So over in this thread we’re discussing movies and star power. And we’re beating the hell out of poor Sam Worthington. He clearly failed to launch from a star turn in the highest grossing movie of all time.
But it’s been pointed out that - despite its massive receipts - Avatar has somehow failed to impact the zeitgeist. Sure, it’s going to be at Disney this year, but it hasn’t become a huge cultural touchstone in the way that Star Wars, The Sound of Music and others became. No one’s dropping quotes from Avatar the way they do Casablanca and such.
I seem to recall seeing people cosplay as Na’vi back when it was in theaters. Ditto people trying to really make a thing out of it. But it seems to have not gotten the traction.
So what’s the cause of that? Why did Avatar - which certainly made an economic impact - not generate cultural impact?
It was, IMO, a poor movie. The damn thing just kept stretching on and on. The middle of the movie was interminable: you knew for sure that the corporate rebels were gonna escape and join the Smurfy natives, but it took like fifteen hours for them to get off their asses and do so. The action was big but not particularly inspired (I think–I saw it but don’t remember much at all of it).
At the time I said it was an excellent proof of concept, showing how 3d could be used effectively. I think that’s its main cultural impact. Narratively it had very little going for it.
As I noted in the other thread, it was visually amazing, but pedestrian in its story (FernGully in space) and acting. Also, Cameron didn’t get a sequel done while the original was still in people’s consciousness – nine years later, and he’s still working on that.
I’m not sure I’d buy that in its entirety. While I don’t disagree with you about the story, clearly a great many people thought it was good enough to see again and again. Recall, it made $2.7 billion worldwide. That’s a lot of fannies in seats. The others that sit atop that list include the MCU, Star Wars, Titanic and so forth.
Ohh, I recall. Hell, I saw it in the theater three times.
My hypothesis is that, in the same way that Rose and Jack’s romance is what drove girls to see Cameron’s Titanic again and again, and space-opera action is what drove nerds like me to see the Star Wars movies repeatedly, it was Avatar’s breathtaking visuals that drove a big chunk of that repeat viewing.
Now that I think about it, that may also be why it faded so quickly once it left the theaters. it may be that its visual impact is far more muted when watched on a small screen.
Yeah, except for one dumb masturbation joke, I don’t remember any dialog from that movie at all. Worse, although I remember the context of the joke, I don’t remember how it was worded exactly.
The plot was not the stuff of classics. Tired cautionary tale about evil corporations messing with nature is not a joy to sit through for it’s own sake. Frickin’ preachy too.
The exquisite detail work on the special effects was phenomenal alright. I mean, including the insects of an alien landscape? That was impressive.
Unfortunately, impressive does not automatically mean memorable.
Still never seen it. Everything I saw and read about it when it was current seemed to indicate it was primarily a test of 3D technology in film and nothing I’ve seen or read about it since has proven otherwise, so I still have no interest in watching it.
Agreed. Best use of 3D in any movie since Andy Warhol’s Frankenstein (1973). And like that flick, Avatar was only worth viewing in 3D, imo. The rest was a template plot, Pocahontas-derived cliches and feel-good BS (if you wish hard enough, it will come true). Plus, shrimpy corporate asswipe Giovanni Ribisi gets no comeuppance despite being complicit in mass murder, scientist Sigourney Weaver provides tobacco product placement and there’s a fake-Gilligan (positive proof that Bob Denver had a much greater cultural impact than Avatar).
How To Train Your Dragon as a better Avatar than Avatar. It’s not that the story was too simple or trite—classic films have been made from less—but that the pacing wasn’t engaging and characters weren’t very interesting. And despite the oohing over the CGI, it really wasn’t all that extraordinary. I was more impressed with Cameron’s use of it in True Lies, where despite being made in the mid-‘Nineties it was nearly impossible to distinguish between the practical effects and CGI. Avatar was such an overwhelming amount of obviously effect-driven visuals that it actually wasn’t all that memorable. And any film that has the gall to call their McGuffin “unobtainium” is begging to be relentlessly mocked by these guys.
Star Wars had impact because its use of then-cutting edge effects novel (at least for filmgoers; it was the then-best imagining of classic literary space opera) but even Lucas admitted that the effects sequences need to be in service of an engaging story, which Avatar was not. Raiders of the Lost Ark is a great film despite the fact that the plot doesn’t actually make any sense and the actions of the protagonist are ultimately pointless. (“We have top men working on it.” “Who?” “Top men.”). I’m sure Cameron will make money on the (four? Really?) sequels, but from a quality standpoint they’d be better off giving the catering budget to Joss Whedon to produce every play Shakespeare wrote in his backyard with his friends and spending the remainder of the budget letting Taiki Waititi and James Gunn direct their collective vision of high fantasy space opera comedy.
The kind of movie whose sole appeal is in its high production values is best enjoyed in theaters because of the large screen, high resolution and sound system. It can also be enjoyed by anyone, a New York graduate student, Kansas farmer, French child, Argentinian grandfather or Chinese factory worker. Thus it has the potential for high ticket sales. Michael Bay has been doing that for two decades now. Can anyone, off the top of their head, tell us the plot differences between the Transformer movies? The phenomenon is also widespread in AAA games.
Because it’s a mile wide and an inch deep, it gets forgotten about like a Garfield comic strip you read on the John.
I really wish Cameron gave himself an 8 figure budget to do minimally CGI movies where the production values are pure servants to other aspects of the film.
And is indeed a weak movie with a cliché storyline - eminently forgettable. Movies like it and the others represent advances in the technology of filmmaking but not in the art of storytelling.
Star Wars remains notable for being a tech breakthrough in its day and having a resonant storyline with memorable characters. By now, there are large gaps I’ve forgotten about the prequels, even though I’ve seen them far more recently. I guess Phantom Menace stuck with me more than the others in part because I was on a boring military exercise when a bootleg copy starting getting passed around and for lack of anything better to do, I watched the pod race a bunch of times. I’m a tad ashamed to say I eventually bought the DVD, but in fairness it was for the included “making of” documentaries - I never bothered rewatching the movie itself.
I remember having two thoughts as I left the theater (IMAX 3d) after seeing that movie. First, they should just give this movie the Oscar for visual effects and then just retire the award after that. Second, with a quarter billion dollar budget to make the movie, shouldn’t they have been able to hire a couple of screenwriters?
And yeah, I saw part of it several months later on cable and it really came up short.
I think it’s really as simple as that. If Cameron got a sequel in 2 or 3 years it would have had a lot more staying power (far less people would have seen the sequel, of course). Now, Avatar is only brought up if you talk about how much it made, or what an amazing IMAX 3D experience it was (seriously one of my favorite movie experiences even if I thought the plot was cliche to the max).
When it came out I gave it an A for visuals and an F for story. Story is the only element people remember over time. The visuals overpowered people who lost their minds in Cameron-worship but newer and better visuals come along every day.
One other thought. Has any movie about the environment ever moved the cultural meter?
Entertainment is plentiful and fragmented. There are very few movies that enter the cultural zeitgeist in the way that Star Wars did, and Star Wars did because it basically invented the concept of the blockbuster.
What movies that have come out in the last 20 years that have had a cultural impact at all like that? The last one I’d say had an impact like we’re discussing was The Matrix and that was almost 20 years ago. Maybe Titanic? But a lot of the cultural impact was based on mockery in that case.
Our culture is too rich in diverse entertainment for everyone to be on the same page like they used to. Most of the examples in this thread about movies with cultural impact are 40 or more years old.
Pretty much this. I have the advantage of not having seen it in 3D, so there was no “experience” to colour my perception of the film. It was kind of neat in the way that some movies can be, but there was absolutely nothing memorable about it. It was all predictable and cliche.
I think another part of it might be that visuals don’t translate well into other media. If a movie has good lines, people will quote those lines in many different contexts. If it has a good story, people will retell that story in many different ways. If it makes deep philosophical points, people will explore those points. But what can you do with great visuals? You can show people pictures of the visuals, but you can’t really do anything with them.
That, and the peculiar lack of sequels. You can’t expect a movie to stay in the public consciousness without doing something to keep it there.
