Avatar. What is so special about it, what isn't. Why did it make $2bil worldwide??

[Tissue Town]

I'm mainly a spectator on these forums, but as per usual, and rather predictably, we have a massive debate about Avatar.

Someone suggested a separate thread should be made so the movie one doesn't get shitted on, and I'm kind of inclined to agree. So let's begin.

 

Avatar, what exactly is it? In the most objective way possible.

-It is a technological landmark as far as film making is concerned.

-It's a 3D movie built from the ground up. Few will call it a gimmick.

-It uses a story that has been told before, like hundreds of other films.

-It has the most photo realistic pure cg yet. Not forced CG, but necessary. By pure I mean 100% of what you're seeing on the screen for a lot of the times is CG. You can shout Benjamin Button, but BB will fall more under digital make up.

-Finally, I think, it's record breaking. The first movie to ever make more than $2 billion world wide in the box office. I am 100% expecting people to downplay this achievement, almost like how I expect to catch a flu every winter. But what people need to realize is, in the days where the movie industry is brimming with piracy, and there are hundreds of other entertainment options out there, making $2billion worldwide is no easy feat.

This should give you a fair idea on what the majority of the audiences think about the movie. Especially considering a large amount of people expected a bomb.

 

So we get into opinions. And again, predictably we have people calling this movie awful. Again in the age of the internet, every movie is a terrible piece of shit in the eyes of at least a small minority. Arguing against them is like trying to punch down Mt. Everest with your mitts. But from what I gather, the reason why this movie is considered awful is because of the plot and that it's a rip off of a few films (again, like so many other movies!). Aaaand the "Blue Smurf Furries". Also, adding the popularity and hype of this movie and the amount it's made, the words awful can be replaced by terrible piece of shit or maybe perhaps, worst movie ever.

 

What is a piece of shit movie?

My definition is simply thus; A movie with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

What do I list as a piece of shit? Battlefield Earth, The Happening (if you pretend Zooey Deschanel isn't in the movie) and so forth. I personally consider Transformers 2 as a terrible piece of shit of a movie as well, purely because the best thing about the movie, the effects, went through the Bay-o-Shitter.

 

What isn't a piece of shit movie?

A movie with it's only major negative being a poor plot does not equal shit movie. The medium where plot is the most important factor are books. Movies are a visual medium, and I believe movies should be able to tell the story through it's visuals equally so, if not more so, than through it's dialogue.

I personally believe that it's the visuals of the movie, 3D or not, that are getting people watching this on repeats, and not the plot.

 

Now I need more vespene gas. BRB

[or else you will DIE]

i havent seen this movie. i avoid most CGI films. i dont know what its about. i keep hearing about it. i didnt read your post

 

maybe i should go see it

[Mundi]

Avatar is not similar to other movies, it is a carbon copy of other movies.

 

It has a painfully predictable and forgettable plot and characters and it's only redeeming factor is it's incredible visuals.

I enjoyed looking at it but the movie has nothing else to it.

 

Personally I would much rather watch a movie with a great plot rather than visuals.

[Tissue Town]

i havent seen this movie. i avoid most CGI films. i dont know what its about. i keep hearing about it. i didnt read your post

 

Your contribution to this thread is exceptional.

[chairdriver]

It's worth a see.

 

Read the Rate The Last Film thread for my opinions.

[Retro_Link]

I loved it!!

 

And that's me done in this thread!

[Coolness Bears]

I in no way enjoyed Avatar.

 

(damn you james cameron.)

[Chris the great]

id say avatar is so succesfull because it had good marketing. the 3D was tipped as being a cinematic revolution, and the film presented just enough of the story to make you interested, and teased enough ott action to make people think it would be exciting.

 

in reality, i thought it was just a slightly abouve average film. the 3D didnt really add anything to the story telling for me. the CGI was gob smacking, it was pure eye candy, a beautiful world that had clearly been given alot of attention. but it felt like the outher aspects of the film had been neglected. the story was, as you have said, told before, and toyed with being downright stupid. unobtanium is not somthing you can take seriously.

 

the main let down though, in my eyes, was the writting. characters were mstly one dimesional (ironic in a 3D film), stickind to steriotypes such as "grr, im a tough girl" "im a ball breaker" "im a socialy awkward scientist" "im a bad ass soilder who likes to kill things and say stuff that makes me sound tough". the dialouge itself was pretty terrible, and going back to the steriotypes, the film actualy features a black marine we see only once who's whole purpouse in the film is to go "yeeeeeaaaaaaahh!" when they go to war. im curious, does this actualy happen in every war or is it just somthing hollywood decided happens so we need to see it?

 

outher then that, its a fairly entertaining film. its got all the depth of a paddeling pool, but its not utterly contemptable. its just what you would expect from a blockbuster, with etra special effects thrown in.

 

edit

forgot to mention the film is so predictable. everty concept or idea you see introduced, you can see exactly how its going to effect the movie later on. its not a bad thing really, it just means that i might as well have left half way through and id have knownm the ending anyway.

 

the talk of making it a trillogy pains me.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Chris the great

[Tissue Town]

id say avatar is so succesfull because it had good marketing. the 3D was tipped as being a cinematic revolution, and the film presented just enough of the story to make you interested, and teased enough ott action to make people think it would be exciting.

 

in reality, i thought it was just a slightly abouve average film. the 3D didnt really add anything to the story telling for me. the CGI was gob smacking, it was pure eye candy, a beautiful world that had clearly been given alot of attention. but it felt like the outher aspects of the film had been neglected. the story was, as you have said, told before, and toyed with being downright stupid. unobtanium is not somthing you can take seriously.

 

the main let down though, in my eyes, was the writting. characters were mstly one dimesional (ironic in a 3D film), stickind to steriotypes such as "grr, im a tough girl" "im a ball breaker" "im a socialy awkward scientist" "im a bad ass soilder who likes to kill things and say stuff that makes me sound tough". the dialouge itself was pretty terrible, and going back to the steriotypes, the film actualy features a black marine we see only once who's whole purpouse in the film is to go "yeeeeeaaaaaaahh!" when they go to war. im curious, does this actualy happen in every war or is it just somthing hollywood decided happens so we need to see it?

 

outher then that, its a fairly entertaining film. its got all the depth of a paddeling pool, but its not utterly contemptable. its just what you would expect from a blockbuster, with etra special effects thrown in.

 

That's perfectly reasonable. Regarding the characters, I just think Cameron hasn't gone into the effort in creating new stereotypes. He did invent them after all.

 

Again, he wrote the script 15 years ago, and hasn't changed it much. I am certain there wouldn't have been such a backlash if this movie was released back then. His only mistake was not drastically changing the script.

What I generally think the plot provides, is universal appeal. Sure a good vocal subset of the internet will go out and hate the plot. I personally don't think it's terrible or outstanding.. It just worked fine.

Furthermore, regarding plot over visuals. How many people here watch disney classics for the plot? I mean over visuals? Disney movies rip off everything. But again, no one really cares.

I just think that the hate or general dislike, not necessarily yours because you came out with reasonable responses, but the cynics who generally hate anything popular, will be very vocal about the plot, and are generally the ones who will be posting up the hand written Pocahontas - Avatar script, and it's mainly due to the popularity.

 

I mean it's the same issue with Titanic, let's be honest here.

[The Bard]

Saying that films don't rely on story is utterly ridiculous. Every artistic medium has its aesthetics, and they all differ; but that's just a reason why they all have capacities to convey different things. Story is important, because that's the way subject matter is conveyed. If all we have is aesthetics, then all we have, is an empty vector of a form that really doesn't have a point other than to wow us for a bit, and then be forgotten.

 

I'm not passing judgement on Avatar, because I haven't seen it. As for Disney movies, yes, I do watch them for the plot. Duh.

[Tissue Town]

Saying that films don't rely on story is utterly ridiculous.

 

I agree with you. Who said that?

[Shorty]

Saying that films don't rely on story is utterly ridiculous.

 

It's not that films don't rely on story, but that you can appreciate a film for other aspects, and that it doesn't fail by default for having a weak plot.

[Eenuh]

I didn't hate Avatar, but I thought it was just a very overhyped popcorn flick. Why anyone would pay the super expensive price to see it more than once is beyond me though. It's no masterpiece. The visuals looked nice, but in my opinion they couldn't cover up the fact that the story was just very mediocre. In my opinion this film doesn't stand out as anything too special. The 3D didn't add much to the film for me; at times it was more distracting than anything else (plus those stupid glasses just really hurt my nose and gave me a headache).

 

Honestly, I don't understand why people hype it up as being such an amazing film and as being a milestone in film history. For me it's a film I could easily forget about, and seeing it once is enough for me. Apart from the visuals, I didn't feel it had much to offer to me. *shrugs*

[Chris the great]

i was watching the film with friends, and one offered his opinion that having characters voice whats happening is stupid, we can all see whats happening, so why do we need to be told in a voice over.

 

he tends to sit more in the films as art camp, whilst anouther friend, who views films as entertainment argued that some people have problems following the plot, so what does having it vocied out hurt?

 

this got me thinking about the film as a whole, the way everything is a steriotype, the way the plot follows the basic ingredients of most films like steriotypical characters and obvious plot devices, and i guess thats whats drawn me to conclude that the film seems to be dumbing down. its alot of pretty pictures to look at, action thats easy to follow and a plot that wont make you think. now im not saying this like its a bad thing, its simply the way things are at the moment, it seems the most successful films tend to be catering to the lowest common denomiator, as in the film can really be watched and understood by any one, and this is what splits opinion. some people are happy to watch a film that dosent challenge and simply entertains, but some people do expect more.

 

it just seems unfair to slam the movie for not being citizen kane when you could see exactly what sort of movie it would be from the trailers.

 

I didn't hate Avatar, but I thought it was just a very overhyped popcorn flick. Why anyone would pay the super expensive price to see it more than once is beyond me though. It's no masterpiece. The visuals looked nice, but in my opinion they couldn't cover up the fact that the story was just very mediocre. In my opinion this film doesn't stand out as anything too special. The 3D didn't add much to the film for me; at times it was more distracting than anything else (plus those stupid glasses just really hurt my nose and gave me a headache).

 

Honestly, I don't understand why people hype it up as being such an amazing film and as being a milestone in film history. For me it's a film I could easily forget about, and seeing it once is enough for me. Apart from the visuals, I didn't feel it had much to offer to me. *shrugs*

 

thats pretty much what i felt about the film.

 

id certainly not pay to see it again, adult ticket prices with the 3D glasses came to nearly £10 at the cinema i use.

[chairdriver]

i was watching the film with friends, and one offered his opinion that having characters voice whats happening is stupid, we can all see whats happening, so why do we need to be told in a voice over.

 

he tends to sit more in the films as art camp, whilst anouther friend, who views films as entertainment argued that some people have problems following the plot, so what does having it vocied out hurt?

 

this got me thinking about the film as a whole, the way everything is a steriotype, the way the plot follows the basic ingredients of most films like steriotypical characters and obvious plot devices, and i guess thats whats drawn me to conclude that the film seems to be dumbing down. its alot of pretty pictures to look at, action thats easy to follow and a plot that wont make you think. now im not saying this like its a bad thing, its simply the way things are at the moment, it seems the most successful films tend to be catering to the lowest common denomiator, as in the film can really be watched and understood by any one, and this is what splits opinion. some people are happy to watch a film that dosent challenge and simply entertains, but some people do expect more.

 

it just seems unfair to slam the movie for not being citizen kane when you could see exactly what sort of movie it would be from the trailers.

 

You're good at life.

[Tissue Town]

I didn't hate Avatar, but I thought it was just a very overhyped popcorn flick. Why anyone would pay the super expensive price to see it more than once is beyond me though. It's no masterpiece. The visuals looked nice, but in my opinion they couldn't cover up the fact that the story was just very mediocre. In my opinion this film doesn't stand out as anything too special. The 3D didn't add much to the film for me; at times it was more distracting than anything else (plus those stupid glasses just really hurt my nose and gave me a headache).

 

Honestly, I don't understand why people hype it up as being such an amazing film and as being a milestone in film history. For me it's a film I could easily forget about, and seeing it once is enough for me. Apart from the visuals, I didn't feel it had much to offer to me. *shrugs*

 

Again, I always find it weird when people are questioning other peoples enjoyment of something they personally didn't like. The simple answer to your first question is simple. They enjoyed it more than you, and felt it was good enough to garner a second or third viewing. I think the people who complain at that, deliberately want the movie to fail.

It's a shame the 3D didn't work for you, but this has more to do perhaps with where you may have seen it and the unfortunate choice too many of 3D cinemas. The general consensus is that the 3D did work, and was not gimmicky, so it's just a shame you felt the opposite.

And the hype is there because: It's a James Cameron Movie. It uses new technology. It's a 3D movie built from the ground up. And, finally, this movie is a milestone. It's the highest grossing movie of all time. Is this not a milestone to you?

 

i was watching the film with friends, and one offered his opinion that having characters voice whats happening is stupid, we can all see whats happening, so why do we need to be told in a voice over.

 

he tends to sit more in the films as art camp, whilst anouther friend, who views films as entertainment argued that some people have problems following the plot, so what does having it vocied out hurt?

 

this got me thinking about the film as a whole, the way everything is a steriotype, the way the plot follows the basic ingredients of most films like steriotypical characters and obvious plot devices, and i guess thats whats drawn me to conclude that the film seems to be dumbing down. its alot of pretty pictures to look at, action thats easy to follow and a plot that wont make you think. now im not saying this like its a bad thing, its simply the way things are at the moment, it seems the most successful films tend to be catering to the lowest common denomiator, as in the film can really be watched and understood by any one, and this is what splits opinion. some people are happy to watch a film that dosent challenge and simply entertains, but some people do expect more.

 

it just seems unfair to slam the movie for not being citizen kane when you could see exactly what sort of movie it would be from the trailers.

 

Again, good point. This was a movie that was supposed to attract a large audience. A movie that is universally hailed as a movie making masterpiece, like There Will Be Blood, would never make the same kind of money as this. Yes, it's a shame, but not everyone wants to see what they may interpret as a "boring Drama".

But here's the catch. You go watch There Will Be Blood for the dialogue, the plot and the acting. You don't go watching a film such as Avatar for the same thing. I mean if you do, then it's no wonder you're left with hate and disappointment. The movie doesn't have hype because of it's ground breaking plot, does it?

The plot in Avatar, is for the most part, very easy to understand. It's comprehensible. It has universal appeal. Kids won't give a shit about the plot, but they'll sure as hell understand it.

 

Also, what is up with "pretty pictures" being a negative for a lot of people?

[chairdriver]

The general consensus is that the 3D did work, and was not gimmicky

I think alot of people would argue with you there. Nearly everyone I've spoken to about the film agreed the 3D was a massive gimmick.

 

Also, what is up with "pretty pictures" being a negative for a lot of people?

 

For the same reason people choose not to listen to Christina Aguilera or Celine Dion or Mariah Carey. Sure, they have technically outstanding voices, with multi-octave ranges, but at the end of the day, they create music that is uncompelling and commercialised.

 

A direct analogy to Avatar.

[Chris the great]

 

 

For the same reason people choose not to listen to Christina Aguilera or Celine Dion or Mariah Carey. Sure, they have technically outstanding voices, with multi-octave ranges, but at the end of the day, they create music that is uncompelling and commercialised.

 

A direct analogy to Avatar.

 

i think i just heard a nail go "oww my head"

[Tissue Town]

I think alot of people would argue with you there. Nearly everyone I've spoken to about the film agreed the 3D was a massive gimmick.

Well I can argue the opposite, which means this will get us nowhere. The only thing close to proof I can say is the amount of people that keep going to watch Avatar, which there are a lot of.

 

For the same reason people choose not to listen to Christina Aguilera or Celine Dion or Mariah Carey. Sure, they have technically outstanding voices, with multi-octave ranges, but at the end of the day, they create music that is uncompelling and commercialised.

 

A direct analogy to Avatar.

 

Those singers are mainly aimed at women aged between 8 and 58. And they sell a lot of tracks. Someone who really loves indie music will never like Celine Dion.

 

It's a poor analogy. People mention pretty pictures in the most snide way possible. Again, "pretty pictures" to a film such as this is as important as anything. Nobody wants to see an animated movie if there was no effort behind the art and the animation. No body wants to see a period piece if everyone looks like they're wearing halloween costumes and the sets look like they're made out of paper maché.

I'm not complaining really. It's pretty clear that making especial emphasis to the "poor shitty mediocre" plot, and saying how non special the visuals look is just one of the many ways people like to be vocal about their negativity about the film.

[EEVILMURRAY]

I still need to see Avatar, and based on what people have been saying about the story has lowered my expectations of it. Which means I should have a moderate experience. Thank you N-Europe for making sure I don't get disappointed. for everyone.

it just seems unfair to slam the movie for not being citizen kane when you could see exactly what sort of movie it would be from the trailers.

Films should be praised for not being like Citizen Kane.

[chairdriver]

Films should be praised for not being like Citizen Kane.

 

[Eenuh]

Again, I always find it weird when people are questioning other peoples enjoyment of something they personally didn't like. The simple answer to your first question is simple. They enjoyed it more than you, and felt it was good enough to garner a second or third viewing. I think the people who complain at that, deliberately want the movie to fail.

It's a shame the 3D didn't work for you, but this has more to do perhaps with where you may have seen it and the unfortunate choice too many of 3D cinemas. The general consensus is that the 3D did work, and was not gimmicky, so it's just a shame you felt the opposite.

And the hype is there because: It's a James Cameron Movie. It uses new technology. It's a 3D movie built from the ground up. And, finally, this movie is a milestone. It's the highest grossing movie of all time. Is this not a milestone to you?

 

I don't complain about people seeing it more than once, I just don't see the point in it myself. With pretty much any film really (in such a short time span at least). You've just seen it, why go see it again after a week or something? Maybe I'm missing something.

And I don't want the film to fail. Why would I want that, what would I get out of that? Nothing. I don't care how much a film makes or how many people go see it.

 

James Cameron means nothing to me. I don't care who made a film; it's all about the film, not the name behind it. And how much a film makes in money does not exactly make it a milestone to me either.

 

The cinema I saw it in was fine, the 3D works well enough there (I think Jim can confirm this as he watched it with me). I just didn't feel it added much at all. It was my first 3D experience (apart from theme park stuff), and though it was nice in a few scenes, it didn't work well in others (fast paced scenes were a pain to watch, literally).

 

Meh, it was an okay film in my opinion, but definitely not as amazing and groundbreaking as people make it out to be.

[Dan_Dare]

The reason this has done well is because it's a new Star Wars. Years from now, kids will look back on Avatar as a defining sci fi action movie like how we look back on Star Wars now.

 

In this way, It's a huge creative success. I think it's great.

[Tissue Town]

I don't complain about people seeing it more than once, I just don't see the point in it myself. With pretty much any film really (in such a short time span at least). You've just seen it, why go see it again after a week or something? Maybe I'm missing something.

And I don't want the film to fail. Why would I want that, what would I get out of that? Nothing. I don't care how much a film makes or how many people go see it.

 

James Cameron means nothing to me. I don't care who made a film; it's all about the film, not the name behind it. And how much a film makes in money does not exactly make it a milestone to me either.

 

The cinema I saw it in was fine, the 3D works well enough there (I think Jim can confirm this as he watched it with me). I just didn't feel it added much at all. It was my first 3D experience (apart from theme park stuff), and though it was nice in a few scenes, it didn't work well in others (fast paced scenes were a pain to watch, literally).

 

Meh, it was an okay film in my opinion, but definitely not as amazing and groundbreaking as people make it out to be.

 

Well Ok, I understand that you don't see the importance on any of the points I made earlier. You just simply asked why, and I simply answered them.

I also didn't accuse you especially of wanting the film to fail. But a lot of people do. To many James Cameron is an important factor. And again, to many, a movie beating a huge record that's been held for 12 years is a milestone. I'm curious now as to what a milestone actually is to you?

[EEVILMURRAY]

The reason this has done well is because it's a new Star Wars. Years from now, kids will look back on Avatar as a defining sci fi action movie like how we look back on Star Wars now.

 

In this way, It's a huge creative success. I think it's great.

What has it done? [no spoils]

http://www.sk8dork.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/onoudidnt.jpg

It was shit.