James Cameron's "Avatar" (grading and discussion)

[Captain Craig]

I definitely agree the story and the characters were weak, especially in comparison to the special effects. This is a sentiment shared by many of whom I know who have seen the film.

It why I believe the movie in the long run will not be seen as that great a movie. The lack of effort to make the story a touching one that grips the audience and makes you care about the characters is very telling.

When people ask me at work, church the gym about the movie, and they do cause they know I'm their 'movie guy', I describe Avatar like Showgirls.
The hype for Showgirls was OMG guess who's tits are all over the place and not only hers in this movie. Avatar is all 'OMG Cameron is back with out of this world blow your mind F/X'. Both movies give you lots of both. Lots of TITS. Lots of trippy F/X with colors and light. An hour into both movies I want Elizabeth Berkely to just put a damn shirt on and I'm cheering on the flamethrowers. Tell me a story James I can care about cause I've seen all the cool flowers and trees I can take.

Avatar, overrated and that will bear out in the years ahead.
Star Trek had a better story
Moon had a better story
District 9 had a beter story
Terminator Salvation had a better story.
Avatar will win the battle of B.O. take over them all and that is just sad.
The only sci-fi movie plot that Avatar is better at even given its cliches is TF:Revenge of the Fallen for 2009 sci-fi flicks.

In your opinion...

Because, in my opinion, Salvation was a terrible movie and Avatar, even with its "Dances with Wolves" story was still better....

District 9 is, I think, over-rated and Moon was, well, what it was...

And I also disagree with you about the characters. Yes, the plot wasn't new..BUT..I saw it with a jam-packed IMAX crowd and I thought the acting and the FX made up for the thin plot...

AVATAR...Great FX/Great acting and characters...not so great plot..but still an overall better movie than any of the movies you listed...except Star Trek. I think Star Trek was the better movie...

Rob

Its not just my opinion actually. Shared by many. Maybe they've not listed the movies per se but a few have listed District 9 and Star Trek so its not just me who feel its not even the best overall sci-fi film.

Hey, your still on the after sex high of Avatar, I get that.
After a few more tussels with her I'd wager many if not even you come to see the blandness of Avatar once your past the mushroom acid trippy visuals that is the only real selling point of the film.

 

[RobertScorpio]

It why I believe the movie in the long run will not be seen as that great a movie. The lack of effort to make the story a touching one that grips the audience and makes you care about the characters is very telling.

When people ask me at work, church the gym about the movie, and they do cause they know I'm their 'movie guy', I describe Avatar like Showgirls.
The hype for Showgirls was OMG guess who's tits are all over the place and not only hers in this movie. Avatar is all 'OMG Cameron is back with out of this world blow your mind F/X'. Both movies give you lots of both. Lots of TITS. Lots of trippy F/X with colors and light. An hour into both movies I want Elizabeth Berkely to just put a damn shirt on and I'm cheering on the flamethrowers. Tell me a story James I can care about cause I've seen all the cool flowers and trees I can take.

Avatar, overrated and that will bear out in the years ahead.
Star Trek had a better story
Moon had a better story
District 9 had a beter story
Terminator Salvation had a better story.
Avatar will win the battle of B.O. take over them all and that is just sad.
The only sci-fi movie plot that Avatar is better at even given its cliches is TF:Revenge of the Fallen for 2009 sci-fi flicks.

In your opinion...

Because, in my opinion, Salvation was a terrible movie and Avatar, even with its "Dances with Wolves" story was still better....

District 9 is, I think, over-rated and Moon was, well, what it was...

And I also disagree with you about the characters. Yes, the plot wasn't new..BUT..I saw it with a jam-packed IMAX crowd and I thought the acting and the FX made up for the thin plot...

AVATAR...Great FX/Great acting and characters...not so great plot..but still an overall better movie than any of the movies you listed...except Star Trek. I think Star Trek was the better movie...

Rob

Its not just my opinion actually. Shared by many. Maybe they've not listed the movies per se but a few have listed District 9 and Star Trek so its not just me who feel its not even the best overall sci-fi film.

Hey, your still on the after sex high of Avatar, I get that.
After a few more tussels with her I'd wager many if not even you come to see the blandness of Avatar once your past the mushroom acid trippy visuals that is the only real selling point of the film.

Well...you put your self in a CATCH-22 when you admit Avatar will do better Box Office, but try to say your opinion is shared by many...using your logic, then its clear that an overwhelming percentage of people are on my side...Avatar is a better movie than all the movies you listed, including Star Trek....Terminator is considered, by most people I know, and even on this thread, a pretty weak movie.

What AVATAR is? A movie going experience. Pure and simple...

All the other movies, Star Trek included, are just movies....


Rob

 

[RobertScorpio]

Generic would have been picking some rare Earth metal and using that, or just making up some random technobabble word.

Sure, you can say the joke didn't work for you, but it's not a sign that it was generic. I'd rather have an amusing name for a mineral than some fabricated word that means nothing.

The story was nothing new, and I'll give you that. It didn't have to be, either. It was well-done, coherent, characters had sensible arcs, and it was entertaining.

If you didn't enjoy it, or you went in expecting something other than what you got, I don't know what to tell you. Sorry you wasted your money.

Great post...

Every movie, to most degree, has story elements we've already scene. Had he released this movie in the 80s, then Avatar would have come out before Dances with The Wolves...

Avatar scores on Acting/FX..and I came out of that movie in AWE of what I had just experienced...can I say the same thing about Terminator Salvation? District 9? No....

Rob

Using BBS as a bench mark?

141 of 187 votes gave Terminator salvation a passing grade...thats a 75%

151 of 161 votes gave AVATAR a passing grade...thats 93%..



That is a butt whuppin' anyway you look at it..

Rob

 

[davejames]

I'm all for deep and complex movies, but that's hardly a requirement for everything I see. Some of my favorite scifi movies have had pretty simplistic stories, where the great execution is often the main thing that makes them work: SW, Aliens, Jurassic Park, Predator, Tremors, T2...

I think Avatar fits rather nicely into that group.

 

[Captain Craig]

In your opinion...

Because, in my opinion, Salvation was a terrible movie and Avatar, even with its "Dances with Wolves" story was still better....

District 9 is, I think, over-rated and Moon was, well, what it was...

And I also disagree with you about the characters. Yes, the plot wasn't new..BUT..I saw it with a jam-packed IMAX crowd and I thought the acting and the FX made up for the thin plot...

AVATAR...Great FX/Great acting and characters...not so great plot..but still an overall better movie than any of the movies you listed...except Star Trek. I think Star Trek was the better movie...

Rob

Its not just my opinion actually. Shared by many. Maybe they've not listed the movies per se but a few have listed District 9 and Star Trek so its not just me who feel its not even the best overall sci-fi film.

Hey, your still on the after sex high of Avatar, I get that.
After a few more tussels with her I'd wager many if not even you come to see the blandness of Avatar once your past the mushroom acid trippy visuals that is the only real selling point of the film.

Well...you put your self in a CATCH-22 when you admit Avatar will do better Box Office, but try to say your opinion is shared by many...using your logic, then its clear that an overwhelming percentage of people are on my side...Avatar is a better movie than all the movies you listed, including Star Trek....Terminator is considered, by most people I know, and even on this thread, a pretty weak movie.

What AVATAR is? A movie going experience. Pure and simple...

All the other movies, Star Trek included, are just movies....


Rob

I wasn't admitting anything that isn't obvious by observation of fact. Yes, Avatar will do better B.O., that's just stating an apple as an apple. Will it make money? It has to make near or over one billion to break even. So much of the films development is reported to not even be in the reported cost of the film. Superman Returns made a lot of money but only broke even. Is break even now passing for success?

I'd expect people in this thread to diss Salvation not a shock. Those who ripped on it in the discussion thread dismissed explanations in the movie itself. That movie at least moved characters forward in a story vs rehashing(poorly) a known story.

What Avatar will not be is a home DVD experience. An experience to revist. It can't hold up at home cause it wasn't made to. Those here in this thread that saw it in 2-D have said as much. The rawness of the plot stands out when you don't have the visuals as a distraction. As you stated its a movie going experience PERIOD. It loses all luster and is exposed as a shell of a film as it develops a shelf life outside of IMAX.

Let me be clear. I don't hate Avatar. It's simply a letdown. There are worse overall movies and better. In the last year+ I've seen people admit that upon rewatching it Casino Royale wasn't as great as they recalled and that wasn't built for 'movie going' experience. It illustrates how some get caught up in the hype of the moment though. I can forsee the letdown Avatar will have then based on things like that.

As of now making a sequel to Avatar is to me like making it to the Steve Martin Pink Panther or Jolie Tomb Raider. Hype and curiostiy got people into those movies and the studio thought people liked them. They didn't in the long run cause afterwards they realized there was nothing there to care about. Do I care about Earth returning no? Do I care about Jakes new journey, no? I wager that as of now more will come to that conclusion. Caught up in the hype for now but reality will set in that its not something to return to like Panther and Raider.

Star Trek and the other movies can hold up on DVD at home, even gain ground in terms or fondness/rewatchability.

 

[Arrqh]

I wasn't admitting anything that isn't obvious by observation of fact. Yes, Avatar will do better B.O., that's just stating an apple as an apple. Will it make money? It has to make near or over one billion to break even. So much of the films development is reported to not even be in the reported cost of the film. Superman Returns made a lot of money but only broke even. Is break even now passing for success?

If we're talking about a new franchise where the sequels will have much lower budgets? Then sure, breaking even can very well be a success. You can't look at the box office take in a vacuum you need to look at it in an overall context to determine what is or is not a success from a financial standpoint. A new IP that can make $600 mil worldwide in a week? That's hot stuff.

 

[Kegg]

Yeah, the main draw of Avatar is the SFX, and yes the story is rather cliche. I still liked the story and the leads to a point, though, which is worth observing (and I ain't alone there, either). This is something I'd want on DVD because I simply like looking at it, it's much the same reason I have Blade Runner on DVD. I like the worldscape, the aliens, the creatures, the floating mountains. It's cool stuff. This movie is eye-candy in any definition (though the Blu-ray is, I guess, essential.)

I wouldn't say Showgirls. As I've opined elsewhere, I'd say Ben-Hur and Star Wars; epic spectacle films (Ben-Hur in particular was also desgned to maximize the cinema-screen potential, ironically enough.) Guess what? I've got both of those on home video too.

Its not just my opinion actually. Shared by many.

Not that many so long as we're talking about Terminator: Salvation, is it? Not to join in on the bashing of a movie I didn't see (I'm not that petty), but it's generally been panned a lot more harshly than Avatar has.

However, leaving out Terminator: Salvation for a moment (because I haven't seen it, naturally) I'd agree in substance with the rest of your argument. Avatar isn't as good a film as Star Trek, District 9 or Moon, but it looks like it'll do a lot better than any of those films in the box office and in the awards ceremonies as well.

However, for me the distinction isn't that great. Avatar is just the fourth of four good sci-fi films released this year, if not a classic (it's not, I think) it's a damn good planetary romance epic.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

I'd say Avatar is a classic through the sheer force of its visuals and its standing as an "event film." It has created its own self-fulfilling prophecy in that regard: The movie is truly a landmark/watershed for 3D technology, and it features some of the best (though not the best integrated) CGI ever put to screen. The box office receipts confirm as much.

But there is a difference between a film being a great "movie going experience" and being a "good movie." A good example, for my part, would be Sleepy Hollow. I'm absolutely enchanted by the visual look of that film -- everything from the design to the framing to the cinematography. And because of that, I own the DVD and watch it, regularly. But I'm not going to defend the story's most obvious flaws and missteps, either.

Same can be said of Avatar. Its visuals have a much broader appeal than Sleepy Hollow and the novelty of 3D allows it to be enjoyed at least as much for the "experience" than for its quality as a "film." As a result it already has done *very* well at the box office (and should continue to do so). Its home video sales will likely be strong, too. But it's not the "best overall sci-fi movie" of the year. I'd give that nod to Star Trek.

Ironically, for all my criticisms of Avatar, I'd still place it as the second-best sci-fi film of the year, ahead of District 9, Terminator: Salvation, Transformers, etc. (I've not seen Moon yet).

 

[RobertScorpio]

I'd say Avatar is a classic through the sheer force of its visuals and its standing as an "event film." It has created its own self-fulfilling prophecy in that regard: The movie is truly a landmark/watershed for 3D technology, and it features some of the best (though not the best integrated) CGI ever put to screen. The box office receipts confirm as much.

But there is a difference between a film being a great "movie going experience" and being a "good movie." A good example, for my part, would be Sleepy Hollow. I'm absolutely enchanted by the visual look of that film -- everything from the design to the framing to the cinematography. And because of that, I own the DVD and watch it, regularly. But I'm not going to defend the story's most obvious flaws and missteps, either.

Same can be said of Avatar. Its visuals have a much broader appeal than Sleepy Hollow and the novelty of 3D allows it to be enjoyed at least as much for the "experience" than for its quality as a "film." As a result it already has done *very* well at the box office (and should continue to do so). Its home video sales will likely be strong, too. But it's not the "best overall sci-fi movie" of the year. I'd give that nod to Star Trek.

Ironically, for all my criticisms of Avatar, I'd still place it as the second-best sci-fi film of the year, ahead of District 9, Terminator: Salvation, Transformers, etc. (I've not seen Moon yet).

It really does come down to personal opinion. All my friends thought Sweeny Todd was a great movie, where as I thought it was awful with dreadful music.

Titanic baffles me to this day. I still love the movie. How can a movie that is still $700 million ahead of the number two movie be universally hated as much as it is. Well, we know the answer; trends. Somewhere along the line it became trendy to say "Titanic? Thats an over-rated long movie that I hate"...but the simple fact is this; a THREE HOUR movie can not make THAT kind of money unless a lot of people went to see it...and then..saw it again.

As for those who like Terminator Salvation over Avatar? I don't know how they can, but...oh well.

All I know is this; Avatar was the most exciting movie going experience I have had in some time. Kind of like the first time I saw Jurasic Park and went "whoa" when I saw those effects.

Avatar is more than the FX; it has great acting performances by the lead characters. Sure, the story isn't anything new, but Worthington is to this movie as Kevin Costner was to Dances with Wolves; and I think Avatar is better than Dances with Wolves, and Worthington out acts Costner; just my opinion, but thats how I see it.

Rob

 

[Kegg]

Ironically, for all my criticisms of Avatar, I'd still place it as the second-best sci-fi film of the year, ahead of District 9, Terminator: Salvation, Transformers, etc. (I've not seen Moon yet).

Wait. What's your current first, Star Trek?

 

[RobertScorpio]

Ironically, for all my criticisms of Avatar, I'd still place it as the second-best sci-fi film of the year, ahead of District 9, Terminator: Salvation, Transformers, etc. (I've not seen Moon yet).

Wait. What's your current first, Star Trek?

I cant answer for sam...but I would list Star Trek over Avatar...but Avatar is real close. But STAR TREK fans might be biased...

...I could see how some would prefer District-9 or Moon...but Terminator? No...But as I said; I accept it.

Rob

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Avatar is more than the FX; it has great acting performances by the lead characters. Sure, the story isn't anything new, but Worthington is to this movie as Kevin Costner was to Dances with Wolves; and I think Avatar is better than Dances with Wolves, and Worthington out acts Costner; just my opinion, but thats how I see it.

Rob

I pretty much agree ... except for this. I didn't find the performance especially strong. Worthington was good -- not great. Saldana manages to convey a surprising amount of empathy (hers was the best performance), Weaver was competent but not noteworthy, and Lang, IMO, was downright putrid.

But, like you said, it does come down to personal opinion.

Ironically, for all my criticisms of Avatar, I'd still place it as the second-best sci-fi film of the year, ahead of District 9, Terminator: Salvation, Transformers, etc. (I've not seen Moon yet).

Wait. What's your current first, Star Trek?

Indeed. Though, of course, that movie is not without flaws of its own, either.

EDIT:
For what it's worth, I'd also say that Where The Wild Things Are and Invictus are better overall movies than even Star Trek.

 

[Kegg]

Lang was great, I felt, for exactly the sort of character he was written to be. I could see someone having a problem with that character (it's a shameless stereotype if ever there was one) but Lang just takes it, runs with it, and does just about everything possible you can do with this archetype.

That said, Worthington was a great lead. He's got real star charisma - his affable ordinary guy personality makes him an excellent thing to hang the film on.

 

[T'Baio]

I thought Zoe Saldana put in the performance of the film. Not even "just" for this film, but performances in general. She was incredible in every way.

 

[Captain Craig]

I wasn't admitting anything that isn't obvious by observation of fact. Yes, Avatar will do better B.O., that's just stating an apple as an apple. Will it make money? It has to make near or over one billion to break even. So much of the films development is reported to not even be in the reported cost of the film. Superman Returns made a lot of money but only broke even. Is break even now passing for success?

If we're talking about a new franchise where the sequels will have much lower budgets? Then sure, breaking even can very well be a success. You can't look at the box office take in a vacuum you need to look at it in an overall context to determine what is or is not a success from a financial standpoint. A new IP that can make $600 mil worldwide in a week? That's hot stuff.

Why did you say sequels? Sequels would be another discussion
I specifically said this movie. Even if it gets to a Billion worldwide that is still break even territory give or take. So break even is the measure of success? That was my question.

In regards to any sequels using the basis of 'the tech is created/ the F/X ground work laid' so sequels will be cheaper. Ok then, where is that Ghost Rider sequel? How about the Incredible Hulk sequel. I'm sure we could list other break even movies where it took $$$ to create a character and yet the studios didn't rush to create more. Why is that? Will the name Cameron alone get more Avatar made? Maybe cause that's all it might have going for it if this thing can't push seriously passed the Billion mark.

 

[Harvey]

Saw it in IMAX 3D yesterday afternoon. Yes, the white man is inducted into native society and learns their ways until, after a short period, he's better at them then they are (taming the giant flying beast, communicating the planet's peril to the Mother Nature figure), becomes their leader, and through his command defeats the technologically superior invaders. It's a little tired (Dances With Wolves is only the highest profile example of this trope--let's not forget Richard Harris in the trilogy of The Man Called Horse films or many other possible examples).

Of course, that reading ignores the fact that there are a lot of things that Jake Sully isn't very good at when it comes to Navi culture (i.e. the language, many of the tests Uhura, er, whatever her name is takes him through). It also ignores the most interesting story element--the Avatars themselves, which are rather interesting and something that hasn't been seen before. And, of course, the highly detailed world is a major selling point, and it is spectacular in IMAX 3D.

Above average, I'd say.

 

[Docbrown777]

Ok I finally saw it.

You know what? Avatar made me mad. As I walked out I was upset (not screaming yelling upset but inside my head rational upset).

They spent all this money to hire all these people and they designed an amazing world. Think of all the work that went into that. Not just the actual thousands if not millions of man hours sitting infront of the computer but the teams of artists and designers sitting around a table thinking up and creating every single animal, plant and crazy land formation.

That is some amazing stuff and those people worked their butts off to create a damn impressive visual presentation. I would have to say there is no doubt they will win every special effects award out there.

So this is what makes me mad. They created such a great setting just to ruin it with $hit for a plot. In my eyes they wasted it. I mean, they just threw it away. Unimaginative, unoriginal, cookie cutter etc. At no point in the entire movie was I actually excited. I could see every plot point coming from a million miles away...

-Oh, the humans are attacking but the movie is only half way over. Wonder who will win?

-Uh oh, the hot alien girl doesn't like the guy. Wonder if they will work it out and fall in love?

-Oh my, the hot alien chick has a boyfriend and he doesn't like the guy. wonder if they magically will get along at the end?


Obviously I could go on and on and on. I barely touched the surface with that rant.

It is just such a plain, dull unamazing story. Why would you be willing to work so hard to create this world and then work so little at developing an actual story to take place on that world?

The characters were black and white. No middle ground. "These are the good guys and from the start you are only to like them" and "these are the bad guys and from the start you will not like them." BORING!

Ok, I was excited as things started. The set up is great. I love the idea of a far away moon full of all kinds of life. I like the set up of humans can't breath the air. Come on, how many times watching star trek have we commented that it sure is odd that almost every planet they visit has a perfectly breathable atmosphere? I loved the entire avatar concept and controlling them so you could go into the wilderness as one of the natives. All of this is a great set up for a great movie. These are good ideas.

Then as the movie developed the good ideas just stopped and everything became a rehash of unoriginal materiel.

It just made me mad. It felt like a wasted opportunity to make a really great movie. Instead it was average to above average and that is based entirely on the amazing work the special effects people and design teams did. Hats off to those guys.

If people want to call this a good "movie going experience" I can't argue with that because it is an "experience" without a doubt.

However, I do not consider this a good movie.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Titanic baffles me to this day. I still love the movie. How can a movie that is still $700 million ahead of the number two movie be universally hated as much as it is. Well, we know the answer; trends. Somewhere along the line it became trendy to say "Titanic? Thats an over-rated long movie that I hate"...but the simple fact is this; a THREE HOUR movie can not make THAT kind of money unless a lot of people went to see it...and then..saw it again.

Rob

I started hating Titanic as I watched it.

 

[Harvey]

In regards to any sequels using the basis of 'the tech is created/ the F/X ground work laid' so sequels will be cheaper. Ok then, where is that Ghost Rider sequel? How about the Incredible Hulk sequel. I'm sure we could list other break even movies where it took $$$ to create a character and yet the studios didn't rush to create more. Why is that?

Because they didn't make as much money as hoped?

Of course, a sequel to Ghost Rider is in development, expected in 2011.

It's true that The Incredible Hulk didn't make as much money as hoped (though it was still profitable with 263 million worldwide theatrically off a 150 million dollar budget), so Marvel has the character on hold while they exploit a more profitable character (Iron Man) or a potentially more profitable character (Thor) in anticipation of the big Avengers movie, which will probably include Ed Norton as Banner/Hulk.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Yes, silly you for not understanding what "one of the goals" means (as in not the only one; being entertaining is certainly another), for assuming that your narrow vision of what scifi should be is the only way it could possibly be entertaining, and for continuously taking the easy and unchallenging path in all things.

I'm not saying everything must be like this. You can have your fancy complicated existentialist twaddle or whatever you call it. I'm just telling you what I prefer. Would you presume to tell me what I can and can't enjoy? How tolerant that must make you feel.

Look, I'm the first to admit that my tastes are very, well, common. I'm not sophisticated. I don't WANT to be. Hell, my favorite version of BSG is the original, that ought to tell you something! I fully admit that I want the easy way out at all times. I know I'm not likely to get it. But I can still hope. I would just like to see the occasional absolutes - where we know exactly who is good, and who is bad, and who to trust, and who to root for and against. Don't I have the right to enjoy that?