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
To the commentor above, it’s not just Twilight though is it? Every single romantic comedy i’ve ever seen has had the same predictable plot, and yet they’re never judged for that.
http://www.igp-scifi.com/avatar-review.html
Owen, I think you’re on-point with this one. I will say that I loved Avatar. It was a thrilling movie-going experience. I enjoyed every second of it and I was quite involved with it the entire running time. However, the story was very formulaic and very predictable. This is why no one should be naming it the best film of the year. It simply is not. It may have been one of the best movie-going experiences of the year with the best special effects of the year, but the film as a whole is not the best. I didn’t mind the predictable story too much, because at least it was still well done. But the lack of surprise left something to be desired. And as usual, I felt that James Cameron wrote some pretty cliched dialogue. I still would recommend the movie, but it surely should not win Best Picture at the Globes or the Oscars.
Thank you Owen! There’s only so long that spectacular visuals can compensate for ridiculous dialogue and unrelenting cliches. If it was thirty minutes shorter, I would probably be more forgiving.
Unbelievable how Twilight infects everything. Ugh. It’s worse than the Swine Flu.
It was a predictable story but it can be forgiven by the visual art that made Avatar THE movie. It’s getting kind of boring to see how the human being is the worst thing to happen to the universe.
I have been told multiple times by teachers and professors alike that there are (I think) 9 stories that are just told and retold in different ways, shapes or forms. James Cameron, by using a story we know well, I don’t think was trying to get people to concentrate on the effects. The word I keep hearing when people describe this movie (including myself) is that it is an “experience”. The way it is an experience is that you are in the world of the characters. It isn’t about a surprise ending, it’s about the journey of the movie–much like Titanic. I can understand why some critics might find it hard to accept this, but it’s what I love about both Titanic and Avatar. Both aren’t movies, they are experiences–not for the simple fact that they both have spectacular special effects, but because the movie makes the space between you and the screen non-existent.
Yes.
Now THAT is a new and interesting criterion there at the end, a possibility only for cinema.
Couldn’t agree more with what you said!
I definitely found the story of ‘Avatar’ weak. You can’t say that a so-so story is good enough for modern blockbusters. That’s what separates the box office receipts of a film like ‘The Dark Knight’ from that of ‘Transformers 2′. A good story will always draw a bigger audience in.
Well said.
“A good story will always draw a bigger audience in.”
Star Trek: ~$250m, New Moon: $274m(and counting), Transformer: ~$400m. I rest my case.
Star Wars Prequels made more money than that.
.
I rest my case.
Why do you keep adding stupid responses to my posts? That is basically my point. Star Trek with a better story did worse than new moon and Transformers. Why do you have add that pointless remark that does not bring anything new? It is not your case but mine.
Because she is an autistic parrot.
While I can see Owen’s point that the basic plot synopsis has been done before, I’m disappointed that he didn’t give credit to the other aspects of the story.
The Na’vi language is as “real” and fleshed out as other fantasy languages; it has about 400-500 words. The ecosystem of Pandora felt real; you could actually see a hierarchy of creatures and see how they interacted. It looked wholly unique in its flora and fauna (whereas, say, Endor could have been Any Generic Forest Anywhere). The bonding the Na’vi had with the animal life and the idea of the moon itself as giant neural network was also something I hadn’t seen before.
If you’re going to sneer at it as being too similar to Dances With Wolves, fine. But at least be honest and give it credit in the places where it was original.
Completely agree with you, Owen! I’ve been having this exact debate with my friend. I feel a lot of the critics and audience were so distracted by the visuals (which I’ll admit, were absolutely fantastic) they didn’t care if the story was completely uninspired. Does a visual spectaple equate to a GREAT film? No. If that were the case, Transformers is a shoe-in for Best Picture. I think people need to see Avatar for what it is. A beautiful blockbuster with a weak story. To see a great movie AND a blockbuster? Rent The Dark Knight.
“Does a visual spectaple equate to a GREAT film? No. If that were the case, Transformers is a shoe-in for Best Picture.”
Avatar is a front runner for the Best Picture Oscar so that is going to completely negate your arguement when it gets the nomination. Titanic won best picture without the screenplay nomination because that story was considered uninspired. If the “visual spectacle” is used in the right way, then Yes it could equal to a great film.
Yeah because if it gets nominated that’s when you know you got a great film. Like what some old farts in Hollywood say actually matters.
What does that have to do with what I wrote Eddy? I never said the oscar nomination indicates a movie is great. Hanna basically grouped Avatar and Transformers 2 as visual spectacles with poor stories and said Transformers won’t get an oscar nomination for that reason. I was simply pointing out that Avatar will get the nomination contrary to Hanna’s arguement. I do think Avatar has a great story and is a great movie but people don’t have to think the story is spectacular to have a great movie. I gave the oscar voters as example of people of that fact. Not that what Eddy says matters anyway. Even though I don’t always agree with the old farts, i will take their words over yours anyday.
Also just wanted to throw out there that this film will not go down in history as the next “Wizard of Oz” or “Star Wars.” Not bashing the film, but the statement is overused. For awhile, “Jurassic Park” was the next “Wizard of Oz.” Then it was “The Matrix.” Every decade there is another film that is called the next “Wizard of Oz” or “Star Wars,” and it just never seems to actually catch on.
Those movies you mentioned are still classics, though. Both Jurassic Park and The Matrix. If Avatar is as well-remembered as those films into the next decade, it’ll be doing just fine.
Exactly. The Matrix and Jurassic Park milestone pictures in movie history and the evolution of CGI.
The Matrix and Jurassic Park ARE milestones in movie history and the evolution of CGI. So are TRON and Episode I. Once again proving Owen’s point, do great visual effects make a great movie? Now before everyone jumps all over me, I’m not comparing any of these films to Avatar or even to each other. I’m just saying that it’s probably not going to be a game-changing event in cinema history, because what else is there to change? We have CGI, we have 3D, we have motion capture. And if you throw out 300 mil on visuals then you can have the type of detail found in Avatar. I’m not saying Avatar is a bad movie, its a good movie. It’s just not revolutionary.
“We have CGI, we have 3D, we have motion capture”
Yes we do, but have they ever been used the way Cameron used them all together in Avatar? They had to invent cameras and new technology specifically for this movie. How is that not revolutionary? And as to the great movie question, visual effect can make a movie great if it used the right way and I believe cameron did in this case.
OK, Cameron invented the Fusion camera and the virtual camera. The Fusion 3D camera debuted in 2003 in his documentaries and in Spy Kids 3D. The Virtual camera is a neat idea, but it is most useful for films that will be ENTIRELY motion capture. So, for the future of all motion capture (like Bob Zemeckis’ motion capture films), then yes, it is a game-changer for them. But I just don’t see motion capture becoming the next great Hollywood leap.
I think you are very wrong. Avatar spells the end of 2D movies. I predict in a few years that all the big movies will be done in 3D. This is transformational just like “Wizard of Oz” caused the death of black and white movies. This is tranformational just like Star Wars caused the creation of the summer blockbusters targeting the young teenage male.
RA- Those films are well-remembered, but they eventually didn’t even come close to “Wizard of Oz” or “Star Wars” in terms of importance.
Kim from Texas- The industry has already moved toward 3D. I saw 6 films in 3D this year alone before the release of Avatar, so its not accurate to say that Avatar is what “did-in” 2D filmmaking. The surprise success of Monsters vs. Aliens and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs carries more weight to the 3D argument.
Monsters Vs Alien and Cloudy barely rate as sucessful when you compare them to the classic 2-D animated movies so your analysis that those movies carries much weight in pushing for the big movies to use 3D is just silly. Both movies made under $200 million dollars. Hardly a game changer in this market. “Up” would have made more sense because it was more successful than the more recent Pixar movie but it’s still not Pixar’s most sucessful movie. Avatar just came out so we need to see the full impact, but I guarantee the studios are paying attention to the vastly positive and enthusiastic response of the public to the way 3D was used in this movie.
Monsters Vs. Aliens made 381 mil worldwide, which was more than double its budget and was marketed toward 3D as opposed to 2D, as was Cloudy, which also doubled its budget. The reason these films were successful was because of 3D, otherwise (at least Cloudy) would’ve probably flopped like Planet 51. I never said that they were game changers, but merely examples of how 3D arrived well before Avatar. Of course studios are going to be analyzing the response to Avatar, but the fact is that there has been an extremely positive response to 3D for the past two years, that’s why it keeps growing.
Kim from Texas is such an ignorant fool.
.
The Wizard of Oz didn’t kill Black and White movies. Ever heard of “Raging Bull”? How about the “Elephant Man? Besides, when the Wizard of Oz was made, it wasn’t made to kill Black and white films, but simply to be a great film adaptation of a beloved book.
.
