Am I The Only One Who Doesn't Like "Avatar"?
- Thread starter droowl
- Start date
Nope you are not alone, I commented right after you in that other post saying I disagree only the point where you said its LAST OF THE MOHICANS with blue people. I think its more like FERNGULLY mixed with POCAHONTAS. I think the whole 3D thing is a sad silly gimmick.
I do understand though that its all about the duckets, and Avatar and that sad little man James Cameron made a lot of money with it, so its only logical to sell your soul and make a P.O.S. movie for more simoleons.
I do understand though that its all about the duckets, and Avatar and that sad little man James Cameron made a lot of money with it, so its only logical to sell your soul and make a P.O.S. movie for more simoleons.
Yep, it's just you. You are the only person on the entire planet who doesn't like this incredibly awesome movie.
Aside from the fact that it only got an 83% on the Tomatoemeter. 83% is definitely good, but that means that 17% of the critics who watched it are insane.
And, actually, seeing as how I'm a bit of an Avatard, EVERYONE I know likes to comment to me how much they (usually) LOVED it, or (rarely, but occasionally) just didn't like it. No, you are not alone.
The story is simplistic. Some people see that as a fault; some as a strength. SOME (though not all, or even most) of the dialogue is stilted and artificial. Some people can look past that; others are driven mad by it.
Oh, and by the way, ALL Hollywood movies are a moneymaking scheme. What did you think, that they're doing this for free? It's a business, and they want your butts in their seats. You can't fault Cameron for being better at that than anyone else.
And finally, before you throw out the "it's all about the visuals" argument, let me cut you off by telling you how many people I talk to that were hesitant to see it, thought it would just be an SFX extraveganza, only watched it because their child wanted to see it, and watched it on a regular-sized-non-HD-TV, and walked away LOVING it. Yes, there is a story there. A beautiful one. I'm sorry you didn't like it, though. We can't all like the same thing.
And it's not one sequel in the works, but two. YAYYY!!!!!!
Aside from the fact that it only got an 83% on the Tomatoemeter. 83% is definitely good, but that means that 17% of the critics who watched it are insane.
And, actually, seeing as how I'm a bit of an Avatard, EVERYONE I know likes to comment to me how much they (usually) LOVED it, or (rarely, but occasionally) just didn't like it. No, you are not alone.
The story is simplistic. Some people see that as a fault; some as a strength. SOME (though not all, or even most) of the dialogue is stilted and artificial. Some people can look past that; others are driven mad by it.
Oh, and by the way, ALL Hollywood movies are a moneymaking scheme. What did you think, that they're doing this for free? It's a business, and they want your butts in their seats. You can't fault Cameron for being better at that than anyone else.
And finally, before you throw out the "it's all about the visuals" argument, let me cut you off by telling you how many people I talk to that were hesitant to see it, thought it would just be an SFX extraveganza, only watched it because their child wanted to see it, and watched it on a regular-sized-non-HD-TV, and walked away LOVING it. Yes, there is a story there. A beautiful one. I'm sorry you didn't like it, though. We can't all like the same thing.
And it's not one sequel in the works, but two. YAYYY!!!!!!
Oh, and LIFE, I'd say "Dances with Ferngully" is a more accurate comparison. But I don't really think that's much of a criticism. How many movies, per year, are actually original? Maybe one or two if we're lucky?
If a theater troupe updates Hamlet, are they ridiculed? Not if they do a good job with it. But in cinema, a movie is criticized when it puts a fresh spin on an old story? WTF? That's not fair, at all.
If a theater troupe updates Hamlet, are they ridiculed? Not if they do a good job with it. But in cinema, a movie is criticized when it puts a fresh spin on an old story? WTF? That's not fair, at all.
What he said (Cracker Funk). =P
Anyways, it's more than likely true that there are no new stories left to tell. There is only putting a new or a different spin on what's already been told.
"Every artist is a cannibal. Every poet is a thief. All kill their inspiration, and sing about their grief." -U2
Actually, from the time of its release, I think there have been tons of people who have been sour about the movie and about Cameron.
Anyways, it's more than likely true that there are no new stories left to tell. There is only putting a new or a different spin on what's already been told.
"Every artist is a cannibal. Every poet is a thief. All kill their inspiration, and sing about their grief." -U2
Actually, from the time of its release, I think there have been tons of people who have been sour about the movie and about Cameron.
I hated this movie. The story is so overused/over the top/hollywood/cliche/cliche and cliche. I find the 3D silly just as you guys. Actors were great but their lines weren't. I had mixed thoughts about this movie, It's cliche but it's not bad. But when I read it was the highest grossing movie of all time... I just lost my faith in humanity, and therfor hate this movie. I didn't like Titanic that much but at least it had a somewhat orignal story and could at least deserve to be number 1. A good movie is suppose shock you, make you think etc. But in this movie, we could see everything that was going to happen, so werent shocked exactly. we didn't either leave many thoughts because the main character was so damn flat and boring.
So might come to say, the movie was about being on that planet, and feel the realistic forest and all the theme park stuff like that. Well, for me it didn't fell that realistic... I mean, why would an alien from another planet that has taken a completely different evolutinary path look exactly like us? Not only that, but they had the same culture as some old human civilisations, like Indians and mayan and all those old school american natives. I just didnt really buy it.
So might come to say, the movie was about being on that planet, and feel the realistic forest and all the theme park stuff like that. Well, for me it didn't fell that realistic... I mean, why would an alien from another planet that has taken a completely different evolutinary path look exactly like us? Not only that, but they had the same culture as some old human civilisations, like Indians and mayan and all those old school american natives. I just didnt really buy it.
Last edited:
Yes the making of is much more interesting than the movie. =)
When I first saw this all I saw was "Am I The Only One Who Doesn't Like".
Then I opened it and saw what it was about.
I almost had a tear in my eye...
I was so happy! I completely agree with you.
I hated the overused story and I hated the 3D.
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one.
I don't have a problem with it being over, and I mean very OVER used. But I think everyone agrees that it's a problem when the movie becomes #1 and makes BILLIONS. Also when practically everyone in the world thinks it's the best movie ever. When it is like almost exactly the same except written worse than the original and in another planet. That's "WTF".
Then I opened it and saw what it was about.
I almost had a tear in my eye...
I was so happy! I completely agree with you.
I hated the overused story and I hated the 3D.
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one.
I don't have a problem with it being over, and I mean very OVER used. But I think everyone agrees that it's a problem when the movie becomes #1 and makes BILLIONS. Also when practically everyone in the world thinks it's the best movie ever. When it is like almost exactly the same except written worse than the original and in another planet. That's "WTF".
Last edited:
I don't think criticizing Avatar, without criticizing the whole escapist, Hollywood, blockbuster, xyz-industry makes much sense.
Avatar is a Hollywood film, if it hadn't been Avatar it had been another movie that introduced this new, though unnecessary, gimmick called 3D cinema/television.
Also, a successful movie is not automatically a "good" movie.
Avatar is a Hollywood film, if it hadn't been Avatar it had been another movie that introduced this new, though unnecessary, gimmick called 3D cinema/television.
Also, a successful movie is not automatically a "good" movie.
True, but there are how many movies that made more than a billion dollars. I can think of 2 Titanic and Avatar. Titanic was decent, but Avatar was such garbage. I think we are criticizing because we do not like it, and cannot understand how it got so much popularity when we feel it was a joke of a film. I understand what it was, a gimmick film for middle America so people who don't like thinking in the movie theater can have stuff flying around their faces and the point of the movie be something they can grasp without thought. People talk about dumb phones and smart phones all the time. So i'm going to say to me this was a "dumb" movie. It was a dumbed down film directed that those who do not want to think.
yes thats actually true. I guess, romours, commericals, famous names etc. judge success
I think that's a bit of an unfair criticism really - all of Hollywood film-making is in essence a "moneymaking scheme". And yes, that's usually why sequels are released, but considering it's the highest grossing film of all time it would seem like fairly daft business practice not to release a sequel. It's hardly a tired old franchise with no life left in it.
