I’ll leave it to the box-office gods to decide if the slightly soft opening of James Cameron’s Avatar this past weekend was actually the result Read the full post.
Dec 21
2009
02:17 PM ET
'Avatar': Does its so-so story matter? It depends on your definition of matter
- Comments 746
- Add comment
Latest News
- 'Celeb Apprentice': Arsenio Hall is 'hired'
- 'Celeb Apprentice' finale ratings hit low
- 'SNL': Kristen Wiig's 'graduation' day
- 'SNL' cut 'Kings of Catchphrase 3': Watch
- Adele dominates Billboard Music Awards
- 'True Blood' promo: Don't cry, red eyes!
- Houghton Mifflin Harcourt bankruptcy filing
- Sean Astin's 'Rings' memorabilia: Watch
Find Movies and Showtimes
Powered by MovieTickets.com
Choose Your Movie
All movies
Most Commented
Top 5 Most Read
- 'The Celebrity Apprentice' season finale recap: Racing To The Finish
- ‘Celebrity Apprentice’: And the winner is…
- 20 Best TV Series Finales Ever
- ‘Saturday Night Live’ recap: Jagger rocks out, and Kristen Wiig bids farewell
- ‘Game of Thrones’: Blackwater battle has ‘dramatically exceeded our expectations’ — EXCLUSIVE
Avatar’s storyline is hardly original, but as can be made clear by some of the best story-telling we’ve gotten in film history, unoriginal doesn’t doom it to a status of horrendous or trite like some people keep trying to make it out to be. Star Wars is as old a story as one gets, Lord of the Rings, Batman’s been around for nearly a century, Pixar tells old stories in new ways to captivate us, and yet we complain because Avatar’s story isn’t as original as its effects are supposed to be? I’m more than a little ticked that people are ripping on the story so much. Yes, it’s an old, tried and true, pretty predictable tale, but it’s still exhilarating, still entertaining, and still profitable. I really liked Avatar, something I’m not ashamed of. It’s got cheese, it’s got predictability, but it’s still an excellent story. I feel the same way about other heroic tales as predictable as they come (Harry Potter and Twilight, although I can’t say I’m a fan of the latter, also fit this mold). We like to reward revolutionary story-telling, but even District 9, a movie that has been quoted as one of the most original things this year, is a very clear allegory of a story that has played itself out numerous times throughout history and within the movie world as well. I like unconventional stories when they’re done well, but y’know what? I like conventional stories when they’re done well too. And if nothing else, Avatar is done very well.
Yes! Lord of the Rings is an amalgam of Norse, Greek and Celtic mythology. The Incredibles had strains of Marvel comics and Ayn Rand. Star Wars took a storyline that combined world religions and mythology. And yes, Harry Potter also fits this mold, though I love it dearly. District 9 was basically a political statement on apartheid.
It’s not THAT the stories must be original, but that they be approached in newer or unconventional ways. And I feel that Cameron achieved this with Avatar.
Not to mention the Golden Age of Disney… not that all of Disney’s stuff is original exactly, but every single praised movie during that decade was based entirely off of pre-existing material. The Little Mermaid? Beauty and the Beast? Aladdin? The Lion King? Pocahontas? The Hunchback of Notre Dame? Hercules? Mulan? Tarzan? Each and everyone a very blatant “rip-off” of an already existent feature and/or myth and/or fairy tale.
And although the article isn’t primarily about Avatar’s originality, my point is that I disagree with the argument that the story is “so-so” considering its long history of influences that are high quality. Not to mention that the grounds for calling it a so-so story seem to be that it is “predictable.” And I bet everyone watching Star Wars was certain Darth Vader was going to win and was so surprised by the twist ending…
I think that Avatar’s special effects are its most praiseworthy aspect, but just because the effects are “revolutionary” doesn’t mean we should expect a brand-spanking new storyline. In commercial Hollywood, you’d be hard-pressed to find any sort of revolutionary story-telling in the past several decades.
Yep, Sarah, yep.
Little Mermaid: Fairy tale
Beauty and the Best: Fairy tale
Aladdin: 1,001 Arabian Nights
Lion King: Hamlet
Pocahontas: American history
Hunchback of Notre Dame: Novel
Hercules: Greek mythology
Mulan: Chinese history/folklore
Tarzan: Novel
How many people have ripped Disney films for being unoriginal storytelling? Even PatF is based on a fairy tale.
And despite their unoriginality, Disney has made some truly great films. I like nearly all of those listed and their stories are great, even though they are all old and done again and again.
I agree with everything you all have said. I loved (500)days of summer and thought it was fresh, but the same can be said about it. it has a similar storyline to old woody allen movies like annie hall and Manhattan but in a different setting. Even the mixed up timeline has been done several times before. That does not take away from the fact that 500 days was a good movie.
“It’s not THAT the stories must be original, but that they be approached in newer or unconventional ways. And I feel that Cameron achieved this with Avatar”
.
And that’s the problem with Avatar. You gave examples of great films that were inspired by myth or ancient stories. But in the case of Star Wars of the Disney films, these influences were all enhanced not by technology (as is the case with Avatar) but by re-mixing these stories for “modern” audiences. The plotline from Star Wars connectd with ppl from the 70′s because they wanted to see good prevail over evil after living the dissapointment that was Vietnam and losing faith in the Government. It reminded ppl how cool it was to be with the “good side” (compared to how ppl of the present think is cooler to be with the darkside). The story was the thing that made those films work. I mean, heaven knows that back when Star Wars came along, you had several films trying to imitate it soon after (i.e. Battlestar Galactica) but they went after the obvious (space battles and droids, etc.) and forgot to provide ppl with a good STORY.
.
Avatar cannot be placed along those films because it rehashes plotlines from relatively RECENT films that made it BIG on screen. These are films almost everyone is familiar with. Who the heck hasn’t seen some of the films Avatar ripped off? Dances with Wolves (1990), Ferngully (1992), The Matrix (1999), The Last of the Mohicans (1992), just to name a few you see making up most of the “plot” in Avatar.
.
So nope. Try again Sarah El. the films you mentioned enriched the original stories. Avatar adds nothing to the mix. It simply copied them and added nothing.
You are daft and just looking for reasons to hate Avatar. Much like your Star Wars example, Avatar connects with people from 2009 because we want to see common folk prevail over greedy corporate pigs after living the disappointment that was the collapse of our economy and losing faith in capitalism. If you don’t see how the forced exile of Hometree could be a metaphor for home foreclosures, then you’re stupider than your posts make you out to be.
I don’t see how Avatar doesn’t do exactly what you say those films do; remix an older tale for a modern audience. I believe James Cameron said himself that Avatar is very clearly a movie of its time, or maybe it’s just my perception, but I agree with it. I think that Avatar took an old tale and retold it in a meaningful way. It wasn’t brilliantly written, it wasn’t revolutionary, but it certainly is modern. Avatar took an old story and brought something new, although very familiar, to the table. Essentially, what I mean, is that I agree with crispy.
Oh and one last thing. I was expecting to really dislike Avatar. I was expecting to get pissed off at a lack of substance in lieu of style. I doubted I would like it, much less like it as much as I do. It surprised me because I went in open-minded enough and was surprisingly pleased with a story that, although has its faults, and is not the best movie I’ve ever seen, is still pretty damned enjoyable and good.
And PLEASE. Didn’t EW give Transformers 2 a B? Was there anything in that movie enjoyable beyond the fight sequences (and even those… machine on machine fights are quite boring IMO)?
If you went in “expecting to really dislike” the movie, then you didn’t go in open-minded. Open-minded would be going in with no expectations at all.
What I meant to say was the leading up to part, but when I actually entered the theatre it was different. I know it sounded like that, but there is a timeline in that before I went to the theatre I expected to dislike it, but when I went to the theatre I had heard enough good things that I was giving it a chance.
So if it is profitable it is good?
What a sad world we have devolved into.
[spoiler] Personally, I was very surprised with the ending. I never expected to see the Na’vi and animals kick the humans off the planet. Usually, these kinds of tales end in some tragic hero dying in a hail of bullets, or escape with only the clothes on their back.
C’mon now! If the Na’vi didn’t kick the humans off then you couldn’t have the set up for the sequel ‘Return of the Industrial Military Complex’, silly!
I couldn’t agree more with you Owen about the characters and plot of ‘Avatar.’ I 100% agree with the B grade you gave it. I thought the main problem was how bland the central character was. I think the movie it’s most interesting to compare Avatar to is ‘Starship Troopers.’ One is lofty and high minded action and one is campy, almost aggressively stupid action. And yet, because it has no pretensions, I would argue that ‘Troopers’ is, by a slim margin, the better movie. Of course it wasn’t as ravishing to look at, but it moved along at a better pace and was probably more entertaining. Also Dina Meyers’ death scene in front of Casper Van Dien— “It’s alright–I got have you” was more moving than anything in Avatar. But Avatar has the benefit of being a liberal/anti-global warming wet dream. Troopers has Neil Patrick Harris as a psychic military scientist. Advantage, Troopers.
starship troopers is a better movie? congrats ew stupidity breeds stupidity
I can’t consider this movie a recycled story only saved by the fantastic visuals…it IS original in lots of ways this article failed to bring up. Even if the story is nothing new or groundbreaking, Pandora is. Built up completely from nothing, everything-the plant life, the biology, the wildlife on Pandora is all fascinating and new, and is something we have never seen before in cinema. I truly felt like I was in another world.
Then I would wager a guess that you haven’t really seen all that much “cinema,” Veronica. Glad you enjoyed the movie, and I wouldn’t take that away from you. To each his/her own. But I have to say that much of what I saw of Pandora reminded me of things I’d seen in other movies. Sorry.
So do any of you want to respond to the substance of what he’s saying? Because if all you’ve got in your arsenal is “Yeah, but what about New Moon?”, Owen wins this argument hands down.
Owen lost his credibility with review of transformers 2 along with new moon.
I dunno. I think “What about New Moon?” is actually a valid argument. Slippery slopes, my friend. Once you give in to New Moon, your entire critical career becomes questionable. “Yeah, Owen liked ‘Movie X’, but he also liked New Moon so…”
I think New Moon is fair game.
Lisa gave it a B+. I understand that not every critic grades the same and stragglers are to be expected, but this film has, what, a 28% on RT?
Owen didn’t rate New Moon but has written about its themes and issues, lending it artistic credibility that it doesn’t deserve.
I think it’s perfectly fair to hold Owen to some sort of accountability, especially when it can color the quality of his professional opinion.
New Moon’s not fair game when the question is “What do you think of Avatar’s story?” If the question was “what do you think of Avatar’s story *when compared to New Moon’s*?” then yeah, it’d make sense to bring up New Moon. I agree with Rob. Only a handful of people (Sarah El being the best example) have bothered to actually answer the question Owen’s posed *about Avatar*. Everyone else rabbitting on about how New Moon sucks comes off like they’ve got nothing meaningful to say about why Owen might be wrong about Avatar.
Exactly, and New Moon might be fair game if the commenters could go beyond, “the plot/emotion/story is better than New Moon” but they’ve mostly been saying it’s better, not defending it on its own merits as an artistic enterprise.
Also, as one commentator noted, neither of the EW critics were ever glowing about Twilight or New Moon. Owen in fact wrote in his Twilight review that the movie could not overcome the book’s lacklaster plot.
And the best way to question his credibility is to point out that he was wrong about Avatar, rather than slamming him for being marginally favorable towards Twilight. Also, for what it’s worth, Owen agrees with the consensus view 70+% of the time. Ultimately, his job is to offer his own opinion, not echo what others have said. From that vantage point, many commenters are simply whining that Owen is raising a legitimate question because he did not think New Moon was atrocious.
[spoilers] OK. I will respond to specific points that Owen made. I don’t think that Owen saw the same movie that I did.
1. Dramatic Layering — Was this a love story? Was this a story of exploration of a new planet? Was this a story of David against Goliath? Was this a story of a hero? Was this a coming of age story (becoming an adult in the trip)? Was this the story of the ecological impact of man on nature (man vs. nature)?
2. Psychological Conflict
Jake had to choose between getting his legs fixed and helping the Na’vi. All the humans had to choose between helping the Na’vi or supporting their own race.
3. Arc of character
a. Jake went from being a Marine to being a lover (including a lover of nature instead a lover of the gun).
b. Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver) went from considering Jake useless to supporting him to the death.
Nice job.
I think the story is far better than people give it credit. Unless I missed a scene in Dances With Wolves where Kevin Costner stuck his penis in a wolf’s ear, I thought the Na’Vi ritual of bonding with the Banshees was original and riveting.
Hahaha! I agree though; I thought the nature of the Na’vi was incredibly interesting.
That is the funniest thing I read yet Well done!!!!
Alas, crispy, I’m afraid that scene was lost to the cutting room floor.
Best response ever.
Thank you for writing this. I couldn’t agree more. It frustrates me when I tell people that I didn’t like Avatar when the response I inevitably get is, “But it LOOKS so cool!” Maybe it’s just me, but no matter how visually stunning the world James Cameron created here may be, I for one didn’t find myself caring because the entirely too basic story and underdeveloped characters didn’t make me care. It is upsetting that so many viewers are perfectly happy to be hypnotized by a pretty picture at the expense of substance and label it great.
And the backlash against Avatar backlash begins. Owen is just voicing an opinion. He in no way was disrespectful toward the film or any of its fans. He was simply commenting on the types of reactions that are surfacing regarding the film’s story. I think his point is valid, and has always been valid. We give films with advanced visual effects a pass because they can be so visually stunning. I’ve done it myself. The true question is not how the film is received now, but how it holds up in the years to come. Corny dialogue and lackluster writing don’t seem to be such a hindrance the first time around, but on repeat viewing, those elements don’t hold up and the “wow” value won’t be there anymore.
First off, I should mention that I haven’t seen the movie yet. So I will only comment on the box office part of the article.
The Hollywood Reporter is now reporting that Avatar actually made closer to $77 Million over the weekend.
And to think that a HUGE snowstorm in the northeast doesn’t effect people’s decision to go to the movies is stupid. If it was snowing 2 feet where I lived I wouldn’t go to the movies. Plus, Avatar did pretty well at the international box office ($160 Million). That is close to the worldwide opening as 2012. And that movie has made more that $700 million worldwide as of today. And films that open during late December usually have smaller drop offs in their second and third weekends.
So I think will end up being fairly profitable in the long run.
And again, I’m thankfully reminded why I didn’t renew my EW subscription when it ran out this year.
Hello – Titanic did get the same criticism when it was first released. People ripped the dialogue for sounding too modern, they ripped the story for being a retread of something that’s been done a million times. Of course the movie was huge, but it had plenty of detractors back then too. Leonardo DiCaprio got much of the same backlash from action movie fanboys that people like Robert Pattinson get now. I remember it quite well.
I haven’t seen Avatar yet, but most of Cameron’s movies have fairly generic storylines. Aliens had the typical ‘kid in peril’ with Newt, people laughed out loud when Arnold told Eddie Furlong “I know now why you cry” at the midnight screening of T2 that I saw years ago.
The thing is – Cameron is one of the rare people that can make a decent movie out of a generic storyline.
I can’t believe how such poorly-written dreck like Twilight gets a pass again and again from EW, but this movie is not. Ridiculous.
I think that Owen will look back on his Avatar critiques as the biggest mistake of his career. I think that history will show that Avatar had as great an impact on movie making as “Wizard of Oz” (color) and the Jazz Singer (sync sound).
A great impact on movie-making, yes. A great impact on storytelling, no.
Avatar impacts the telling of stories by using 3D. It greatly expands the kinds of stories that can be told on the screen.
Using 3D is a part of movie-making. And James Cameron did a wonderful job with that. But the 3D is not part of the story. It’s part of the visual effects.
I saw it last night, it was porn for the eyes, it reminds me a bit of the old story ‘the emperors New Clothes’, I think people are scared to point out that the story is lame(ish). More detail was put on the look of the movie more than the story, there were no layers to it, and I felt a bit detached to the lead characters, for a 3D movie it was very one dimensional, but I for one (and like others) it is worth the $15 to see it, it’s fantastic to watch, unbelievable in fact, but I won’t see it 4 times or get a lump in my throat like Titanic!
I don’t understand. You say it is fantastic to watch and others are saying basically the same thing. I didn’t think the story was lame. Original, no but still entertaining. The emperor is dressed, you just don’t like the outfit, I do. I feel the storyteller matters as much as the story. And besides, titanic got 14 oscar nominations and won a record 11 but was not even nominated for screenplay. It is very rare for the best picture winner to not be nominated for screenplay. People were not feeling that script too but were still swept away by cameron’s storytelling. You will see that again this year.
Cameron is about as gifted as Michael Bay (maybe slightly more so b/c I haven’t yet had a migraine after watching a Cameron film). Titanic was just as formulaic as Avatar. If I want to overload my eyeballs, I’ll log onto my PS3. A movie should deliver something more, including a decent story. That people like these films or Twilight or [Insert your movie here], just shows you that people will see anything. Triumph of Hollywood’s marketing machine over art. The only proper way to see these movies is to not pay for them–maybe then Hollywood will stop making them.
White Guilt Fantasy
Avatar is a classic scenario you’ve seen in Hollywood epics from Dances With Wolves, Dune, District 9 and The Last Samurai, where a white guy manages to get himself accepted into a closed society of people of color and eventually becomes its most awesome member.
If we think of Avatar and its ilk as white fantasies about race, what kinds of patterns do we see emerging in these fantasies?
A white man who was one of the oppressors switches sides at the last minute, assimilating into the alien culture and becoming its savior.
These are movies about white guilt. Our main white characters realize that they are complicit in a system which is destroying aliens, AKA people of color – their cultures, their habitats, and their populations.
The whites realize this when they begin to assimilate into the “alien” cultures and see things from a new perspective. To purge their overwhelming sense of guilt, they switch sides, become “race traitors,” and fight against their old comrades. But then they go beyond assimilation and become leaders of the people they once oppressed.
This is the essence of the white guilt fantasy, laid bare. It’s not just a wish to be absolved of the crimes whites have committed against people of color; it’s not just a wish to join the side of moral justice in battle. It’s a wish to lead people of color from the inside rather than from the (oppressive, white) outside.
LOL. I believe you said that already… like 4 times at least.
Oh, and Steve, for the record, I actually thought your comment about “white man’s burden” was a valid perspective. But when you copy/paste it every time there’s a mention of Avatar, it just makes your comment seem like soiled douchewater.
Steve, copy/pasting the same post is the equivalent of screaming “Hey, Ma, look what I did!” Come up with some new points.
Boring movie; disappointed I had to pay $3 more for 3d.
CGI does not even come close to real action packed stunts. I want my money back!!!