Avatar: The Way of Water | 16 DEC 2022 | Don't worry guys, critics like it

[dashrendar44]

It is about they are using the same old and rancid formula that has worked, in terms of money, in the blockbuster realm. I think the best and more interesting films/short films are in the world of animation.

But it didn't work for Ferngully (to quote you) or Dune or Delgo (sic) so why Cameron ripped off those flops instead of Gone With The Wind set in space if Cameron was craving for guaranteed and safe mega-success?Can you explain me why John Carter which is the exact carbone copy (Burroughs is one of the main influence of Avatar) bombed so hard even though it followed the same old and rancid cash-grab formula? Edited December 12, 2012 by dashrendar44

[tupek]

But it didn't work for Ferngully (to quote you) or Dune or Delgo (sic) so why Cameron ripped off those flops instead of Gone With The Wind set in space if Cameron was craving for guaranteed and safe mega-success?Can you explain me why John Carter which is the exact carbone copy (Burroughs is one of the main influence of Avatar) bombed so hard even though it followed the same old and rancid cash-grab formula?

With a market full of this cash-grab formula films, there should be flops sometimes, I suppose.

[dashrendar44]

It still doesn't explain why Avatar and not the others, why they failed if that old and rancid recipe is that easy to pull off and manufacture...

Edited December 12, 2012 by dashrendar44

[The Futurist]

Avatar was a box office smash because of the novelty factor of the 3d back in 2009.P.S : A lot of Avatar hataz actually believe that.

[Dementeleus]

Storytelling is storytelling, no matter how old or familiar the tale. Cameron is a very, very good storyteller. In AVATAR, if he'd managed to develop his main characters beyond their standard archetypes, it would've been a modern masterpiece. Instead, it's just a fun adventure.

[fishstick]

Avatar was a perfect pulp fiction - naked space princess, marines in distress, lavish alien world with tons of creatures resembling pre-historical ones or dragons. That`s a classic pulp. JCoM books were like that but I guess pulp was beneath Stanton so he opted for generic tortured soul-finds-a-new-home flick. Also, Avatar was gorgeous to look at while JC made Utah look worse than it really does (Utah`s actually gorgeous but not in this movie). Unlike Lawrence of Arabia which made desert look beautiful and terryifying at the same time, cinematography completely fails here. desert neither looked good nor like Mars.

Edited December 12, 2012 by fishnets

[The Futurist]

Storytelling is storytelling, no matter how old or familiar the tale. Cameron is a very, very good storyteller. In AVATAR, if he'd managed to develop his main characters beyond their standard archetypes, it would've been a modern masterpiece. Instead, it's just a fun adventure.

I don't get that.

I don't understand it.

" Beyond standard archetypes" is a good expression to sound smart in social circles but It doesn't mean anything profound I am sorry.

That's the message of the movie :

simplicity is good, being humble is good. Less is good. Archetypes are good.

We, neurotic, spoiled, out of touch with reality westerners are kinda pathetic.

No wonder geeks hate the film.

Cameron said a lot of times he thought the human race was a failed experiment and he is a total doomer.

Avatar tells us that we are not out of our caveman phase :

I want what the other cavemen have, exactly how the earthmen conduct themselves with the Na'vis and Pandora.

You think we would do things differently than in the movie if the scenario of Avatar came to reality ?

A gold mine where extra terrestrials live.

Avatar is the Human Race story in a nutshell.

Edited December 12, 2012 by The Futurist

[Dementeleus]

So what, he should have make Ney'tiri an angsty suicidal teenage ?

That is THe purpose of the movie, to remain us that we don

I don't get that.

I don't understand it.

" Beyond standard archetypes" is a good expression to sound smart in social circles but I doesn't mean anything profound I am sorry.

That's the message of the movie :

simplicity is good, being humble is good. Less is good.

We, neurotic, spoiled westerners are kinda pathetic.

No wonder geeks hate the film.

Sorry, not sure what you don't get. The basic characters of AVATAR are pretty standard: there's the troubled soldier who's lost in his soul who finds meaning in a foreign land, through falling in love with the strange princess. There's the princess, who doesn't bow down to convention but lives life the way she wants to. There's her gruff parents who don't initially approve. There's her former lover who's pushed aside and becomes the initial nemesis of the hero, only to eventually join him. There's the bloodthirsty villain.

Cameron doesn't bother adjusting these at all -- if you've seen them before in other movies their characters are very similar to what you see in AVATAR. Stephen Lang, through sheer force of will and scenery-chewing, makes Quaritch entertaining despite being almost entirely one-dimensional. If Cameron had taken these basic archetypes and tweaked them, unexpectedly, it would've been more interesting from a character perspective. But he chose not to.

I'm not saying any of this as an AVATAR hater, btw -- it's one of my favorite movies of that year.

[dashrendar44]

simplicity is good, being humble is good. Less is good.We, neurotic, spoiled westerners are kinda pathetic.No wonder geeks hate the film.

It would have flopped hard, geeks would held it as an underestimated gem like Final Fantasy ranting how General Audience didn't get it and be dumb-founded how GA couldn't connect to blue alien cat people due to their sheer idiocy and self-centered western culture. But since Grand-Mas and girls who never flocked to see a sci-fi movie raved about it and connected with the story, it became the worst sci-fi movie ever. Edited December 12, 2012 by dashrendar44

[The Futurist]

Again, do you realize that thousands of Quaritch people allow our way of life ??Do you think our way of life is obtained with kindness, equality and justice for all ?The Joker had one more dimension than being totally cukoo ???p.s : I am responding to Lawrence of Arabia.

Edited December 12, 2012 by The Futurist

[fishstick]

There's her gruff parents who don't initially approve.

You`re wrong about the parents, at least about the mom. Mom totally set up the romance. And she was also the one who saved Jake and Grace, not Neytiri. neytiri left them to die but mom believed in will of Eywa and Jake as the vessel for that will`s fulfilment and saved them. or maybe she was smart enough to figure out they indeed knew their enemies better and could help. Either way, no shortage of strong female characters in this one.

[Dementeleus]

Again, do you realize that thousands of Quaritch people allow our way of life ??Do you think our way of life is obtained with kindness, equality and justice for all ?The Joker had one more dimension than being totally cukoo ???p.s : I am responding to Lawrence of Arabia.

I'm not quite sure what any of that has to do with the characters in AVATAR. You're talking themes now.

[Ozymandias]

I don't get that.

I don't understand it.

" Beyond standard archetypes" is a good expression to sound smart in social circles but It doesn't mean anything profound I am sorry.

That's the message of the movie :

simplicity is good, being humble is good. Less is good. Archetypes are good.

We, neurotic, spoiled, out of touch with reality westerners are kinda pathetic.

No wonder geeks hate the film.

Cameron said a lot of times he thought the human race was a failed experiment and he is a total doomer.

Avatar tells us that we are not out of our caveman phase :

I want what the other cavemen have, exactly how the earthmen conduct themselves with the Na'vis and Pandora.

You think we would do things differently than in the movie if the scenario of Avatar came to reality ?

A gold mine where extra terrestrials live.

Avatar is the Human Race story in a nutshell.

Lmao, the themes in Avatar were the most ridiculous part, especially the way it was handled in hitting the audience over the head.

Trees, good!

Military, bad!

White people, bad!

Primitive people, good!

Capitalism, bad!

Technology, bad!

Nature, good!

And the best of all... "Our only security is in pre-emptive attack. We will fight turrer with turrer!"

and then... and then he says.. "Lets wipe out this civilization so I can get back to base, and eat my steak dinner!"

Edited December 12, 2012 by Shpongle

[Darth Homer]

Sorry, not sure what you don't get. The basic characters of AVATAR are pretty standard: there's the troubled soldier who's lost in his soul who finds meaning in a foreign land, through falling in love with the strange princess. There's the princess, who doesn't bow down to convention but lives life the way she wants to. There's her gruff parents who don't initially approve. There's her former lover who's pushed aside and becomes the initial nemesis of the hero, only to eventually join him. There's the bloodthirsty villain.Cameron doesn't bother adjusting these at all -- if you've seen them before in other movies their characters are very similar to what you see in AVATAR. Stephen Lang, through sheer force of will and scenery-chewing, makes Quaritch entertaining despite being almost entirely one-dimensional. If Cameron had taken these basic archetypes and tweaked them, unexpectedly, it would've been more interesting from a character perspective. But he chose not to.I'm not saying any of this as an AVATAR hater, btw -- it's one of my favorite movies of that year.

The funny thing is that Cameron has made well-rounded characters out of archetypes before. The psychotic Navy Seal played by Michael Biehn in The Abyss has much more depth, and even sympathy, than the psychotic space marine in Avatar. And compare the corporate douchebag in Aliens with the corporate douchebag in Avatar. Burke is a character that initially wins the audience's sympathy before he is revealed as a scumbag. Giovanni Ribisi's character is just a one-dimensional scumbag from the start. Hell, Vasquez and Gorman in Aliens had better character arcs than anyone in Avatar. That's pretty sad.Avatar was missing nearly all of Cameron's trademark character development and humour. That's why it was disappointing for me as a fan, except on a visual level. Edited December 12, 2012 by Darth Homer

[Jessie]

I love how people use 3D as the main selling point for Avatar. If that's the case, why didn't UP smash the box office? Avatar wasn't the first 3D movie to be released.

[Ozymandias]

I love how people use 3D as the main selling point for Avatar. If that's the case, why didn't UP smash the box office? Avatar wasn't the first 3D movie to be released.

Thats not being honest. The 3D/CGI in Avatar was way better than anything before it. It was a novelty and made people take 3D seriously, even though it was only temporarily.

The funny thing is that Cameron has made well-rounded characters out of archetypes before. The psychotic Navy Seal played by Michael Biehn in The Abyss has much more depth, and even sympathy, than the psychotic space marine in Avatar. And compare the corporate douchebag in Aliens with the corporate douchebag in Avatar. Burke is a character that initially wins the audience's sympathy before he is revealed as a scumbag. Giovanni Ribisi's character is just a one-dimensional scumbag from the start. Hell, Vasquez and Gorman in Aliens had better character arcs than anyone in Avatar. That's pretty sad.Avatar was missing nearly all of Cameron's trademark character development and humour. That's why it was disappointing for me as a fan, except on a visual level.

Amazing post, thats dead on. And some clown in this thread said simplicity is good... lol. Edited December 13, 2012 by Shpongle

[Dementeleus]

Simplicity IS good, oftentimes. It's not the only good thing, nor does it refer just to characterization.

[vc2002]

Characters in Avatar are defnitely weak, comparing to his previous works. That's my biggest complaint about the movie. But I dont mind saying this again: it is the price one must pay when he had to spend half of the movie on just introducing the new world. It's pretty much the same as A New Hope where characters were kinda simple and you may said "one-dimensional".The simplicity s never guaranteed to make the story suck or bloom. Besides, a movie is never just about the story. It's also about the way you tell it. Telling a simple story well is 10 times better than having a complicated story but making it look like a joke.

Edited December 13, 2012 by vc2002

[fishstick]

Sympathetic villains would absolutely NOT work in Avatar. Parker represented greedy corporations and Quaritch represented mercenaries they often employ to clear up local shit for them. Coffy from Abyss was a different type of character, a patriot with an increasingly paranoid syndrome. Also, Avatar was deliberately women`s movie and female characters were written as stronger. The main deity is female and therefore all 4 women of the movie - Neytiri, Grace, Trudy and Mo`at were strong in their own way. And they also weren`t token women because the movie stablished than in both societies, human and Na`vi, there was equality of genders so none of them was the annoying Mary Sue exception to the rule.And I especially like how he bridged the science and religious mysticism by having Na`vi connection to the nature and ancestors be scientifially explained yet retaining the mystery of something above science. Someone learned the lesson from midichlorinas, that`s for sure.

[kayumanggi]

December 2015 please.