People don't give Avatar enough credit (James Cameron one)

[Twilight_guy]

I think the movie gets more then its fair share of flak because its popular. Gamers hate popular with a passion.
New CoD sell well? "it are the sux" New movie does well? "It are teh terrihorrible" Casual Casual gamers and the world at large are buying games? "casual RRRAAAGGGEEEEE"
I personally think its due to the niche quality of gaming up tot his pint and a desperate struggle to maintaining niche identity in the face of riseing evidence to the contray and changing climate but that's not important.
I actual found Avatar to be mediocre not really great but not bad either. Its a perfectly good movie but not memorable. As for anyone who complains about it complaining another story... haven't you heard of tropes? Lots of movies have them, including all your favorites. Calling them out for using tropes essentially means calling out all media everywhere.

 

[Wolfenbarg]

It made a shitzillion dollars by doing nothing new except dangle even fancier shinies in our faces. Titanic at least made a shitzillion dollars doing something extremely compelling for the entire duration of the picture.

 

[funguy2121]

So, my friend repeatedly tells me how stupid it is that I enjoy Avatar. I don't believe he gives it as much credit as it deserves. People say that its a direct rip off of Pocahontas, but I think its much different. Take "Unobtainium" for example. Its the fake rock that they're trying to mine in Avatar-place (forgot what its called). I find it hard to believe that people want super expensive space granite countertops. Obviously it does something other than look pretty. Maybe it cures cancer. It has to do something amazing. They hired a company to FLY TO ANOTHER PLANET with all that military equipment to kill huge blue cat people who are living on top of the rocks.

I dunno, just something to think about.

Didn't they say it was used as fuel?

Anyway, there seem to be exactly 2 sides to this debate and both have been done to death, so instead of picking a side...

Why are films by people like Cameron picked apart and slammed like this, while movies like SAW XVII are only judged on the merits of being exactly like all the other movies in their crappy genre/series?

From a technical standpoint, Avatar has opened up new doors for talented filmmakers to forge new paths. For the rest of the lot, it makes no difference.

The story certainly wasn't as original as Aliens or Terminator, but it was certainly better than most of the other action/sci-fi movies to come out that year, so why are people bitchin'?

To sound important.

'kay. Guess I did pick a side there.

better than moon? better than district 9?
hell if your willing to accept action candidates that includes inglorious basterds.

And to everyone saying it's not being held to the same standard as other movies. IT REALLY IS many people on this sight love good films, so it's depressing to see masterpeices roundly ignored when this generic by the books action film raked in the money. So yeah we would rage about that.

It simply doesn't stand up compared to anything it's trying to be. All it is is very pretty its a shame that "very pretty" was wasted on this shallow one dimensional film.

I stand corrected. I forgot that District 9 came out the same year. I dig Sam Rockwell and have been meaning to get around to seeing Moon. Inglorious Basterds was most definitely NOT an action movie. It was more like Pulp Fiction or 95% of the second Kill Bill - dialogue driven drama.

I still contend that Avatar was not nearly as shallow as you seem to think it was. The acting and cinematography were both killer. The writing, however, is another story.

 

[Axolotl]

At least Last Samurai as good acting (even Tom Cruise, altrought I think the movie would be even better with another main lead actor), good dialogues, good development even if a little used and good characters.

I give Last Samurai 8/10 in quality and 10/10 in entertainment. It's my favorite movie.

I guess if you ignore the offensiver moraqlity of the films message then it might be OK but how could you try and ignore it? It waved it in face the whole time, it's bad enough when films try and force their morals upon you but it's even worse when the morals being displayed are so repugnant.

Can you explain in others words? Didn't catch well what you mean.

You're saying the morality Last Samurai tries to pass is predictable?

I'm not saying it's predictable, I'm saying is offensive and objectionable.

Could you develop your opinion? I don't see why can you say it's offensive.

It glorified feudalism. The whole film was about great the samurai were and the protaganists spent the whole film doing everything in their power to stop them being obsolete and thy're portrayed as being in the right about this. IThe film expected me to sympathise with them trying to keep a repressive and unfair style of society in place and nobody ever questions it.

 

[Palademon]

The only amazing thing about Avatar is how awesome it looks, apart from that I wished it had ended an hour earlier, and it had a generic story with a generic message. And "unobtainium" is a writer's joke for a crappy plot point.

 

[Kermi]

And you know what my main beef with people complaining about it almost being a remake?

NOBODY gives actual remakes this amount of crap. And NOONE gives STAR WARS the amount crap this has gotten for "unrealistic aliens"

and NOBODY gave the actual Dances With Wolves the crap about "abandoning his own people for savages"

Strawman. No one in these thread are criticising the movie for these reasons. They're criticising the movie for being kind of crap, yet ridiculously popular because it looked pretty.

 

[Kermi]

So, my friend repeatedly tells me how stupid it is that I enjoy Avatar. I don't believe he gives it as much credit as it deserves. People say that its a direct rip off of Pocahontas, but I think its much different. Take "Unobtainium" for example. Its the fake rock that they're trying to mine in Avatar-place (forgot what its called). I find it hard to believe that people want super expensive space granite countertops. Obviously it does something other than look pretty. Maybe it cures cancer. It has to do something amazing. They hired a company to FLY TO ANOTHER PLANET with all that military equipment to kill huge blue cat people who are living on top of the rocks.

I dunno, just something to think about.

Didn't they say it was used as fuel?

Anyway, there seem to be exactly 2 sides to this debate and both have been done to death, so instead of picking a side...

Why are films by people like Cameron picked apart and slammed like this, while movies like SAW XVII are only judged on the merits of being exactly like all the other movies in their crappy genre/series?

From a technical standpoint, Avatar has opened up new doors for talented filmmakers to forge new paths. For the rest of the lot, it makes no difference.

The story certainly wasn't as original as Aliens or Terminator, but it was certainly better than most of the other action/sci-fi movies to come out that year, so why are people bitchin'?

To sound important.

'kay. Guess I did pick a side there.

better than moon? better than district 9?
hell if your willing to accept action candidates that includes inglorious basterds.

And to everyone saying it's not being held to the same standard as other movies. IT REALLY IS many people on this sight love good films, so it's depressing to see masterpeices roundly ignored when this generic by the books action film raked in the money. So yeah we would rage about that.

It simply doesn't stand up compared to anything it's trying to be. All it is is very pretty its a shame that "very pretty" was wasted on this shallow one dimensional film.

I stand corrected. I forgot that District 9 came out the same year. I dig Sam Rockwell and have been meaning to get around to seeing Moon. Inglorious Basterds was most definitely NOT an action movie. It was more like Pulp Fiction or 95% of the second Kill Bill - dialogue driven drama.

I still contend that Avatar was not nearly as shallow as you seem to think it was. The acting and cinematography were both killer. The writing, however, is another story.

District 9 was superior to Avatar in every way I can think of. Better story, excellent acting, brilliant action sequences.

Moon was interesting, but predictable. I'd figured it out about half an hour in and as a result the movie felt like it ran too long. They played their plot twist cards too early and left the last half of the movie really flat. Excellent performance by Rockwell though.

 

[BoredDragon]

Have you read like at least half the non-troll, analytical comments on this thread? Basically goes like this:
Dances with Wolves + Cliches * Archetypes = Avatar's Plot
Acting - believability = Avatar's acting
visuals + plot + acting = Ok || Good
Avatar != hype || praise

Yes, and I (and others on this thread) disagree with you math.

First of all, cliches and archetypes are only bad if they are done badly. James Cameron is a master of doing them well. He takes cheesy plots and does them so well that audiences don't mind the cheese. Look at Titanic. And Dark Angel.

When was any of the acting in Avatar bad when compared with, say, Aliens? I watch both movies, and see pretty much the same level - standard action film. Why does everyone want to hold Avatar to a higher standard than Kill Bill or Die Hard (both great, but campy movies)?

I didn't say Avatar was high art (and I wouldn't say that) but it's damn fun to watch. I enjoy it. It's a wonderful, campy, over-the-top movie. It's all the things that are great about Dances with Wolves (which was also cheesy as hell) throws it in the Aliens universe, or a very very similar one, to produce a really good, fun film. Is it gonna win an Oscar? Hell no. Then again, I have no interest in watching the King's Speech.

Avatar does not deserve all the hate it gets. It isn't trying to be intellectual or Oscar worthy - it's just trying to be a fun action flick. Stop acting like it's any different than any other action film. Or, to put it another way:

Avatar != Smart
Avatar = Fun

And fun is good.

Drats, foiled by my own pseudo math.

Anyway, I think the reason most people hate Avatar is because of their expectations. If it was anyone other than James Cameron I think it would have been more received because it wouldn't have had the "Titanic" hype behind it.

I personally don't hate the movie in question, but I do think it's a little overblown by some of its fans.

 

[Light 086]

People say that its a direct rip off of Pocahontas...

And that is a direct rip off of a book, which in turn ripped off real life. Both themes are based on what happened in the 'New World' (North and South America), when a technologically superior culture clashes with an inferior one. We would at that point take what we want instead of negotiating for it, because said technologically weaker culture couldn't stop us, even if they used force.

OT: Avatar was far more dramatic (in a good way) than Pocahontas was. That movie touched me more deeply, I can't explain it other than it got an emotional rise from me (no, I wasn't crying). Also the special effects were far superior, and the movie was amazing in 3D.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Take "Unobtainium" for example. Its the fake rock that they're trying to mine in Avatar-place (forgot what its called). I find it hard to believe that people want super expensive space granite countertops. Obviously it does something other than look pretty. Maybe it cures cancer. It has to do something amazing. They hired a company to FLY TO ANOTHER PLANET with all that military equipment to kill huge blue cat people who are living on top of the rocks.

I dunno, just something to think about.

You're overthinking it, really.
Unobtainium has virtually no impact on the story or plot beyond it simply existing.
The fact that said military company and their sponsor were comically evil speaks volumes of the real conflict here. They could have inserted any other valuable object (metaphorical or not) and it would still paint the humans as shallow, greedy, evil douchebags.

It was a weak, shallow excuse to create the conflict that set the REAL plot moving; so the audience could explore the visual wonders of Pandora and its indigenous blue-furry population.

 

[Noatun]

People don't give it enough credit? I don't want to sound rude, but are you serious? It got way too much credit. Apart from the horribly unoriginal plot, the characters alone are a reason that Avatar is overrated. Honestly, every character is a stereotypical representation of something that has already been used in a myriad of other films. Just look at Colonel Miles Quaritch: the archetypical redneck/American drill-sergeant with his chest-beating, military bravado and cliché ruthless behaviour that makes him more laughable rather than a credible character.

The same goes for all the other characters in the film, all of them are two-dimensional voids where an actual personality should be. The standard evil company who care only for gold, ahum, unobtainium; the scientists who only want to do good and protect the poor natives; all of these things have been done to death. But the most insulting thing that this abomination spawned forth, apart from the blatant disrespect it has for its viewer's intellect, is how the magnificent White Man comes in and saves the day for the 'noble savages'. He, portrayed as the brilliant white Übermensch, is a better Na'vi than the Na'vi themselves. Apart from CGI-effects, Avatar has nothing to provide but a boring experience that goes on way too long. CGI does not a good film make!

 

[Trolldor]

The entire thing just reeked of *snore*
So many people ran face first in to the (unremarkable) 3D that they completely lost sense of quality.

To whit - my sister call it 'deep and moving', she wouldn't watch 'Frost/Nixon' because it was too intellectually heavy for her.

Avatar is dull.

 

[Astoria]

It looked really good and kept me entertained for a few hours but yeah the story was really obviously stolen.