You seem to be unaware of the history of the term, which is the basis of the disdain for its use.
Exactly. Oakley sunglasses used it heavily for a while in its advertising, predating the movie. It was just a very unoriginal term for the movie to use.
Or who knows, maybe Oakley gets their raw materials from Pandora.
Bullshitium.
Doing an advanced search/key word/ascending order shows that there are 76 SD threads that contain the word Unobtanium before the December 2009 release of Avatar.
That’s what I said on my way out of the theater. Felt like one of the Star Wars prequels, where everything LOOKS great, but you find yourself cringing at the writing and plotting. And in Avatar’s case, at the characterizations (such as they are).
It really felt like Ferngully mixed with another animated film…
When Blue Girl showed up in the nick of time to rescue the protagonist, someone* in our theater yelled “Save him, Pocahontas!”
*(okay, it might have been me…)
[
Adamantium.](Adamantium - Wikipedia)
(It’s not entirely clear, but it appears that vibranium, OTOH, is supposed to be an element.)
Since Disney parks live and die by their merchandising sales I wonder what they were thinking with this one. I just can’t picture visitors picking up an Avatar anything from the gift shops.
That’s pretty much what they did in “The Core” where he explained that his super material has some really long scientific name but he just calls it unobtainium.
Maybe when the new movies come out. Recall, when the Disney/Fox deal goes through - if it does - Disney will own Avatar as well. So, like Star Wars and the Marvel movies, they’ll be well-positioned for vertical integration.
I actually saw that movie, damnit. Don’t remember the line.
Sad the “The Core” had better writers than Avatar, though.
“Unobtanium” is such a weird thing to get hung up on. People in movies read sci-fi and make jokes, too. It’s entirely plausible that the scientists who studied the first samples from exploring the planet said something like “this is the unobtanium we’ve been looking for” or “the properties this material shows is basically unobtainium” and the name stuck colloquially. Having the first scientist’s in-joke sticking like that is something completely plausible in the real world.
This is way more plausible than thinking that the scriptwriter didn’t understand the connection when he wrote it and just picked that name at random, or thought he was making some sly reference that would go over the audience’s head.
But without that context, it’s just a dumb name that pulls you out.
They could call it “Blurp-derp” and have some wonderful canonical in-universe reason for it but, if the viewer doesn’t know of it, it’s just a couple guys straight-facedly saying “Blurp-derp” at one another when talking about why they need to bomb a native culture and steal their shit.
It’s asking so little of your audience to make that connection. I remember when I saw it thinking “cute, I see how that could come about” not “oh my god, this movie is so dumb, they don’t even understand that unobtanium is a concept in science fiction and they’re just parading it out there so obviously!”
It feels to me almost like if a movie about 19th century prospectors referred to oil as “black gold” and the audience freaked out and said how dumb it was because oil isn’t a metal at all and these writers must be so stupid.
Shortly after Avatar came out one of my nephews was going on and on about it (he hasn’t been lately) and made a comment about the thrill of flying dragonback. I just looked at him and said, “How to Train your Dragon got it better.” The next time I saw him I brought the two and queued up the initial flight scenes in both. He admitted I was right.
The first con I went to after its release, the consensus was fascinating world building; too bad the characters and plot did nothing with it. It’s never been discussed since. If you don’t capture die-hard s-f geeks, you won’t get the general public either.
Not really since “black gold” is actually a well known term to even casual movie-goers.
That said, I doubt anyone disliked Avatar exclusively because of “Unobtanium”. It was just one more dumb thing in a big pile of dumb things.
You’d think. However, I have to say that even 9 years after the release of the film, I don’t think I’ve seen a movie that has had better visuals than an IMAX 3D showing of Avatar (and yes, I have seen IMAX 3D showings of other, newer movies). It was awe inspiring - I’m pretty sure my mouth hung open because I was in disbelief at what I was looking at.
Only if the story was better. Then again, if they did the sequels timely and they had a decent enough plot, Avatar may have been seen as a clunky opening to a cool series.
When the movie first came out I heard critics whose opinions I trust totally trash the movie.
Never saw it, do not plan to.
Banshee puppets that ride on your shoulder were completely sold out for the first couple months, and I believe Disney even raised the price because demand was so high.
I watched around the first half hour on home video, had to set it aside to do something else–and never felt the need to finish it.
The ones that notice should be smart enough to put it together, and the ones who didn’t don’t need to.
It’s a good example of how motivated people are to very publically and very loudly declare that the movie is dumb and they’re too smart and too cool for it. Everyone apparently thinks they’re cool for shitting on the highest grossing movie of all time.
But the hypocrisy is that people love visually spectacular movies with basic plots all the time. Star Wars is just the super generic Heroes Journey story. As a fairly recent example, Jurrassic World is far dumber than anything in Avatar, but everyone loved that pile of shit, because for whatever reason it didn’t become the popular and cool thing to go out of your way to talk about how dumb it is and how you’re too cool to like it.
People go way out of their way to hold it to standards they won’t hold anything else to. “Oh it’s just like Fern Gully/Pochahontas/Dances with Wolves” - well, if those three movies have identical plots, why aren’t any of them criticized for it? Do you think any of them even invented the basic “outsider sent to exploit natives, outsider goes native himself” story archetype?