I keep seeing posts on different websites (including IMDB) and hear people wondering, why so many people do not like thi
-
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 -
EternalAxiom — 9 years ago(April 14, 2016 01:21 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.
Its not that the film is heavy on the CGI that I am judging it on. Although, personally I believe that an overuse of CGI can be a bad thing. In a lot of movies today, CGI is used just to make a movie look flashy. Honestly, too much CGI takes me out of the movie, because it just looks like animation to me. When I am watching a movie, and it is obvious that say for example, a car turns right on a street (some of the Fast and the Furious films are guilty of this sort of thing) instead of using a real car to make that right turn, they had some animator do it. It doesn't look like a real car, it looks like a computer animated car. It breaks my immersion of the film and I realize I am looking at a car that belongs in a video game, not a movie. Because that car is not real, it takes any kind of tension that a scene is trying to convey because I know that car isn't really there.
I understand, with a film like "Avatar" it would be damn near impossible if not completely impossible to shoot the entire thing with ONLY practical effects like films from the past (before CGI) had to do. I still think Blade Runner is one of the most amazing films visually just because of what they were able to accomplish only using practical effects, it is nothing short of miraculous. (If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend that you check it out, and remember, Bad Runner was made in the time before the rise of CGI.
Its 7 years old, of course its not as good as CGI today
7 years is a very long time in computer technology
Completely agreed. CGI is always advancing forward in quality, and anything that was made as long as seven years ago is going to look dated by today's standards. That being said, it is still a very beautiful film.
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
I don't know anything about "Battle Angel", but I agree with you that I would much rather see Cameron make a different kind of film other than continuing to make "Avatar" films."Avatar" did not feel unique, at least on a narrative and character level, world building wise it was unique in many ways and the things that were are its strong points. I will still give the sequels a chance and watch them at some point, because it is James Cameron after all, it is entirely possible that the next installments of the franchise might end up being much better and more entertaining that the original "Avatar" (let's hope so).
The heroes are ten foot tall, blue, cat-like people. They are human actors who are perfectly captured on film as giant CGI aliens with big, gold, cat-like eyes. Sounds pretty unique to me.
Yeah, the Navi (again, not sure if I am spelling that correctly) were very interesting and unique creatures. Within the world of Pandora, we were able to see tons of unique flora and fauna, predators (which I would love to see more of those) and some truly striking, awe-inspiring visuals. BUT, as I mentioned before about CGI taking me out of a film; seeing real actors running around and co-mingling with the CGI world and creatures (like being chased by the big forest predator) made me feel like I was watching a well made cut scene out of a video game. I knew just by looking at them and their surroundings, that more than likely the actors were in a sound stage surrounded by a blue screen and running away from nothing. It completely made any and all tension or fear of the characters/actors being in mortal danger completely non-existent. This took any thrill I would have gotten from various scenes (which the filmmakers, director, crew, etc were hoping to achieve) out and did not have the same effect on me as it would if I was made to feel that those things are actually there with the actors/characters. Practical effects DO make one feel that way, because there is actually something PHYSICAL there with the actors to help sell the validity of the scene.
As CGI gets better, it will be much easier for me to BELIEVE that what I am seeing on screen is actually there and not just the product of animators adding it in during post-production.
I know that the "Star Wars" prequels are not well liked, and one of the reasons I see a lot of people using for their dislike of those films is the fact that damn near everything (not quite everything, but an ENORMOUS amount) of the things you -
LukeLovesFilm28 — 9 years ago(May 19, 2016 02:51 AM)
Sounds like you're just approaching this CGI masterpiece with prejudice against the tool of CGI itself. That's ON YOU. Avatar is perfectly created to perfectly showcase this technology.
Watching the actors, as humans and Na'vi, I never got the same feeling I got from watching George Lucas's POS prequels. Those actors were doing a sh!t job because they had no idea what the hell they were supposed to be looking at, because every CGI thing we saw was later created by ILM. Lucas had no visuals to show them. He also has no talent whatsoever in directing actors. -
Untouchable757 — 9 years ago(April 14, 2016 04:13 PM)
I don't think that Avatar is one of the worst films ever made, that's ludicrousI just don't see what the hell the fuss is, wellwas, about.
Yes, the CGI and effects were gorgeous. Hell, they still are.
But you can't just throw eye candy in my face for damn near 3 hours with minimal character development and a straight forward, cookie cutter plotline that I've already witnessed in countless other moviesand expect me to hail it as a masterpiece.
Sorry
Avatar is right up there with Prometheus and Batman v Superman as the most disappointing movie of the last 20 years IMO.
I had high hopes for Prometheus for the same damn reason as Avatar. A master of sci-fi in Ridley Scott making his return to the genre after a long hiatus. Hell, much longer than Cameron's. And it was just such a jumbled mess. -
kthapland-79332 — 9 years ago(May 20, 2016 11:35 AM)
I saw this movie twice in the theater. I didn't like it much the first time, I went the second time because my mother wanted to see it.
Years later, I remember almost nothing about this movie except the exoskeleton Cameron ripped of from his own movie, Aliens, and the embarrassing word "unobtainium".
Yet the world will get 4 more of these movies.
Jesus. -
sommdude — 9 years ago(May 20, 2016 12:15 PM)
the exoskeleton Cameron ripped of from his own movie, Aliens
maybe the two movies take place in the same universe
and the embarrassing word "unobtainium"
you should look up the word, don't be embarrassed because you don't know the definition
I'm a Gunslinger. I deal in hard calibers. -
kthapland-79332 — 9 years ago(May 20, 2016 12:33 PM)
"Unobtanium (pronounced un-ub-TAIN-ee-um) is a highly valuable mineral found on the moon Pandora. Humans mined unobtanium to save the Earth from its energy crisis; bluntly put, they need the mineral for their survival. It is extremely valuable to the human race."
Do the same thing next time. -
sommdude — 9 years ago(May 20, 2016 12:55 PM)
wow you aren't that smart are you?
basically the word unobtainium has been around a long time and used in many real world and science fiction applications. Here you go I did the hard work for you.
In fiction, engineering, and thought experiments, unobtainium is any fictional, extremely rare, costly, or impossible material, or (less commonly) device needed to fulfill a given design for a given application. The properties of any particular unobtainium depend on the intended use. For example, a pulley made of unobtainium might be massless and frictionless; however, if used in a nuclear rocket, unobtainium would be light, strong at high temperatures, and resistant to radiation damage. The concept of unobtainium is often applied flippantly or humorously. For instance, unobtainium is described as being stronger than helium, and lighter than air.
The word unobtainium derives humorously from unobtainable followed by the suffix -ium, the conventional designation for a chemical element. It pre-dates the similar-sounding IUPAC systematic element names, such as ununoctium. An alternative spelling, unobtanium is sometimes used (for example, for the crypto-currency Unobtanium), based on the spelling of metals such as titanium.
Since the late 1950s,[a][1] aerospace engineers have used the term "unobtainium" when referring to unusual or costly materials, or when theoretically considering a material perfect for their needs in all respects, except that it does not exist. By the 1990s, the term was in wide use, even in formal engineering papers such as "Towards unobtainium [new composite materials for space applications]."[2][3] The word unobtainium may well have been coined in the aerospace industry to refer to materials capable of withstanding the extreme temperatures expected in re-entry.[1] Aerospace engineers are frequently tempted to design aircraft which require parts with strength or resilience beyond that of currently available materials.
Later, unobtainium became an engineering term for practical materials that really exist, but are difficult to get.[4] For example, during the development of the SR-71 Blackbird spy plane, Lockheed engineers at the "Skunk Works" under Clarence "Kelly" Johnson used unobtainium as a dysphemism for titanium. Titanium allowed a higher strength-to-weight ratio at the high temperatures the Blackbird would reach, but the Soviet Union controlled its supply and was trying to deprive the US armed forces of this valuable resource.
By 2010, the term had diffused beyond engineering, and now can appear in the headlines of mainstream newspapers, especially to describe the commercially useful rare earth elements (particularly terbium, erbium, dysprosium, yttrium, and neodymium). These are essential to the performance of consumer electronics and green technology, but the projected demand for them so outstrips their current supply that they are called "unobtainiums" within the ore industry,[5] and by commentators on the US Congressional hearings into the "supply security" of rare-earths.[6][7]
"Unobtainium" has come to be used as a synonym for "unobtainable" among people who are neither science fiction fans nor engineers to denote an object that actually exists, but which is very hard to obtain either because of high price (sometimes referred to as "unaffordium") or limited availability. It usually refers to a very high-end and desirable product; for instance, in the mountain biking community, "These titanium hubs are unobtainium, man!" Old-car enthusiasts use "unobtainium" to describe parts that are vanishingly rare or no longer available.[8][9]
In maintaining old equipment, unobtainium refers to replacement parts that are no longer made, such as parts for reel-to-reel audio-tape recorders, or rare vacuum tubes that cost more than the equipment they are fitted to (especially true of certain vacuum tubes, such as the 1L6, used almost exclusively in American battery-powered shortwave radios or the WD-11 used in certain early 1920s radios). Similarly, parts for classic & vintage Ferraris are made by a company actually named Unobtainium Supply Co.[10]
There have been repeated attempts to attribute the name to a real material. Because of the long-standing usage of the term "unobtainium" within the space elevator research community to describe a material with the necessary characteristics,[11][12] LiftPort Group President Michael Laine has advocated assigning the term as the generic name for cables woven of carbon nanotube fibers, which seem to satisfy the requirements for this application. Since he claimed that sufficiently long nanotube cables will be prohibitively expensive to develop without inexpensive access to microgravity, these cables would still be close enough to unobtainable to meet the definition. However, this usage does not seem to have become widespread. The eyewear and fashion wear company Oakley, Inc. also frequently denotes the material used for many of their eyeglass nosepieces and ear