I keep seeing posts on different websites (including IMDB) and hear people wondering, why so many people do not like thi
-
truther — 9 years ago(April 05, 2016 10:52 AM)
Agree with a lot of that. The movie is gorgeous to look at, and in fact there's some good story development in there as well. Pandora is a wonderful world.
For me, a big problem is the ending. It's completely out of left field and has nothing to do with anything that's happened in the movie up until then. In fact, our heroes have failed (not just are losing, have lost) and then suddenly the planet itself rises up and offers this deus ex machina that magically saves the day and ties everything up in a neat little wrapped package.
It's like the ending in the Itchy, Scratchy & Poochy episode of the Simpsons where they just said "he was abducted by aliens" and then cut Poochy out of the film and that was that.
That was a real letdown. You watched this movie and then came out thinking "huh, that's it?" -
sommdude — 9 years ago(April 05, 2016 01:47 PM)
For me, a big problem is the ending. It's completely out of left field and has nothing to do with anything that's happened in the movie up until then. In fact, our heroes have failed (not just are losing, have lost) and then suddenly the planet itself rises up and offers this deus ex machina that magically saves the day and ties everything up in a neat little wrapped package.
Not sure what you are referring to here.
perhaps you need to watch the movie again.
I'm a Gunslinger. I deal in hard calibers. -
truther — 9 years ago(April 07, 2016 12:58 PM)
Not sure what you are referring to here.
perhaps you need to watch the movie again.
Here, let me try to explain it.
For me, a big problem is the ending. It's completely out of left field and has nothing to do with anything that's happened in the movie up until then. In fact, our heroes have failed (not just are losing, have lost) and then suddenly the planet itself rises up and offers this deus ex machina that magically saves the day and ties everything up in a neat little wrapped package. -
sommdude — 9 years ago(April 07, 2016 02:15 PM)
Oh you think you're cute.
how exactly does the ending not have anything to do with the rest of the movie?
how exactly have our heros failed?
how did the planet rise up and help?
what deus ex machina devise was used and how did it magically save the day.
again. Not sure what you are referring to here.
perhaps you need to watch the movie again.
I'm a Gunslinger. I deal in hard calibers. -
ibrarules — 9 years ago(April 08, 2016 10:09 AM)
and many others didn't either
Why do a big portion of the hater minority presume that MANY others didn't like it either? This is objectively not the case. The fact that you are in a tiny minority doesn't diminish your opinion, why feel the need to try to make it seem as if you are many? I do appreciate why haters constantly felt a need be loud and claim that Avatar sucked, enormous success typically has that effect on dissenters.
I am in the hater-group myself at times, for example against Boyhood, which has an imo completely unbelievable 100 rating AVERAGE on metacritic. But apart from right this second I rarely feel a need to blurt that out, and I NEVER claim that us few dissenters are MANY
"Unobtainium", get it? Its called Unobtainium because no one can OBTAIN it. Really clever)
For someone who faults the movie for being unoriginal, shouldn't you then know the pretty common realworld engineering term for impossible to find/create substances. I mean instead of trying to make fun of the movie for using that moniker? Get it?
Oh you think you're cute
Yup he does. And he is way off base, as you previously mentioned. Not understanding that everything in Avatar led to that (imo too predictable) moment basically means he didn't watch the movie at all. Almost as bad as a prominent newspaper critic in Sweden who whined about Superman not kicking a bully's butt in a bar when in fact Superman had gotten rid of his superpowers before that very scene haha. -
EternalAxiom — 9 years ago(April 13, 2016 11:49 PM)
and many others didn't either
Why do a big portion of the hater minority presume that MANY others didn't like it either? This is objectively not the case. The fact that you are in a tiny minority doesn't diminish your opinion, why feel the need to try to make it seem as if you are many? I do appreciate why haters constantly felt a need be loud and claim that Avatar sucked, enormous success typically has that effect on dissenters.
