James Cameron's Avatar... is Bad?

[Cameroi]

the more rightwingers whine about it not kissing the ass of their emotional attachments, well really, politics aside, the more i'm hearing about this thing the more interested i'm becoming in seeing it.

i'll probably see mr fox first, if i get the chance to go see anything. but i AM interested. (now that i've seen and heard a little bit more of what it's about).

[Blitzkrenia]

So when does a movie being a 'blockbuster' allow a filmmaker to ignore plot, story, character development, originality, etc?
Some of us like to not only be entertained with big explosions and cool special FX, but also appreciate an actual story to back them up. Rate we're going, next years' 'blockbusters' are going to be nowt else but random cool computer CGI. They won't even bother with any plot or storyline.

I agree with you, but keep in mind that that only reason the most movies are made is for the money. So, if the public wants it, moviemakers follow. Right now, the public wants eye-candy; so they make eye-candy. It would be great if movies that actually have an interesting storyline succeeded, but they don't. Not these days. We can't expect large companies (who move toward money) to cater to the needs of the minority. There's not much we can do to change that.

[United Dependencies]

Now that I think about it I wonder how these natives would shape up against helgan forces(minus the starships) or a B3 battle droid. Or master chief for that matter...

[Zombie PotatoHeads]

So when does a movie being a 'blockbuster' allow a filmmaker to ignore plot, story, character development, originality, etc?
Some of us like to not only be entertained with big explosions and cool special FX, but also appreciate an actual story to back them up. Rate we're going, next years' 'blockbusters' are going to be nowt else but random cool computer CGI. They won't even bother with any plot or storyline.

I agree with you, but keep in mind that that only reason the most movies are made is for the money. So, if the public wants it, moviemakers follow. Right now, the public wants eye-candy; so they make eye-candy. It would be great if movies that actually have an interesting storyline succeeded, but they don't. Not these days. We can't expect large companies (who move toward money) to cater to the needs of the minority. There's not much we can do to change that.

I don't think it's really catering towards the minority. I enjoy a bit of escapism as much as anyone. Is it really too much to expect a reasonable attempt at a decent plot and storyline to go with the untold millions being spent on CGI? Avatar is estimated to have cost upwards of 1/2 Billion $; with all that money being chucked at it, couldn't they have hired an even half-decent scriptwriter? It's not like an interesting story'd have ruined the movie.

To say, "there doesn't need to be a storyline, it's a BLOCKBUSTER!!" is an extremely poor excuse. It just speaks of lazy film-making and an, one could argue, arrogant dismissal of the movie-going public. The movie studios have decided we're simple-minded enough that we're entertained/distracted with pretty pictures and loud noises, so don't need to bother with a script.

[Playing In The Water]

So when does a movie being a 'blockbuster' allow a filmmaker to ignore plot, story, character development, originality, etc?
Some of us like to not only be entertained with big explosions and cool special FX, but also appreciate an actual story to back them up. Rate we're going, next years' 'blockbusters' are going to be nowt else but random cool computer CGI. They won't even bother with any plot or storyline.

It doesn't really matter if it's a 'blockbuster' or not; some of us don't care if there's a brand-new storyline to things. Because seriously; this movie had a storyline. Stop saying it didn't. Just because it was one that has a lot of contemporaries doesn't mean it wasn't there, and just because you might've known what was coming didn't mean it wasn't enjoyable.

I, personally, very much enjoyed the ride the movie took me on for almost three hours. It was great fun, with good characters (needless of whether they were dynamic and/or growing all the time or not), and on an incredibly original scale. The entire world that was created for the movie was just fantastic, there's no other way to put it.

All things said, though, I can entirely understand why some people have such a big problem with the movie. Some people like more intellectual films, ones that challenge preconceived ideas or beliefs, or just make you think in general. That doesn't mean that every movie has to be that way, and just because Avatar wasn't, it doesn't make it symbolic of movies like '2012' or some rot like that. If you want a CGI piece of garbage, that's the one to start pointing fingers at; Avatar, at the very least, had acting. Revolutionary performance-capture acting, to boot, which only helps its case.

So really, it all comes down to what people like in their films. I, personally, love the romance with oh-so-much difficult baggage that Avatar pulled off; you didn't. Okay, that's fine. It's just opinions on films, and those, really, can never be 'proven' wrong.

[The chrisman union]

It's a great film, one of the best of this year. The visuals are just AMAZING, the plot is original, and I advice everyone to go see it. Sure, it won't please everyone, but 9/10 people will love it. I think.

[Cannot think of a name]

I was just going to make a thread asking people if it's worth seeing. I've not seen it. I was considering going but two things are making me baulk:
1. The ticket prices are ridiculously high here. It's almost double the normal price because it's 3-D and 3+ hours long. What with travelling, and the usual vittals necessary for movie-going, I'll be spending close to the equivalent of $35US. For a movie. For me to consider parting with that much dosh, it needs to be an extremely great movie.

-snip blah blah-

So basically, your basing your entire criticism of James Cameron on one film of his?

Well, it won't be shown in Italy till Jan 15th, so I must judge from the trailer right now...
Basically, seems just like a CGI fuckfest, and nothing more. As for originality, there's no originality AT ALL in "conquistador changes his mind and sides with aboriginals".
Long gone are the times when Cameron was an innovative director.

Once again:

IT'S A BLOODY BLOCKBUSTER.

What were you expecting - Citizen Kane?

Complaining about the plot of a blockbuster sci-fi actioner being too shallow is akin to complaining that 2012 focused on CGI at the expense of character development; totally fucking redundant.

Stop it. Seriously, you and everyone who whips this chestnut out every time some actiony whatever gets criticized. Stop. Chanting "blockbuster" or "popcorn" or "check your brain at the door" is not some sort of magic wand that exempts a movie from criticism. No, we don't expect every movie to be Citizen Kane or The Bicycle Thief, nor do we expect every movie that falls short of them to be exempt from criticism. There is nothing about a special effects extravaganza that insist that the plot be vapid or derivative, that performances be wooden or engaging.

I haven't seen the movie yet so I won't comment on it, but Cameron as a director tends to design his movies inside out. "Marines in space," "A robot that does nothing but kills," "sinking boat," and then stretches a story around the effect or center piece scene. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Avatar really does smack of a movie designed inside out. So much is said about how the movie is made that how the story is told gets nothing more than a shrug. Well, movies are stories. If I want to be wowed by spectacle I can eat some shrums and go see laser Floyd and not have to sustain the pretext that someone is trying to tell me a story. Certainly not a hamfisted rehash of some sort of 'White Mans Burden" parable. (why do noble majestic races always have to be saved by the cracker that joins them? How many last Mohicans do we need?)

Well, I did what I said I wouldn't. That'll derail the point I really wanted to make, which is that you can't just say "BLOCKBUSTER" and exempt a movie from any kind of critique. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Just because someone didn't like it or found some elements of it lacking doesn't automatically mean that they were expecting Citizen Kane. People need to stop defending crappy movies with this bullshit.

[Zombie PotatoHeads]

snip

thank you. You have elegantly put into words my thoughts.

[Allanea]

Well, I don't think they have the technology to fire lasers from space and torch the planet like in star wars or something goofy and stupid like that.

They can just tow in a rock and drop it. Or bring in a canister of poisonous chemicals and drop them out.

[Zombie PotatoHeads]

Well, I don't think they have the technology to fire lasers from space and torch the planet like in star wars or something goofy and stupid like that.

They can just tow in a rock and drop it. Or bring in a canister of poisonous chemicals and drop them out.

or, since they're able to create a blue alien person in their lab, to also create a nasty mutant virus that kills every last one of them but does nothing to humans.

[Songri]

Considering it is a 6 year trip from Earth to Pandora (close enough) bringing in some orbital weapons would take far to much time. The person in charge of the mining operations there was a pure profit driven guy, he didn't want to attack the natives until the major forced him to. Its the same reason they had to modify the shuttle to drop explosives on the second tree, they didn't have access to proper bombers.

It was primarily a mining operation, and while it had security elements I doubt they would have had full access to the full range of military technology.

Well, I don't think they have the technology to fire lasers from space and torch the planet like in star wars or something goofy and stupid like that.

They can just tow in a rock and drop it. Or bring in a canister of poisonous chemicals and drop them out.

Both would be PR nightmares for any corporation (something that is hinted at multiple times as something the company wants to avoid)

[Copenhagen Metropolis]

[quote="Zombie PotatoHeads";p="1169462"]

b. Be self-indulgent twaddle;
c. Be over-wrought and sodden with simplistic & simple-minded moralising;
d. Have a piss-poor plot so full of holes you could sail the Titanic through;
e. Be stuffed full of 2-dimensional characters (more caricarture than character) emoting and chewing the scenery;
f. Have dialogue so painful, so cheesy and so banal one wonders if it's not in fact a parody on bad movie-making;
g. Have 2 hours of mind-numbing dullness building up towards the climax of an hour or so of total action. The knowledge of impending cool special effects and big explosions is to ensure the male theatre goer remains in the theatre while the drippy love story being played out in the first 2 hours is there to entertain the female theatre goer. I notice the trailers focus almost solely on, what I'm assuming, will be the final battle scenes. Which makes one wonder what happens to get us to that point and why is it not worth promoting. quote]

You just described what's wrong with 99% of all American films. No depth, unintelligent and banal (full of clichés). (Movies for kids really).