And another thing, The Wizard of Oz became famous and popular well after it premiered on the big screen. And it did so ON BLACK AND WHITE TV SETS when the movie was broadcasted every year or so on TV. So there goes your theory that The Wizard of Oz is an example of a film that “killed” black and white films. When in reality most Americans first watched that film in BLACK AND WHITE and loved it BECAUSE IT HAD A GREAT STORY. Something that Avatar does not.
.
And a BETTER example of a modern 3D film is CORALINE. It was made using a two camera system.
Dreamworks has animated movies that have done way better than MvA. Kung Fu panda, shrek etc. MvA total is hardly spectacular. If anything it is a surprise it didn’t do better. Dreamworks animated movies have always done well and that is not a high point for them. You just picked terrible examples. You could have gone with Ice age 3 which did extremely better then the older movies.
Monsters Vs. Aliens was released in March, which drastically reduced its numbers. Every other Dreamworks Film was released in summer. Also, you can’t deny that Cloudy was a surprise hit especially with the 3D market. I didn’t include UP originally because it wasn’t reliant upon its 3D in terms of marketing. Any Pixar movie is going to do business. If you want to include Ice Age 3 then go ahead, I didn’t because I didn’t personally see it. However, saying that my examples weren’t the best and that there were better ones available only further proves my point that 3D was present well before the release of Avatar.
How is it your point that 3D was present before Avatar? Is that even debatable? 3D has been around for a long time but has not been used in a movie like Avatar. Other movies have used 3d as a gimmick, avatar used it to enhance the visuals. Anyway, It is not just the 3D aspect of avatar that makes it revolutionary, it is the combination with other many things. You can’t blame MvA on the march release. If people really wanted to see it they would have gone. Movie have done well in march. And you call cloudy a success even though it opened in september. Ice Age didn’t do too great in america, but had a spectacular worldwide total so the effect of recent 3D movies in america has not been huge.
UP did 68 mil in its opening weekend. 35 mil of which was in 3D. That’s over half of its revenue. Monsters vs. Aliens did 59 mil on opening. 32 mil of which was in 3D. Once again, that’s over half. Are you really trying to say that 3D didn’t catch on in America until Avatar? And what makes a film using 3D a gimmick? Is UP gimmicky because it uses 3D? Monsters Vs. Aliens was specifically created in 3D, just like Avatar. Avatar has the new record with 55 mil in 3D, however Avatar also debuted on 2,000 more 3D screens than UP or MvA. It stands to reason that if UP or MvA had the same amount of 3D screens, then they too would’ve approached a similar figure. I’m not saying that MvA even approaches Avatar as a film, I’m just saying that the reason 3D films haven’t been “huge” in America is because there weren’t as many 3D screens. Theaters added a great number of 3D screens before the premiere of Avatar based on the buzz and hype it was receiving. To say that the film itself will make 3D more popular is not accurate. 3D has been popular, but just not widely available.
By the way, the actual per site numbers for 3D showings of UP on its opening weekend are $22,000 per site. Avatar’s are $18,000. So, technically UP had a better average in 3D than Avatar did.
No, I never said 3D didn’t catch on. I just think it was not a huge game changer. You are pointing out the dollar amount those movie made, but when you factor in that 3D tickets cost more, the difference in the amount of tickets sold is not as impressive. By your own admission, UP did well just like other 2D pixar movie so the 3D addition did not make it a much bigger draw. It got more money cos of ticket price. I saw MvA in theaters and random things were coming out of the screen that would not have been that way just to take advantage of the 3D. It was so chessy. Up used it better, I’ll give you that one. The reason why avatar was put on more screens was because this is a movie you have to see in 3D because in my opinion siginificant enhances the movie. The fact that the movie opened on way more 3D screen than previous movies also shows how it could be considered a game changer for 3D movies. It marks an expansion of the field and may be other 3D movies will now be opened in that many theaters. I don’t know why we are arguing about 3D. To find the common ground, 3D has had an impact on the market place but Avatar is not like those movies and is the first non-amimated blockbuster to use 3D and other technology providing an alternative media that may or may not influence some future hollywood movies.
The “Sally in Chicago” is to you Jymmymack. Sorry.
And also when a movie is opened in more theaters, the per theater average is typically lower, so that point is mute. Plus Up didn’t have to face a blizzard.
You gave me UP, so I’ll give you that 3D significantly enhances the experience and that it is the first non-animated film to use it significantly. Also, MvA was cheesy. You however have to admit that the screens of Avatar were added because of the hype and not an after-effect of the movie itself. I’m saying that the 3D market itself expanded because of the buzz from the film BEFORE it was released. So, in a way, the RELEASE of the film is game changer and not the film itself. I just don’t think its earned that distinction. I don’t really see us as arguing so much as having a conversation. I like these kind of discussions. I think there is so much debate about Avatar because of the hype machine around it. I personally don’t have a problem with the movie, but with the way people are pushing it around the industry. The movie is great fun and beautiful escapism, however the fact that its being thrown out as a Best Picture contender is what bothers me a little more. Its sort of like an article I saw on here a couple of months ago about the Hangover being in the ten best picture nominees and how they hoped it happens. Well, The Hangover is great fun, but nowhere near the level of quality in films like The Hurt Locker or An Education, or even UP or Fantastic Mr. Fox. I just think because Avatar has been promoted as the “future”, there have been debates over whether its one of the best pictures of the year or a complete failure. And the truth is its neither. Its a good fun film. Thats it.
The buzz was generated BECAUSE of the movie. Either way you spin it, the movie is responsible. And it does deserve the oscar spot because it an outstanding movie. They put in the effort and came out with a highly entertaining movie. The drama every year thing is so redundant. I want to see diversity in their picks. There are movies from other genres are that are great but snubbed. It should not always about the story, but how the movie makes you feel. I won’t mind seeing a movie like the the Hangover as an oscar nominee, but I agree there are many other deserving movies this year.
Although the Oscars do over-indulge in their drama choices, but Avatar doesn’t deserve a spot. I agree that a movie should make you feel. Avatar does a lot of things right, but feeling isn’t at the top of the list. Sure, adrenaline can be a feeling, but I didn’t really feel genuine emotion. The Oscars SHOULD diversify. I think UP should be in there, and that movie is pure emotion from start to finish. But to say that a film shouldn’t be judged based on its story is ridiculous. A movie should be judged on ALL aspects (writing, directing, acting, camerawork, editing, etc.).
I think it’s an interesting point to bring up, but I can’t say this movie was ALL special effects hype and ZERO story line. I sat through the entire 2 1/2 hours without realizing how much time had gone by, unlike for example, Transformers and GI Joe which were all about special effects and had zero plot and I nearly fell asleep watching. When I left the theater I was amazed, and I didn’t feel like Cameron had “sacrificed” a decent plot or storyline in order to just throw more special effects in my face. Overall I thought it was extremely well done and a wonderful movie-going experience.
Thank you for saying all this. I don’t have a problem with re-telling old stories, but that’s not what goes wrong here. There’s no reason to care about these characters. They put a lot of money into the facial features, but not enough into giving us a dramatic reason to invest in those characters. In a movie like this, the audience needs that even more because the success of the movie depends on the audience’s ability to relate. I think the reviewer is right to compare this to Titanic. Whatever its faults, that movie because the box office phenomenon because the story (simple as it was) was well told. Avatar features a bunch of computer cut-outs, and I don’t think it’s expecting too much that a movie costing so much deliver both on the visuals as well as the story.
Well said, Owen. “Avatar” was a spectaular visual feast but that’s all. Boring, cliched plot and total absence of character development took a lot away from this film.
“…but i cannot see how avatar’s plot bad, let a lone more lacking than new moon…”
^^^ Oh for crying out loud, stop that crap. The ONLY reason people are bringing up New Moon is because compared to that film, Avatar seems like a great work of art. Hell, compared to New Moon, Ishtar, Gigli and Howard the Duck are great masterpieces. Let’s face it, movies like the Star Wars prequels, the Transformers films and now Avatar are examples of films that have craptacular stories and plotlines and YET they perform well at the box office. Sorry Avatar gushers, but that film was simply a rehash of relatively recent movies such as Dances with Wolves and The Last Samurai. Both of those films was basically about a WHITE GUY that goes into a foreign/alien culture, falls in love with the native/local girl and to top it off, he becomes a leader/hero of the “savages” that for some reason, can go on with life without a white guy leading them on. And that’s exactly what you get in Avatar. A recycled story with bad dialogue and wall-to-wall cgi. Another problem for Avatar is that in a few years, the gci will lose it’s luster compared to newer flicks and then you’ll end up with a film with crappy graphics and no story to write home about.
Yes, the storyline is not original, but I did not find it lacking.
As Imovie, the visuals were stunning, but I ended up also caring for the characters, something no other action film had done to me. I did not find the story predictable
and I kept gawking at the screen in amazement at the way the story kept turning and at the amazing visuals.(Maybe I like cheesy movies) In my opinion the graetest movies are supposed to spark this kind of talk, so the film accomplishes that.