I am in the hater-group myself at times, for example against Boyhood, which has an imo completely unbelievable 100 rating AVERAGE on metacritic. But apart from right this second I rarely feel a need to blurt that out, and I NEVER claim that us few dissenters are MANY
Actually, from what I can tell there are a lot of people that didn't like "Avatar", there are also a lot of people who loved it. When it comes down to it, it really doesn't matter how many people liked it or didn't like it. Opinions are subjective, and as I don't have any concrete numbers to show you (which would pretty much be impossible.) I made an assumption based on how many people in real life I have had conversations with about the film, and from what I have seen in forums, internet videos and or reviews over the years. Could my assumption be incorrect that a lot of people don't like the movie? Sure, I could be wrong, I wouldn't argue that. It was an assumption based on my personal experience on and off the internet. It isn't a "few" dissenters, there ARE a lot of people who don't like the film. In the end, it really doesn't matter how many people like or don't like something, that doesn't prove or disprove either side's argument just because there are more on one side than the other.
Also, I am not trying to "constantly feel the need to be loud" just because the movie was very, very successful. I made this post for the purpose of maybe helping those that are curious or don't understand why people like myself don't like it. I honestly don't care that people like the film, it is their life, they can like what they want. Its not like I am pointing a judgemental finger at everyone and turning my nose up at them just because they like it.
"Unobtainium", get it? Its called Unobtainium because no one can OBTAIN it. Really clever)
For someone who faults the movie for being unoriginal, shouldn't you then know the pretty common realworld engineering term for impossible to find/create substances. I mean instead of trying to make fun of the movie for using that moniker? Get it?
I was faulting the movie for being unoriginal that is absolutely true. You say "Unobtainium" is some "common engineering term"; Well, I am not an engineer, nor do I have even a passing interest in engineering. Not once in my entire 32 years of being alive have I ever heard this term used for anything.
After reading your post, I did a little search on the internet, and you are 100% correct, it is a REAL term. The actual definition of "Unobtainium" is as follows:
"unobtainium
nbtnm/
nouninformal
a highly desirable material that is hypothetical, scientifically impossible, extremely rare, costly, or fictional, or has some of these properties in combination.
"what type of cabling are we talking about, steel, composite, unobtainium?"
Real or not, this is a science fiction film, they could have called it anything. Before I read your post, I believed it to be made up for the film. Whether real or not, the name still sounds silly. This is a science fiction film, they could have called it anything, and just because the word IS a real word used for REAL materials does not change the fact that the word as used for the material in the film still sounds ridiculous, it sounds like something a bad writer came up with to use in their Dungeons and Dragons game with their friends. We can at least agree on that can't we? I was making fun of the movie for the name because it sounds like the writer took seconds to come up with it. When I first heard it mentioned in the theater when I saw the movie for the first time, myself and a bunch of other people giggled about it. Its a silly name for the "mcguffin" of the film.
Just so there is no confusion, not to say you do not know what a "mcguffin" is. For the sake of those who do not know, the definition is as follows:
"In fiction, a MacGuffin (sometimes McGuffin or maguffin) is a plot device in the form of some goal, desired object, or other motivator that the protagonist pursues, often with little or no narrative explanation. The specific nature of a MacGuffin is typically unimportant to the overall plot."
And yes, I get it. It still doesn't change anything. Unobtainium is still a ridiculous name.
The last part of your post I believe you were responding to someone else. So I won't address that. -
ibrarules — 9 years ago(April 16, 2016 11:09 PM)
it sounds like something a bad writer came up with to use in their Dungeons and Dragons game with their friends. We can at least agree on that can't we?
Haha ye wouldn't surprise me if the engineers who first started using it WERE D&D players. And stereotypically engineers aren't the very best writers - so ye it sounds bad and silly/ridiculous, I think that's the point
I made this post for the purpose of maybe helping those that are curious or don't understand why people like myself don't like it
Fair enough. I will never get when people can't comprehend that others disagree with em. Diversity of opinion is fun! I just find it disingenuous when people make some claim to authority by overstating the size of their group. The simple fact is that the vast majority liked or loved Avatar but the group who liked it least (fanboys) are also the ones who write the most on imdb and various social media about film. Skewed sample.
Btw personally I didn't like it much (I rarely care for shaman type nature culture movies). -
truther — 9 years ago(May 16, 2016 06:01 PM)
Just so we are clear, I am talking about the plot twist at the end where the animals of Pandora rise up and defeat the Earthlings and save the day.
how exactly does the ending not have anything to do with the rest of the movie?
Because the Pandorans' plan until then was to fight off the humans using their weaponry and tactics, much as the Ewoks planned to destroy the Empire by fighting back on Endor. In the Return of the Jedi, the ewoks were at first routed but then rallied and ultimately pulled off a heroic victory. Avatar is like RotJ, but if when the ewoks were routed suddenly Yoda materialized out of nowhere and started using the force to kill stormtroopers.
how exactly have our heros failed?
Because they are all either dead, dying, or in full retreat. Their plan was to use the element of surprise to gain the upper hand on the encroaching human military units and then destroy them before the humans could drop the bomb. They failed in their objective.
how did the planet rise up and help?
This makes me wonder whether you even watched the movie. The "planet rose up and helped" by summoning all these other creatures
who were not included in the initial assault
to save the day once Jake et al failed in their objective.
what deus ex machina devise was used and how did it magically save the day
See above. This question merely asks the same thing again.
You see, neither Jake nor the others had any idea this was going to happen. They did not anticipate it. They were not expecting it to happen. Of course the movie had been giving us viewers hints that something like this would happen, but when it happened it still happened irrespective of what the main characters were doing.
Does that help? I'm not being cute, by the way, I'm being condescending. -
sommdude — 9 years ago(May 17, 2016 04:44 PM)
Of course the movie had been giving us viewers hints that something like this would happen
This is the reason that Eywa (not the planet itself) helping our heros would NOT be considered a plot twist or deus ex machina. I don't think anyone watching the movie was surprised when this happened
I'm a Gunslinger. I deal in hard calibers. -
LukeLovesFilm28 — 9 years ago(April 06, 2016 12:33 AM)
I think you misunderstood the film. The substance of Avatar is in the style, it's in the cinematography. Stanley Kubrick did the same thing in 2001. Watch that movie. The plot is paper thin if not nonexistent. And yet, every shot, everything that happens feels like it has a purpose and it means something. This is the most obtuse James Cameron film like 2001 was the most obtuse Kubrick film and Vertigo was the most obtuse Hitchcock film, because these movies expose the filmmakers' art for what it is what we've been missing through arrogance or ignorance for so long.
I've learned a lot from simply studying everything in every shot of each Cameron masterpiece, from The Terminator to Avatar. I've drawn up 3000 storyboards based on my knowledge of his art and I gotta say, he works harder and knows more than every other filmmaker out there. -
EternalAxiom — 9 years ago(April 14, 2016 12:31 AM)
I think you misunderstood the film. The substance of Avatar is in the style, it's in the cinematography. Stanley Kubrick did the same thing in 2001. Watch that movie. The plot is paper thin if not nonexistent. And yet, every shot, everything that happens feels like it has a purpose and it means something. This is the most obtuse James Cameron film like 2001 was the most obtuse Kubrick film and Vertigo was the most obtuse Hitchcock film, because these movies expose the filmmakers' art for what it is what we've been missing through arrogance or ignorance for so long.
I've learned a lot from simply studying everything in every shot of each Cameron masterpiece, from The Terminator to Avatar. I've drawn up 3000 storyboards based on my knowledge of his art and I gotta say, he works harder and knows more than every other filmmaker out there.
I wouldn't say at all that Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey is "obtuse" at all. Not to be insulting, but I think you may be mistaken on word choice here. "Obtuse" is to be: stupid, slow-witted, slow, dull-witted, unintelligent, ignorant, simpleminded, witless; insensitive, imperceptive, uncomprehending; informaldim, dimwitted, dense, dumb, slow on the uptake, halfwitted, brain-dead, moronic, cretinous, thick, dopey, lamebrained, dumb-ass, dead from the neck up, boneheaded, chowderheaded.
