Avatar review thread

[Anguirus]

It isn't just that though; they have extremely advanced automated manufacturing that approaches Star Trek replicators in capability. The ruggedised lightweight cut-down plant on Pandora can crank out all the equipment they need from mining spoils.

Is this from the Pandorapedia or something? I wasn't aware that we were shown all of the human facilities on the planet or in the solar system. It implies impressive fabrication facilities, sure, but where are we getting replicators from? (Unless this is another extrapolation of their mystery antimatter technology?)

Imagine what the factories on earth can do - and not just that, since relies on fairly mature nanotechnology to work all kinds of other applications should be possible. Including making environmental cleanup much easier (e.g. it literally becomes practical to just suck all the pollution out of the air, hell with that much energy you could just liquify any surplus CO2 and shoot it into space).

How does cheap energy alone solve this problem? Such a contraption would also be resource- and expertise-limited. Also note that CO2 is only one pollutant, and that we don't really know how mature nanotechnology is in this universe (or how resource-limited it will eventually prove to be).

I'm not an expert here, I'm just wary of "if cheap energy then X" claims.

One further thing to keep in mind...right now, no DELIBERATE geoengineering project has ever been undertaken, and I just read an article in Science that was essentially arguing "there is no experiment that can successfully model geoengineering, the only way to know what will happen is to try it." A civilization like the one we see in Avatar, heady on unobtainium fumes and diamond-plated fusion reactors, might have tried to suck all the CO2 out of the air and killed half the plant life on Earth for all we know. Which is why no one's trying to suck the hydrogen sulfide out of the air on Pandora, I suppose.

In any case, this is somewhat beside the point. I would argue that aspiring to make a sci-fi film about future Earth that doesn't address environmental problems is borderline irresponsible. Including interstellar travel in your movie shouldn't preclude an environmental message. (And just be glad a lot of Cameron's original ideas about actually showing us Earth-as-total-dustball didn't make it into the finished film. I didn't read any of the weird Pandora-worshipping from the supplemental book into the characters of the film itself, and you'd think such a situation would make it politically impossible for the RDA to do everything they do.)

[Anguirus]

It isn't just that though; they have extremely advanced automated manufacturing that approaches Star Trek replicators in capability. The ruggedised lightweight cut-down plant on Pandora can crank out all the equipment they need from mining spoils.

Is this from the Pandorapedia or something? I wasn't aware that we were shown all of the human facilities on the planet or in the solar system. It implies impressive fabrication facilities, sure, but where are we getting replicators from? (Unless this is another extrapolation of their mystery antimatter technology?)

Imagine what the factories on earth can do - and not just that, since relies on fairly mature nanotechnology to work all kinds of other applications should be possible. Including making environmental cleanup much easier (e.g. it literally becomes practical to just suck all the pollution out of the air, hell with that much energy you could just liquify any surplus CO2 and shoot it into space).

How does cheap energy alone solve this problem? Such a contraption would also be resource- and expertise-limited. Also note that CO2 is only one pollutant, and that we don't really know how mature nanotechnology is in this universe (or how resource-limited it will eventually prove to be).

I'm not an expert here, I'm just wary of "if cheap energy then X" claims.

One further thing to keep in mind...right now, no DELIBERATE geoengineering project has ever been undertaken, and I just read an article in Science that was essentially arguing "there is no experiment that can successfully model geoengineering, the only way to know what will happen is to try it." A civilization like the one we see in Avatar, heady on unobtainium fumes and diamond-plated fusion reactors, might have tried to suck all the CO2 out of the air and killed half the plant life on Earth for all we know. Which is why no one's trying to suck the hydrogen sulfide out of the air on Pandora, I suppose.

In any case, this is somewhat beside the point. I would argue that aspiring to make a sci-fi film about future Earth that doesn't address environmental problems is borderline irresponsible. Including interstellar travel in your movie shouldn't preclude an environmental message. (And just be glad a lot of Cameron's original ideas about actually showing us Earth-as-total-dustball didn't make it into the finished film. I didn't read any of the weird Pandora-worshipping from the supplemental book into the characters of the film itself, and you'd think such a situation would make it politically impossible for the RDA to do everything they do.)

[Shroom Man 777]

Really, my problem with Avatar isn't its message but the fact that this message is presented in such an uninteresting, by-the-numbers way that the whole thing just became tedious, to the point that I was looking at my watch as much as I was looking at the screen during the grand finale. I have a Playstation; if I want to see computer-generated scenery blowing up I can do so at any time. If you want to hold my attention through a movie and make me actually care about its events then you need to give me at least a few characters that I can connect with, and Avatar utterly failed at this.

Avatar had likeable characters. Quartich, Jake, Neytiri come to mind. Even supporting cast like the renegade pilot and scientist dude were memorable. While I dont buy the movies message the characterisation and dialogue was top notch. Even when they were being cartoonishly evil (Quartich) or naive (Jake) they were very interesting and lively people to watch. All the time they were faced with complex decisions and you never knew what they were going to do next.

While I'm a complete asshole towards those orbital bombardment bullshit arguments, I can still totally understand where guys are coming from when they say stuff like "by-the-numbers" or "simplistic" whatever of Avatar.

I think that's what James Cameron WAS going for. He wasn't aiming for a moralistically complicated movie with all sorts of grand themes and subtle overtures and whatever. He was aiming to present, in sci-fi super-3D spectacle form, a very basic and simple classic storyline that we've seen in stories like Pochahontas and Ferngully and Dancing with the Space Wolves and whatever. Sarevokerritch is right, Avatar IS a Disney-esque film in that way.

Yeah, there are legitimate criticisms and concerns about that. Yeah, the movie was simple, etc. But, eh, I totally dug it. I think, for once, a simple story with a beginning-middle-end with a relatively uncomplicated plot presented in a completely solid way (with good characters and shit, as Sarevokerritch says) is a fairly welcome change from all the recent sci-fi shit. I mean, what would be the benefit if Avatar had a few more minutes depicting the Na'vi as a bunch of assholes like the Prawns from District 9, or would the movie be changed drastically if it showed all sorts of gnarly ugly Earth scenes, or had some attempt to portray the RDA and the Na'vi as less black-white? Eh, I don't think it's too important a point.

[Guardsman Bass]

Eh, I don't think it's too important a point.

I agree, for the most part. I was actually more drawn to the development and story of the character Jake Sully, as he enters what is basically a whole new world for him (literally and symbolically). I think the characters more than made up for the whole "Dances with Blue Aliens" plot. Even Quarritch was interesting, Obviously Evil Uber Badass that he was.

[Shroom Man 777]

Exactly. I think Cameron decided to ditch non-vital extraneous details (like Earth's current status, or unimportant technological whatevers, etc.) and went with a more simplistic approach so he could focus primarily on Jake Sully's immersion into the Na'vi culture. While this might not be some people's cup of tea, it totally worked for me.

[aieeegrunt]

Really, my problem with Avatar isn't its message but the fact that this message is presented in such an uninteresting, by-the-numbers way that the whole thing just became tedious, to the point that I was looking at my watch as much as I was looking at the screen during the grand finale. I have a Playstation; if I want to see computer-generated scenery blowing up I can do so at any time. If you want to hold my attention through a movie and make me actually care about its events then you need to give me at least a few characters that I can connect with, and Avatar utterly failed at this.

Avatar had likeable characters. Quartich, Jake, Neytiri come to mind. Even supporting cast like the renegade pilot and scientist dude were memorable. While I dont buy the movies message the characterisation and dialogue was top notch. Even when they were being cartoonishly evil (Quartich) or naive (Jake) they were very interesting and lively people to watch. All the time they were faced with complex decisions and you never knew what they were going to do next.

While I'm a complete asshole towards those orbital bombardment bullshit arguments, I can still totally understand where guys are coming from when they say stuff like "by-the-numbers" or "simplistic" whatever of Avatar.

I think that's what James Cameron WAS going for. He wasn't aiming for a moralistically complicated movie with all sorts of grand themes and subtle overtures and whatever. He was aiming to present, in sci-fi super-3D spectacle form, a very basic and simple classic storyline that we've seen in stories like Pochahontas and Ferngully and Dancing with the Space Wolves and whatever. Sarevokerritch is right, Avatar IS a Disney-esque film in that way.

Yeah, there are legitimate criticisms and concerns about that. Yeah, the movie was simple, etc. But, eh, I totally dug it. I think, for once, a simple story with a beginning-middle-end with a relatively uncomplicated plot presented in a completely solid way (with good characters and shit, as Sarevokerritch says) is a fairly welcome change from all the recent sci-fi shit. I mean, what would be the benefit if Avatar had a few more minutes depicting the Na'vi as a bunch of assholes like the Prawns from District 9, or would the movie be changed drastically if it showed all sorts of gnarly ugly Earth scenes, or had some attempt to portray the RDA and the Na'vi as less black-white? Eh, I don't think it's too important a point.

It isn't, and the only ones who care are whiny forum nerds, who make up an insignificant fraction of the population, who can safely be ignored and are never ever going to be satisfied with anything you do anyways. I mean Cameron at least made a nod towards sci fi plausibility by NOT having an FTL drive in the story, and, well, just read this thread to see the results.

[ray245]

Avatar had likeable characters. Quartich, Jake, Neytiri come to mind. Even supporting cast like the renegade pilot and scientist dude were memorable. While I dont buy the movies message the characterisation and dialogue was top notch. Even when they were being cartoonishly evil (Quartich) or naive (Jake) they were very interesting and lively people to watch. All the time they were faced with complex decisions and you never knew what they were going to do next.

While I'm a complete asshole towards those orbital bombardment bullshit arguments, I can still totally understand where guys are coming from when they say stuff like "by-the-numbers" or "simplistic" whatever of Avatar.

I think that's what James Cameron WAS going for. He wasn't aiming for a moralistically complicated movie with all sorts of grand themes and subtle overtures and whatever. He was aiming to present, in sci-fi super-3D spectacle form, a very basic and simple classic storyline that we've seen in stories like Pochahontas and Ferngully and Dancing with the Space Wolves and whatever. Sarevokerritch is right, Avatar IS a Disney-esque film in that way.

Yeah, there are legitimate criticisms and concerns about that. Yeah, the movie was simple, etc. But, eh, I totally dug it. I think, for once, a simple story with a beginning-middle-end with a relatively uncomplicated plot presented in a completely solid way (with good characters and shit, as Sarevokerritch says) is a fairly welcome change from all the recent sci-fi shit. I mean, what would be the benefit if Avatar had a few more minutes depicting the Na'vi as a bunch of assholes like the Prawns from District 9, or would the movie be changed drastically if it showed all sorts of gnarly ugly Earth scenes, or had some attempt to portray the RDA and the Na'vi as less black-white? Eh, I don't think it's too important a point.

The problem is that this kind of simplistic movie has already been done. If this is the first time people have seen such a movie, then good for them. However, if the audience has already seen this kind of story before, they will be tired of it.

[Guardsman Bass]

Avatar had likeable characters. Quartich, Jake, Neytiri come to mind. Even supporting cast like the renegade pilot and scientist dude were memorable. While I dont buy the movies message the characterisation and dialogue was top notch. Even when they were being cartoonishly evil (Quartich) or naive (Jake) they were very interesting and lively people to watch. All the time they were faced with complex decisions and you never knew what they were going to do next.

While I'm a complete asshole towards those orbital bombardment bullshit arguments, I can still totally understand where guys are coming from when they say stuff like "by-the-numbers" or "simplistic" whatever of Avatar.

I think that's what James Cameron WAS going for. He wasn't aiming for a moralistically complicated movie with all sorts of grand themes and subtle overtures and whatever. He was aiming to present, in sci-fi super-3D spectacle form, a very basic and simple classic storyline that we've seen in stories like Pochahontas and Ferngully and Dancing with the Space Wolves and whatever. Sarevokerritch is right, Avatar IS a Disney-esque film in that way.

Yeah, there are legitimate criticisms and concerns about that. Yeah, the movie was simple, etc. But, eh, I totally dug it. I think, for once, a simple story with a beginning-middle-end with a relatively uncomplicated plot presented in a completely solid way (with good characters and shit, as Sarevokerritch says) is a fairly welcome change from all the recent sci-fi shit. I mean, what would be the benefit if Avatar had a few more minutes depicting the Na'vi as a bunch of assholes like the Prawns from District 9, or would the movie be changed drastically if it showed all sorts of gnarly ugly Earth scenes, or had some attempt to portray the RDA and the Na'vi as less black-white? Eh, I don't think it's too important a point.

The problem is that this kind of simplistic movie has already been done. If this is the first time people have seen such a movie, then good for them. However, if the audience has already seen this kind of story before, they will be tired of it.

I don't really agree with that. I mean, think of how similar most romantic comedies are, or action movies for that matter. You can use and re-use the same type of plot and do quite well as long as the other factors in the movie work (like the characters and characterization, for one).

[ray245]

I don't really agree with that. I mean, think of how similar most romantic comedies are, or action movies for that matter. You can use and re-use the same type of plot and do quite well as long as the other factors in the movie work (like the characters and characterization, for one).

While people may not hate romantic movies that are similar, those movies tends to be extremely forgettable.

If avatar isn't made in 3D, nor having the budget to create excellent special effects , the story on its own will not be able to captivate the audience's attention to such a huge extend. I'm not saying that we can neglect the visuals altogether, but I'm saying that the story needs to be more refreshing.

[Darth Wong]

The problem is that this kind of simplistic movie has already been done. If this is the first time people have seen such a movie, then good for them. However, if the audience has already seen this kind of story before, they will be tired of it.

So, the immense popularity of the movie must mean that ... most people have never seen a simplistic movie before? That sounds like bullshit. Care to back up this conclusion of yours with any kind of facts?

[Connor MacLeod]

The problem is that this kind of simplistic movie has already been done. If this is the first time people have seen such a movie, then good for them. However, if the audience has already seen this kind of story before, they will be tired of it.

What makes you think Audiences neccesarily are as intelligent or discerning as you seem to think? Given the shit that's been popular on TV for the past decade or more (TV talk shows, soap operas, reality TV, game shows, etc) I'd say the opposite is true - execs are likely to copycat a successful formula because they think (or know) the audience will watch it.

Video games are quite similar. Alot of games in a given genre are largely identical save for superficial detials or a few gimmicks (alot of action games are first person shooters)

[ray245]

The problem is that this kind of simplistic movie has already been done. If this is the first time people have seen such a movie, then good for them. However, if the audience has already seen this kind of story before, they will be tired of it.

So, the immense popularity of the movie must mean that ... most people have never seen a simplistic movie before? That sounds like bullshit. Care to back up this conclusion of yours with any kind of facts?

That's not my point. I'm not saying that that the immense popularity of Avatar is soley due to the fact that most people has yet to seen a movie with a simplistic storyline.

What I am saying is that a fair number of people may enjoy this particular movie because they have yet to seen a story like this before, while at the same time, another group of audience who has seen this kind of story before might not like it because they are getting a little tired of it.

What makes you think Audiences neccesarily are as intelligent or discerning as you seem to think? Given the shit that's been popular on TV for the past decade or more (TV talk shows, soap operas, reality TV, game shows, etc) I'd say the opposite is true - execs are likely to copycat a successful formula because they think (or know) the audience will watch it.

Video games are quite similar. Alot of games in a given genre are largely identical save for superficial detials or a few gimmicks (alot of action games are first person shooters)

I know that. Sure, from a business point of view, simplistic stories can led to more people enjoying it, and that does not equate to a movie being bad. However, what I am trying to say is that I wish to see movies that are more innovative in the way they tell such a storyline. ( Yes, I know that most executives will not care about what the minorites want to see)

If I do not view Pandora as beautiful (that does not mean that I am advocating the destruction of the forest ) , what am I left with?

[Axiomatic]

That's not my point. I'm not saying that that the immense popularity of Avatar is soley due to the fact that most people has yet to seen a movie with a simplistic storyline.

What I am saying is that a fair number of people may enjoy this particular movie because they have yet to seen a story like this before, while at the same time, another group of audience who has seen this kind of story before might not like it because they are getting a little tired of it.

But as you say, Avatar is immensely popular, which means that either a) an immense number of people have never in their lives seen a story like Avatar, or b) you are completely and utterly wrong about what makes people like Avatar.

[Shroom Man 777]

What I am saying is that a fair number of people may enjoy this particular movie because they have yet to seen a story like this before, while at the same time, another group of audience who has seen this kind of story before might not like it because they are getting a little tired of it.

I dunno, mang, I've seen movies like Ferngully and similar stuff like The Last Samurai (where American goes native and joins the blue-skinned samurai resistance) and other eco-themed stuff like the Planeteers, and I fully knew that Avatar's story was not that different. I was still greatly entertained by it, and its simplistic story, IMO, did not detract from it.

I know that. Sure, from a business point of view, simplistic stories can led to more people enjoying it, and that does not equate to a movie being bad. However, what I am trying to say is that I wish to see movies that are more innovative in the way they tell such a storyline. ( Yes, I know that most executives will not care about what the minorites want to see)

If I do not view Pandora as beautiful (that does not mean that I am advocating the destruction of the forest ) , what am I left with?

You are left with the good acting on part of the excellent cast, and James Cameron's directing, and the attention to detail in the setting and in the background stuff, and in how cast and crew and director portray the whole movie in general and competently pull off the plot/simplistic storyline?

Just because the bare basics of the plot is essentially "the same", Avatar is STILL different from xyz-other movies with similar plot/themes because Avatar has a different cast, different crew, different actors, different director, different writer, etc. They ALL bring different things to the table.

I mean, an action movie from the 1980s is an action movie from the 1980s. They're ALL the same. But what makes action movies starring Arnold Schwarzenegger different from action movies starring some other asshole like Chuck Norris? What makes Sergio Leone cowboy movies with Clint Eastwood different from all the hundreds of other cowboy movies produced throughout time? What makes Lord of the Rings different from all the shitloads of fantasy swords-and-sandals movies? If LOTR did not have mutated elephants and fancy 3D effects, does this mean that despite Peter Jackson's directing and Orlando Bloom's effeminate acting and Elijah Wood's vertically-challenged portrayal and Viggo Mortensen's rugged manliness, LOTR is no different from other fantasy films? Gladiator wasn't a unique film either, does this mean that Ridley Scott's direction and Russel Crowe's acting and Joaquin Phoenix' depiction of incest does NOT contribute to making the film unique?

I think that even without super-awesome CGI, the contributions of a cast and crew combined inject something that differentiates one particular movie from the rest - and if this cast and crew is particularly competent and if they inject great effort into a work, then the final product is going to be different and unique EVEN IF the basic plot is simplistic and has been used before.

The plot is just the framework for all these other things. The plot, even if it is a simplistic storyline, depends heavily on the cast/crew's performance to make it work. It ain't just fancy-shmancy 3D shit that made Avatar gross one hundred thousand million billion dollars in the stock market.

[ray245]

What I am saying is that a fair number of people may enjoy this particular movie because they have yet to seen a story like this before, while at the same time, another group of audience who has seen this kind of story before might not like it because they are getting a little tired of it.

But as you say, Avatar is immensely popular, which means that either a) an immense number of people have never in their lives seen a story like Avatar, or b) you are completely and utterly wrong about what makes people like Avatar.[/quote]

Perhaps I should rephrase my initial post. I wasn't intending to use that as a reason to explain why is Avatar so popular. I am just using that as a counter-example.

I dunno, mang, I've seen movies like Ferngully and similar stuff like The Last Samurai (where American goes native and joins the blue-skinned samurai resistance) and other eco-themed stuff like the Planeteers, and I fully knew that Avatar's story was not that different. I was still greatly entertained by it, and its simplistic story, IMO, did not detract from it.

Yeah, but that's pretty subjective to the person's taste.

You are left with the good acting on part of the excellent cast, and James Cameron's directing, and the attention to detail in the setting and in the background stuff, and in how cast and crew and director portray the whole movie in general and competently pull off the plot/simplistic storyline?

Just because the bare basics of the plot is essentially "the same", Avatar is STILL different from xyz-other movies with similar plot/themes because Avatar has a different cast, different crew, different actors, different director, different writer, etc. They ALL bring different things to the table.

Perhaps it's due to me being able to look over the performance of most actors and actress, as well as the direction of most directors no matter how bad it can be (unless it is a C movie ).

I am more captivated by the storyline than the direction and acting of the crew.

I mean, an action movie from the 1980s is an action movie from the 1980s. They're ALL the same. But what makes action movies starring Arnold Schwarzenegger different from action movies starring some other asshole like Chuck Norris? What makes Sergio Leone cowboy movies with Clint Eastwood different from all the hundreds of other cowboy movies produced throughout time? What makes Lord of the Rings different from all the shitloads of fantasy swords-and-sandals movies? If LOTR did not have mutated elephants and fancy 3D effects, does this mean that despite Peter Jackson's directing and Orlando Bloom's effeminate acting and Elijah Wood's vertically-challenged portrayal and Viggo Mortensen's rugged manliness, LOTR is no different from other fantasy films? Gladiator wasn't a unique film either, does this mean that Ridley Scott's direction and Russel Crowe's acting and Joaquin Phoenix' depiction of incest does NOT contribute to making the film unique?

The reason why I go and watch most action movies or blockbusters in theatres is more or less due to the effects, unless the movie has a really strong or refreshing storyline.

And one of the main reason I am captivated by LOTR for example is really due to me seeing such a movie for the first time. Any other movies that is similar to LOTR didn't really captivate my attention.

[PeZook]

Perhaps it's due to me being able to look over the performance of most actors and actress, as well as the direction of most directors no matter how bad it can be (unless it is a C movie ).

Are you sure? Directing and post-production are two things that can make an average movie incredible and an incredible movie terrible. You may just not realize that you like certain movies over others because they're paced better, have a better musical score and actors with a certain "something", whether it is an awesome fit for the role (Terminator + Schwarzenegger), excellent acting skills in a variety of characters (Merryl Streep, Johnny Depp) or just something simple like energy or gumption or rugged manliness.

Anyway, to get to the point: a director affects his movies in many ways, and can, in fact, make a movie with the exact same themes, sometimes even the exact same plot and characters, and have it be a genuinely different movie, sometimes much, much better. See any remake of a classic: most are much worse, many are genuinely better, despite them having the exact same plot and exact same characters.

[ray245]

Perhaps it's due to me being able to look over the performance of most actors and actress, as well as the direction of most directors no matter how bad it can be (unless it is a C movie ).

Are you sure? Directing and post-production are two things that can make an average movie incredible and an incredible movie terrible. You may just not realize that you like certain movies over others because they're paced better, have a better musical score and actors with a certain "something", whether it is an awesome fit for the role (Terminator + Schwarzenegger), excellent acting skills in a variety of characters (Merryl Streep, Johnny Depp) or just something simple like energy or gumption or rugged manliness.

Anyway, to get to the point: a director affects his movies in many ways, and can, in fact, make a movie with the exact same themes, sometimes even the exact same plot and characters, and have it be a genuinely different movie, sometimes much, much better. See any remake of a classic: most are much worse, many are genuinely better, despite them having the exact same plot and exact same characters.

Yes, unless it is a really badly directed movie, by that I mean C movies, usually I will find it hard to judge.

[ray245]

The movie studio that produced the mega-blockbuster, "Avatar," had no problem with the film's alien race being blue -- but it turns out they were initially concerned about the Na'vi being too green.

According to director James Cameron, 20th Century Fox had some initial apprehension that his $2 billion-dollar-baby delivered the wrong kind of message -- the message of environmental conservation.

Cameron recollects the studio's warning as being: "We really like the story. It's great. But, well, is there a way to not have so much of this tree-hugging, 'Ferngully' stuff in it?"

The famously exacting director wasn't going give up on the central point of the "Avatar" story. "I said, 'Not with me making it,'" Cameron said. "Because that was my purpose in making the film. I wanted to make an environmentally conscious mainstream movie."

"FernGully: The Last Rainforest" was a 1992 animated film -- also released by 20th Century Fox -- featuring the voice of Tim Curry as the villain who gains his power from pollution.

Instead of backing down, Cameron reveled in the environmental themes leading up to the climatic conclusion of "Avatar". "I think there's something amazingly satisfying when the hammerheads come out of the forest and start mowing down all the bad security enforcers. Nature gets to fight back," he said. "It's 'Death Wish' for environmentalists. When did nature ever get to fight back in a movie?"

Cameron concedes that 20th Century Fox wouldn't have been the only studio with concerns: "To be fair…any of the other studios would have said the same thing. Fox ended up being enormously supportive and wrote this huge check. But they would have been much more comfortable if I had eliminated what they called the 'tree-hugging' elements."

James Cameron's environmental concerns can be attributed to being a parent of three young children and the fact he would like them to have a world to grow up in: "I think there's a way to live and raise your kids with a set of values that teaches them the importance of hard work, the importance of respecting other people and the importance of respecting nature. And that it's not this consumer society where you buy something and then throw it away when you get the next new thing, filling up huge landfills with plastic and electronics."

Cameron's environmentally friendly message has not, as the studio was initially concerned, negatively affected box-office receipts. "Avatar" has so far grossed over $2.2 billion worldwide – which is well over a billion ahead of the ticket sales for its closest Best Picture Oscar rival, "The Hurt Locker." That film (which also has an arguably controversial message in its coverage of soldiers in Iraq) was directed by his former wife, Kathryn Bigelow, and has only taken in $12.6 million in domestic box-office sales.

Yahoo!

[NecronLord]

I don't think this needs to be its own thread. I have merged it.

[Shroom Man 777]

To continue my/PeZook's point... compare two very similarly themed movies with similar plots, but with an entirely different cast/crew and two opposite directors. Deep Impact and Armageddon.

PS: Armageddon was awesome.

Perhaps it's due to me being able to look over the performance of most actors and actress, as well as the direction of most directors no matter how bad it can be (unless it is a C movie ).

I am more captivated by the storyline than the direction and acting of the crew.

That's kinda odd. I mean, nowadays, how many truly original storylines are there? Romantic movies are pretty much all the same. Action movies too. Sci-fi? Well, there's some room for innovation there, but lots of times sci-fi films are just as dependent on audio-visual spectacle as "original" storytelling.

So, how many truly original storylines are there? Avatar's, as we all acknowledge, is a simplistic story that we've all seen before. But how often have we seen this simplistic story depicted in the form of a sci-fi spectacle with explosions and monsters and adventure and mean military machines?

You say that you are more captivated by the storyline than the direction and acting of the crew? So, it wouldn't have mattered if Avatar was directed by... Micheal Bay, and it starred Shai LaBeowulf or had Chuck Norris or Steven Seagal in the supporting roles? Imagine Chuck Norris/Steven Seagal as Quarritch.

Does it not matter at all how the storyline is portrayed and depicted (through direction and acting) to you? I think how it's directed, acted, casted and crewed can significantly affect how a movie comes out.

The reason why I go and watch most action movies or blockbusters in theatres is more or less due to the effects, unless the movie has a really strong or refreshing storyline.

And one of the main reason I am captivated by LOTR for example is really due to me seeing such a movie for the first time. Any other movies that is similar to LOTR didn't really captivate my attention.

Hrm... how many big budget sci-fi movies have the same storyline as Avatar, anyway? We only saw those stories in Planeteer/Ferngully cartoons and movies about American Indians, I don't think I've seen that kinda plot in sci-fi spectacle format at all.

[adam_grif]

That's kinda odd. I mean, nowadays, how many truly original storylines are there? Romantic movies are pretty much all the same. Action movies too. Sci-fi? Well, there's some room for innovation there, but lots of times sci-fi films are just as dependent on audio-visual spectacle as "original" storytelling.

People don't so much mind borrowing elements because it's nearly impossible to be entirely original in your plot, but people get a bit cheesed when the whole plot structure is lifted from something else. I know it's been brought up so many times that it feels redundant saying it, but the plot really is practically identical to Dances With Wolves, transposed into a SciFi setting. It's not like they just borrowed the premise then did something new, or stole a scene from it, everything about it is largely identical.

[ray245]

To continue my/PeZook's point... compare two very similarly themed movies with similar plots, but with an entirely different cast/crew and two opposite directors. Deep Impact and Armageddon.

PS: Armageddon was awesome.

I don't know. It's hard for me to rank one movie over the other.

That's kinda odd. I mean, nowadays, how many truly original storylines are there? Romantic movies are pretty much all the same. Action movies too. Sci-fi? Well, there's some room for innovation there, but lots of times sci-fi films are just as dependent on audio-visual spectacle as "original" storytelling.

So, how many truly original storylines are there? Avatar's, as we all acknowledge, is a simplistic story that we've all seen before. But how often have we seen this simplistic story depicted in the form of a sci-fi spectacle with explosions and monsters and adventure and mean military machines?

You say that you are more captivated by the storyline than the direction and acting of the crew? So, it wouldn't have mattered if Avatar was directed by... Micheal Bay, and it starred Shai LaBeowulf or had Chuck Norris or Steven Seagal in the supporting roles? Imagine Chuck Norris/Steven Seagal as Quarritch.

Does it not matter at all how the storyline is portrayed and depicted (through direction and acting) to you? I think how it's directed, acted, casted and crewed can significantly affect how a movie comes out.

I don't really think so. The reason I dislike transformer 2 for instance, is because the story is similar to most cartoon to me. As long as the direction and the acting is professional, I am satisfied.

Hrm... how many big budget sci-fi movies have the same storyline as Avatar, anyway? We only saw those stories in Planeteer/Ferngully cartoons and movies about American Indians, I don't think I've seen that kinda plot in sci-fi spectacle format at all.

Yes, but in the end, the storyline just bores me. Sure, I'm still entertained by the big battle at the end, but for the rest of the movie, I couldn't feel a thing. I will not hate a movie because the storyline is similar, but movies with a storyline that I have read/seen before simply makes me feel indifferent towards it.

[Simon_Jester]

OK, but that's not a common reaction.

It's not wrong, but there's at least some evidence that the reason the movie leaves you cold is that you're not looking at the same things as the average viewer- even the average intelligent viewer. Movies cannot be reduced to a plot synopsis without collapsing a lot of the details that make them good or bad.
_________

Here's a thought experiment:
Consider the movie Star Wars, the original one that came out in 1977. It's widely regarded as very good- a classic, even. Now, imagine a movie that takes the plot of Star Wars and effectively copies it into a fantasy setting. However, the acting isn't as good, the dialogue is stilted, the character motivations don't make as much sense, and the special effects come across as cheesy and overblown.*

So on the one hand we have Star Wars, the classic; on the other we have the C Movie of the Week, which rips off Star Wars.

Now, reverse the order of release. Let the C Movie come out two or three decades before Star Wars. Does this make the C Movie any better, or Star Wars any worse? I would argue that it does not: a crappy movie is still a crappy movie, even if no one has done a movie with the same plot before. Likewise, a good movie does not become a crappy movie just because some other writer, working independently, came up with a story that sounds roughly similar if you boil it down to two or three paragraphs. The devil's in the details; in this case, the details of characterization, scenery, musical scoring, and such.

And you will know, very quickly, whether you're watching a good movie or a cheesy one. It's not hard to tell the difference, even if you're not clear on how the details of movie-making decide how good the movie is going to be.

My conclusion:
Recycling plots can make for bad movies, but there's no reason to expect it to, because a good movie can't be made all that bad just by having it come out after another movie with the same plot. Whereas you can definitely make a good movie bad by switching out good actors, directors, or special effects for bad ones.
_________

*I've heard the movie (and book) Eragon widely accused of being this. But I haven't seen the movie or read the book and never plan to, so I don't feel qualified to comment on whether it actually is.

[Formless]

Here's a thought experiment:
Consider the movie Star Wars, the original one that came out in 1977. It's widely regarded as very good- a classic, even. Now, imagine a movie that takes the plot of Star Wars and effectively copies it into a fantasy setting. However, the acting isn't as good, the dialogue is stilted, the character motivations don't make as much sense, and the special effects come across as cheesy and overblown.*

Oh, you mean Eragon?

Now, reverse the order of release. Let the C Movie come out two or three decades before Star Wars. Does this make the C Movie any better, or Star Wars any worse? I would argue that it does not: a crappy movie is still a crappy movie, even if no one has done a movie with the same plot before. Likewise, a good movie does not become a crappy movie just because some other writer, working independently, came up with a story that sounds roughly similar if you boil it down to two or three paragraphs. The devil's in the details; in this case, the details of characterization, scenery, musical scoring, and such.

Good point. *goes and watches Dances with Wolves*

I haven't seen Avatar myself, but from what I have heard makes me think that its not worth it. Maybe its a good movie, but if I can rent another movie which is itself a classic that has the same story and sells the same message but stronger (by that I mean Avatar is a metaphor for colonialism, whereas Dances with Wolves features the actual goddamn Native Americans said colonialism fucked over), then the rental classic is going to be my first choice. Because I'm a cheap kind of guy.

*I've heard the movie (and book) Eragon widely accused of being this. But I haven't seen the movie or read the book and never plan to, so I don't feel qualified to comment on whether it actually is.

Yeah, basically. The plot is almost a one to one lift. The dragon egg is not-C3PO and not-R2D2 coming to our hero not-Luke-Skywalker, the old man is not-Obi-Wan, the dragon and magic is no-the-force, the elf chick is not-Leia, and so on. The only thing missing is not-Han-Solo and not-the-Death-Star.

[ray245]

OK, but that's not a common reaction.

It's not wrong, but there's at least some evidence that the reason the movie leaves you cold is that you're not looking at the same things as the average viewer- even the average intelligent viewer. Movies cannot be reduced to a plot synopsis without collapsing a lot of the details that make them good or bad.

I know. Why is why I don't tend to go around and tell people why they should not a watch a particular movie.

Here's a thought experiment:
Consider the movie Star Wars, the original one that came out in 1977. It's widely regarded as very good- a classic, even. Now, imagine a movie that takes the plot of Star Wars and effectively copies it into a fantasy setting. However, the acting isn't as good, the dialogue is stilted, the character motivations don't make as much sense, and the special effects come across as cheesy and overblown.*

So on the one hand we have Star Wars, the classic; on the other we have the C Movie of the Week, which rips off Star Wars.

Now, reverse the order of release. Let the C Movie come out two or three decades before Star Wars. Does this make the C Movie any better, or Star Wars any worse? I would argue that it does not: a crappy movie is still a crappy movie, even if no one has done a movie with the same plot before. Likewise, a good movie does not become a crappy movie just because some other writer, working independently, came up with a story that sounds roughly similar if you boil it down to two or three paragraphs. The devil's in the details; in this case, the details of characterization, scenery, musical scoring, and such.

And you will know, very quickly, whether you're watching a good movie or a cheesy one. It's not hard to tell the difference, even if you're not clear on how the details of movie-making decide how good the movie is going to be.

Yes, but that is why I draw the distinction between a professional and a unprofessional production crew.

My conclusion:
Recycling plots can make for bad movies, but there's no reason to expect it to, because a good movie can't be made all that bad just by having it come out after another movie with the same plot. Whereas you can definitely make a good movie bad by switching out good actors, directors, or special effects for bad ones.

But in the case of Avatar, previous movies that has a storyline similar to it is also directed and acted out by a professional crew.