I've never seen a 3D-movie though, so I may go watch it. I guess, all things considered, Avatar would be a good first-timer when entering the world of 3D.

[United human countries]

I think I can sum up the plot without ever having seen the movie.

-Man goes native. Natives turn out to be the "Noble Savage" stereotype instead of plain ol' savages
-Man becomes enthralled by natives
-Evil agency man works for wants to kill natives for some reason or another. A mineral here, land in Westerns.
-Man joins the natives in a fight against said evil organization
-Evil organization may or may not win, either way man finds himself at peace, either living with the natives, or dying helping the natives


Watch Dances With Wolves for the same plot, sans snazzy CGI. Doesn't mean I'm going to avoid Avatar though.

[The Snake Brotherhood]

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=29571

[Playing In The Water]

I think I can sum up the plot without ever having seen the movie.

Considering that the plot has been mentioned on this thread alone a dozen times or so...? Yeah, I think you can too.

[Risottia]

It's a great film, one of the best of this year. The visuals are just AMAZING, the plot is original, and I advice everyone to go see it. Sure, it won't please everyone, but 9/10 people will love it. I think.

Yep, only people born on September 10th will love it.

[America-Rosewood]

This movie was basically a fancy looking version of district 9 with a worse plot. Way too long and way too liberal.

[Risottia]

'CGI fuckfests' have been up to this point, almost exclusively, pieces of garbage like Day After Tomorrow or 2012. Just big things blowing up, explosions, big noticeable landmarks/pieces of Earth going kablooey.

That is not what Avatar is.

Oh noes, it's about explosions, big noticeable landmarks/pieces of fictional planet going kablooey.

No, it isn't. It's NOT about explosions and all that, that's the point. It's about the people involved, and that's the truth.

Oh, the truth. We're already at the "truth" argument. A=A?

Avatar uses 3D technology and special effects to bring emotion to life, which is a complete roundabout from what virtually EVERYONE ELSE has been doing up until this point. So yes, there's originality in that, at least.

Shrek. Toy Story. Small Soldiers. (Just to name some). Tech to show emotions, already done, so no originality.

All of those named, actually, were made to look intentionally fake. Avatar was designed to be realistic, or at least believably so. Additionally, Avatar blows every single one of those out of the water in regards to just how well it was done.

AHAHAHA!

That's why they had to use real-life actors to play the humans and CGI to show the aliens. Yeah, that shows that the tech allows a great realism.

What's so original about the stupid comic book movies that are being churned out year after year? Are THOSE new ideas? No, they're just re-hashing on what used to be popular and - lo and behold - using specials effects to make the fighting/killing/blowing up better. I honestly hadn't gone to a theatre to see a movie in a year or two, the films just so didn't interest me. At least Avatar is going with a new take on the way movies can be made, and a somewhat original plotline; you've gotta remember, this story was written, like, fourteen years ago. That's like four or five years after 'Dances With Wolves', which is its contemporary in a lot of ways.

1.Dances with Wolves wasn't that original, young fellow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Man_Called_Horse . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Big_Man
2.Did I claim that the comic book movies are original? Uhhh... *rereads own post* no, I didn't.
3.You want originality, there have been plenty of original movies in the last two years.
I can point you to a couple of those:
Il vento fa il suo giro (see the trailer at http://www.ilventofailsuogiro.com/)
Persepolis.

'Fellow'?
Anyway...

1. A Man Called Horse was slightly different from Dances With Wolves, in that the man was taken prisoner and didn't really have any choice but to adapt or die, mostly. If I recall it correctly, anyway; I haven't read it in a long while now, and I never bothered to see the movie, admittedly.
2. So you can snip at a movie that comes up with its own planet, flora, fauna, culture, and an entirely new language, and then write it off as the same as all the rest of the 'unoriginals' out there?
3. I don't much care if a movie is super-original or not; if it doesn't interest me, then I really won't give much attention to just how marvellously unique it is. Like Suran pointed out, it doesn't count for much if it's horribly unique and doesn't have much to it. Besides, I like the kind of movie that Avatar is; I don't need a Dan Brown plot with 'twists' to enjoy a film.

(As a side note, Dan Brown doesn't know how to do 'twists'; Angels& Demons and Da Vinci Code are exactly the same thing, when it comes right down to it. And both are bleh. )[/quote]
0.Who nominated Dan Brown now? Stop changing arguments...
1.Well, you didn't see it. Watch it.
2.YES, I can. J.R.R. Tolkien, anyone? Terry Pratchett? Dune?
3.So you first say "it's original" then say "I don't care about originality". Meh.

Well, keep to your idea by all means, but you didn't manage to make Avatar look even remotely interesting to me. And sure it ain't worth my 7 €.

[Playing In The Water]

No, it isn't. It's NOT about explosions and all that, that's the point. It's about the people involved, and that's the truth.

Oh, the truth. We're already at the "truth" argument. A=A?

Considering that only one of us here has seen the movie, I think I'm a little better qualified to comment on just what the story is about, yeah.

AHAHAHA!

That's why they had to use real-life actors to play the humans and CGI to show the aliens. Yeah, that shows that the tech allows a great realism.

You mean it's why they invented emotional performance-capture technology to film-and-adapt the actors' performances into CGI detail? Yes, it does.

0.Who nominated Dan Brown now? Stop changing arguments...
1.Well, you didn't see it. Watch it.
2.YES, I can. J.R.R. Tolkien, anyone? Terry Pratchett? Dune?
3.So you first say "it's original" then say "I don't care about originality". Meh.

Well, keep to your idea by all means, but you didn't manage to make Avatar look even remotely interesting to me. And sure it ain't worth my 7 €.

0. I'm not 'changing arguments'; I'm pointing out a couple movies with plenty of plot twists which, nonetheless, weren't all that good.
1. The whole 'cowboys and indians' thing never interested me very much. I'll pass, thanks. Especially since the books of movies are almost universally regarded as better anyway.
2. What do those have to do with anything? 'Nobody nominated them', after all, so, you know... The fact remains that Avatar is incredibly original in its own ways, and in a depth that not many other movies care to go.
3. Avatar, like I said, has uniqueness to it in areas that may not be plotline; that doesn't mean it's unoriginal. It might be hard to believe, but there IS more than a single kind of originality. And what I said is that the plotline involved doesn't have to be all twists and turns for it to be a good film; I can enjoy it either way.

And okay, that's fine. You don't need to see it; I'm just trying to point out the movies' pros against your accused cons. In my opinion though, missing out on the visuals alone is a serious loss, but if Avatar's really not your thing, then oh well. Personally, I think some of the performances by the Na'vi side are just incredible - the old woman shaman, in particular - but anyway.

I still recommend seeing it, myself (surprise surprise!), if to at least give you some credibility in judging it; after all, me and A Man Called Horse don't know very much about each other, apparently, despite my having read the novel. Something tells me you haven't read an Avatar storybook (or script printout, at least) quite yet.

[Vedrenheim]

From what I've heard, the plot's retarded, and I think the blue thing-a-ma-jigs look retarded as well.

Retarded movie, not even going to waste money on it.

[Verdigroth]

From what I've heard, the plot's retarded, and I think the blue thing-a-ma-jigs look retarded as well.

Retarded movie, not even going to waste money on it.

Thank you for a simplistic view of a movie based on ads. I actually like it a lot. The plot may have been done many times before, but Shakespeare said that there were really only 7 plots/stories out there. I think this movie will be historic in its ability to integrate CG and real actors together. There were a lot of problems. But one which wasn't was the soldier confined to a wheelchair. Our military even now is cutting off soldiers who are hurt citing, "pre-existing conditions" I have no doubt that if possible they would deny as many service connected disabilities as possible.

It was a good movie. You can tell it wasn't a committee movie either. I plan on seeing it again in 3d and if you don't care to see it...your loss.

[Greed and Death]

I am just trying to figure out How in the world the colonel could do all those things while holding his breath.

[Verdigroth]

I am just trying to figure out How in the world the colonel could do all those things while holding his breath.

He is a Marine. We learn to hold our breath in the gas chamber every year.

[Greed and Death]

I am just trying to figure out How in the world the colonel could do all those things while holding his breath.

He is a Marine. We learn to hold our breath in the gas chamber every year.

I was in the army we learn to don our mask.
I also know running down some stairs shooting a weapon, and running down some more stairs, up another set of stairs and getting in a mech is not something that can be reasonable done whilst holding one's breath.

[Vittos Ordination]

Saw it and thought it was the most cliched movie I have seen since The Patriot. Take Dances With Wolves, combine it with Aliens, and then make it cartoony and you have Avatar.

Was worth seeing, the graphics were great, but give this 10 years and its appeal will be completely lost on most.