I personally always thought 2001 to be, at times rather profound. I do agree that it chooses to use visuals to tell the story more so than a typical film that uses its dialogue and characters to move the story forward (Really, the only characters that matter much at all in that film is "Dave Bowman" portrayed by Keir Dullea, and "HAL 9000" voiced by Doug Rain) the book by Arthur C. Clarke gives one much more about the overall story than the film does.
As for Vertigo, I haven't seen that one since I was a kid, so I don't remember very much about it. So, I can't speak to that one. My apologies on that.
As for "Avatar" being obtuse. Story wise, I don't think that it is obtuse, I just think that it is an overused story and because of that it was very predictable because it followed the same story beats and formula of other films that used the same story (Dances with Wolves, Ferngully: The Last Rainforest, The Last Samurai, Pocahontas) the only real difference was the setting (Planet Pandora) and the idea of the main character being sent in by the bad guys originally, and then that main character learning about and adopting the ideals of those he was originally against, then fighting with them against his previous employers, culture, military, etc. Whatever it may be. It has just been done to death.
"Avatar" IS a very visual film, but where it differs from something like 2001 is that it does not use its visuals OVER dialogue, and traditional methods of moving the narrative along to tell the story. It tells its story just like most films do, the visuals are there to attempt to make Pandora and the Navi (I think I spelled that right, if not please correct me more believable and immersive. Which at the time, the visuals did well in that regard, they looked fantastic. Avatar was one of the most visually beautiful films I had ever seen at that point.
By the way, the storyboards you mentioned sound intriguing. I would be really interested in seeing some of them. Honestly, I would love to see your work. Do you have any posted anywhere online?
Also, I do not debate that James Cameron is an amazing filmmaker, I have seen behind the scenes video (if you ever get the chance to get a hold of the Alien box set of the blu-ray versions of Alien 1 through Resurrection; They have on there several hours of behind the scenes content where they cover everything from the writing of the script,pre-production (casting, choosing makeup effects artists like Stan Winston), principal photography, music, visual effects, all the way up to the release and reception, even talking about the legacy such films have left behind. They are simply fascinating. In the process you get to see each director at work and see their distinctive styles.
James Cameron is a visionary, I don't deny it at all. He is so detailed in his vision of a film, that he can at times be hard to work with for some people on the cast and crew because he has VERY high expectations for everyone, and I mean everyone even down to the catering of the film. It is really amazing to watch, I think you would really enjoy it if you haven't had the chance yet. -
conrrad — 9 years ago(July 06, 2016 06:54 AM)
LukeLoves
Um"This is the most obtuse James Cameron film"?
DUDE:
Ex? A Movie CAN NOT BE OBTUSE; only a person can be Obtuse; and your misuse of that word over and over is just a good example
You make some good points, express your opinion well, etc., but then make this total BOOT-Mistake?
Do not "Bite off more than you can chew then try to talk with your mouth full", which is that common, typical mistake you make repeatedly.
That mistake? Thinking that, because your ideas, thoughts and opinions are quite intelligent, that you MUST improve your own Vocabulary and talk/write at a level above what is natural, trying to sound as smart as your ideas'. That is totally common but a weakness nonthelless.
Ex? A Movie CAN NOT BE OBTUSE; only a person can be Obtuse; and your misuse of that word over and over is just a good example -
sodapop78 — 9 years ago(April 09, 2016 10:28 AM)
They don't like it because they all woke up and realized they were in shock when they overrated this junk. Look at the CGI now compared to modern CGI, it already looks cheap. That's why I strongly dislike CGI.
-
ejoshcoronado — 9 years ago(April 09, 2016 03:26 PM)
Very well said. Spoke my own words, thank you!
Yeah I thought all of Camerons previous films where fantastic and groundbreaking even if they weren't the most complex.
But Avatar was the first one I genuinely didn't like, because it didn't feel AT ALL like I was having one of those unique experiences I'd had in Cameron's previous films.
And then to find out he's skipping Battle Angel to do more of these? Cameron is not going to live forever his years are precious to be because of his amazing potential. Bummer years will be lost on Avatar sequels