it was the CGI tech per se, but rather the lighting/uncanny valley of alien-ness that was the issue. Certain scenes felt absolutely photorealistic, but other scenes felt a bit fake, usually when they were darker or less generally earth-like.

@Stink Fish Pot

But it looked like humans super-imposed with cartoons.

See above(s). I think that certain scenes were convincing, and others weren’t. But I’m not sure whether it came down to tech, or to simply bad choice of lighting/un-earthlike subjects. Also, 3D/IMAX had a much bigger impact than on my SD-tube TV on cable.

@Stink Fish Pot

2. Too damn long. Period. The story wasn’t compelling enough to last almost 3 hours.

Maybe. But the visuals should have sustained you! Similar to Brokeback Mountain…

@Stink Fish Pot

3. The story itself was weak. Very standard stuff as far as plot goes..

Yeah.. So? See first paragraph. The same could be said about Star Wars.

@Stink Fish Pot

4. The Na’vi world reminded me of a cartooned version of Apocalypto. And Apocalypto was a much better movie. The only difference was the people were blue, had tails, and were chased by giant, scary beasties.

I can’t really argue with this. Other than to say, any documentary or real-life-based film is inherently stronger than a pure fantasy film in certain ways (gravitas, suspension of belief). But fantasy films are stronger in other ways (optimism, wonder). It’s a standard genre trade-off. Comparing apples to oranges really.

@Stink Fish Pot

5. A small but minor nit… why was it spelled Na’vi in the first place? There was no need for an apostrophe. Just a pompous windbag’s idea of a clever, made-up world. Navi works just fine, doesn’t it? The writing was so George-Lucas like it became a distraction.

@Stink Fish Pot

6. The evil beasties - very standard and boring stuff.

Initially I’d say, OK, I do think it’s weird that the Navi are furry unlike their surrounding fauna. But otherwise…?

@Stink Fish Pot

Dragons that don’t breath fire, but instead have dinosaur teeth and take passengers.

WHAT?!? They aren’t dragons at all. They are maybe flying dinosaurs at best. Breathing fire would be totally bizarre.

@Stink Fish Pot

Horses with eight legs…

@Stink Fish Pot

Running rodents that look like large tapirs (see Apocalypto for a real one… or a computerized version of one, anyway).

Missed that one.

@Stink Fish Pot

Hammerheads with feet instead of fins. Nothing special here. More like a teenage boy’s doodlings in his notebook.

Convergent evolution…

@Stink Fish Pot

7. More plot lameness. Misfit (Jake) gets not just any Navi to fall in love with him, but the Royal Family’s daughter.

That was due to the tree spores.

@Stink Fish Pot

8. more writing lameness - Unobtainium? Really? That’s the best they could come up with?

That was purposeful irony. Like if a movie called something “Ice-9”.

@Stink Fish Pot

9. More plot stealing - all the forest creatures band together to oust the EVIL world. Same exact thing happens in Ewok-world.

Not really. ROTJ definitely used a similar ‘rally the natives’ theme. But in ROTJ the natives weren’t being attacked. In Avatar, a specific tribe of natives is being attacked, and Jake rallies ALL the tribes but in the end, it’s his use of the ‘bio-internet’ to get the fauna to also attack that turns the tide.

@Stink Fish Pot

Maybe I was expecting so much more because of the buildup[…]But I don’t get the love.

Yeah I think it was raised expectations + dislike for popcorn movies + possibly seeing it in a less than desirable format.

@Stink Fish Pot

From a CGI standpoint, the first time a dinosaur crosses the screen in Jurassic Park was much more moving and impressive than anything I saw in Avatar. And much more realistic. Those dinosaurs blended in with their real world environment almost seamlessly. That was impressive film making.

Well sure if you saw it in theaters, when it first came out, that was fucking awesome.

But if you saw it 8 months later on VHS for the first time, especially after hearing everyone rave about it, would it have had the same impact?

@Stink Fish Pot

However I can’t for the life of me understand all the love for Cameron’s AVATAR. At least his Terminator was an original idea with a fairly decent plot.

Did you see his Terminator under the same conditions (theater versus TV; same level of anticipation and delay?)

[Rodgers01]

I saw this in the theaters and, as I wrote at the time, thought it was ridiculously, bafflingly bad. While I admittedly didn’t see it in 3-D, I wasn’t even into the special effects.

Back then I wrote that it was probably just “me”, since virtually all the critics and audiences seemed to think it was a masterpiece. While I’m still happy for those who loved it (hey, why not?), it’s a bit gratifying to hear that others didn’t like it - makes me feel less crazy.

One correction, though, for the lovers who think the haters are just snobs: not true, at least in my case. I enjoy a good romantic action/thriller/whatever as much as the next guy. I’ve loved some of Cameron’s movies (e.g. Terminator). Not everything has to be Bergman or Fellini; in all seriousness, well-done Hollywood popcorn entertainment spectacles are some of America’s greatest cultural achievements.

The key word there, however, is well-done. For me, Avatar simply was not well done.

[msmith537]

@Swords_to_Plowshares

Genocide isn’t villainous enough?

I think the problem is that it wasn’t. Or that it was sort of random. Initially the colonel is played as a hard-assed pragmatist concerned with keeping his people alive. Ribissi’s company man is arrogant but is willing to entertain the idea of a diplomatic solution (hence the massively expensive Avatar project) talking about “hearts and minds” and shit. They allude to conflict with the Na’vi with the shot of the mining truck with spears and arrows sticking out of the tire. But meanwhile, Dian Fossey and her crew are running some sort of Peace Corps program with the natives.

And then all of a sudden they just switch to genocide mode for really no reason. Why all of a sudden was it necessary to wipe out the Na’vi at this particular point in the story?

Since the story is a bunch of standard plot devices anyway, the standard plot device in such a situation is to have the Na’vi suffer some inadvertant offense at the hands of the humans. Say one of their sacred places is accidently buldozed (which happened anyway) or a Na’vi child is accidently gunned down by a remote sentry turrent while exploring too close to the gate. Whatever. Next, some hotheaded Alpha Na’vi grabs a bunch of his boys, runs off half-cocked and attacks the humans with disasterous results on both sides. THEN the frightened enraged humans respond back with their air show since the situation has now legitimately spiraled out of control.

IOW, Cameron doesn’t make the humans villainous enough to arbitrarily commit genocide (like Darth Vader) and the Na’vi are too perfectly sweet to create a morally ambiguous story.

Also, the Na’vi are boring. Other than Smurfette, Papa Smurf, Mama Smurf and Alpha Warrior smurf, they are all the generic. What’s so great about this village that Jake should fall in love with it (other than getting to ride a flying lizard and bang the Chief’s daughter)? What is it about Jake that the Chief’s daughter should fall in love with some moron alien in a Na’vi suit? Because he’s a quick study?

I don’t think it’s asking too much from the guy who created some of the most quotable movies and most memorable characters (both major and minor) in history.

[shiftless]

I saw it in 3D. Now it is on HBO in HD and I can’t be bothered to watch more than 10 minutes because the noble savage story has been told so many times before, and better, and isn’t even that good of a story in the first place. I had hoped that when they spent 8 gagillion dollars on the CGI they could spare a buck fifty for a writer. Guess not.

[Gangster_Octopus]

Yeah, I saw it in the theater in 3D and at home and at home it just looks so cartoony. And the story reveals itself even more to be weak and shallow. In the theater it is a different experience and I think a worthy one to have, but it isn’t a particularly deep or interesting movie story-wise.

Don’t tell my wife I posted this,she LOVES the move…3D not 3D etc. Wewere watching it on HBA and she started crying, “It’s so sad, what a great movie.” "Yeah it’s pretty good " “Pretty good!!! WTF???” “Ummm, I mean it is AWSOME!!”

[Snickers]

It’s very pretty. Yes, it’s a very pretty movie. And that’s all. I found the story trite and tired. Sure, it’s a retread of a lot of different stories, but most storytellers find a way to both repackage familiar tropes and make them interesting.