• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

"Have we forgotten about Avatar?"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bit-Bit

Member
Avatar is 5 years old yes, but let's be fair. It was already forgotten about after like 2 years.

I don't know what Hunger Games' place in pop culture will be half a decade from now, but it's already reverberated more than Avatar did.

You forget that for a year after Avatar released it was constantly on the public's mind. There were SNL skits about it. It became the best selling Blu Ray and DVD. And freakin Disney decided to build an entire section of its Animal Kingdom Park after it.

Hunger Games will have the same impact that Twilight did after its last movie. The fans will move onto some other teen book to movie hit.

The only franchise in the last decade that you can say have truly impacted the public's domain is Harry Potter. And that's because it has 8 freakin movies and a Theme Park.
 
I recently saw a casting call for puppeteers as Cirque du Soleil is apparently putting on some Avatar based show. I think the hype machine is being to spool up.
 

Verger

Banned
Sam Worthington's terrible acting had something to do with it. Once Terminator Salvation came out and he couldn't keep his accent at bay for 3 lines people started to realize he sucks and it retroactively brought down avatar.

The movie itself was an experience though, but watching it back and seeing Sam struggle is a eww moment I can't shake anymore.
I have to agree. Even watching Avatar you can hear his accent come through in certain parts. I definitely wonder what Cameron was thinking casting him. I'm sure there were plenty more capable actors.
Agreed completely. The science and the world building is fantastic. The Navi noble savage angle kills this movie for me.
That and the heavy-handed imperialism and drawing parallels to the war on terror (weren't many of Quaritch's lines lifted from Bush?). No subtlety there at all.

I still love the music. I listen to War quite often because it is so bad ass (particularly 3:35 and 6:58)
 
Forgotbusters: Avatar’s rapid rise, sudden downfall, and endless Billy Jack connections

When I was first brutally disappointed by Avatar, I thought of it as a science-fiction spin on Dances With Wolves. But re-watching it, I realized a more apt comparison is previous Forgotbusters entry Billy Jack. Like Billy Jack, Avatar centers on a disillusioned super-soldier who turns his back on the militarism, colonialism, and mindless bloodshed of the white warrior ethos, and embraces his destiny as the protector of a misunderstood, oppressed indigenous people marked for slaughter by evil honkies.

Billy Jack and Avatar are both ostensible action movies that clumsily broadcast their anti-war politics. Billy Jack is not-so-covertly a howl of protest against Richard Nixon and the Vietnam War (its sequels are even more blatant), just as Avatar takes metaphorical aim at George W. Bush and the Iraq War, both through its Marines-by-way-of-Halliburton bad guys and the sniveling, W-styled, beady-eyed heavy Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi) who derides the noble Na’vi as “flea-bitten savages.” Selfridge wants to eradicate the proud residents of Pandora both because their morally superior way of life makes him and his cronies look like the real savages, and because they have the misfortune of living in an area with a highly valuable commodity called “Unobtainium,” just as Iraqis live in a land filled with a highly valuable commodity called “oil.”

The Billy Jack resemblances go on and on: Both films even feature noble, central female characters (Sigourney Weaver in Avatar, Delores Taylor in Billy Jack) who, as evidence of their saintliness, attempt to run a school for indigenous people in defiance of evil white people intent on shutting them down. Both films also obviously touched a nerve in the general public, speaking incoherently but powerfully to a yearning for a more spiritually evolved existence, and an escape from the greed and brutality of Western capitalism and colonialism. But where it took Billy Jack four decades to go from pop-culture phenomenon and top-grossing independent film of all time to half-forgotten kitsch 1970s reference, Avatar has seemingly been half-forgotten in the space of a half-decade.

Pandora is almost invariably gorgeous. There’s a richness and obsessive level of detail to its backgrounds that makes it doubly unfortunate that there’s seldom anything interesting in the foreground. In that respect, it reminded me of another technological breakthrough that made a fuckton of money, but now has apologists rather than fans: Star Wars: The Phantom Menace.

Like The Phantom Menace, Avatar is as accomplished in its world-building as it is dialogue-deficient and narratively crippled. Cameron and his collaborators create a lush, gorgeous universe filled with floating mountains, dinosaur-like creatures, and floating neon jellyfish, then populate that world with cardboard characters, amateurish dialogue, naïve politics (which I agree with, yet still found irritating), and clunky social commentary that already felt dated when the film was released (Bush was already out of office), and looks positively prehistoric today.

I was initially disappointed by Avatar because I’m a Cameron fan who figured he couldn’t possibly have spent the 12 years between Titanic (a previous champion for top-grossing film of all time) and Avatar working on anything short of a masterpiece. His few films (not counting Piranha 2: The Spawning) range from great (The Terminator, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Aliens) to flawed-but-filled-with greatness (Titanic, The Abyss, True Lies). I went in with expectations that were way too high the first time around, just as I liked Avatar better the second time around because my expectations couldn’t have been lower.

It’s tough to completely write off a film so stylistically and technologically revolutionary, but the man who made Avatar represents a strange, unpalatable cross between the gifted filmmaker who proved himself unparalleled in joining crackerjack storytelling with the most sophisticated and advanced technology, and the out-of-touch, often tone-deaf older Cameron who is so dazzled by all the shiny, screensaver-ready neon and pastel surfaces at his disposal that he appears wholly disinterested in telling a compelling story or creating memorable characters.
 

numble

Member
You forget that for a year after Avatar released it was constantly on the public's mind. There were SNL skits about it. It became the best selling Blu Ray and DVD. And freakin Disney decided to build an entire section of its Animal Kingdom Park after it.

Hunger Games will have the same impact that Twilight did after its last movie. The fans will move onto some other teen book to movie hit.

The only franchise in the last decade that you can say have truly impacted the public's domain is Harry Potter. And that's because it has 8 freakin movies and a Theme Park.
Disney's theme park selections don't automatically validate something. See the early years of California Adventure or Disneyland Paris. Heck, they're building a section of the Shanghai Disneyland park for Tron (it was planned years in advance).
 

Forkball

Member
There's been no real follow up to Avatar. Its been five years and we have no idea how far along the sequel is. There hasn't been a constant stream of Avatar related media. No games, comics, cartoons, toys, LEGO etc. It seems like they aren't really building it up as a franchise at all. I'm not saying it needs to be, but it's certainly a different approach from other properties like Marvel or Star Wars.

I think the world and lore of Avatar really isn't that interesting. There's no mysteries to it, nothing we can speculate or theorize about. The characters are just kind of there and have no flair to them. They don't do anything really unique or interesting. Name one Navi beyond Neytiri. That's right, you can't. I'm not saying it's a bad movie, but it is a very safe and vanilla one. A huge appeal to the movie was the technical wizardry, which I admit was amazing. Even today I still think Avatar did 3D the best.

I think many are underselling its influence though. It certainly kicked off the 3D craze, something we are all woefully still living through.
 

Blader

Member
The only franchise in the last decade that you can say have truly impacted the public's domain is Harry Potter. And that's because it has 8 freakin movies and a Theme Park.

uh, Marvel? Iron Man/Cap/Avengers blew up from nobodies into being everywhere within just 5 years.
 
Guys, why are people still talking about Iron Man, a previously established franchise property that since 2008 till this year will have seen the character star in 5 separate films and other mediums, while nobody is still talking about that shitty movie Avatar, the film from more than 5 years ago that I'll be sure to shit on in a month's time in the next Avatar thread?
 

A_Gorilla

Banned
You forget that for a year after Avatar released it was constantly on the public's mind. There were SNL skits about it. It became the best selling Blu Ray and DVD. And freakin Disney decided to build an entire section of its Animal Kingdom Park after it.

Hunger Games will have the same impact that Twilight did after its last movie. The fans will move onto some other teen book to movie hit.

The only franchise in the last decade that you can say have truly impacted the public's domain is Harry Potter. And that's because it has 8 freakin movies and a Theme Park.

Yeah because Disney has never fucked up before (looks at California Adventure)
 
Nah. People heralding it as the next Star Wars back when it came out forgot what made SW a lasting success. It had solid characters and an engaging story. The special effects were the hook but no one would have stuck around for Empire or Jedi if that was all there was and we certainly wouldn't be having sequels made over 30 years later.

Avatar roped people in with 3D but had little else to offer besides meaning the A:TLA movie couldn't use Avatar in the title (which is great because it further distances the series from that shit).
 

Estocolmo

Member
I get the same feeling with Inception. It was hyped, had Leonardo and that dark knight dude. It was a great movie but today I can't remember anything from the movie and have never heard anyone talked about it either.
 

Loxley

Member
I'm pretty indifferent on Avatar, the only aspect of it that I actively dislike is the dialogue and the actors chosen to deliver that dialogue. Zoe Saldana and Stephen Lang were the two saving graces of the film as far as the performances go, they somehow managed to rise above it all.
 

Arcayne

Member
I liked it for the visual orgasms, and thats pretty much its only lasting impression on me. Hallelujah Mountains, phewwww
 

GoutPatrol

Forgotten in his cell
Guys, why are people still talking about Iron Man, a previously established franchise property that since 2008 till this year will have seen the character star in 5 separate films and other mediums, while nobody is still talking about that shitty movie Avatar, the film from more than 5 years ago that I'll be sure to shit on in a month's time in the next Avatar thread?

Surely one not made by you?

Just a casual search for "Avatar" topic title names, going back the past year, there have been 16 Avatar topics in the OT. Thread creators:

Scullibundo: 9
ComputerMKII: 2
Prompto: 1
JB1981: 1
Dead: 1
bengraven: 1
inm8num2: 1
 

sn00zer

Member
Avatar 2 is not going to make anywhere close to Avatar 1 numbers. It was just a sort of freak accident the movie made so much money. It was a blockbuster for sure, bu the shear numbers it pulled arent going to be repeated anytime soon.
 
Surely one not made by you?

Just a casual search for "Avatar" topic title names, going back the past year, there have been 16 Avatar topics in the OT. Thread creators:

Scullibundo: 9
ComputerMKII: 2
Prompto: 1
JB1981: 1
Dead: 1
bengraven: 1
inm8num2: 1
Okay, so excluding my news updates and shit, 8 threads a year about the movie is everybody having forgot about it.
 

Xiaoki

Member
Nah. People heralding it as the next Star Wars back when it came out forgot what made SW a lasting success. It had solid characters and an engaging story.
Wow, this topic keeps producing GOLD.

Star Wars had 2 dimensional characters and a completely unoriginal plot lifted straight from spaghetti westerns and samurai movies.

This topic is getting good again with hilarious posts like this.
 
Wow, this topic keeps producing GOLD.

Star Wars had 2 dimensional characters and a completely unoriginal plot lifted straight from spaghetti westerns and samurai movies.

This topic is getting good again with hilarious posts like this.

No. Star Wars' characters are remembered to this day. Luke, Han and Leia are awesome characters that were superbly written and acted.
 

border

Member
Star Wars had 2 dimensional characters and a completely unoriginal plot lifted straight from spaghetti westerns and samurai movies.

An engaging story does not have to be original. If you're boiling the Star Wars plot down to something as abstract as "band of outlaws save a princess from enemy fortress" then no film in the last 50 years is going to seem all that original.
 
An engaging story does not have to be original. If you're boiling the Star Wars plot down to something as abstract as "band of outlaws save a princess from enemy fortress" then no film in the last 50 years is going to seem all that original.
Because nobody boils Avatar's plot down.
 

border

Member
Because nobody boils Avatar's plot down.

I think the real problem with Avatar's "Dances With Wolves/going native" premise is not that it is unoriginal, it's just that premise has a lot of really tiresome tropes and themes that go along with it. You can see where the film is headed almost all the time and it hits on a ton of familiar plot beats. The very climax of this type of story (wherein a bunch of primitives beat down a technologically superior oppressor) grates on people because it's so familiar and stretches credulity.

The basic premise of Star Wars: A New Hope is "space samurais go to save a captive princess." That's a plot that isn't necessary beholden to a lot of themes or plot points. Lucas successfully melds in mysticism and the Hero's Journey stuff that's familiar but not mandatory or often used in these sorts of films. Story beats are not as predictable because the premise is far less rigid than that of Avatar. After watching 30 minutes of A New Hope, you probably know that Leia is going to be saved, but you couldn't have predicted Han Solo, the Moss Eisley cantina, the destruction of the Death Star, the death of Obi-Wan, etc. You might have even assumed the death of Vader, who of course goes on to fight another day.
 

Dalek

Member
Back to Pandora: Why Has ‘Avatar’ Been Forgotten Just Five Years After Its Release?


James Cameron’s ‘Avatar’ opened on December 18, 2009, five years ago this month. In a theatrical release that would stretch on for 34 weeks, Cameron’s motion-captured 3D spectacle grossed $749 million in the U.S. and an additional $2 billion overseas. Box-office-wise, it is the biggest movie in history by an absurd margin; it tops its closest competition, Cameron’s own ‘Titanic,’ by some $600 million. That’s more than ‘The Dark Knight’ made in its entire domestic theatrical run.

To be totally honest, I didn’t remember it was ‘Avatar’ anniversary. That’s not unusual though; as Scott Mendelson wrote in Forbes earlier this month, the film—which, again, is the number one movie of all time—seems to have “left no pop culture footprint” whatsoever. Millions upon millions of people paid to see ‘Avatar,’ and millions upon millions of people have apparently forgotten about it completely:

Kids don’t play ‘Avatar’ on the playground nor with action figures in their homes. There is little-if-any ‘Avatar’-themed merchandise in any given store. Most general moviegoers couldn’t tell you the name of a single character from the film, nor could they name any of the actors who appeared in it ... ‘Avatar’ didn’t inspire a legion of would-be ‘Avatar’ rip-offs, save perhaps for Walt Disney’s disastrous ‘John Carter.’ It didn’t set the mold for anything that followed save its use of 3D which turned the post-conversion tool into a valuable way to boost box office overseas.

There were ‘Avatar’ action figures; most are available on eBay for cheap. eBay is full of discount ‘Avatar’ merchandise, in fact; the PlayStation 3 game will run you a measly dollar plus shipping, and a licensed T-shirt costs about the same. Search for used ‘Avatar’ DVDs on eBay and you’ll see lots of “Or Best Offer”s next to the prices—whatever you’re willing to pay, the sellers will consider. Clearly, there’s plenty of supply and little demand.

Mendelson’s right about the ‘Avatar’ knockoffs as well; there haven’t been many, although there have been lots of 3D movies—so many, in fact, that they seemed to have killed audience’s appetite for the format (and their willingness to pay a surcharge for it, at least in the United States). That’s about it as far as ‘Avatar’’s cultural legacy goes—at least until James Cameron and Fox start releasing a trilogy of ‘Avatar’ sequels in the winter of 2016, and Disney opens a brand new “Avatar Land” in their Animal Kingdom amusement park sometime in 2017.

Although Mendelson himself says that he believes ‘Avatar’ holds up, many of the comments around his piece and the general obliviousness of the public to its fifth anniversary imply that the movie is unworthy of its status as the biggest of all-time. How could a huge blockbuster vanish so quickly into obscurity? ‘Titanic,’ the previous “biggest movie ever” at least launched Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet to mega-stardom and generated zeitgeist-defining lines of dialogue that are still quoted to this day. (“I’m the king of the world!”) Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana are still working in Hollywood, but neither became huge, iconic figures in pop culture (Saldana arguably generated more buzz in ‘Guardians of the Galaxy,’ a much smaller movie). And no one quotes ‘Avatar.’ Hell, I just re-watched ‘Avatar’ last night and I can’t quote a single line of dialogue from it.

(Wait! Yes, I can! Stephen Lang saying “You are not in Kansas anymore. You are on Pandora!” But that’s it. And it’s mostly cribbed from a line in ‘The Wizard of Oz.’ Also, it’s not particularly quotable, except in a conversation about ‘Avatar.’)

Given the fact that ‘Avatar’ hasn’t made a lasting cultural impact, I approached my re-watch skeptically, expecting to find a dated, silly, ugly film. Because that would explain it, right? That would make ‘Avatar’ less of a movie than an event, one that swept up people in a storm of publicity about its high-tech special effects and immersive 3D imagery. A naysayer could look at ‘Avatar’s record-breaking box office and the general apathy around the film just five years later, and declare the film nothing more than a bunch of noise. I had a hunch I would find a movie that deserved to be forgotten.

But that’s not what happened.

True, ‘Avatar’ doesn’t offer much in the way of quotable dialogue. But “I’ll never let go, Jack” notwithstanding, dialogue has never been Cameron’s strong suit; going to one of his movies for the words is like going to Red Lobster for a steak. Cameron’s strength have been and always will be as a visual storyteller, and even without the benefit of a massive screen and some of the best 3D effects in history, ‘Avatar’ is still a gorgeous movie. At home, you feel the repetitiveness of the many (many) flying scenes —mostly because you can’t feel the visceral height and speed of those flying scenes without 3D—but even on a small screen, ‘Avatar’ looks beautiful. The crazy colors of Pandora, this alien world populated by strange and terrifying creatures and bioluminescent plant life, still pop. Wandering that planet at night, when the forest is illuminated by these crazy dayglo colors, is still an intoxicating experience.

avatar-2.jpg
The story is basic, and arguably derivative—‘Dances With Wolves’ in space—but it taps into something primal about the moviegoing experience. The whole story revolves around “avatars,” human-piloted alien bodies, which serves as a metaphor for the voyeurism and escapism of cinema. Our hero, Jake Sully (Worthington) enters a dark, enclosed space and is transported to a new world, an extremely literal version of the way all of us go to the theater for that moment when the lights go down and we are taken away from our mundane lives and allowed to experience someone else’s. And the world of Pandora is legitimately awe-inspiring, with its floating mountains, rainbow-colored flying dragons, and massive, incandescent willow trees. Add in the 3D, and ‘Avatar’ is both about—and comes close to replicating the sensation of—an out-of-body experience. No wonder so many people bought into that journey.

There are simplistic good-versus-evil dynamics at play, but there are some complex shadings at work as well, mostly in the film’s depiction and use of technology. In short, ‘Avatar’ valorizes the natural world and denigrates the technological one; its heroes are the native Na’vi, who live in harmony with nature, its villains are the humans, who wish to exploit nature for financial gain. But this planet of incredible natural wonder in inherently unnatural; it doesn’t exist, and could only be created with the use of advanced digital technology. So the movie is vehemently against the very thing that made itself possible. (This tension between the simultaneous allure and fear of technology is something Cameron has explored throughout his entire career, starting all the way back in ‘The Terminator.’)

‘Avatar’ is also an action movie that often feels uncomfortable with its own violence. It’s filled with exo-suits and advanced weapons and hovercopters—all the “cool” stuff that drives most modern blockbusters. But Cameron seems much more interested in Pandora’s flora and fauna—which, interestingly, always appear immediately after an action scene. Jake first discovers the nighttime beauty of Pandora, for example, after he finally stops fighting with the indigenous animals and begins listening to Na’vi shaman Neytiri (Saldana). Of course, the movie is full of fighting; the whole last act of the movie is one enormous battle between the humans and the Na’vi. But when the fight finally ends, Jake refers to the war as “the time of great sorrow,” and at times it does feel like Cameron is including the action out of an obligation; the price he has to pay to tell a story about ecology and interconnectedness.

Of course, there are a few bum notes. Worthington isn’t a terrific actor, and his American accent is full of holes. Some of the visual splendor is lost on DVD or even Blu-ray. There are a few aspects of the plot that are confusing (the avatars are so expensive that the humans bring in Jake to replace his dead twin brother as a pilot just so they don't lose their investment, but they're apparently not so important that they put any kind of tracking device in them so that they can be found if and when they get lost, as Jake does immediately upon undertaking his first mission away from the human base). But ‘Avatar’ is still a very solid movie. It’s gorgeous and moving and exciting. It doesn’t deserve to be forgotten.

So the question then is why has it been? A lot has been made of the similarities between ‘Avatar’ and other movies. It’s an inversion of Cameron’s own ‘Aliens,’ if the colonial marines were played as the bad guys and Sigourney Weaver switched sides halfway through and tried to help save the alien queen. It bears the influence of ‘Star Wars,’ ‘Full Metal Jacket,’ ‘Pocahontas,’ and countless Westerns. It’s a movie built out of other movies.

But watching ‘Avatar’ again this week for the first time in five years, I was struck by all of the differences between ‘Avatar’ and other modern blockbusters. It’s not based on an existing property. It’s not inspired by a comic book, or a toy, or a video game, and while they were a few tie-in comics, toys, and games for the film, they haven’t been continually produced for the last half-decade. The ‘Avatar’ name hasn’t been exploited into an inch of its life (type it into Google, in fact, and you’re more likely to get results for Nickelodeon’s ‘Avatar: The Last Airbender’ cartoon). It’s not part of a cinematic universe; it doesn’t end on a cliffhanger. It tells one complete story from beginning to end—and it tells that story with a surprising amount of darkness. It’s a piece of escapism, but one freighted with heavy (and largely unpopular) messages about environmentalism, conservation, and run-amok capitalism. Many of the lead characters—including both of my personal favorites—die over the course of the film.

In other words, ‘Avatar’ isn’t a brand; it’s a movie, perhaps one of the last that will ever be made of its scale and scope. In the five years since ‘Avatar’’s release, the five biggest hits at the box office have been sequels (‘Toy Story 3,’ ‘Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2,’ ‘The Hunger Games: Catching Fire’) or Marvel movies (‘The Avengers,’ ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’), and Hollywood has become almost entirely focused on building, subdividing, and perpetually extending movie series as long as they possibly can. Those films haven’t been forgotten because we have not been allowed to forget them—because they have been sold to us over and over as books and shirts and Halloween costumes and breakfast cereals and Blu-ray box sets and a million other branded products.

‘Avatar,’ in contrast, wasn’t primarily a product, it was an idea; the somewhat flawed but deeply felt creation of one guy. No amount of test screenings or focus groups would create a movie as conflicted, confused, weird, messy, and beautiful as ‘Avatar.’ Ironically, if anyone but that one guy was in charge of ‘Avatar,’ the film probably wouldn’t have been forgotten, because if anyone but James Cameron was in charge of ‘Avatar’ Fox probably would have already cranked out one or two sequels and who knows how many other ancillary materials. ‘Avatar’ would be remembered—and grossly watered down.

Which is why I’m curious, and a little nervous, about all this ‘Avatar’ stuff coming down the pipeline in the next couple years; three sequels, an amusement park, all kinds of associated paraphernalia. They’ll certainly raise the film’s profile. But even with Cameron overseeing everything, the sequels will also turn one of the most singular blockbusters of the last 25 years into yet another never-ending franchise. They could be great movies, and they’ll definitely bring ‘Avatar’ back into the public consciousness. But they could also make it more visible and less special all at once.
 

zeemumu

Member
Probably because all it really had going for it was good 3D and visuals. The creature designs weren't actually incredibly impressive and the story was meh. Now that everything comes in 3D, it doesn't seem as special.
 

Acorn

Member
I don't remember anything much to do with avatar. I do remember the similar thread we had a few months back.

Weird.
 

Cipherr

Member
Im not sure what they were expecting. As they said, the story was extremely derivative leaving the visuals. And they were great, but noone is going to be crowing about them 5 years later.

People will care again (perhaps) when the sequel comes a long and hopefully has its own damn story to tell.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom