Am I The Only One Who Doesn't Like "Avatar"?

Cracker Funk said:
Well then, you and your friends have an interesting definition of "artist". If something is an artform, and somebody is active in that artform, isn't that person an artist? I don't quite get your logic. Think of art as an umbrella. Music is but one of an infinite types of art, all of which are under the same umbrella.

So, by your logic, when I'm singing in a musical, I'm being artistic. Yet, when I'm singing in choral, I'm merely technically proficient? But that would be silly - you wouldn't actually argue that, would you? You wouldn't dare say that every member of every chorale and every orchestra is merely technically proficient. That would be quite offensive.

Let's say you've got three guitar players. The first, we'll call him John, is very technically proficient, but isn't very creative. The second, Mary, is also technically proficient, and is really quite creative. The third, Ted, is somewhere in-between.

So, by your rigid rules, Mary is the artist, and John is not -- he is only technically proficient. But what about Ted? How creative does someone have to be before they pass your artistic test? At what point do you cross that line from merely technically proficient to artistic?

The point I make is that this is not a black/white issue. With artistic creativity, there are shades of grey, and it is impossible to make any logical cut-off point between one and the other. John, after all, isn't a robot. He may not be very creative, but he's got at least a tiny bit of artistic abilities. Who are you to say that he's not an artist?
Click to expand...

I really appreciate that you chose to continue our discussion, as I find your objections very important.

An important factor when talking about art is the intention of the artist. (That's what I meant when I talked about the "purpose" of art; art does not serve a purpose like, for example, a spoon does, but still does not exist just for its own sake)
Another thing that I would consider characteristic for art is spirituality - that's the whole making-people-think-thing; art, like science, is a means to find "the truth".
Art is a form of communication between the artist and the person dealing with it, this means that art doesn't work when it's merely "consumed".

All these aspects can also be true for music, or for any "artform". The representation however belongs to the technical and not the artistic aspect of a piece. If the artistic "value" rose with increasing techical proficiency and that was the only criteria of evaluation, then, taking film as an example, those pictures that had the best image and the best sound, or in short, the most expensive gear, or those that applied the rules of composition in the "best" way, would be automatically the best movies, but we know that this is not the case.
Also, creativity can't be measured. Saying: "Well Person A is the best guitar player in the world but only 50% creative, whereas Person B is only half as good in playing guitar but twice as creative, who's the better artist?", it doesn't work that way. An artist is someone who creates pieces of art; and I already mentioned what I find characteristic for pieces of art.
 
Last edited:
I apologize I'm a little late to this thread.

I liked Avatar and think it was a great movie all around.

And some people are talking as though Avatar hurt the theater system. It didn't. It helped it in ways no other movie has ever done...

Case in point: It's the most pirated movie on the planet. But, it's the most grossing movie on the planet...
 
I think this thread is now leaning towards the question of: What is art?

The thread is straying the point a bit. I think we can all agree Avatar is art, but not every piece of art is gold in everyone's eyes.

I thought the concept for Avatar was creative. The story may not be amazing but it's not like it was awful (only the dialogue was).

Avatar in my opinion is a moving painting, it doesn't need to tell a story exactly but show beauty. Avatar was visual stimulation and there isn't anything wrong with that.
 
M1chae1 said:
Silly gimmick? Are you shitting me? LIFE...with all due respect man...Avatar is the leading force...the revolution of 3D technology...they are the captain of the ship. Not a SINGLE movie nailed the 3D like Avatar did. And if you watch the movie, you'll see they don't use it as a gimmick...they don't throw a myriad 3d-style shots at you that suck just to showcase the 3d...every single shot looks bad ass...in 2d or 3d. Saying it's a gimmick is like saying using Morgan Freeman as a VO is a gimmick.

I think it's just depressing to think that so many people are so critical to Avatar. I lose faith in people's abilities to 1) think for themselves 2) comprehend talent and 3) relax and be entertained.

And I bet a lot of you who hated Avatar love Family Guy and South Park. Which I think--for the most part--is low brow drek. But Oooooo Avatar was simple and gimmicky...pshhh. What a load of crap.

And lastly...it's too bad some of you hated Avatar...because I LOVED your last feature.
Click to expand...

No, I am most certainly not shitting you. I marveled at the way it was done (in the making of) I thought it was epic how they filmed in suits with face cameras to watch the expressions and then make them into blue aliens on a computer. I never said the technique was anything but a technological feat. BUT I do think that 3D IMO is an annoying gimmick. Avatar came out and then every single movie decided they wanted to be in 3D too and its just annoying. Avatar had true 3D and all these movies are putting it out in "3D-ified" versions.

To me hype is everything for a movie. I'd rather have never heard of a movie before go in and be entertained come out and go wow that was worth my time, I liked that story. Avatar was hyped like nothing I have ever seen before, I went in with the highest of hopes and was severely disappointed. That right there killed the movie for me. I went in there thinking this was the coolest animated movie of all time, and it wasn't. Honestly, I even gave it the benefit of the doubt thinking maybe I just was in the wrong mood on the day I saw it, and I paid to see it again to see if I was crazy, and I almost fell asleep the second time. To me thats the true test of a movie, can it keep me awake.

Now I respect the technical aspect of making the movie and all the work they put in and the amazing technology, but fluff on top of a shitty story doesn't make the story any better. Now you can call me an armchair critic (although I do not own an armchair) if you'd like, but I call things as I see them. I respected the way it was made and think thats great, the graphics were amazing. But what they were based on was not.

Lastly I had to comment on your "Losing faith in people to think for themselves." How does not liking a movie that the majority of people liked not thinking for yourself? I would think it would be the opposite.
 
Zensteve said:
I have no opinion on it, 'cos I haven't seen it.

Not payin' $18 for a ticket to see any film.
smiley_colbert.gif
Click to expand...

Heh - the DVD is 10$ new on Google. Wait 6 months and get it then =)
 
I just think we need less CGI and better writers. What ever happened to a good story line?latley it seems like we get killer effects and a story line wrote by middle schoolers
 
I've just remembered a movie that came out a little while ago called "Ninja Assassin". I've never seen it, but the title implies that it is a very action heavy film with almost zero plot. Has anyone seen it before?
 
droowl said:
I've just remembered a movie that came out a little while ago called "Ninja Assassin". I've never seen it, but the title implies that it is a very action heavy film with almost zero plot. Has anyone seen it before?
Click to expand...

It's so shitty I use my own feces to wipe it up with...............too rude?
 
droowl said:
I've just remembered a movie that came out a little while ago called "Ninja Assassin". I've never seen it, but the title implies that it is a very action heavy film with almost zero plot. Has anyone seen it before?
Click to expand...

I don't know where this question came from, but...

It is two movies shmushed into one. One of the movies is a horribly-written, horribly-acted, straight-to-cable crime drama, about a washed-out cop looking for a ninja, or something. I don't remember, cuz it pissed me off every time I had to watch this lame half of "Ninja Assassin".

The second movie is BAD ASS!!! That is, if you're super-stoned, and you can appreciate an old-school martial-arts movie, updated Matrix-style, with a ridiculous amount of blood splattered everywhere.

You'll know, within the first five minutes, if this is a movie you'll enjoy. If that first scene doesn't get you, turn it off.
 
When complaints about Avatar's story turn into aspersions about Cameron's writing or storytelling ability, it's difficult not to conclude that it's driven by envy.

Look at Cameron's filmolgraphy. You cannot say that his films are thoughtless escapism. Escapism, yes, they are ...but escapism with a brain that does ask its audience to consider larger issues and questions about the world it lives in.

The Terminator =
Fun escapism plus questions like:
What will our development of and increasing dependence upon machines and artificial intelligence mean for us and our future?
Hey, is it a good idea to have large nuclear arsenals sitting around waiting to be misused?
What could it mean to take actual human beings out of the loop when making decisions that might actually affect actual human beings a whole lot?
What kind of decisions are the powers that be making about technology, in real life?

Aliens =
Fun, fun, fun plus questions like:
Is the domination of our lives by corporations a good thing?
How will that look in the future?
Is that what we want?
The fictional world of Aliens is driven by the quest for profit, just as the audience's world is.
Is that a good thing?
Is it a good idea to fuck each other over for a percentage?
Is that what it's all about?
How do different personalities in difficult situations work out their differences and act in responsible, more empathetic ways?
In an amoral universe, how will you be... just as amoral, or no?
Seems like a heaping helping serving of egoism vs. altruism, to me.
Oooooo, heady stuff!

The Abyss =
Groundbreaking action, adventure, and science fiction plus questions like:
How do we organize ourselves between the civilian and the military authorities?
Are we okay with the nuclear arms race and the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction?
Are we able to overcome our destructive nature?
What's more important, career or the bonds of love and family?
Would it really require the emergence of a far more advanced alien species to effect peace by threatening us?

Terminator 2 =
Mind-blowing entertainment plus questions like:
What would you do with your very own T-800?
Pretty much the same questions as the first Terminator movie --see above.
How do we treat the mentally ill?
Is the Mental Health Industry’s practice of doping its patients up in order to subdue them ethical or humane?
How are the powerless detainees of mental institutions vulnerable to abuse by their keepers?
Does the end justify the means? The historical and continuing importance of that question cannot be exaggerated.

True Lies =
Well, okay, pretty much mindless escapism.
Though it might anticipate questions about things like what would years later become the Patriot Act …in a goofball kinda way.

Titanic =
Are you kidding me?!
All kinds of questions are brought up.
Class and class disparity... or social injustice. Women's rights. Profit vs. personal integrity and responsibility. What's more important... financial security or love, social status or authenticity, conformity or independence? Etc.

Avatar =
An amazing, fun ride and the coolest 3-D movie yet made (I haven't seen them all, though, oops) plus questions like:
Which is more important to us, profit or decency?
How should we treat each other, let alone some fictional alien species on another planet?

A few of my acquaintances have brought up the movie to me, almost out of the blue, it seemed ...people whom I wouldn't usually peg as movie lovers, and described to me how great Avatar was and how it really made them think about how Europeans treated Native Americans as they pushed into the Americas. I'm pretty sure our species will not be traveling to a distant, habitable planet and running roughshod over its noble savage inhabitants anytime soon. In fact, I doubt that will ever, ever happen. But clearly Avatar works as something of a history lesson (granted, very loosely so) as well as, perhaps, a cautionary tale about how the powers that be might treat the last remaining indigenous peoples in places like the Amazon basin. My acquaintances’s heartfelt reactions in this are proof enough for me. If Avatar can plant such thoughts into ordinary people who are just common like me, as my grandmother might have said, then Avatar is not simply an escapist gimmick. How many of us will make a movie that does so much as that to people all around the globe?

In James Cameron’s movies there is the reoccurring theme of the danger of imminent mass destruction due to our penchant for greed, violence and irrationality. The movies have also repeatedly dealt with the ugliness of making profit our God. That makes it sort of ironic, then, when he is accused of being a for-profit-only whore.

James Cameron is not conspiring to lull the masses into accepting anything like the conquest of Europe, or for that matter, the genocide of anyone. Hardly! In fact, it was the At the Movies boys, either on their own show or on Charlie Rose ...I think... that one or both of them pointed out, rightly so ...I think...that Avatar was actually a rather pointed and subversive jab at the Bush administration, the Bush Doctrine, and its war on Iraq. Not only does the hero learn sympathy for the enemy, but he joins them! I think that they're right. That characterization of what Cameron is doing in Avatar has to be at least a little bit true. I'll bet that was very much on Cameron's mind ...along with any wars of aggression. If anything, we should consider him to be a polar opposite of the (Nazi) Propaganda Charge …and a surprisingly popular one, given the seriousness of his themes.

So anyways! Cameron is not a peddler of mindless drama. Avatar is not mindless, escapist drivel. It's plain as day. The point of the listing above is to argue that James Cameron’s movies are a thinking person’s films. He’s very good at sneaking thought provoking content into the mix of big entertainment, and in an artful way.
 
Last edited:
L.I.F.E. said:
...and I paid to see it again to see if I was crazy, and I almost fell asleep the second time. To me thats the true test of a movie, can it keep me awake.

Now I respect the technical aspect of making the movie and all the work they put in and the amazing technology, but fluff on top of a shitty story doesn't make the story any better. Now you can call me an armchair critic (although I do not own an armchair) if you'd like, but I call things as I see them. I respected the way it was made and think thats great, the graphics were amazing. But what they were based on was not.

Lastly I had to comment on your "Losing faith in people to think for themselves." How does not liking a movie that the majority of people liked not thinking for yourself? I would think it would be the opposite.
Click to expand...

* It really goes to show how A.D.D. our society had become, when they fall asleep to Avatar in 3D.

* Let's get this straight people, the story of Avatar isn't 'shitty'...it's just not original. There is a huge difference. Shitty would be a script written by an amateur...not by the screenwriter of a billion dollar JC movie. Yes 'Unubtanium' is the stupidest name in the world (that's from the youthful mind of JC)...but the rest is decent action movie fodder.

* As far as thinking for yourself...I've noticed that people started talking about the story as the weak link to the film, and then every Joey'BagO'Donuts started spouting out 'The story sucks, the story sucks' and then just repeating why through exact replica of what they heard someone else say. I've asked people to explain in detail what makes the story suck, and why it's OK for other films to use this plot device but not Avatar...and they start stuttering and mumbling like a drunk redneck. They don't know what they think...they only know other people are saying it.

One thing we need to remember people...just because a plot device is being used again, doesn't mean it's not original...TO SOMEONE ELSE. There are thousands of people that haven't seen Dances With Wolves, or any of the other films that use this plot device. Just because *we've* seen it before, and may tire of it, doesn't mean that little Ethan isn't going to get something out of this obviously powerful device, used since the beginning of story telling. Let's get real. New generations are coming into movies...and Avatar's *point* was a good one. Maybe little Ethan learned a great deal from the story, its meaning...and maybe someday he'll change the world because of it. I'm serious. Plot devices have to be repeated...rehashed...refreshed...new generations are seeing these things for the first time. As 'simple' as some of you may think the story was, it told it clearly and deliberately.
 
Last edited:
I personally don't believe in A.D.D., I feel its more of a cop out than an actual thing. Nobody WANTS to sit in a classroom or do something they'd rather not do. To take medicine for it I feel is ludicrous. <<<Purely my opinion. That aside it's a joke you try and explain finding a movie boring and correlate it to having a disorder.

I didn't like the movie because looking past the 3D there wasn't much else. That's why I almost fell asleep it just wasn't that good. To me entertainment is something you should be able to get multiple times from a movie, I didn't get that with Avatar.

Lastly, I can assure you I would never regurgitate somebody's opinion on something. The day after the first time I saw it a few actor friends and I got together and tore the movie apart. I thought I would be the only one who really didn't like it but we ended up having an hour discussion about it. From the day I saw it to now I've said to me Avatar is just Ferngully mixed with Pocahontas.

Btw, hope you don't take this back and forth personal Michael, I like discussing topics like this.
 
LIFE...it's totally cool man. I don't mean to get personal--and try and understand I'm not pinpointing you...I'm talking about other people I've talked to. I've gathered this from many different sources.

A.D.D. can be measured by brain function and activity. People with it, have difference brain waves patterns. It's not always measurable, nor is it always diagnosed properly...but it's no doubt real. My point was Avatar has a billion things going on, with insane visuals and intense sound design...if that can't keep someone engaged...then there probably is an attention issue. Just my opinion...don't take it personally.
 
Man, so many different thoughts come to mind while browsing this thread, so I'm just going to ramble...

"Avatar" was a good movie, I enjoyed it. Was it a great movie? No. But it was solid escapist entertainment. Technologically it was the culmination of the last decade of CG experimentation. No matter what you think of the film itself, it was gorgeous to look at, and the techniques it codified will be used by most filmmakers in the years to come. And, lets face it, every filmmaker will benefit from the advances in filmmaking technology used in "Avatar" whether they want to admit it or not. On a personal note, I found the film a little too preachy.

Then we get into all of the "what is art" and "great story telling" arguments. I mean, come on, "Star Wars" was just a 1950's serial western transposed to a "Galaxy far, far away." There was nothing ground breaking about the story, only in the way it was told. In my opinion we as filmmakers have all become very jaded in this regard.

The arts - writing, music, film, etc. - is entertainment, and that is what we are, entertainers. Oh sure, there are "meaningful" films, songs and books, but the average guy/gal goes for escapist entertainment for that exact purpose, to escape the vicissitudes of every day life. And the average consumer is much smarter than most give them credit for, it's just that the morons and loud-mouths that get the most attention; they're more "interesting." The morons and loud-mouths also seem to have more time; the average person spends their time working, raising kids, mowing the lawn, being with friends, etc.; all of the stuff that make up every day life but makes for boring films, books and songs. Why would they want to watch a film about the problems that they face every day?

I also think that we, as filmmakers, have trouble disassociating ourselves from the hype and the filmmaking process. When I was a musician I had a tough time just enjoying music; I was always analyzing the chord structure, the production values, et. al. The same occurred when I got into film and audio post. It's only the last three years or so that I can just sit back and enjoy a film.

Then there are the supposed filmmakers themselves. There are too many that lie to themselves, thinking that their work is worthy. Trust me, dozens of them come through my studio. I'm not a writer, DP or editor, and even I can see the obvious holes and the flaws in many of these projects which the makers refuse to see. And many of the bashers of "Hollywood" films are just envious, thinking that they could do better.

Enough of this sickening drivel. My client has finally arrived.
 
M1chae1 said:
People that complain about the 'story' annoy me. Did you know there are only a handful of plot devices out there, and they are constantly being redone...yet people hardly ever complain. But you get an incredibly hyped movie, that looks insanely stunning and in perfect 3D, and what do people do? Complain about the story...as if it's a glaring fault with the movie.
You know what? B.S.

The story may be similar to other movies (Dances with Wolves, etc), but give me a freakin' break...it was still well-written and entertaining.

You know some of you bashing the story have no clue how to write a good story. Your movies are just getting started, and they are so rough and amateur. Yet you can bash the story of Avatar?

Silly gimmick? Are you shitting me? LIFE...with all due respect man...Avatar is the leading force...the revolution of 3D technology...they are the captain of the ship. Not a SINGLE movie nailed the 3D like Avatar did. And if you watch the movie, you'll see they don't use it as a gimmick...they don't throw a myriad 3d-style shots at you that suck just to showcase the 3d...every single shot looks bad ass...in 2d or 3d. Saying it's a gimmick is like saying using Morgan Freeman as a VO is a gimmick.

I think it's just depressing to think that so many people are so critical to Avatar. I lose faith in people's abilities to 1) think for themselves 2) comprehend talent and 3) relax and be entertained.

And I bet a lot of you who hated Avatar love Family Guy and South Park. Which I think--for the most part--is low brow drek. But Oooooo Avatar was simple and gimmicky...pshhh. What a load of crap.

And lastly...it's too bad some of you hated Avatar...because I LOVED your last feature.

ps. Yes we all have opinions. And I'm just voicing mine. Why am I being so harsh? Because the internet has spawned these armchair-critics who feel like they can tear apart a massive project...a labor of love...just because it wasn't 'their thing.'
Click to expand...

This may be a long quote, but I'll try to get through everything I quoted.

1) People who complain about the story annoy you? I'm sorry, I thought you were an actor? I thought you were supposed to care about the story, as everybody should? Why is it that if the CGI would have been bad, EVERYONE would be complaining about the cgi the acting the story and everything. But because it was so "revolutionary" you get annoyed that people can speak their minds?

2) How can you possibly say it was well written? I mean entertaining, maybe for some? The story wasn't just similar, it was an almost exact replica... But really-- well written?
"They're pissing on us and not even giving us the courtesy of calling it rain." It wasn't well written, if anything that was Avatars weakest point, and you saying when people complain about the story annoys you, well when people lie about a movie annoys me.

3) How can you be so hard on L.I.F.E for being so critical on his opinion on 3D. I don't know why you are talking down to us when there are people like Ebert who hate 3D as well. And it is a money making gimmick. It cost $16 dollars to see this in 3D are you kidding me, use your imagination to make it 3D don't make some glasses and darkened lighting do it for you. I know this very well because I work at a theater so I know exactly what 3D is for. The fact of the matter is that the primary reason for 3D is money, then to entertain. Or else a 3D movie would cost $11.50 just like the rest of them.

4) You say you lose your faith in people's ability to think for themselves? How can you say that if YOU'RE the one in the "sheep" side (No offense to anybody who loved this movie really, I'm just trying to make as harsh of a point as he did). Look at the box office scores 2.7 Billion dollars, I'm pretty sure that puts us, the people who didn't like it, in the category of people being able to think for themselves.

5) Lastly, I don't appreciate your patronizing tone to L.I.F.E, mostly because I agree with him almost completely so I take your post personal as well. You say you love OUR last project in such a condescending way that you make it seem that the only possible way to be critical is by being famous. Why is that? Only people with money or fame can say something bad about something that has made that much money? You say that the internet has spawned 'armchair critics', you should re-read your post, all you did was criticize us (L.I.F.E), the only difference is that we haven't made anything that has made it to the big screen, all we are doing is saying we didn't enjoy it like everyone else did. How is it okay that you can be an 'armchair critic' towards us "And lastly...it's too bad some of you hated Avatar...because I LOVED your last feature.", but it's so bad, it's nearly a sin for us to be critical of something like Avatar?

ps. I hate Family Guy, I enjoy South Park. I also have no idea what that has to do with anything in this topic, it just seemed like you threw that in there to insult some more people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top