In my opinion, James Camaron's movie Avatar was an extremely dissapointing movie. If you just wanted some really cool special effects, then that's fine. Visually, it was a somewhat decent movie. In every other aspect, it was excruitatingly painful to watch. I will now rate the different aspects of avatar and give my reasons for doing so.
Creativity: 1/10. This movie was essentially Pocahontas 3: Now with more Blue! This plot has been done so many times before: Braveheart, The Last Samurai, the Lorax, etc. Its okay to reuse a plot as long as you add something to it. Cameron, however, decided to just use a straightforward "outsider saves the natives" plot without adding any twists.
Logic/plot holes/science: -100/10. This is the biggest section, so I will break it up: 1) Why can't people breathe on Pandora? There is obviously ample oxygen, as evidenced by the flamethrowers. The atmosphere can't be poisoned either. All the soldiers use those impractical full face gas masks with the seal around the chin. But many soldiers also appeared to have beards. How do you get a seal through a beard? Everyone who had a beard should have been poisoned. 2) One of the first lines of the movie was "You're not in Kansas anymore." It was said by the commander guy to the new recruits on pandora. First of all, how cliche. Secondly, this movie is supposed to be set 150 years in the future, by which time the Wizard of Oz will be 200 years old. Are you telling me people will still get this reference? 3) Technology. Or rather, lack thereof. Why, oh why, did the humans need to attack the huge tree with helicopters? Are we supposed to believe that we have intergalctic travel but not, I don't know, NUKES FROM SPACE?? Bam, one push of a button, no more native "threat". Additionally, why couldn't the humans just tunnel under the tree? We have that ability now, so did we forget or something? Speaking of technology, whats with the humans' computers? Why are they still using keyboards and video logs instead of direct mind-computer interaction? Afterall, they had the technology to be able to scan Sully's brain and digitially transfer it into the avatar (matrix anyone?). Additionally, the human's interaction with technology would make a nice contrast to the native's interaction with nature. 3. At the end of the movie, the Colonel puts his gas mask on while still in the robot suit. Logically, the actions needed to put on the gas mask would have caused the robot to hit itself in the face (the colonel was still wearing the controller hands). 4. At the end of the movie, how did the Na'vi win? Its not like the humans are just going to back down. They "won" a battle, not the war. Again: nukes from space. And, as Sully said, they couldn't possibly win a fight outside of that protected area. Which also raises the question, why did the humans attack when the na'vi were hidden? Obviously they could just wait until they starved and had to come out. Or just use NUKES FROM SPACE. 5. How did Sully even become lost in the first place? Why wouldn't they implant a homing beacon under his skin? 6) Pandora is a moon. This means it orbits a planet as that planet orbits a star. This would mean that sometimes Pandora is close to the star (when it is between the planet and the star) and sometimes it is far away (when the planet is between it and the star). The slight tilt of the earth is responsible for the extreme temperature difference between summer and winter, often over 100 degrees difference at the poles. Can you imagine the difference on temperature between a pandora winter and summer? It would probably be over a thousand degrees difference. How can life evolve in that extreme of condidtions? Especially such advanced life. 7) The whole toruk thing. It took sully all of two minutes to capture this flying dragon thing. Are you telling me that no one in their entire civilization could think to attack it from above? I have more, but that's all of that for now.
Significance: 1/10 This was supposed to be some sort commentary on the war in iraq (references to "Shock and Awe" prove that this was cameron's intention). This is nothing like Iraq. First of all, the na'vi had no need for unobtainium because they were better than that. But the Iraqis want oil just as much as the Americans do. they are just as willing to destroy their landscapes for some black gold as we are. And as far as environmentalism goes... Do we really need another Lorax movie? And it isn't like the movie gives any useful advice. Plugging my hair into a tree isn't going to stop global warming or save the rainforests.
Visuals: 7/10 This was far and away the best part of the movie. Their were several moments when I was just amazed at all of the pretty colors. But sometimes the 3D kind of failed. Like when the camera would go soft focus on something in the foreground. This looks good in 2D, but it 3D it is just awkward. Wow, this is a long post. And to think I'm still leaving a lot out...
i think i would rate the visuals around 8.5 but yeah the rest wasn't that good i guess every body just looks at the colors and just automatically say the movie is the best i was kinda disappointed but i guess it was ok the storyline was alright but a bit sometimes it just didn't work still i guess it was worth my time
But sometimes the 3D kind of failed. Like when the camera would go soft focus on something in the foreground. This looks good in 2D, but it 3D it is just awkward. Wow, this is a long post. And to think I'm still leaving a lot out...
Adding something in to the Rancidmeat's counter-criticism post: 3-D doesn't mean make everything 3-D. This is the sort of realistic 3-D where it feels like you're actually part of the movie, not some "OOH LOOK OVER THERE *points finger*" and has everything zoom out at you. This is true 3-D.
No, this is not science fiction. Bladerunner is science fiction. The forever war is science fiction. Dune (the book) is science fiction. These are all significant, make sense, and don't have excessive plot holes. This is a glorified saturday morning cartoon (in 3D!!). Science fiction usually involves some sort of science. This is closer to the "fantasy" genre. I don't have a problem with things not following the laws of science if it isn't needless or it advances the plot. The foating mountain thing is obviously impossible, but it looks cool and creates a sense of danger that makes the movie more enjoyable. The fact that all of the "aliens" are derivitives of earth species doesn't bother me that much. Well, no, actually it does. But I knew about that before I saw the movie. These other things are just pointless. Why does pandora HAVE to be a moon? The movie would be no different if it was a planet. Why couldn't they have functional gas masks? Those clear face things are pointless. Its not like your eyes need to breathe. And anyway, the movie would have been BETTER if it utilized a oxygen free environment. Then they could have justified using potassium/water flame throwers: much cooler than regular flame throwers. Really, a lost oppurtunity. And you could have detonated the nuke in the atmosphere, killing the natives with radiation poisoning. Its not like anyone but one random pilot and a few scientists cared about the natives. Additionally for some reason there were no journalists on pandora, so the people on Earth would never need to know what happened. And, no, they were not in an area that blocked communication when sully became lost. He had a walkie talkie in his backpack (which he dropped).
Clearly, you don't understand the relevance it has today... They invaded a foreign land and destroyed the environment. It was kind of an allusion to the inhabitation of the Americas, and the modern destruction of the environment.
Yes. I know. They have literally made hundreds of movies about this, and it is just stale. This movie really adds nothing to the allusion that wasn't already said in Pocahontas and the Lorax.
I think you are trying to exploit every possible reason to hate this movie. The reason people love it so much is because they don't care about the fine detail that you can only see with a microscope, they like what has a big impact on the movie.
I think you've watched way to many movies. Your methods of exploitation are way out of hand. When I read this, I thought most of the time "who cares?" I mean, one thing with a gas mask doesn't ruin the whole movie.
The only thing good I can say about this is that you weren't necessarily biased from the start, because if you were then this would just be a hate thread.
Not gonna argue with someone who went to see a movie about blue cat-people and then begin to argue about science. So just one thing: If you are going to see this movie because you want a deep original plot, you are wasting your money. Try a book instead. If you go to see the movie because you have an imagination that could have thought up something similar, because you like to dream away, because you are an artist and love purdy pictures and awesome creatures that actually work quite well, or you simply just love movies? GO SEE IT NOW!
@Aknerd: Harhar, you wasted your money!! Go watch National geographic. Yes, I am high on this movie, and am probably going to waste my money to watch it a second time, thus not getting anything to eat, but that is just how stupid I am.
1) Why can't people breathe on Pandora? There is obviously ample oxygen, as evidenced by the flamethrowers. The atmosphere can't be poisoned either. All the soldiers use those impractical full face gas masks with the seal around the chin. But many soldiers also appeared to have beards. How do you get a seal through a beard? Everyone who had a beard should have been poisoned.
You honestly can't see why? Airborne pathogens that we wouldn't have defenses against. They could and would kill humans quickly, and the air could also have some toxic chemicals - oxygen is not the main component of air; air we can breathe is a specific cocktail of many different gases, many of which, including the most important, nitrogen, could be missing from the air. Oxygen is all that's needed for the flamethrowers; it is not all that is needed for humans.
2) One of the first lines of the movie was "You're not in Kansas anymore." It was said by the commander guy to the new recruits on pandora. First of all, how cliche. Secondly, this movie is supposed to be set 150 years in the future, by which time the Wizard of Oz will be 200 years old. Are you telling me people will still get this reference?
Okay seriously, don't whine. This isn't even a problem at all. References like that are not meant to pertain to the movie mythos but as subtle nudges for the viewer to pick up.
3) Technology. Or rather, lack thereof. Why, oh why, did the humans need to attack the huge tree with helicopters? Are we supposed to believe that we have intergalctic travel but not, I don't know, NUKES FROM SPACE?? Bam, one push of a button, no more native "threat". Additionally, why couldn't the humans just tunnel under the tree? We have that ability now, so did we forget or something? Speaking of technology, whats with the humans' computers? Why are they still using keyboards and video logs instead of direct mind-computer interaction? Afterall, they had the technology to be able to scan Sully's brain and digitially transfer it into the avatar (matrix anyone?). Additionally, the human's interaction with technology would make a nice contrast to the native's interaction with nature.
Did you even watch the movie? They were going after the mineral unobtanium, and the natives and their holy sites all sat on large deposits of it.
Also, it's his universe, not yours. Just because they have avatar tech doesn't mean they use machine-to-mind interfaces for everything or that they would have superbombs to obliterate the planet(which would be stupid as it would destroy their goal to go there in the first place)
And, since the unobtanium makes up the foundation of the entire tree, getting all of it out would cause what remains of the soil around the tree to implode.
4. At the end of the movie, how did the Na'vi win? Its not like the humans are just going to back down. They "won" a battle, not the war. Again: nukes from space. And, as Sully said, they couldn't possibly win a fight outside of that protected area. Which also raises the question, why did the humans attack when the na'vi were hidden? Obviously they could just wait until they starved and had to come out. Or just use NUKES FROM SPACE.
This is called a cliffhanger ending and it opens up the way for this thing called a sequel. Cameron himself said Avatar would be at least a trilogy.
This movie was essentially Pocahontas 3: Now with more Blue! This plot has been done so many times before: Braveheart, The Last Samurai, the Lorax, etc. Its okay to reuse a plot as long as you add something to it. Cameron, however, decided to just use a straightforward "outsider saves the natives" plot without adding any twists.
The plot was average, sure, but creativity in other aspects of the movie, like the visuals, was exceptional.
7) The whole toruk thing. It took sully all of two minutes to capture this flying dragon thing. Are you telling me that no one in their entire civilization could think to attack it from above?
How do you know they didn't try?
You don't.
And you could have detonated the nuke in the atmosphere, killing the natives with radiation poisoning.
Ever heard of cockroaches? Tardigrades?
Not all animals can be easily killed with radiation poisoning.
6) Pandora is a moon. This means it orbits a planet as that planet orbits a star. This would mean that sometimes Pandora is close to the star (when it is between the planet and the star) and sometimes it is far away (when the planet is between it and the star). The slight tilt of the earth is responsible for the extreme temperature difference between summer and winter, often over 100 degrees difference at the poles. Can you imagine the difference on temperature between a pandora winter and summer? It would probably be over a thousand degrees difference. How can life evolve in that extreme of condidtions? Especially such advanced life.
Three words and a slash: Science fiction/fantasy.
And it isn't like the movie gives any useful advice. Plugging my hair into a tree isn't going to stop global warming or save the rainforests.
Seriously, this isn't an effing documentary.
This isn't a review. It's a collection of b**ching and moaning about invalid points, invalid criticisms, and general nitpicking that really just proves you hated the movie and can't think of a good way to back it up. All you ever do is b**** about small details, only mentioning two things about the movie that actually MATTER. And even then, your criticisms don't reflect your final rating. You say the plot is unoriginal, and you rate the creativity of the ENTIRE MOVIE a 1/10 without even touching anything else?
I'd like to say 'good job!' or 'nice effort' or something nice, but . . . no. This review is the antithesis of introspection and valid criticism - all you do is mention small things and barely touch what matters. I rate your review a 2/10.
If you go to see the movie because you have an imagination that could have thought up something similar, because you like to dream away, because you are an artist and love purdy pictures and awesome creatures that actually work quite well, or you simply just love movies? GO SEE IT NOW!
Amen brotha! I loved the movie and I also understand that it wasn't the greatest plot ever, but sometimes being predictable works; trying to force plot twists can lead to failure.
And to your 'NUKE' plan...I just want to point out that these weren't the actual marines, they are mercenaries.
It wasn't a review. Thats why the thread is called "My problems with Avatar" and not "My review of Avatar." I was only focussing on the negatives here. Obviously, I could have written an equally long post on how great the visuals were. You have to understand that I understand that most people don't have these same problems. But when I watch a movie, I can't help but notice science errors and plot holes. Worst of all, its distracting. I don't think any (or many) movies are perfect in this regard, but they are still way better than avatar. Avatar was like a never ending barage. I realize most of these points are trivial, but that fact that there are so many of them is the problem.
Not gonna argue with someone who went to see a movie about blue cat-people and then begin to argue about science
Because it is scientifically impossible for cats to be blue? I don't understand why having blue cats in a movie justifies a lack of science. Are you saying you can't have both visual and scientific elements with a great plot? I'll say it again: Bladerunner.
You say the plot is unoriginal, and you rate the creativity of the ENTIRE MOVIE a 1/10 without even touching anything else?
The creativity part was just referring to the plot. I had visuals at the end, which I gave a seven. You could probably justify a 8.5 or even a 9/10, but I think visuals comes down to personal taste more than anything else. I (personally) felt that Cameron should have spent more time trying to develope news ways to artfully use his new technology. A lot of the things I had problems with visually were common techniques in 2D films that just don't translate over to 3D films. But that really isn't Cameron's or Avatar's fault; after all 2D filmakers have way more material to draw cinematography inspiration from. Cameron kind of had to make up his own rules, so of course some of the shots wouldn't work out to well.
How do you know they didn't try? You don't.
Exactly! This is my problem with this movie (and many others in similar vein). Either the civilation isn't intelligent enough to ride a toruk, or they weren't skilled enough. But a human who recently arrived on the moon was? Don't you realize what this is saying? Its saying that the Na'vi aren't good enough to win on their own and need some random human to lead them. Just like how Sully was the only one who's prayer was actually answered by the tree/god/neural network. Just like how Sully was the only one who could unite all of the Na'vi tribes.
It wasn't a review. Thats why the thread is called "My problems with Avatar" and not "My review of Avatar." I was only focussing on the negatives here. Obviously, I could have written an equally long post on how great the visuals were. You have to understand that I understand that most people don't have these same problems. But when I watch a movie, I can't help but notice science errors and plot holes. Worst of all, its distracting. I don't think any (or many) movies are perfect in this regard, but they are still way better than avatar. Avatar was like a never ending barage. I realize most of these points are trivial, but that fact that there are so many of them is the problem.
Um, your OP was a review. It was not a list of your problems with avatar, it was a piece of writing talking about your likes and disliked with an overall score and a conclusion. It was a review., no matter what the thread title is. It was an extremely negative review, but a review nonetheless.
Also, a lot of the problems you listed aren't problems at all; the gas masks on Pandora have multiple explanations you just didn't even consider. You didn't even realize the plot of the movie when talking about the space nuke thing, and since Avatar is not a very fleshed-out canon yet you can't whine validly about the technology stuff. About Pandora being a moon, you don't know the nature of its atmosphere, the nature of the solar system, or the nature of the star itself so you can't assume the size of the temperature difference. A good deal of these 'roblems' are nonexistent.
Exactly! This is my problem with this movie (and many others in similar vein). Either the civilation isn't intelligent enough to ride a toruk, or they weren't skilled enough. But a human who recently arrived on the moon was? Don't you realize what this is saying? Its saying that the Na'vi aren't good enough to win on their own and need some random human to lead them. Just like how Sully was the only one who's prayer was actually answered by the tree/god/neural network. Just like how Sully was the only one who could unite all of the Na'vi tribes.
Do you even realize how many thousands of movie plots you're trying to discredit here? Like it or not, you shouldn't whine about one of the most common plot devices ever. A new outsider comes in to lead the group of people with his skills, his gifts and his new ideas. A good deal of the reason he was probably able to was because he was raised to question stuff more, while the Na'Vi are far more tribal and religious. They stuck to their guns when that was a bad thing to do, so Sully brought in some ingenuity. It's not so difficult to see how Sully could be a leader and a Toruk moktao(or however you spell it, lol)among the Na'vi who were raised with a much different perspective than he was.
Because it is scientifically impossible for cats to be blue? I don't understand why having blue cats in a movie justifies a lack of science. Are you saying you can't have both visual and scientific elements with a great plot? I'll say it again: Bladerunner.
Dude, sarcasm. Learn it. Also, he didn't mention the plot. Or the visuals. don't overextrapolate.
The creativity part was just referring to the plot. I had visuals at the end, which I gave a seven. You could probably justify a 8.5 or even a 9/10, but I think visuals comes down to personal taste more than anything else. I (personally) felt that Cameron should have spent more time trying to develope news ways to artfully use his new technology. A lot of the things I had problems with visually were common techniques in 2D films that just don't translate over to 3D films. But that really isn't Cameron's or Avatar's fault; after all 2D filmakers have way more material to draw cinematography inspiration from. Cameron kind of had to make up his own rules, so of course some of the shots wouldn't work out to well.
Well, creativity isn't limited to the plot, and if you're only judging creativity of the plot you should specify.
Also, in case you didn't notice the 2D avatar was one of the best-looking movies ever. It revolutionized special effects the same way Star Wars: A new Hope did in the 70s.
I haven't seen the 3D one, but oftentimes 3D stuff is wonky.
This plot has been done so many times before: Braveheart, The Last Samurai, the Lorax, etc
I could spend an hour writing a huge post to debate your review but instead I'll just say: Dances with Wolves. You left out Dances With Wolves. You left out Dances With Wolves. Not only was that the original AND the best of these films, but... Well, no but. There isn't one. It's that good. Sure, Avatar is good, but there's this 19 year technological difference. If they came out at the same time, I'm sure as hell gonna say Avatar, but they didn't.
Also, little note to those complaining "It's the white man coming to 'rescue' us again. Oh yay." If it was the native rescuing the white man, would you complain? No. Would we complain? No. It's not as 'olitically correct'. Maybe it is a little offense, but so are half the movies out there.
The week after winter break my euro class spent about three hours talking about why Avatar was so horrible. We walked into class and my teacher had already "located" Avatar as a combination of other movies (he included Dances with Wolves in the "movie web", I didn't because Dances deserves better than to be compared to this monstrosity). It was really fun, especially the fact that I learned that many other people disliked avatar for similar reasons. In fact, no one I know in real life enjoyed this movie. After a while, however, we had to get back conservatism and stuff. Therefore, I posted a similar topic on here in hopes that I could continue the conversation. Apparently, I vastly misjudged the AG community. However, I think we could still have a decent debate about the movie if we [/i]just[i] discuss the plot and leave out science, writing, and visuals. Alt, if we continue to discuss the nukes/gasmask thing it will never end (seriously, we could do the point/counterpoint thing for like weeks. but it would get boring). That being said, back to the "white man rescue" question.
Do you even realize how many thousands of movie plots you're trying to discredit here? Like it or not, you shouldn't whine about one of the most common plot devices ever. A new outsider comes in to lead the group of people with his skills, his gifts and his new ideas. A good deal of the reason he was probably able to was because he was raised to question stuff more, while the Na'Vi are far more tribal and religious. They stuck to their guns when that was a bad thing to do, so Sully brought in some ingenuity. It's not so difficult to see how Sully could be a leader and a Toruk moktao(or however you spell it, lol)among the Na'vi who were raised with a much different perspective than he was
Yes, I do realive how widespread it is. Thats why I specifically mentioned movies that follow the same plot. And, at any rate, he didn't use his unique perspective to defeat the humans. The only thing that managed to do significant damage was the stampede that he called by praying to the Na'vi's god. So, actually it was their "tribal and religous" nature that enabled them to win, not Sully's independent spirit. So, again, why was it Sully who had to make the prayer? The toruk thing makes even less sense. After all, the toruk is part of the na'vi world, not the human. So unlike in The Last Samurai where they needed help fighting a foreign force, the na'vi needed help doing something that is part of their culture.
3) Technology. Or rather, lack thereof. Why, oh why, did the humans need to attack the huge tree with helicopters? Are we supposed to believe that we have intergalctic travel but not, I don't know, NUKES FROM SPACE??
ok unless u keep a whole bunch of nukes in every dropship it woudld take thousands of years to travel from our solar system to theirs. even with futuristic technology, if you were PAYING ATTENTION it took them a long time to go to pandora in a ship.second, if paying atention again, the natives lived there and would hurt there strength to destroy it.
Creativity: 1/10
o god , i respect your opinions on the movie, but i find this wrong. theres was a whole lot more plot if you were paying attention and i find it a whole lot different than pocahontas and by far different from braveheart!
Significance: 1/10 This was supposed to be some sort commentary on the war in iraq (references to "Shock and Awe" prove that this was cameron's intention). This is nothing like Iraq. First of all, the na'vi had no need for unobtainium because they were better than that. But the Iraqis want oil just as much as the Americans do. they are just as willing to destroy their landscapes for some black gold as we are. And as far as environmentalism goes... Do we really need another Lorax movie? And it isn't like the movie gives any useful advice. Plugging my hair into a tree isn't going to stop global warming or save the rainforests
WHERE did it ever say anything about iraq in the movie. its called perspective, everyone percieves something different from your next watcher, so how is that going to affect your rating? overall,im not rating this on the fact i loved the movie, i rate it on the content of the review, in context a review of a review =P
