Spoilers Avatar: The Last Airbender - Netflix Live Action Version

[Christopher]

Hell even on Rotten tomatoes, it is now rated as "rotten" after the critic reviews have come in. So it seems critics also hated it.

No, they didn't "hate" it. The problem with RT reducing critic reviews to a yes-no binary is that it bulldozes over nuance -- anything in the middle ground has to be arbitrarily reduced to one of the two extremes, which makes it effectively useless. It also gives "Rotten" ratings to anything below 60% -- the show is currently at 59% as of this writing, which means that the majority of critics gave it positive reviews. It's bizarre to call that "Rotten." Just a one-percent improvement would flip it to "Fresh." Which underlines how silly it is to reduce nuanced things to binaries.

Despite how people tend to treat them, the numbers on aggregate sites are only meant to be a crude first-glance overview, not the end goal of the process. You're supposed to actually read the reviews to get a more detailed understanding. And from skimming over the reviews, it seems that most of the so-called "negative" reviews are actually more ambivalent, seeing both good and bad things in the show.

Also, audience ratings are currently at 75%, which is quite good. Because the critic and audience ratings are calculated differently, it's not statistically valid to compare them, another reason the site is badly designed. The critic ratings usually tend to come out lower than the audience ratings, but if you actually make the effort to read the reviews, you often find that the critic and audience reviews are in general agreement about the strengths and weaknesses of the show, even when the numbers artificially suggest a wide difference of opinion.

Also, the critic ratings are based on a mere 56 reviews, while the audience ratings are based on more than a thousand. So statistically speaking, the audience rating is more trustworthy because it's based on a larger sample, even aside from the inherent flaws in the way the critic results are presented. It's quite possible the critic score will shift considerably as more reviews come in.


As for Reddit, YouTube, and the like, those can't be taken seriously. There are plenty of people who go out of their way to post negative, angry reviews because it generates attention. It's self-serving and dishonest and has no bearing on the actual merit of a show or film.

 

[Tuskin38]

What places are you hanging out where fans aren't responding positively?

Because the reactions I've been seeing from ATLA die-hards are very positive.

Reddit, Twitter, general social media.

As for Reddit, YouTube, and the like, those can't be taken seriously. There are plenty of people who go out of their way to post negative, angry reviews because it generates attention. It's self-serving and dishonest and has no bearing on the actual merit of a show or film.

I mean Reddit also has people writing well thought out posts about why they dislike it.
It's not just drive by one liners.

 

[DigificWriter]

Reddit, youtube, twitter

All of the Youtube content that I've seen has been positive.

Hell even on Rotten tomatoes, it is now rated as "rotten" after the critic reviews have come in. So it seems critics also hated it.

Rotten Tomatoes is a blight on existence and its 'ratings' means about as much as a fraudulent check.

 

[Christopher]

I mean Reddit also has people writing well thought out posts about why they dislike it.

There's always going to be a spectrum of opinions on anything, of course. I've always felt that anything that inspires strongly positive opinions in some people is bound to inspire strongly negative opinions in others; the only way to offend no one is to delight no one, to be bland and unremarkable.

It's worth noting that no two people see the same YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, or whatever, because their algorithms select what you see based on your past activity. So people who click on one negative video will see more and more negative videos, while people who click on a positive one will get more positive ones. So it's all useless as evidence of what other people think, since it's never going to be an unbiased sample. That's why some people here are seeing a mostly positive response and others a mostly negative response. The algorithms prevent us from experiencing a consensus reality.

 

[Christopher]

Now everyone is citing RT as if it's a holy scripture.

The problem isn't RT, the problem is people being too lazy to look past the first-glance numbers and read the actual reviews that are supposed to be the real point. It's like reading the sign out front of a museum as you drive by and saying "I just took a tour of the museum." It's supposed to be the beginning of the exploration, not the end.

Although, yes, the numbers themselves are a major part of the problem, because the way the critic reviews are reduced to binaries makes the numbers grossly inaccurate, and because the critic and audience scores are calculated in entirely different ways so it's meaningless to compare them. All the more reason the numbers should not be taken seriously.

 

[Reverend]

Got done with the season last night and overall, I'm impressed. Good cast for the most part, great production design that feels very faithful to the source material, and on the whole a respectable swing at condensing 22 episodes down to just 8 (though ironically with about the same runtime.)

It fell down in a few places for me, but nothing major. Thing like the characters (and writers, apparently) seemingly forgetting Appa and/or Momo exist anytime they're not explicitly in-frame. Some of the make-up designs trying a little too hard to contort the actors' features to match the animated incarnations (Bumi & Pakku leap to mind.) Some rather clumsy exposition (eg: Gran-Gran basically doing *nothing* but expositing for the entire first episode.)
Certain elements didn't really make sense once removed from their original context; like for example Bumi's whole "trials" plot comes off petty and embittered, rather than actually trying to teach Aang what he needs.

Mostly nit-picks I know, but there is something of a pattern as I often found myself bouncing off parts where the makers of the live-action show were including things mostly just because they were in the original, but either not understanding, or choosing to alter the original meaning.

Similarly the approach of weaving previously unrelated plots into cohesive narratives had some mixed results. Taking together the Hei Bai, Koh, and Roku appearances makes sense on paper since they can only have one "spirit world story" given the episode count. In execution however; Hei Bai seems to basically get forgotten in the shuffle, almost entirely supplanted Koh who now just becomes a random threat and mostly serves to drop Sokka & Katara out of the plot so they can isolate Aang and do the whole Blue Spirit thing . . . it ends up a little overstuffed and unfocused. (I can take or leave the random Wan Shi Tong cameo honestly.)

Some other decisions I'm not exactly wild about; like requiring Aang to visit a previous Avatar's shrine in order to commune with them seems like a strange choice that may bite them down the road. Plus I'm a little sad this has deprived us of the iconic sight of all the previous Avatar statues in one place.
Holding back Aang's water bending entirely for this season also feels short-sighted as it means it's all going to happen off-screen in season 2 to make room for his earth bending training, or they're both going to end up feeling very rushed by the time we get to Bai Sing Se.

On the positive side; I was honestly impressed with how much ancillary material they drew in like Kyoshi's background from the novels and the other "most recent cycle" Avatars in general, Koh's mother*, and a few other bits of world building here and there. They even allude to that fact that several of the event of the original show (like 'The Great Divide') happened off-screen in the course of their journey, which was a nice touch.
I'm a little surprised at how they actually dropped some season 2 material into the mix. Setting up Azula & co early makes sense since that now frees up more time for Toph's introduction next season, but it seems to come at he cost of Zhao as an intimidating antagonist in his own right, as here he's relegated to being Azula's rather petty and over ambitious puppet.

* Though by contrast leaving out any appearance or mention of Zukko's mother at this point seems like a wasted opportunity to actually better pay off a thread the original show left dangling. So this inclusion of Koh's mother feels less like a relevant story element and just a reference for reference sake.​

 

[Christopher]

Certain elements didn't really make sense once removed from their original context; like for example Bumi's whole "trials" plot comes off petty and embittered, rather than actually trying to teach Aang what he needs.

I think that makes perfect sense. His friend vanished when he was needed most, and Bumi lived through a hundred years of hardship as a result. It's not at all implausible that he would feel bitter and angry about it, and it gives the test scenes a more serious undercurrent that plays into Aang's season-wide arc of dealing with his feelings of guilt and inadequacy. I thought it was a good reinterpretation.

Some other decisions I'm not exactly wild about; like requiring Aang to visit a previous Avatar's shrine in order to commune with them seems like a strange choice that may bite them down the road.

Is that really a change, though? In season 1, Aang had to visit Roku's temple to see him, just like here. And he didn't channel Kyoshi until he was near her temple in "Avatar Day." He usually had to be in some kind of special circumstances to commune with them, like being half-dead or being on the back of a lion-turtle. Maybe he got better at it later, but it's consistent with where he'd be in the first months of his journey.

It's also a good storytelling decision not to make it too easy for him to call on his predecessors. It would give him too much power if he could routinely call them up like when Kyoshi took him over.

Setting up Azula & co early makes sense since that now frees up more time for Toph's introduction next season, but it seems to come at he cost of Zhao as an intimidating antagonist in his own right, as here he's relegated to being Azula's rather petty and over ambitious puppet.

I don't mind that; adding Ozai and Azula in season 1 gives us the strong villains we need right there, so it's okay to reinterpret Zhao in a contrasting way. Really, looking back on the original series, it's kind of odd structurally to have Azula absent in season 1 when she's so important to the saga. It makes sense that a do-over would take the opportunity to bring a bit more unity to the whole thing.

* Though by contrast leaving out any appearance or mention of Zukko's mother at this point seems like a wasted opportunity to actually better pay off a thread the original show left dangling. So this inclusion of Koh's mother feels less like a relevant story element and just a reference for reference sake.​

Or, looking at it optimistically, maybe the reference to the Mother of Faces is planting seeds for a future arc involving Zuko's mother.

 

[Reverend]

I think that makes perfect sense. His friend vanished when he was needed most, and Bumi lived through a hundred years of hardship as a result. It's not at all implausible that he would feel bitter and angry about it, and it gives the test scenes a more serious undercurrent that plays into Aang's season-wide arc of dealing with his feelings of guilt and inadequacy. I thought it was a good reinterpretation.

I didn't say it was implausible, I said it didn't make sense, specifically for *this* character. The person you describe is a different character than Bumi, which is why I bounced off that particular element. They fundamentally changed who he is as a person, but retained the surface characteristics. That's a very backwards approach to adaptation. Character must always come first.

Is that really a change, though? In season 1, Aang had to visit Roku's temple to see him, just like here. And he didn't channel Kyoshi until he was near her temple in "Avatar Day." He usually had to be in some kind of special circumstances to commune with them, like being half-dead or being on the back of a lion-turtle. Maybe he got better at it later, but it's consistent with where he'd be in the first months of his journey.

It's also a good storytelling decision not to make it too easy for him to call on his predecessors. It would give him too much power if he could routinely call them up like when Kyoshi took him over.

Roku showed up more than just that one time on the solstice though, and Kyoshi just up and took possession of Aang solely to dis Chin the Conqueror, no solstice or special loaction required (to say nothing of the between season 2 & 3 vision-quest and the multiple communions on the Lion Turtle.) So even the original show dropped that limitation pretty quickly once they realised they needed Aang to be able to speak to his previous incarnations at different times and places.
The live action show is deliberately inheriting a plothole without any real need, AND further limiting themselves in the future to boot. Yang-Chen's shrine is destroyed, so now no future Avatar can EVER speak with her? That's short-sighted bordering on dumb.

It would have made more sense (for a given value of "sense") if the shrines were the only way for a previous Avatar to take possession specifically (though even that was a little too cheaty, even in the original show.) Hell, it even forced them to invent a reason why it wouldn't work with Kuruk, otherwise why even have a massive water kaiju for the finale?
A character who's whole thing is that they have the knowledge and experiance of ALL of their incarnations from the last ten millennia having their access to said knowledge limited by specific locations (most of which aren't going to be around for 10 millennia) is nonsensical. It's literally a spiritual thing, not temporal. It should come from within.
Basically; they needlessly overcomplicated things for themselves.

I don't mind that; adding Ozai and Azula in season 1 gives us the strong villains we need right there, so it's okay to reinterpret Zhao in a contrasting way. Really, looking back on the original series, it's kind of odd structurally to have Azula absent in season 1 when she's so important to the saga. It makes sense that a do-over would take the opportunity to bring a bit more unity to the whole thing.

I don't disagree in principle regarding Azula; but denigrating one character to raise up another is lazy writing. Indeed lessening Zhao actually makes Azula seems less of a threat by proxy. How much more of a presence would Azula be if Zhao was actually a cunning, competent threat . . . and yet even he's intimidated by her over and above even the Fire Lord?
It wouldn't be so bad if they actually managed to sell how intelligent, manipulative and sociopathic Azula is . . .but they really didn't. All she really did all season was glower and pout, and write that one letter while Ozai was the one pushing her buttons 90% of the time.

Or, looking at it optimistically, maybe the reference to the Mother of Faces is planting seeds for a future arc involving Zuko's mother.

I doubt it. Their best opportunity to plant that seed was right there in the Zuko flashbacks. Indeed the way it's written it feels like that was the intent, but they cut her our of it in subsequent drafts. Koh and the thing with his mother now just feels superfluous, and at the expense of Hei Bai to boot. Now if they want to connect this back, they're going to have to do even more legwork in season 3.
They already have a problem with too much "tell" and not enough "show". This will only compound matters.

 

[Christopher]

I didn't say it was implausible, I said it didn't make sense, specifically for *this* character. The person you describe is a different character than Bumi, which is why I bounced off that particular element. They fundamentally changed who he is as a person, but retained the surface characteristics. That's a very backwards approach to adaptation. Character must always come first.

Adaptation means change, not just copying. There's nothing wrong with reinterpreting a character when you do a new version, if that reinterpretation is interesting and worthwhile. Look at how, say, the MCU reinterpreted Baron Zemo or Thanos, or how Star Trek: Strange New Worlds has reinterpreted Christine Chapel.

Change is not bad. If all you want is something exactly like the original, that's what the original is for. The point of new versions is to try new things, otherwise why bother to do it? They don't always work, but that doesn't make it wrong to try them. In this case, I thought it worked.

Yang-Chen's shrine is destroyed, so now no future Avatar can EVER speak with her? That's short-sighted bordering on dumb.

It would have made more sense (for a given value of "sense") if the shrines were the only way for a previous Avatar to take possession specifically

Umm, that was how they did it. I'm pretty sure you're misremembering. They didn't say he could only talk to past Avatars at their shrines; they said that he could only embody them at their shrines. Yes, he did go to their shrines to contact them, but that can be read as a convenience that he might not need as he grows stronger.

Hell, it even forced them to invent a reason why it wouldn't work with Kuruk, otherwise why even have a massive water kaiju for the finale?

Except they didn't invent it. The backstory Kuruk related is right out of F.C. Yee's Kyoshi novels, part of his canonical life story. They took it and used it in a way that worked for the needs of the story.

I don't disagree in principle regarding Azula; but denigrating one character to raise up another is lazy writing. Indeed lessening Zhao actually makes Azula seems less of a threat by proxy. How much more of a presence would Azula be if Zhao was actually a cunning, competent threat . . . and yet even he's intimidated by her over and above even the Fire Lord?

I don't really see much difference between the two besides their surface attitude. Live-action Zhao hides beneath an obsequious facade what animated Zhao broadcasts openly. They're both arrogant, scheming, ambitious, and cruel. They're both fundamentally small men despite the animated one's greater bombast. It's really more a difference of actor interpretation than anything else. And that's what makes it interesting for different actors to play a character -- the ways they find to make the role their own instead of just copying another performer. Change is not bad.

 

[JD]

I watched episode 3 this morning, and the thing that really stood out to me was how they mashed up the mechanist episode and Jet. I thought they actually combined them in an interesting way that worked for me.
I like Zhao a little more this time, I'm not sure if there was any real difference between the last one and this one, or if Leung's take on the character has grown on me.
I loved the big fight scene with Zuko and Aang.

The problem isn't RT, the problem is people being too lazy to look past the first-glance numbers and read the actual reviews that are supposed to be the real point. It's like reading the sign out front of a museum as you drive by and saying "I just took a tour of the museum." It's supposed to be the beginning of the exploration, not the end.

Although, yes, the numbers themselves are a major part of the problem, because the way the critic reviews are reduced to binaries makes the numbers grossly inaccurate, and because the critic and audience scores are calculated in entirely different ways so it's meaningless to compare them. All the more reason the numbers should not be taken seriously.

That's why I like Metacritic better, it's 1-100 rating has a lot more nuance to it than the Rotten/Fresh ratings on Rotten Tomatoes.

 

[Christopher]

I watched episode 3 this morning, and the thing that really stood out to me was how they mashed up the mechanist episode and Jet. I thought they actually combined them in an interesting way that worked for me.

Yeah... I miss the dilemma of tradition vs. modernity from the original Mechanist episode, but that episode still exists, so it's not gone. And it makes sense to put the Mechanist in Omashu, which is known for its innovations like the delivery system.

And you're right, there's also a logic in playing the Mechanist and his reluctant collaboration with the Fire Nation against Jet and his hatred of the FN.


Incidentally, just as I predicted this morning, the Rotten Tomatoes critics' score has crept up from 59% to 60% after two more reviews were added, so it's now designated "Fresh." What a silly system they have.

 

[JD]

Have you ever checked out Metacritic? I like the way it does things a lot better than Rotten Tomatoes. I know most people seem to swear by RT, but I've never liked it.

 

[Tuskin38]

two videos I sorta agree with in parts, but not all

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Nerys Myk]

Azula's actress just didn't look menacing enough. Its def a tough ask for the age you are intending the character to be... But she just gives Kamala/Miss Marvel feeling. Not a deranged uber-badass.

I've never seen the animated show, so I've nothing to compare, but the actress exuded "scheming, backstabbing, egomaniac, narcissistic, mentally unstable antagonist". Daddy should watch his back.
Definitely not the bubbly positive Kamala Khan type.

 

[Reverend]

I've never seen the animated show, so I've nothing to compare, but the actress exuded "scheming, backstabbing, egomaniac, narcissistic, mentally unstable antagonist". Daddy should watch his back.
Definitely not the bubbly positive Kamala Khan type.

On top of all of that, her animated incarnation is also deeply sadistic, insecure to the point of delusional, and a straight-up psychopath (literally throws rocks at small animals for fun. )
In fairness--and just like all the other characters--it would probably register as way over the top if they tried to match a cartoon performance one-to-one . . . but on the other hand live action Zuko is the opposite; he's rather more outwardly animated that the original, so it feels like a conscious choice either of the actors of the show runners.

 

[fireproof78]

I've never seen the animated show, so I've nothing to compare, but the actress exuded "scheming, backstabbing, egomaniac, narcissistic, mentally unstable antagonist". Daddy should watch his back.
Definitely not the bubbly positive Kamala Khan type.

Indeed, yes. She is far, far more dangerous than Ozai realizes, and it is by his own doing. Same with Zuko.

I have limited experience with the animated show, and even so would not compare it. Azula has an ice quality to her than is intensely dangerous. My wife, who has no familiarity with the animated show, spotted it immediately.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Zuko strikes me as someone trying hard to be something he's not. Not unlike Sokka. A lot the characters are dealing with living up to their parents or parental figures expectations,

 

[Christopher]

Zuko strikes me as someone trying hard to be something he's not. Not unlike Sokka.

Zuko is trying to be something he's not, but I'd say that Sokka lacks faith in his ability to be what he already is.

 

[fireproof78]

Zuko strikes me as someone trying hard to be something he's not. Not unlike Sokka. A lot the characters are dealing with living up to their parents or parental figures expectations,

Zuko is trying to live up to an impossible standard set by his dad.

Sokka is trying to live up to an impossible standard set by himself based upon his interpretation of his dad's words, but he is more than capable of becoming that, if he can see his own strengths, rather than his failings.

A lesson far too many humans struggle with.

 

[DigificWriter]

Zuko, despite being an antagonistic threat, is likeable; Sokka is just an obnoxious twit.