Avatar:The Last Filmmaker OR Completely Avatarded

[Cybren]

I saw it yesterday.

No it wasn't that good. It was enjoyable, but not very good. The entire time I was more interested in what the rest of the scifi universe they created looked like. Who cares about the Na'vi? They're an insignificant piece of garbage on Garbage Rock. (Here's the sequel: Earth comes back and drops an asteroid on the planet. After the ensuing superextinction they mine it dry)

[TorachiKatashi]

The part I don't get is how even the people who liked it can go, "Well, yeah, this was weak, and that wasn't so good..." But immediately turn around and try to say, "But who cares about the story as long as it's pretty!"

Is that the direction we're going for in movies now? Who cares about plot, and theme, and character, and all the things that make a good movie memorable, if it's flashy and colourful enough to keep the attention of all the ADHD kids till they roll the credits?

Aren't we supposed to be smarter than that?

Substitute "pretty" for "gory" and that's exactly why there hasn't been in a good horror movie released in the time I've been alive.

[JohnyMcmuffin]

I am in the camp that feels that the story and characters were nothing special, but goddamn, I wanted to watch what was happening because it was just so pretty. It didn't matter that the story was predictable, because I wanted to watch them tell it to me. I didn't mind the relatively simple characters because I wanted to watch them run through the trees, ride flying dinos and deliver one liners. Overall, It was a just a beautiful experience and I really enjoyed taking it all in. I don't know how well it would hold up on multiple viewings, and am even more skeptical of watching it at home on my depressingly small and 2-dimensional screen.

Here's the sequel: Earth comes back and drops an asteroid on the planet. After the ensuing superextinction they mine it dry

I was talking about this with my sisters after watching it. I feel that the humans really could just do something like this to glass the planet if they really wanted to mine the planet. Since it seems that all of their heavy equipment is automated anyway, if they made the surface completely uninhabitable, it wouldn't matter. We also discussed what strategy the humans should have used in the final battle to actually win. Is it bad that I like to help the "bad guys" fix their faulty plans?

[JohnyMcmuffin]

The part I don't get is how even the people who liked it can go, "Well, yeah, this was weak, and that wasn't so good..." But immediately turn around and try to say, "But who cares about the story as long as it's pretty!"

Is that the direction we're going for in movies now? Who cares about plot, and theme, and character, and all the things that make a good movie memorable, if it's flashy and colourful enough to keep the attention of all the ADHD kids till they roll the credits?

Aren't we supposed to be smarter than that?

Substitute "pretty" for "gory" and that's exactly why there hasn't been in a good horror movie released in the time I've been alive.

I don't think this is an actual problem. If the situation you outline becomes the only standard on which to judge movies, then I would be sad. However, I don't see this being the case.

My previous post falls completely into the category you are describing, so it is obvious I can just enjoy a pretty movie, but that is far from the only type of movie I enjoy and want to see. I like variety and one variety is movies that are just visually enjoyable. Planet Earth falls in to this category for me as well. I have seen enough nature specials that I don't really want to know more about caribou on the tundra, but when Planet Earth comes on, I want to see the damn caribou migrate.

[BritchesStitches]

Maybe it's hype backlash, but I really didn't like it very much. I'll admit it looked pretty, but it was so effin' predictable. *SPOILERS* We all new from the start he was going to end up fighting for the natives, we all knew Colonel Badass was gonna be the main antagonist, and we knew the second they mention the huge flying beast thing he was gonna end up riding it.

Yeah, predictable, seen it all before. And honestly, the characters were all pretty bland, the Colonel's the only one I actually found a bit interesting.

[Cybren]

To use TV Tropes terms, the colonel was "The Dragon", the primary physical adversary, whereas the Snively Corporate Douche was representative of the main antagonist- teh eeebil humans.

[Matt]

Regarding the points above:

1. While I acknowldge that the story was both cliched and predictable, It was also well told.

2. I will forgive a "weak" story, as this film was marketed from dayone as a visceral, experiencial film, desinged to showcase technology and visual art. No one ever once said that this film was intended to wow audiences with the depth of it's characters and meaningful allegory. It was only ever supposed to be the prettiest, most visually rich thing you've ever laid your eyes on, and frankly, it was.

3. I'll even go a step further, and say that an original, or overly complex script would have harmed the film. It would have distracted you from the visuals.

4. The story was also relatively simple because they spent a huge amount of time establishing the world, to generate viewer buy-in. The core plot didn't even really kick in until after the first hour of the film. The establishment was largely neccessary for the purpose of selling the plot that followed.

Ultimately, the horror film analogy breaks down because this movie wore it's purpose on it's sleeve. A Good horror movie exists to stir emotion, and create atmosphere. It dies so through a combination of plot, character, visual and music.

Avatar's SOLE purpose was to be breathtakingly gorgeous, and they never made any secret of that fact. The story and the characters were there only as a vehicle by which they colud deliver 3 hours of orgasmic beauty.

-m

[Theremin]

So the whole thing can be deemed a sort of 3 hour demo for new technology?

And does not having claimed to have a good story really excuse it from not having one?

[Matt]

So the whole thing can be deemed a sort of 3 hour demo for new technology?

And does not having claimed to have a good story really excuse it from not having one?

yes, and yes..

You wouldn't critique an Abstract painting for not showing enough still-life.

-m

[Theremin]

Fair enough, but how should I categorise it, if I'm going to critique it?

Animated? sci-fi?

[Matt]

It's a sci fi by genre, but it's quality is based in technical achievement, not advancement oof the genre through storytelling.

It perfectly ok to not like it, but understand it's purpose and place before railing on it for not being something else.

-m

[Matt]

You could probably call it an "effects film" actually.

-m

[Theremin]

I have no intention of railing on it, I can understand that it's more an achievement of technology than a work of art.

Storytelling art anyway.

I'm slightly frustrated that by being a totally generic film done soley as a demonstration of new technology, it's rendered itself immune to any sort of conventional evaluation.

[goat]

Also, what James Cameron movie DOESN'T have those cheesy one liners?
The one liners we keep quoting from 20 years ago! "I'll be back!" "Hasta la vista baby!"

FTFY

What you said makes less sense than the actual line. That's kind of an achievement really.

[Cade Antilles]

I know I'm late to this discussion, but thought I'd give my own impression.

I loved this movie. I have two complaints, neither of which detracted from my ability to enjoy this film. First, other than their head-tail/nerve-joining-thing their biology didn't seem to match any of the other creatures on the planet. Second, the movie's plot was predictable from start to finish.

But, all the awesomeness that surrounded that film totally overrides those two issues for me. If you ask me, Avatar is one of the best films of 2009.

Aliens + Dances With Wolves + The Last Samurai + FernGully = WIN

[Matt]

I don't think it's immune, but I think context is reasonable. I find it frustrating that reviewers so frequently try to apply one review template to all films.

Were I reviewing avatar, would I penalize it for it's story? Probably. Would I penalize it as hard as I would if it had been a visual mess? Not at all.

The film set out to showcase technology. And it succeeded admirably in that goal. Was it perfect? No. Was it a bad movie? I don't think so. To what extent can you call a film that accomplished what it set out to do a bad film unless it's goal was underachieving?

-m

[Theremin]

You're quite right.

As a movie, a piece of art, it accomplishes it's goal admirably. It the fact that it's goals are unusual that throws me.

Few films set out just to look pretty.

[Shinoki]

I have to agree with Matt. Despite it being a pretty derivative plot you can't judge is solely on that. That really is only half of what a movie is. I rolled my eyes and cracked jokes throughout this film, yet none of my reactions were a deal breaker. I can't think of an example but think if this you were critiquing a movie that had absolutely horrible visuals but the story was fresh and fantastic. Would you give the film a break on it's visuals just because the movie blew you away in other ways? I know I would.

[BritchesStitches]

I honestly can't possibly believe that a good plot would distract from the movie's purpose (the visuals). That just sounds like a cop out, there's no reason why they couldn't have tried to make a great looking movie with a good plot. Is the technology used in Avatar great? Yes. Is Avatar great? Not even close. (See: Revenge of the Fallen)

[TorachiKatashi]

Absolutely. Many of my favourite films aren't much to look at, but have brilliant stories.

Likewise, I don't mind food looking like someone crapped on a plate as long as it tastes good, but I won't eat something that looks good if it taste like someone crapped on a plate.

[epocalypse]

Also, plenty of my favorite films and TV series look great and have awesome writing, and that's good, too.

[Keab42]

I suspect that any sequels (and you can bet there will be sequels with the money it's making. Hollywood despises originality) will have significantly superior stories as they will no longer be able to sell it on the visuals.

I think the point is that it's still a great film. The story might not have been the best, but it still held your attention. Yes, it was predictable (predictable enough to work out when to take a toilet break), but that didn't ruin my enjoyment of it.

It might not be a cinematic epic, it might not be the best film ever made but it was enjoyable enough for me to want to go see it again and I'll be dragging several friends along this time, and there's not many films that I'll pay another £10.80 just so I can go see it again.

[epocalypse]

I suspect that any sequels (and you can bet there will be sequels with the money it's making. Hollywood despises originality) will have significantly superior stories as they will no longer be able to sell it on the visuals.

....right.

I can't even find it in me, it's just too much; Arius, Jim, Gordon, everyone (if you will)?

[Theremin]

Nonononono...don't crush his dreams...

[Keab42]

Oh right, I was talking about Hollywood wasn't I? I must have left my cynicism in 2009, I'll just go pick it up, be right back.