Thoughts from a latecomer (a.k.a., F you, Cameron)

[Mikey]

OK, so I am completely and utterly retarded regarding the timeframe of my movie-viewing. I admit that. The reason for that preface is that last night, I saw - for the first time - James Cameron's Avatar. Now, I am forced to ask... WTF?! Seriously, WTF?!

To be fair, I wasn't expecting some deep or even original plot or theme. Having seen a 15-second trailer was enough to inform me that this was going to be Pocahontas... in SPACE! I didn't know how completely and sadly derivative it would be, but there you are. So, I'm not even going to rant about the fact that the plot and theme were worn so thin that you could see through them.

There are a few things about which I will rant. First: Pandora itself. I don't get it. It's supposed to be sooooo dangerous that a hardened marine quips that Hell would be a good R&R destination after Pandora... except it's not so bad. The atmosphere is supposed to be inacpacitating within seconds and lethal within minutes - but it isn't when the exposed person is a bad guy causing drama. The flora seems completely benign, even cooperatively providing bioluminescence when needed; the fauna is... no more (possibly less) dangerous than what a modern human might meet on a sub-Saharan safari. Let's see, we have some large grazing herd animals that look like tiny titanotheres, one large predator and one small pack predator, and a couple of big birds that eat... nothing?

Second - even if the plot is derivative, did all the production design need to be? The presence of Sigourney Weaver doesn't require all the human vehicles to look like redresses from the Alien series. The animals of Pandora were also derivative of Earth animals, just with an extra limb occassionally thrown on to make people say, "Oooh, look, it's alien." This bothered me terribly, as the Na'vi were typical four-limbed humanoids. We grew those on Earth, and we coincidentally have a planet with ZERO vertebrates with more or less than four limbs. I can't imagine even a decent-sounding sack of bullshit to explain that. The only nice bit about the production design was the nod to the X-38-type shuttles.

Third - the portrayal of warfare. OK, mounted aboriginal troops may use a direct charge with uneven lines... but the entirety of the security force response (most of whom were former marines) was, "OK, stand here and shoot." All this while amidst an alien landscape that would confer an unimaginable advantage to the natives if they chose to use it. All in all, I saw greater tactical acuity last night from a rabbit that just managed to evade my dog.

Fourth - what's the BFD with this movie? The performances weren't great, the writing was trite, the message was so obvious as to be painful, and the FX were... well, it was pretty, but I wasn't blown away by anything. My wife asked me what was so special that it couldn't have been made until now, and all I could think of to tell her was, "Maybe it was the giant glowy mushrooms."

[RK_Striker_JK_5]

Don't apologize for the late rant. Stupidity knows no timeframe.

[Deepcrush]

No big deal really, just the latest fad in teenyville.

[Nutso]

RedLetterMedia reviews ""Avatar": Part 1
RedLetterMedia reviews ""Avatar": Part 2

For the record, Avatar is all about the looks.

[Deepcrush]

For the record, Avatar is all about the looks.

Which is sad since its not all that impressive by the way.

[Reliant121]

I think, Avatar shined in its environmental display when it was in 3D (where it was subtle and inobtrusive, even if I couldn't see it perfectly due to astigmatism). Otherwise the film was just mediocre. All show and action, without substance.

[Mikey]

That's the problem - the show and action weren't that impressive.

[Tyyr]

I think, Avatar shined in its environmental display when it was in 3D (where it was subtle and inobtrusive, even if I couldn't see it perfectly due to astigmatism). Otherwise the film was just mediocre. All show and action, without substance.

The only thing 3D was distract you from how crappy everything but the visuals were.

[shran]

this is the umpteenth film that started with great assets and awesome visual effects, but failed horribly on such aspects as storytelling and construction of the universe around it. Shouldn't filmmakers and the like be aware by now that every single shot is scrutinized by thousands upon thousands of viewers and reviewers using the internet and dvd's? That should in fact be a hint to some of them that whatever you do will be watched closely as a film. I mean, how much effort is it to keep a team of nerds on stand-by to stop such wallbangers? It would take away a lot of frustration for the audience not to have gaping plot holes and bad construction in-universe and the overall film would look like it is thought over better. Every single time you create a film, a piece of literature, a new universe springs up, which may not be used to the furthest extent possible, but it might be way more pleasant to have such a universe and the assorted lore at hand to construct a story in there instead of the other way round.

My basic point is: Should filmmakers do the research first and construct a decent universe and story seting before taking on the story? If they would, there would be fewer plotholes and it is more atusfying to watch a film or experience a story without having such mistakes bugging the beholder's experience and make for more consistent storytelling.

[Tyyr]

Aside form the Nav'i being the only quadrapedal creatures on a hexapodal world Cameron actually did a great job at building the world. The Nav'i is completely explained by Cameron's design process for Neytiri, "Would you do her?"

I really honestly think that Avatar's entire problem was in story writing. They just didn't bother. They slapped something out and said,"Eh, go with it." You don't need a team of nerds to fix that, you just need a group of writers who are willing to work on it and not just photo-copy Pocahontas and Dances with Wolves and you need proof readers with the spine to tell them that something doesn't make sense. I get the impression that the script was merely an excuse for all the effects.

[SolkaTruesilver]

My basic point is: Should filmmakers do the research first and construct a decent universe and story seting before taking on the story? If they would, there would be fewer plotholes and it is more atusfying to watch a film or experience a story without having such mistakes bugging the beholder's experience and make for more consistent storytelling.

No.

Ultimately, the people who shell out money to have the movie produced want a movie in return, not a constistently-built universe. Plot holes are a common ennough occurence in medias that it's just not that much of a weakness to worry about.

So if you want to have big budget movies, don't hold your breath for something overly self-consistant, and hope instead for at least a well told story with plot holes.

[Tyyr]

No.

Ultimately, the people who shell out money to have the movie produced want a movie in return, not a constistently-built universe. Plot holes are a common ennough occurence in medias that it's just not that much of a weakness to worry about.

So if you want to have big budget movies, don't hold your breath for something overly self-consistant, and hope instead for at least a well told story with plot holes.

Do you actually think before you talk?

How do you have a well told story full of plot holes? How can you consider a story to be well written with instance after instance of things happening for no other reason than that the writers were too lazy to properly establish the why of something? Plot holes are a weakness because they're shit writing.

[Captain Seafort]

Do you actually think before you talk?

I'm surprised you even need to ask that question after the NK thread.

[SolkaTruesilver]

No.

Ultimately, the people who shell out money to have the movie produced want a movie in return, not a constistently-built universe. Plot holes are a common ennough occurence in medias that it's just not that much of a weakness to worry about.

So if you want to have big budget movies, don't hold your breath for something overly self-consistant, and hope instead for at least a well told story with plot holes.

Do you actually think before you talk?

How do you have a well told story full of plot holes? How can you consider a story to be well written with instance after instance of things happening for no other reason than that the writers were too lazy to properly establish the why of something? Plot holes are a weakness because they're s**t writing.

Because people still go and buy it so it becomes the most grossing movie of all time (yet), you dumbass.

Ultimately, those who shell out the fucking money only care about that! Who the fuck cares about a consistent world when people still come and buy on an epic sale a story well told filled with plot hole!

I didn't say the fucking story is well written, I say it's well told. Meaning you clearly identify your protagonists, you bait, hook and sink the audience with cheesy emotional plots. You create bi-dimensional villains your audience are going to hate to the end of time.

This is why Serenity tanked at the box-office and Avatar became the highest grossing movie of all time, so suck it weakling. If you can't stand that hard cold truth, stop watching pop movies, they'll just depress you more.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Do you actually think before you talk?

I'm surprised you even need to ask that question after the NK thread.

If you can't make your fucking point in the actual thread where it's concerned, don't come on the other side of the forum to keep your shit up. 2,7B$ of grossing income say you just put your foot into your mouth up to your ass. Piss off if you don't have anything else to say.