Avatar: 400 Million Dollars Worth of Disappointment
By Lisa Fary
Back in 2000, I dated Chad, Former Male Model. Chad was good looking; I mean really good looking, like young Alec Baldwin good looking, like get seated immediately at a trendy restaurant good looking. He was also shallow, vapid, and humorless.
If Chad were a movie, he’d be Avatar.
Avatar is a stunning visual and technological achievement and nothing more. I have never seen 3D look so amazing, so real. The effect was less like looking at a movie screen and more like looking through a window into another world. Avatar should win a mess of technical achievement awards. But, the visual beauty of it was wasted.
In the reported ten year development of the movie, James Cameron put a lot of effort, time, and money into the flora and fauna of Pandora, into the advanced weaponry that devastates the planet, and into fiddling with the look so that the 3D presentation works.
However, it appears that in all that time, he forgot a very important thing: a story.
So, why not borrow one? Avatar takes some from Dances with Wolves, a little from Pocahontas, round it out with the primary plot of FernGully: The Last Rainforest, then tack on the Ewok-battle ending of Return of the Jedi. Cameron even mines his own library of work for Avatar: he recreates Ellen Ripley’s powerloader fight scene with the xenomorph queen, only in the jungle and with a crazed colonel and a Na’vi. Strains of “My Heart Will Go On” infiltrate the soundtrack.
The other very important thing Cameron neglected was character.
Rather, he neglected character in favor of caricature. The Avatar marines are trigger happy Cro-Magnons (just like the marines in Aliens). The corporate toady is. . . well, toady (a copy of Paul Riser in Aliens). The colonel in charge is a maniac. There’s nerdy science guy. Another nerdy science guy. Sigourney Weaver reprises her role as Dian Fossey. Wes Studi reprises his role as every wise, indigenous leader he’s ever played.
John and I don’t go to the movie theater unless we’re fairly sure we’re going to like the movie. It’s so expensive and takes up so much time that it really needs to be worthwhile. We didn’t go into Avatar with a bad attitude. We didn’t go in expecting to pick it apart. We were so sure of Avatar’s awesomeness that we walked to the theater in a blizzard. Up hill. Both ways.
Unfortunately, Avatar is a festering load of cliches that goes on for too long and takes itself too seriously.
Save your money. Don’t go see Avatar.
Lisa Fary is a graduate of the creative writing program at Florida State University and holds an advanced degree in Special Education. Her earliest influences are Princess Leia, Rainbow Bright, Astronaut Barbie, and her 6th grade teacher, Ms. Palmer. She’s angry that it’s almost 2010 and she still doesn’t have a hovercraft, but will accept a jetpack as consolation. That jetpack had better be pink with a rhinestone monogram.
|
|
Related articles by Zemanta
- Avatar TV Spot 3 = Fantasy Adventure For Kids? (screenrant.com)
- Brief Avatar teaser leans heavily on 3-D sci-fi flash (thestar.com)
- Avatar: Classic Disney for the Digital Age (screenrant.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=4446a868-2015-46de-99dc-8ff0bea7b48c)
Huh. I had no desire to see Avatar anyway except that I felt it was my geek duty. Now, I don't even feel THAT. Thanks! I will save my twelve bucks.
If I've saved one person the time and money, I've fulfilled my duty.
It wasn't that bad. Just nothing great.
Your review was cliched and trite, targeting the only element detractors can latch onto. What I get from this criticism is that the film fails because it's designed to be a universal piece of mass entertainment. The amount of elements needing micromanagement in introducing a brand new property and cinematic experience to the public coupled with the pure visual density of what is Avatar is all nearly unfathomable. The fact that it came off as seamless and as masterfully crafted as it did, is a miracle. We've all seen these classic narratives several times over, but never like this, and never all in one film. I enjoyed Star Trek, but the script in that film was infinitely weaker, with several gaping plot holes completely glossed over. A half a billion dollars at stake and not only do you want the next major evolution in cinema, but you demand experimental plot devices and an untested narrative structure. I'd suggest further study in creative writing and I for one am glad you're not in charge of that much money. At least Cameron spent it responsibly, and is poised to make a massive profit while ushering in the New Age of movies. Teresa should take in the film for herself, it is well worth the price of admission.
Most films that are designed to be universal pieces of mass entertainment are failures because they have to play to the lowest common denominator, guaranteeing that the work will have no meaning beyond it's very pretty surface. For half a million dollars and over a decade of production, for my own money and time, I want more than pretty. While I don't demand experimental plot devices and untested narrative structure, as you insist, I do demand plot and narrative structure that isn't brainless, that isn't ripped off from crap movies. Cameron's story is only brilliant if you've never read a book or seen a movie before, or simply find sparkly lights to be the height of entertainment.
Your response to Lisa's review was the perfect example of the socially retarded individual who takes personal offense at anyone who dares disagree with their choices in pop-culture entertainment. You personally target the reviewer with ad-hominem attacks, claim that the reviewer demands things of the movie that she never states in the review. You are also generally unpleasant in your written demeanor.
I'm with Lisa on this one: Avatar was a bore. Visually amazing, but could have easily lost an hour of it's 161 minute running time, because it was at about the 100 minute mark that I realized that I was way more interested in the flora and fauna of Pandora than I was in the fate of any of it's inhabitants.
It's a failure to a few, and that's too bad for them. Your divergence into name calling is uncalled for. Lisa can take away from pop-culture entertainment whatever fancies her. I disagreed with her article and viewpoints and stated mine. I'm sorry for her emotional response to my words, and sorry that she wasn't able to enjoy what amounts to in palette & artistic virtuosity, the Sistine Chapel of movie making, painted by nature, in emotionally broad strokes. You can denounce that all you will, but writers of all ages wrote for the penny pit.
I can't provide you with an explanation of why you're numb to it.
But
In all fairness, I think we can agree that the finances will lay bare how responsibly that filmmaker spent his money. Your article entitled "Avatar: 400 Million Dollars Worth of Disappointment" does challenge the financial responsibility of the film (maybe all films? or even more broadly the gluttony of your nation). What you don't apparently realize is how many other movies cost as much, or more when marketing is taken into account (what your 'factual' number represents). If you want to stand by your article I'd hope that you'd also have the critical objectivity to weigh all perspectives and not be afraid to revise your opinion. I'm the one open, taking in your account of things and your cronies attack me for challenging your viewpoint. Doesn't that defeat the point of the internet.
I hope provocative discussion isn't considered wrong in Florida.
I'm well aware of movie budgets. I'm also aware that the most expensive movies appear to be, historically, the worst:
Spider-Man 3: 258 mil
X-Men 3: 210 mil
Pirates of the Caribbean 3: 300 mil
King Kong: 207 mil
I'm not afraid to revise my opinion, but in this instance, I see no need to do so. I've read numerous reviews of Avatar praising the achievement of it; however, the majority of those are focused on the sheer spectacle of the thing. I've already stated that I need more than a spectacle in a three hour movie. I stand by my review.
Be as provocative as you want in your discussion. I fully expect to be challenged for anything I say on the internet; the beauty is that I can challenge right back.
I didn't mean to attack you, but felt attacked by John who appears to be strongly supportive of your viewpoint.
I did not attack your nation. We all live on a gluttonous continent.
I've no interest in changing your mind. I couldn't take your article seriously, but that doesn't mean I'm dismissing your opinion about not liking the film. I don't feel you've addressed any of the points I've raised, but have taken them personally. That wasn't my intention. Unfortunately, this argument has gone on for far "too long and [is taking itself far] too seriously," (excuse any excessive use of adjectives & gerunds).
Dude, you come in here and say "I'd suggest further study in creative writing and I for one am glad you're not in charge of that much money," and claim that it's not a personal attack on the reviewer?
I have no problem with people disagreeing with anyones POV. You were doing so well until you decided to get some snide digs in against the reviewer. So don't claim that you "didn't mean to attack," when in fact, you did. The second you stop talking about the words written and start casting aspersions against the writer of those words, you cross the line.
Be an adult. Own your words.
I guess if we're not talking adjusted for inflation that narrows our list down to convenient & very contemporary targets. IE I didn't see the Russian produced War and Peace 1968 (adjusted for inflation costing $500 million) that aside, using your 'CHOSEN LIST, is Avatar then guilty by association to those films, or because of this former flame male model named Chad. I couldn't take your opinion seriously after that intro. I guess Mr. Dallhaire missed the irony of his statement in defense of your article and his attack on me, though I could see how my passionate demeanor could be misread.
If your argument was about mass entertainment and about Mc Movie making in Hollywood, I would agree that many high budget films are unorganized and vapid. From what I've read and experienced, that's not the consensus here. Avatar is unanimously confirmed as a visual spectacle unlike any other, "I have never seen 3D look so amazing, so real." So it's not a total disappointment. I also don't personally consider the word caricature, implicitly derogatory. Beyond that, the film does include (broadly) some worthwhile commentary and from a technical standpoint is very well constructed, however familiar the territory or themes. When the Golden spruce on the Queen Charlotte Islands, in B.C., Canada was viciously torn down by vandals I felt a pang of sadness in my heart for the natural world and the things we do to it. I find it interesting that the detractors write of a lack of story and character, but then from supporters who felt just the opposite and emotionally responded to the film. BTW none of whom I'd so arrogantly JUDGE as being the lowest common denominator. In-fact, interestingly the film itself acts as an avatar for the audiences interaction with Pandora — a window to another world, in turn cleverly commenting on how we experience any story. That seems pretty Meta to me and not at all an example of being 'stupid' or 'dumbed down,' rather open and accepting of each audience members personal experience. In your case I guess an unfulfilling relationship with a good looking model named Chad.
What you seem to be missing is that I didn't attack you; I responded to your comment and defended my ideas. You came in insisting that I need to take creative writing classes, calling my even-toned response emotional, calling my nation gluttonous, calling me arrogant, and now dismissing me entirely because I used dating as a point of comparison. Is this what you consider provocative discussion?
Bottom line: there is nothing that can be said that's going to make me waver on my opinion of this movie. I thought that's what this discussion was about – Avatar, not me.
I don't have a problem admitting that my remark was flippant, but I found her article equally flippant and unfocused, and I meant to draw attention to that. I just assumed that as a student of creative writing she would be very familiar with the tropes of the "myth making" storytelling associated with such films as the one being discussed. Just because something is distilled to it's essence doesn't mean it's "lowest common denominator," and I find that sort of generalization an offensive stereo type. The only thing I could take away from her article was that she and John didn't enjoy the film (fair enough). On this thread I'm representing the minority. I've presented several points of contention about her article but instead the two of you have latched onto whatever can be construed as personal attacks and have made this about her instead of about the film. The type of written demeanor you're exhibiting is more directly an act of Trolling than anything I've said, considering I've now several times apologized for offending her personally. I've yet here anything from yourself.
John is the co-founder of Pink Raygun, along with me. I didn't realize it was possible for one to troll his/ her own website.
As far as flippancy, well. . . if you read any of the 1200+ pieces I've posted in the past three years, "flippant" is how I roll.
"I'm sorry for her emotional response to my words, and sorry that she wasn't able to enjoy what amounts to in palette & artistic virtuosity" is the extent of your reported several apologies (which, BTW, were not requested, required, or desired) and is tantamount to saying "I'm sorry you're a dick."
You wanna talk about the movie, let's talk about the movie.
Adhering to the Joseph Campbell "Hero's Journey" isn't what makes a movie lowest common denominator. The overly simplistic messages of "Corporate Greed = BAD" and "Environmental Destruction = BAD" does. I expect something more well thought and nuanced from an adult making a movie than what I'd expect from an 8th grade remedial ed student writing an extra-credit book report. From Avatar, not only did I not detect any message more insightful than what the 8th grader could give, I also discovered something far more troubling.
The Na'Vi serve as some sort of Native American stand-in, referred to by the invading White Corporate Culture as "savages" and "animals." Yet it takes a white guy in a high-tech version of Blue-Face to get assimilated into the tribe, mate with the hot native girl, and emerge as the smartest and strongest of that tribe. Message perceived – White Guys Do It Better.
Admittedly, the world building in the movie was amazing. But sometimes, pretty just ain't enough.
Sure, Lisa and I are in the minority of public opinion on this movie – but we also hated Titanic, find the majority of Pop 40 songs to be trite and unoriginal, can't stand hospital dramas and police procedurals on TV, hated the ending of Battlestar Galactica, don't shop at Wal-Mart or eat at McDonalds (or any fast food, for that matter). We're kinda freaky that way – you know, we actually turn ON our brains when we're ready to be entertained. We don't go into movies looking to escape our harsh reality – we go into movies looking for inspiration in the characters, to see something that we simply can't see in everyday life, and to be challenged by the story message.
Avatar succeeded at only one of those.
I don't eat fast food either. I've never watched Battlestar Galactica. The point I gathered from Joseph Campbell is that despite the vast distance and differences between various cultures the stories and myths being told hold universal similarities and that a union of truth can be ascertained from the cross section of these stories.
The hero's journey is very often about crossing sides.
EVERYONE seems to gloss over the deux ex machina ending accepting it, but don't bother considering it a possibility that the planet may well have brought Jake, the exact purpose he served knowing that in his condition he would be prone to be sympathetic to the Na Vi. I don't know if you want to start discussing the art of war because If I were a general in the Na vi army I would find it a very logical decision for Sully to the lead the battle due to the fact that he was human and therefore well aware of potential weaknesses (ie arrows from above instead of glancing blows from below). Campbell referred to this special knowledge the boon, in this case brought back to the people in their time of need; their f'ing planet was being raped. We had the brother battle, Dragon-Battle, abduction, whales belly, wonder journey, tests & helpers, flight, sacred marriage, mother atonement, and of course the original call to adventure. Charted out the Hero's journey is far more simplistic and distilled than this film is being broken down into 4 keys, the threshold of adventure and a circle. Myths are by design meant to be simple so the people can better absorb them, often without them being aware of it, sort of like flavored cough medicine.
I enjoy an assortment of films, from Bergen to Bruckheimer. Corporate Greed does = Bad (The Current Economy is proof of this), Environment Destruction does = Bad (Climate change proves this). If this is so elementary then why does nothing change?
So if the species needs this message delivered to them at an 8th grade remedial ed student level before something is done, it's a little sad I agree, but inspiring that someone in the position to make a 400 million dollar film would be willing to do so.
Yet again your twisting my words into some personal attack. Semantics aside, I’m sorry you took it that way. If all your articles are written so flippantly as “how you roll,” then you can’t be surprised to receive equally flippant reactions from time to time. And If this is an example of your film criticism then I guess I’d have to agree with Anne Thompson about the future of that profession. I guess John can act like a jerk all he wants, I’d still call it trolling.
oh my god, shallow movie. i can only laugh at u sad people who didnt enjoy the movie. personally i watched this movie 4 times in a week… thats how great this movie was (two times 3d and 2 times regular screen). the fact that i could watch this movie this many time and not get bored is amazing. 2 hours and a half and it didnt feel like a long movie at all. its amazing animation, yea, sure but the story itself is amazing as well. every detail they thought of… the 10 foot tall blue apes and their entire world and life style. the story itself wasnt too "original" but what is? almost every movie end with the good guy winning the girl or killing the bad guy. this movie was only diffrent in the way, the journey it took you. anyway its an amazing movie, everyone should watch it. i want it to be the second most grossing movie in the world (becuase i cant believe it will pass titanic)
It's now January 5th and the movie will break $400 million in the US this coming weekend. I have seen it twice so I must not be a good judge of character. The people Ive take must not be either. I am 54, the folks I took were 52, 62, 57 and 56. The audience the second time had an average age around 40, and not a lot of kids. All of us actually think we are good film critics liking quality film, particularly small Independent films. I like those because there is hardly anything BIG that's fresh coming out of Hollywood except maybe The Dark Knight. We all thought it was well written, reasonably acted, emotional, beautiful to look at and the 3D is an amazing visual achievement. Seems like the world kind of agrees. The negative reviews I have read are either weak like this one or jingoistic espousing a far right perspective bitching about bad old liberal Hollywood. Then there's that white guilt fantasy angle that's so tired it's not worthy of a response. I actually understand the far right bitch but this review is just sad. If you can't sit back and enjoy the spectacular beauty of the film and have a good time, at least don't spoil it for others. My guess is that Theresa finally went and saw it.
This doesn't spoil anything for anyone – I didn't give away any of the major plot points that were't already given away in any trailer.
Unless having a negative opinion on the movie, which you clearly enjoy, somehow ruins it for you. You know, like how the right insists that one gay marriage ruins all marriage.
When I was growing up, and wanted a particular brand of jeans, I’d try the argument “but all the other kids have them,” which never worked. My parents always answered with “If all the other kids were jumping off bridges, would you jump off bridges, too?”
Based on this comment, I’m going to guess that your response would be something more like “You’re going to get those jeans, I’m not raising any free-thinking, misfits here. You’re going to FIT! IN!”
Because your argument that Avatar made a lot of money so it must be good is quite simply, stupid.
Fail: http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/
You just fail women…
I have to say the story was boring, unimaginative and the characters were caricatures… However, I would not hesitate to recommend it to anyone with the slightest interest in digital advancement and innovation. Just because the plot is underdeveloped is not reason to miss out on the future of digital media. Of course I am speaking as a (girl) computer geek, for those people who have no idea of what is required to pull this off as flawlessly as it did, the only focus will be on the other most obvious stuff. In fact, it is a testament to the film that we can look beyond the digital effects and talk about secondary things, believe me, if the effects didnt work, it would have been the first thing that got trashed…
I don't want to start an argument, and I definitely see where you are coming from in saying that the movie was, more or less, fecal matter in the form of scriptment. However, I DID enjoy this movie, for the same reason that John said he goes to movies, in order "to see something that we simply can't see in everyday life." Avatar definitely qualifies for this, and although the story is borrowed, simplistic, and childish, I enjoyed the spectacle and the absence of gaping plot holes. Although it wasn't ground breaking, it was well thought out and entertaining.
On another note, something doesn't always have to be highly intellectual to be enjoyed. Harry Potter, for example, is a fairly childish story of adolescence and Good vs. Evil that purposefully appeals to the masses, but it's highly entertaining and infectious to read. It's very good of you and John to enjoy thought-provoking entertainment, but sometimes it's okay to watch something that's not in that realm.
Thanks,
JM
You're right – a movie doesn't have to be highly intellectual to be entertaining. Case in point: Flash Gordon. Intellectual? No. Awesome? Totally. But, there was also never any doubt that Flash Gordon was going to be anything other than a silly, pulp adventure with flabby old Brian Blessed in a leather posing pouch. With Avatar, it's one thing for it to have similar themes as other movies – I expect that. What I didn't expect was storylines fully ripped off from other movies and played out by flat, cliched characters.
No worries about starting arguments – we get that a lot around here and already argued in this thread quite a bit.
Okay, I understand now. I didn't realize that you and John had gone into this really expecting it to be anything more than just an entertaining movie. Personally, I had seen the previews, had low expectations of it being uninteresting blockbuster nonsense, and I ended up being blown away by the visuals.
I think that people saying everything is cliche is cliche. A reader or movie watcher is going to find fundamentally the same themes in all the works that he or she experiences. This story is an epic story. Just as the same stories have been told countless times in different ways through writing and oral tradition, so stories are repeated in the production of movies.
(just subscribing to the thread)
I don't get this idea "entertaining" and "well written" are mutually exclusive.
A reader or movie watcher is going to find fundamentally the same themes in all the works that he or she experiences.
I already said that's to be expected. Storyline and character are different than theme.
I think that people saying everything is cliche is cliche.
That smacks of that conversation every college student winds up having at Denny's at 4AM: "What's right for me may not be right for you. Dude, pancakes!"
Great 3D, boring story. Not likely to see it twice.
You can compare any new movie with the past thousands of movies and find some similarities. Avatar was the best movie i have ever seen, visuals and storyline. Go see it while you still can. You only have one chance to see its beautiful 3D visuals!