Avatar

**MalReynolds** · 12-27-2009, 02:34 AM

Wait, how can Yoda be wise without the Force? What are you even basing that assumption off of? All those times Yoda was stripped of the force and was totally wise? I'll give you Gandalf. He seems absolutely level-headed, but once again, what are you basing his wisdom off of? You never see him without his wizardry. Each character plays by the rules that were created specifically for their universes. The Na'vi are no different.

I'd argue the fact that they aren't wise is more based off the fact that nothing they do shows wisdom. They have confirmed that their God is real, therefore, their worship comes from fact, not faith, and their 'wisdom' is handed down from a higher being. All they're doing is following orders.

I still liked them, but if every time I stepped outside my hair tangled with the trees and God went, "Hey, by the way, I'm real, and all your friends are in heaven with me," it would not make me wise to believe in God. It would, however, make me quite stupid not to.

**gwahir** · 12-27-2009, 10:20 AM

You misunderstand; I'm not saying that it's not the Force that makes Yoda wise, or that it's not his powers that make Gandalf wise. I'm saying they're wise in ways that don't relate only to the Force -- the things they say and the wisdom they espouse is actually relevant in this universe, without wizarding powers and the Force. "Do or do not; there is no try" is a wise thing for anyone to have said, with or without the Force. The wisdom high-handedly spouted by Cameron and the Na'vi, on the other hand, is only "wisdom" on Pandora. I'm saying this makes it false, cheap, imitation wisdom, and Cameron should have done better.

But you're right as well.

**Syme** · 12-27-2009, 03:04 PM

That's another good point, actually. The movie's environmental message loses some of it's relevance when you think it through and notice that the Pandoran environment and ecosystem had special traits which real-life environments and ecosystems don't, and which created a reason to save them that doesn't apply to their real-life counterparts. That weakened the film's thematic content (which was already pretty cookie-cutter).

**no_brains_no_worries** · 12-28-2009, 04:23 AM

I have not heard one person say anything bad about this movie.

**gwahir** · 12-28-2009, 05:05 AM

if you'd read this thread you'd hear several people saying several bad things about this movie!

**ShitFace** · 12-28-2009, 09:21 AM

lol burn

**thank mr skeltal** · 12-28-2009, 09:57 AM

Did anyone else think the helicopter pilot chick looked like gina?

**Syme** · 12-28-2009, 10:17 AM

If you'd read reviews of this movie, you'd also have heard people saying bad things about it. It's not just snooty bastards like gwahir, coq, and I who noticed that it has flat dialog, weak acting, a cliched plot, and ham-fisted thematic content.

**solecistic** · 12-28-2009, 11:18 AM

Well, I enjoyed the movie. I don't feel the need to write four hundred pages about why it was good (nor could I), because it's just possible that I have no taste whatsoever and the fact that I enjoyed this movie makes me a plebeian and a moron.

**coqauvin** · 12-28-2009, 01:35 PM

to be fair, i haven't watched the movie, but i do have snooty tastes in films (unless they're action movies)

**UnreasonablyReasonable** · 12-28-2009, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by Syme

If you'd read reviews of this movie, you'd also have heard people saying bad things about it. It's not just snooty bastards like gwahir, coq, and I who noticed that it has flat dialog, weak acting, a cliched plot, and ham-fisted thematic content.

This is true that the reviewers haven't been too kind to this movie, it has a mere 83% from Rotten Tomatoes. It does slightly better with a 94% from top critics, but that's still some distance from perfection.

**Syme** · 12-28-2009, 03:09 PM

Many reviewers have had overall reactions that were positive, while still mentioning that the plot, acting, characterization, and dialog are unimpressive. I didn't say "lots of reviewers have rated it poorly", I said lots of reviewers have pointed out the same shortcomings that gwahir and I have.

If you actually read through those reviews on rottentomatoes, including the Top Critics reviews, you will find that most reviewers make mention of those shortcomings but still gave the film a positive rating because it was so visually impressive. Looking over the POSITIVE reviews in the rottentomatoes Top Critics section, I see the following phrases used to describe the plot and characters and dialog of Avatar: "Corny", "a cartoon", "the Michael Bay demographic", "a crock", "predictable", "tin-eared", "clumsy", "cliche-filled", "dramatically simple-minded", "childishly two-dimensional", and my favorite, "10-foot blue people re-enact the plot of Pocahontas". Again, all of these were taken from the POSITIVE Top Critics reviews, and I only skimmed a handful of those reviews to find these phrases. I'm sure that a comprehensive search would find many more, since every review I looked at seemed to say something about how unimpressive the plot, dialog, or acting was.

So to repeat myself: If you read reviews of this movie, you will find plenty of people airing the same criticisms that gwahir and I have made. That doesn't mean all reviewers hated it, but they DID all pretty much notice that the script, performances, and plot were weak.

Nice try though.

Originally Posted by solecistic

Well, I enjoyed the movie. I don't feel the need to write four hundred pages about why it was good (nor could I), because it's just possible that I have no taste whatsoever and the fact that I enjoyed this movie makes me a plebeian and a moron.

I enjoyed it too, as I said to UnreasonablyReasonable earlier in the thread. I had fun watching it, it looked great and it was an entertaining action movie. In fact I'll probably go see it again this week. It's numerous flaws don't stop it from being enjoyable, they are just somewhat disappointing coming from James Cameron, since he has a track record of making great sci-fi/action movies that don't suffer from those flaws. And honestly most of what I've said about it's flaws in this thread has been in response to people claiming those flaws don't exist; I' m not just shitting on it because I hated it so much or something like that.

**gwahir** · 12-28-2009, 08:36 PM

I didn't enjoy it only because the combination of 3D glasses and my regular glasses really hurt my eyes. But I mean I liked the actual movie.

**UnreasonablyReasonable** · 12-28-2009, 10:44 PM

Originally Posted by Syme

So to repeat myself: If you read reviews of this movie, you will find plenty of people airing the same criticisms that gwahir and I have made. That doesn't mean all reviewers hated it, but they DID all pretty much notice that the script, performances, and plot were weak.

Nice try though.

I enjoyed it too, as I said to UnreasonablyReasonable earlier in the thread. I had fun watching it, it looked great and it was an entertaining action movie. In fact I'll probably go see it again this week. It's numerous flaws don't stop it from being enjoyable, they are just somewhat disappointing coming from James Cameron, since he has a track record of making great sci-fi/action movies that don't suffer from those flaws. And honestly most of what I've said about it's flaws in this thread has been in response to people claiming those flaws don't exist; I' m not just shitting on it because I hated it so much or something like that.

Gwahir says "the story and characters are not at all engaging." Also "jake is irritating. there's not all that much to him, and his narration is largely needless." I take it you agree?

Sure, it's true to say "many" agree with these points, but certainly not most. Let's take a look at one of the articles from which you took quotes out of context:

"Mr. Cameron lays out the fundamentals of the narrative efficiently, grabbing you at once with one eye-popping detail after another and on occasion almost losing you with some of the comically broad dialogue. He’s a masterly storyteller if a rather less nimble prose writer. (He has sole script credit: this is personal filmmaking on an industrial scale.) Some of the clunkier lines (“Yeah, who’s bad,” Jake taunts a rhinolike creature he encounters) seem to have been written to placate those members of the Michael Bay demographic who might find themselves squirming at the story’s touchier, feelier elements, its ardent environmentalism and sincere love story, all of which kick in once Jake meets Neytiri, a female Na’vi (Zoë Saldana, seen only in slinky Na’vi form)."

Yes, SOME lines were written to appeal (according to this reviewer) to a "Michael Bay demographic." Oh no, I guess that means the dialogue completely sucks now...

Though I doubt this discussion has any serious potential. So probably just disregard all of this.

**Syme** · 12-29-2009, 12:53 AM

"Many but not most"? The passage you cite is kinder than most of those in the Top Critics reviews, so I think your accusation that I've taken things out of context is not broadly correct. If anything, it looks like you are cherry-picking one of the more positive of the reviews and trying to use that one review to make it look like I've overstated the degree to which reviewers noticed Avatar's crappy plot and dialog. Go back and read more of those reviews, you will find that most of their criticisms of Avatars plot and characters are not surrounded by such complimentary language. So that I myself won't be accused of cherry-picking the more negative reviews, let's take a look at what the first ten Top Critics reviews on rottentomatoes have to say about Avatar's plot, characters, and/or dialog:

From the first review, David Eidelstein for New York Magazine: "Yes, on one level it’s a crock: predictable, sentimental, and tin-eared. It’s an attempt to rewrite (and reanimate) American history in the form of a barely disguised parable of Native Americans triumphing against white imperialists who would drive them from their ancestral lands — aided by a white imperialist (a Marine) who has Gone Native.... ...The narrative would be ho-hum without the spectacle. But what spectacle!"

From the second review, Ann Hornaday for the Washington Post: "Is the dialogue corny? You bet."

From the third review, A.O. Scott for At The Movies: This review is in video form, not written. It suggests that "Cameron the writer" sometimes undermines "Cameron the director", that the military-vs.-natives plot is "very ham-handed", and that the script is "kind of obvious".

From the fourth review, Manohla Dargis for the New York Times: This is the one you quoted above, which says the dialogue is "comically broad". It's gentler than most of the other reviews.

From the fifth review, Stephanie Zacharek for Salon.com: "It is a very expensive-looking, very flashy entertainment, albeit one that groans under the weight of clumsy storytelling in the second half and features some of the most godawful dialogue this side of "Attack of the Clones."" This is the only one of these ten reviews that's actually negative, by the way.

From the sixth review, Kenneth Turan for the Los Angeles Times: "Perhaps the most surprising thing about Cameron's visual accomplishments is that they are so powerful we're barely troubled by the same weakness for flat dialogue and obvious characterization that put such a dent in "Titanic.""

From the seventh review, Amy Biancolli for the Houston Chronicle: "Once again, it features an epic length and bouts of corny dialogue." "The movie loses altitude only when it opens its mouth and unloads platitudes, some of them New-Age truisms, others the sort of inane macho outbursts most often found in low-grade action flicks."

From the eighth review, J.R. Jones for the Chicago Reader: This is the only review of the ten that doesn't say something negative about plot, dialog, or characters. Perhaps by sheer coincidence, this review is only three sentences long.

From the ninth review, Rick Groen for Globe and Mail: After #8, this is probably the most positive review of the lot, saying only that "Certainly, all this noble-savage palaver can wear thin."

From the tenth review, Peter Howell for the Toronto Star: "This saga of a so-called civilized man joining a not-so-primitive tribe is hardly original, and early suggestions that Avatar would play like an interplanetary Dances With Wolves have been largely borne out." And my favorite, in reference to Stephen Lang's character: "If he had a moustache, he could twirl it in 3-D."

So out of ten reviews by reputable film critics--reviews that were not selected by me based on their contents--we have nine that criticize Avatar's plot/characters/dialog in some terms, six or seven of which I would say are fairly clear that they found these elements to be poorly handled on an overall level. We can expand the sample size indefinitely and I think the same pattern will hold true: Most (not just "many", but most) reviewers will have noticed that Avatar had bad dialog and a cliched plot. There will be a minority of reviews that point this out with relative gentleness, like the one you quoted above, but a majority will be more to-the-point.

Anyhow, yes, I agree with gwahir. He put it more bluntly than most reviewers did, but he is saying essentially the same thing that most reviewers said: That the movie's plot, characterization, and dialog were not very good. I stand by my initial point, which was that if no_brains_no_worries "has not heard one person say anything bad about this movie" (as he claimed), then not only has he not read this thread, he has not read any reviews of the movie, because almost all reviewers seem to have more or less gently mentioned the movie's flaws even if their overall review was positive due to the film's cinematic spectacle. So his impressions of what people are saying about the movie are essentially meaningless, since he doesn't seem to have actually heard much of anyone say much of anything about the movie either way!

And I also stand by my follow-on point: That it was silly and disingenuous of you to try and pretend that because the movie got a high aggregate score on rottentomatoes.com, reviewers therefore aren't saying anything negative about it (and then, once that claim that was debunked, that it's only "many, not most" of the reviewers saying anything negative).

**gwahir** · 12-29-2009, 03:30 AM

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand scene.

**no_brains_no_worries** · 12-29-2009, 06:08 AM

Originally Posted by gwahir

if you'd read this thread you'd hear several people saying several bad things about this movie!

I don't consider those on the internets people so I only take stock in what people I meet in person say.

But I guess this is the one movie to spring the extra bucks for and see it in a 3-D Imax theater.

**Mad Pino Rage** · 01-01-2010, 02:19 AM

Originally Posted by solecistic

Well, I enjoyed the movie. I don't feel the need to write four hundred pages about why it was good (nor could I), because it's just possible that I have no taste whatsoever and the fact that I enjoyed this movie makes me a plebeian and a moron.

I watched the movie again earlier this New Year's Eve and picked up a lot more from it. While I'm not die-hard to defend my point, I still wanted to. Now I tried to debate reasonably with Syme and Gwahir because I felt very strongly about my enjoyment of this movie. In no such degree do I think them lesser for what they tell me nor do I feel any lesser or wrong from gaining any point of perception from their views, but I still and will enjoy this movie for a very long time and was kind of engrossed trying to talk with gwahir and syme no matter how much of a plebeian moronic snooty bastards they are.

**Syme** · 01-02-2010, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by Mad Pino Rage

I watched the movie again earlier this New Year's Eve and picked up a lot more from it. While I'm not die-hard to defend my point, I still wanted to. Now I tried to debate reasonably with Syme and Gwahir because I felt very strongly about my enjoyment of this movie. In no such degree do I think them lesser for what they tell me nor do I feel any lesser or wrong from gaining any point of perception from their views, but I still and will enjoy this movie for a very long time and was kind of engrossed trying to talk with gwahir and syme no matter how much of a plebeian moronic snooty bastards they are.

You know, I can't speak for gwahir, but I myself have said twice now that I enjoyed the movie too. What mental defect makes people think that you can either notice a movie's flaws or enjoy it but not both? And that anyone who enjoyed the movie is duty-bound to pretend those flaws didn't exist? We haven't been arguing that the movie wasn't enjoyable or that you were wrong to enjoy it, and if you think that's what this discussion has been about, you have not read the thread very carefully.

Also I think you are misusing the word "plebeian", unless for some reason you think that noticing bad plot/dialog is a defining trait of the common people, while over overlooking them is a trait of the refined elite class.

**Killuminati** · 01-02-2010, 02:31 PM

MPR stop acting like such a pleb.

**gwahir** · 01-02-2010, 08:27 PM

mpr is trolling, syme -- he is pretty much amazing at trolling

**coqauvin** · 01-03-2010, 05:16 AM

it's because he's secretly pleb

**babar** · 01-04-2010, 01:07 AM

http://imgur.com/JmRmb

**Atmosfear** · 01-12-2010, 11:38 PM

Pretty movie, predictable story, didn't disappoint in IMAX 3D... better than expected.

**sycld** · 01-13-2010, 02:34 AM

Wow, I can't believe that neither of the Smithsonian Imax theaters are showing it. Neither is the Maryland Science Center's in Baltimore.

I used to complain when it seemed like Imax theaters were getting away from educational films, but it looks like they are sticking to educational films the one time I want to see a stupid purely entertaining flick there. I mean they showed that goddamn Night at the Museum II piece of shit.

**Syme** · 01-13-2010, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by sycld

Wow, I can't believe that neither of the Smithsonian Imax theaters are showing it. Neither is the Maryland Science Center's in Baltimore.

I used to complain when it seemed like Imax theaters were getting away from educational films, but it looks like they are sticking to educational films the one time I want to see a stupid purely entertaining flick there. I mean they showed that goddamn Night at the Museum II piece of shit.

If you don't mind a trip around the beltway, the Hoffman in Alexandria is showing it on their IMAX screen.

**Killuminati** · 01-13-2010, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by sycld

Wow, I can't believe that neither of the Smithsonian Imax theaters are showing it. Neither is the Maryland Science Center's in Baltimore.

I used to complain when it seemed like Imax theaters were getting away from educational films, but it looks like they are sticking to educational films the one time I want to see a stupid purely entertaining flick there. I mean they showed that goddamn Night at the Museum II piece of shit.

The franklin institute imax isn't showing it either and I'm pissed. The imax in king of prussia is just a big screen and isn't anything special. They showed fucking transformers there but not avatar.

**simonj** · 01-13-2010, 02:23 PM

Well tonight my choices are either go see Dances With Smurfs or go and watch my friend's hardcore emo band. Unfortunately it'll probably be the latter because it'll mean spending my night with less douchier people. Plus sweaty beer-drenched rock-chicks are a plus.

**sycld** · 01-25-2010, 02:28 AM

I just saw Avatar 3D today on the regular non-Imax screen. I doubt that at this point anyone really cares about another casual moviegoer's opinion, especially since the experts have already passed down their judgement and the rest of us have discussed it ad nauseum. But I don't care.

Here's my verdict: it's a great launch to a multi-media, highly marketable IP. The goal of new games and movies is not to merely make one marketable product maybe alongside some paraphernalia for the fan bois, but rather to launch an entire line of products. The mediocre game has already been released, as well as a "making of..." book and a "compilation of scientific data" from Pandora. A novel based on the film shall soon be released. The movie's shallowness and greater emphasis on style and aesthetic rather than substance in the plot and characters probably makes it easier to be the basis for other products.

Anyway, I enjoyed the 2 and a half hours of the movie, no matter the flat characters, crappy dialog, cliched plot full of allegories into which Cameron feels the need to shove our nose (I guess in order to remove an absolute shadow of a doubt of what things mean for those that are a bit slow), etc.

However, I feel that there were occasional glimpses of what could have been done with this idea of crossing worlds from that of humanity to that of another people. I remember one moment at the beginning of the movie where I had a feeling of disorientation as the protagonist took off his avatar persona and went back to his normal human life. There was also another moment after the first kiss between Jake and Neytiri when the marine has such a deeply personal and emotional facial expression that was actually quite affecting. And even though this is probably because I'm a really sensitive moron, Signourny Weaver's enrapture into Ewya was actually not completely expected and was another moment that got me, despite the stupid ritual.

But most of the thoughts I had during the movie have otherwise been expressed. I knew exactly what to expect as soon as the seed landed on Neytiri's arrow to stay her hand. The "Paint with All the Colors of the Wind"-style communing with nature was incredibly banal, the characters were annoyingly cookie-cutter, the "noble savage" depiction of the Na'vi was so predictable and probably actually a little insulting to real Native Americans, etc. etc. etc. And I completely thought the same thing as Syme about how Pandora should be preserved because of its giant communal mind actually undermined the movie's ecological theme.

That said, I'm probably just a sentimental sucker, but I totally bought into the poetic justice revenge fantasy when the Navi were rallied under Jake's flag. I also was moved by the Trudy's conversion to the good guys, only to be martyred during the final battle of the marines alongside many other noble humans that gave up their lives for the preservation of Pandora. Well, then Ewya attacked the "bad guys," and the enchantment was dispelled as the conflict was reduced to which side had the stronger magic. And finally, the moment when Neytiri held Jake in her arms moved me too, but again I'm a sentimental loser.

And of course the visuals were amazing, everything from the reef-like forest to the floating islands. Again, aesthetics and visuals are probably a stronger basis for an IP than a memorable plot and characters.

So yeah, Avatar was about as profound and beautiful as a blond bimbo. I don't know if I'm absolutely thrilled about supporting this kind of movie with my ticket purchase, but at least it was an entertaining enough ride while it lasted even though I doubt the experience will stay long with me.

Thread: Avatar

Thread Tools

Display

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions