I watched Avatar on Blu-Ray over the weekend. A great deal has been said about the largest grossing film of all time. The quality of its visual effects, however, have never been in doubt. Click here if you want to learn more about visual effects. You may also look into the various ai art tools that generate high-quality graphics used in various content and projects.
Its high definition clarity absolutely mesmerizing on Blu-Ray, so much so you forget that you ever saw it in 3D, and wondered why you had in the first place. What surprises me most though, is that critics and individuals continue to lambaste the story, and specifically its simplicity and lack of originality…
Fundamentally stories involve a protagonist and antagonist, with hiccups in between to upset the apple cart; the eternal struggle of good versus evil the backbone to our literary and theatrical creations. Harry Potter vs. Voldemort, Middle-Earth vs. Sauron, Batman vs. the Joker; it is a principle that will remain until humans are incapable of putting pen to paper, or finger to key. So why is it then that we are so quick to highlight such predictability in Avatar?
Mother earth, rebirth and spirituality are well trodden concepts that have been adopted regularly. Square Soft entered the ring of cinema entertainment with Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within in 2001, and although failing miserably at the box office (despite a colossal budget of $135 million), many of the film’s concepts draw parallels with Avatar; Gaia and Eywa- our direct place in the world in comparison to nature. Egotistical antagonists averse to reason; Avatar’s Parker Selfridge and Final Fantasy’s General Hein. Alongside the reiteration that we as a race are all part of a larger un-earthly force, lacking understanding of preservation, being prevalent in both films. And while Avatar has drawn praise for art direction and James Cameron’s “vision”, many of his concepts are akin to Roger Dean’s famed works and can at times draw far too many comparisons between our own earthly creatures (“let’s add two more legs, that’ll make it look alien!”), while the protagonist Jake Sully is a cut-copy-paste of Poul Anderson’s “Call Me Joe”; the tale of a disabled man using an artificial body to explore the surface of Jupiter.
Despite these similarities, it must be acknowledged that there are very few concepts left (and notably in science fiction) that don’t draw influence from preconceived ideas. Harry Potter, for example, without J.R.R Tolkien would not exist; Rowling’s entire series revolving around fundamental creatures and ideas conjured up years before. And while Rowling has the imagination to develop a story, they are lacking in true originality. Is it discredited as a result however? Not particularly, and it certainly doesn’t make the books any less enjoyable.
The five highest grossing films of all time total revenue in excess of $7.5 billion dollars, with three of the five having simplistic, commercial stories understandable by a demographic far younger than their target (Avatar, Titanic, Pirates of the Caribbean). Yet The Dark Knight (despite its comic adaptations) and The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (arguably slightly more complicated and buoyed by being sequels), have amassed a billion dollars each. However, it is through the execution of each of these five titles simplistic stories that has allowed for such riches. Good versus evil, triumph over adversity.
Where film critics may wish for story-lines equal to Infernal Affairs, a product of Avatar’s nature would never have achieved the commercial success necessary in order to claw back the $450 million dollars it took to make (including marketing), while no studio would have funded such a product if its story wasn’t as commercial as it is. In principal no media product could ever be commercially successful if its story naturally discourages the general public by its very nature. After all, James Cameron is certainly not averse to stories of complexity; The Terminator and its sequel are evidence enough. However, as a product of passion and years in the making, I have no doubt Avatar is exactly how it was supposed to be.
It may not have the most complicated story in cinema history, and its world lacking in originality, but in its execution James Cameron has achieved something truly wonderful. It is a spectacle that feeds the mind and one which leaves the viewer depressed when the credits roll, that you don’t in fact live on Pandora.
Are simplistic stories really ever a bad thing in any form of entertainment medium? I don’t think so, as long as the execution is flawless.
Email the author of this post at lewisb@tap-repeatedly.com
I still haven’t seen Avatar, and your article finally compelled me to do so. You’re right. Just because it has a simplistic story doesn’t mean it’s not a worthwhile film.
So many “core” stories – from Star Wars to Harry Potter to The Odyssey – are the same story. Joseph Campbell wrote it all down in his stupendously boring “Hero with a Thousand Faces.” It’s the monomyth philosophy, the Hero’s Journey. We see it in games all the time too.
All right, I’m sold. I must find a copy of Blu-Ray Avatar.
Oh joyous f*cking joy of joys.
This burning, it becomes a good pain – now that I know I am not alone in hell.
.. Someone else actually likes Avatar for what it is, without simply disregarding it as no more than a pretty but facile popcorn blockbuster.
.. And even when people say “lol, 3d fern gully”, the loudest question being screamed by the voices in my head is “Why is that a bad thing?!”.
Still, you haven’t solved the issue of several million people proclaiming “it was dumb but pretty lol”.
Shall we hunt?
Big kudos for drawing parallels with Spirits Within. I seem to be among a minority in adoring that one, too.
What do you think of V for Vendetta, I’m curious? Or another Wachowski Bros. work you may just have heard of; ‘The Matrix’?
– Jack
I just saw Avatar this weekend. By “this weekend” I mean it took us three separate viewings to see the whole thing. Amazing film, great story, but James Cameron is truly way too far up his own butthole. I will at least give him this, there are no long stretches of utter pointlessness despite the near 3 hour runtime. There were definitely spots that he could have trimmed it. So usually movies like this have poor pacing and editing, Cameron just has poor editing.
I’m not sure I gel entirely with the perceived message of the movie but at least the kiddos could watch it for what it was. I will say that it has been too long since we’ve had an original villain that was actually worthwhile. The Colonel was just plain badass from beginning to end. He was a real threat even face-to-face. A nice change from the typical movie fodder where the antagonist is hardly a challenge once you clear their toadies, puzzles, and/or traps.
Yes, the movie was almost insanely predictable. The final struggle was still outstanding despite its obvious outcome.
I’m afraid I disagree with you Jason on several points.
I really don’t think the film could be trimmed any more than it was, it only 2 hours 33 minutes long. If it takes you 3 attempts to watch a 2 and a half hour film, how would you ever manage Lord of the Rings?
And not to spoil the film for individuals who havn’t see it, but I really don’t think any sections “dragged” or that the film could have been edited better. I’d have liked to have seen it 30 minutes longer.
As for the Colonal, well I don’t see him as an original character. He is a cliche’ of every single army badass from every war film ever made. Predator, Aliens- you name it his persona is from it. I did love him all the same however.
I didn’t want the story in this movie to be more complicated, I wanted it to be less stupid.
Clearly this is a subjective evaluation on my part. I just didn’t find much to enjoy there. And, the visuals in the 3-d theater where I watched the film were not outstanding, so I lost twice.
I saw Avatar in the theater back in February. I thought it was ok. Beautiful, but lacking.
It wasn’t so much the lack of originality that was so bad, but it was the lack of original execution and generally bland, uninteresting characters.
I think the Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings comparison is particularly bad. Just because both stories/films have dragons, magic, myhtical beasts, etc. doesn’t mean they are at all alike, because they are not.
Avatar took too many scenes, also verbatim, from other films that did this better. Dances With Wolves, Last of the Mohicans, and Braveheart were among the most blatant source material rip-offs.
The main bad guy in Avatar, the General dude, was a preposteruous caricature. He had no real personality other than being evil and wanting to destroy the planet and the N’avi. What made “Dark Knight” so compelling was the complete awesomeness that was the Joker. That was a great take on a character. Great acting, great dialogue, all things lacking in the main villain in Avatar.
Cameron couldn’t even copy himself adequately. Burke from Aliens was a much better character than that Burke-Clone that Giovanni Risbi was playing.
Films and books based on old stories that are really just a re-telling of certain stories can be extremely compelling. Like Steerpike mentioned about about the whole “core” stories, Joseph Campbell idea.
The original Star Wars movies are a great example. Luke’s hero’s quest, the lovable rogue, the beatiful princess, the comedic side-kicks (3P0 and R2) are not at all original, but they presented in such a unique and compelling way, that it worked and Star Wars added to that cannon. Harry Potter is another example.
Other than the effects, the world, the techonlogy, there was nothing at all inherent in any of the characters or story that really said or did anything that hadn’t already been done and done better.
I knew this would cause some debate 🙂
I completely agree with many of your sentiments Jason, but I must draw the line at Braveheart! A historically inaccurate butchered works of a film. As for Avatar, I think you took the film far too seriously, and that as a blockbuster it holds it’s own against the best. Although not original, irrespective of source material (I still think it draws too heavily from eastern cinema) it remains an amazing film.
The Dark Knight is one of my favourite films of all time; it’s execution, characterisation and casting is flawless. I think in terms of quality, it rightly deserves the money it as drawn. I didn’t however think the Colonol in Avatar was a bad actor, or had poor dialogue he was just a stereotypical badass, which is what I loved.
Perhaps my enjoyment of the simplistic storyline for Avatar is that my expectations werent inflated.
What I liked about Avatar was the tension between the possible richness in the story and way it unfurled so predictably. The idea of the disabled man and the amazon bonding could have gone a lot of ways but was squeezed into Love Story Mold #5. The ways the bad guys could have been defeated by the planet…again so many ways to go but Cameron chose the absolutely most cliched path possible. I agree with Lewis that this was probably not the film he started out to make. I mean I pretty much figured the plot out about 60 minutes in and was even snapping my fingers right at the beats. It was bugging me at first but I was enjoying everything else too much to really care in the end. I was also entertaining myself musing on the whole idea of the avatar in modern society and how we are experiencing another layer of “reality” through avatars. I think Cameron was wise to keep the story as simple as he could.
I am continually amused that filmmakers make so much bank casting military characters as evil and nature-loving tree hugging as good when big budget directors and their production teams (esp. James Cameron productions) are pretty much miniature re-enactments of Sherman’s March… viciously flattening everything that gets in their way. I love that so much!
for Avatar, I think you took the film far too seriously, and that as a blockbuster it holds it’s own against the best.
No, no, no, a thousand times NO.
I understand that certain movies, blockbusters in particular, aren’t to be taken seriously. When I went and saw the first “Transformers” movie, I knew it would be silly, ridiculous, full of nothing but nonsense, robots and explosions. I was right. It’s an awful film, but I enjoyed. Similarly, when I went and saw “Rambo IV” and “Starship Troopers”, I knew what to expect. I didn’t take those movies seriously either and loved them. (For the record, both “Rambo IV” and “Starship Troopers” are much, much better films than “Transformers”.)
But this is James Cameron, man. James. Cameron. Put “Titanic” aside for a moment. We’re talking sci-fi James Cameron. The man behind “Terminator”. The genius behind “Aliens”. The guy who did “The Abyss”. And, to a lesser extent, “T2”. I hold James Cameron sci-fi films to a higher standard. I know what he is capable of. He can make blockbuster movies that are original, have good characters, good dialogue, interesting stories. “Aliens” is one of my favorite films of all time. “Terminator” isn’t too far behind. The director’s cut of “The Abyss” is amazing.
Think about all the great characters in Aliens. Apone, Ripley, Hudson, Vazquez, Hicks, Bishop, Burke, even stupid Gorman had a cool ending. These were cool characters, not stock, great, snappy dialogue.
Even Reese and Sarah Connor in “Terminator” and Bud and Lindsay in “The Abyss” are cool characters. They are real and tangible. You don’t anything close in “Avatar”. The characters are stock and predictable.
The stories are great too. They aren’t just derivative copies of better films that rely solely on special effects to elevate them above the unwashed masses of cinema.
James Cameron isn’t some hack like Michael Bay or Roland Emmerich. If it was some other director, you may have been right, I might have gone in with too high of expectations or taken the film too seriously. But when your resume includes “Aliens, “Terminator”, “The Abyss” and “T2”, you have raised the bar. The bar is high. I come expecting to be blown away, not just by looks and effects, but one a deeper, more meaningful level.
Also, for the record. I am not an “Avatar” hater. I enjoyed the movie well enough. I’d give it a 6 or 7 out of 10. It entertained me, but I don’t think I’d ever really watch it again.
Seemed a very rank-and-file take of the monomyth, without any interesting twists or turns.
Was a visual feast, though. I hadn’t seen a 3D film for many, many years, and this one was a good one to reinvigorate my faith in the tech.
It had elements of cool, but didn’t reveal anything new about the human condition. So the experience was good, even if the story was average and predictable.
Jason, is he not allowed to make a commercial product though because of his fabulous past track record? Really, that’s all it comes down to. For the 400mill spent on Avatar, it HAD to be as it is. If it wasn’t, it wouldn’t have made even half the money it did. Of course, that doesn’t change that some of the characters are poor in comparison. As a commercial blockbuster, I genuinly don’t think there is anything finer.
Still, as for his sci-Fi ideas, great Mech desings, great idea behind Avatars, and it all feels closer to our own reality- nothing too far fetched.
I’m with Ajax and Scout on this one. If there was anybody who I’d expect to do a great job of a super big budget sci-fi film it’s James Cameron. As it stands it was decidedly flat for such a massive endeavour, and as Scout points out, one with so many possibilities. Within an hour the film pretty much mapped itself out, beat for beat. It couldn’t have been more predictable. Ajax hits the nail on the head for me regarding the characters as well. Apone, Ripley, Hudson, Hicks, Bishop and Vasquez. Cameron even gave Arnie his greatest and most suitable role. I’d like to have seen more of Parker Selfridge because there was an amusing quality about him that I don’t think Burke had.
Don’t get me wrong, I really enjoyed Avatar, but there just wasn’t enough meat on the bone and I think there should have been considering its heritage and ideas.
Lewis, I don’t for a second believe that it HAD to be as it was. No way would it have flopped if it was a deeper and sharper experience because it was the incredible visuals and ‘3D experience’ that sold the film. Avatar was supposed to be A Big Deal but amounted to nothing more than a super glossy retread of old ideas that ultimately succeeded in entertaining. That’s not enough in my book. Not for $300,000,000. I want my socks to be blown off when those credits roll.
I’m not going to rehash, but I think I need to clarify what I meant by “original”.
In a lot of recent movies the antagonist is an already established character. Joker, Megatron, Destro, etc. When the antagonist is a new character, they tend to be very flat and uninteresting. A poor foil for our hero.
Colonel Quaritch was a very worthy antagonist. Yeah, Cameron may not have been at the top of his game but he at least found someone who was as threatening as the Alien Queen or a Terminator.
I think Avatar is a 450 million B movie, and a great one if seen that way.
But it is not a great science fiction movie in anyway, the story does not exist, and I think any respectable gamer from the last 10 years has seen much more incredible scenarios, creatures and planets than whatever Avatar has to offer.
It might look original or even new for someone who hasn’t played a videogame, but what does Avatar have to offer that’s new for anyone how has played Final Fantasy, Planescape, Septerra Core, Shadow of the Colossus, Gears of War or a dozen other titles?
Jason, is he not allowed to make a commercial product though because of his fabulous past track record? Really, that’s all it comes down to.
While I am not Jason, I will respond. He’s allowed to make any kind of product he wants. Two things. First, you can make a “commercial product” and still have it be more than a simple, unoriginal story with weak dialogue and carboard characters. I think “Dark Knight” and, to a lesser extent, “Iron Man” proved that. I would go so far as to say that even the original “Star Wars” movies and the first “Matrix” proved that.
Second, while he is allowed to make whatever kind of film he likes, I am allowed to be disappointed when a film he spent X millions of dollars to make and X number of years turns out to be “less than” his prior films that were all made a lot faster and a lot cheaper.
Because I hold Cameron to a higher level, based on his past work, I expect more from his films. If Michael Bay or Emmerich would have made “Avatar”, I’d be more impressed. But when the man behind “Aliens”, “Terminator” and “The Abyss” can’t come up with anything more original story-wise then a luke-warm re-bake of other films, it’s disappointing.
Comapring it to other “commercial blockbusters”, it’s definitely a huge step up from the “Transformers” and “Star Wars” prequels of the world, but also definitely a step down from “Dark Knight”, the original “Star Wars” trilogy, the first “Matrix”, and all three “LOTR” films.
The mech designs were certainly better than those god awful things from the third Matrix movie. Who makes a big giant mech with massive guns where the pilot is thrust out right in front with no armor protecting him/her? It boggles the mind!
Anyone who uses the Dark Knight as an example of quality cinema has already lost my interest – plot holes abound and poor acting/writing, to a degree that can’t be denied.
I’ve proved this, by making friends rewatch it with me, while I patiently point out all the flaws, cackling, until they hate me but admit I am right.
… <3
To be fair though, the mech designs were lifted straight out of Aliens..
Jakkar: “I’ve proved this, by making friends rewatch it with me, while I patiently point out all the flaws, cackling, until they hate me but admit I am right.”
dude that sounds so fun when can we hang out
Avatar pulls people in thanks to its CGI world and huge marketing machine, but I don’t see the commercial appeal of Avatar’s story. Any way you look at it main hero betrayed the Navi in a horrible way and didn’t really have any redeeming traits except being good in action scenes.
As far as original story is concerned, it gets even worse:
Avatar = Pocahontas
I still enjoyed the feck out of it though. Basically: nature wins, every time.
Just trying to get some avatar action going for myself. Let’s see if this does it…
@metzomagic: Hahaha, very good. I went for a long time before I knew anything about the plot but the trailer pretty much summarised the movie as Pocahontas but with a more sci-fi setting. Don’t get me started on the Smurfs thing though. I hate that apparent ‘likeness’.