I liked Avatar much more than I expected to. Yes, the storyline's clichéd, but the 3D was utilised effectively (and was nothing like as gimmicky as it has been in other films), and as pure, undiluted escapism it was brilliant. It has been an undeniable success, both commercially and artistically, and I can't help feeling that some of the criticism of it (from other filmmakers, rather than critics) rather smacks of bitterness.
you know, some people go to the movies just to escape - to be entertained - and i don't think it's fair to look down on them for that. besides, i don't think cinema's only purpose is to be insightful or to make people think. many of the earliest films were created simply for the "haha" or "wow" factors.
personally, i hate a movie that is insightful and makes me think - but bores me to death. on the other hand, i love a film if it can make me think and keep me interested.
personally, i hate a movie that is insightful and makes me think - but bores me to death. on the other hand, i love a film if it can make me think and keep me interested.
I really couldn't agree more. People go to the cinema to be entertained, and I'd much rather watch a populist, over the top blockbuster than a wanky, self-indulgent, "look how clever we are" film. If it's intellectually stimulating *and* entertaining then that's brilliant, but just being "deep" isn't enough.
I agree that if it hadn't been avatar, It would've been something else.
The fact of the matter is that it wasn't another movie, it was Avatar. That's is
what people hate. I mean if it would have been a movie with a good or at least
fun story like "UP" to bring out 3D, I don't think I would have minded as much.
I honestly think that Avatar was a too over used story and people dismissed that.
Then the writing was horrible, and I mean really horrible, and everyone dismissed that.
Then people talked about how great their models were and how all of those things
were new ideas. Play a game of Starcraft 2 and you'll find out that those airplanes in
Avatar are really just "Banshee" and those robots they got into are "Thors". I don't really
know what people fell head over heels in love with about.
It was mediocre at best. And whoosh, just like that it makes billions, and people kill
themselves over it. Then it goes on to win the cinematography academy award. When
it was almost purely animated so they could have added things to the shots in post if
they really needed to, how is that fair to the other movies that had to set everything up
beforehand to get their great shots.
Did i mention the writing was horrible?
well that's the old cliché that a movie can only be either entertaining or insightful and thus boring, but it does not work that way. I can only speak of myself, but when a movie "makes me think" I am not bored by it.
the purpose of art is in my opinion to "make people think", to make them consider things they might have never thought about, whereas escapism does the exact opposite, it distracts people from questions of life.
there's nothing wrong with entertainment per se, in my opinion also art as well as the act of dealing with it can be entertaining.
one good example for that is Charlie Chaplin, you can of course look at his movies as mere entertainment, but if you take a closer look you notice how well-thought-out his movies are.
I haven't seen Avatar, and also I don't really plan to (in fact, when I saw the trailer I thought: "what's that? World Of Warcraft - The Movie?"), but in my opinion its sucess is mostly due to good timing. Avatar was released shortly before 3D TV sets were available, and was the first movie that used 3D technology in a way that worked convincingly. So people only got the whole experience when watching it in the cinema.
Then, when 3D TVs popped up people had a reason to buy the blu ray disc to test out their new gear.
Last edited:
avatar is simply way overrated but it was fun enough to watch. yes, the story couldve been much much better.
I have to agree with you guys. The first time I saw it in IMAX 3-D, I was stunned. I watched it 6 months later on a non-HD-no-3-D TV and I notice all it's flaws. The biggest thing that turned me off was the god awful dialogue, the simple story I guess I could sort of tolerate. In the end it's an not awful movie. It's a decent/good one with some awful aspects.
Last edited: