[IheartBB]

Originally Posted by setanta

You're not understanding me here. Of course every film can be traced back to an original, archetypal storyline, but unfortunately for Avatar it never deviated from that tired formula, with the end result being a thoroughly predictable movie that had nothing new or imaginative to say. Contrast this with District 9, a film that dealt with the same themes but used a totally new and interesting approach. That's what I look for in a film; not a hackneyed, preachy, single layered message movie that was basically an excuse for the visuals.

And criticizing a masterpiece like Toy Story is a no no in my book! lol

Well at least we agree that 'Toy Story' is a masterpiece

As far as the formula is concerned, maybe you're right, but I don’t think go can expect anything different from a Hollywood blockbuster, and I think the whole argument is irrelevent these days as everything seems to have been done. It did have quite strong environmental messages though without coming across as preachy, which is very rare in this day and age. It seems that you can either call it a simple story that‘s just ‘excuse for visuals’ or as a compelling story that utilises its special effects. I’d call it the latter.

‘District 9’, although thoroughly entertaining, again cannot be described as original either. It, like ‘Avatar’, is grouped in with the sci-fi genre, which I do not entirely agree with although it is understandable. ‘District 9’ is closer to a ‘body horror’ than simply a ‘sci-fi’. And if 'Avatar' is criticised for being predictable, 'District 9' can be for the very same reason.

[setanta]

Originally Posted by IheartBB

Well at least we agree that 'Toy Story' is a masterpiece

As far as the formula is concerned, maybe you're right, but I don’t think go can expect anything different from a Hollywood blockbuster. It did have quite strong environmental messages though without coming across as preachy, which is very rare in this day and age. It seems that you can either call it a simple story that‘s just ‘excuse for visuals’ or as a compelling story that utilises its special effects. I’d call it the latter.

‘District 9’, although thoroughly entertaining, again cannot be described as original either. It, like ‘Avatar’, is grouped in with the sci-fi genre, which I do not entirely agree with although it is understandable. ‘District 9’ is closer to a ‘body horror’ than simply a ‘sci-fi’. And if 'Avatar' is criticised for being predictable, 'District 9' can be for the very same reason.

When have you seen a film like District 9 before? Nothing is ever entirely original but District 9 dealt with a theme in a totally new and refreshing way, that was completely unpredictable, whereas I knew what was going to happen in Avatar from the get go. It never tried anything different or interesting.

Avatar was Pocahontas and the Mission combined. It had literally nothing to say... actually, I don't really remember anything they said that was worth remembering. Don't let the visuals blind you to a bankruptcy of thought or intellect in the scriptwriting process. It's still worth watching and a masterpiece on the technical side of things, but the story was pants.

[IheartBB]

Originally Posted by setanta

When have you seen a film like District 9 before? Nothing is ever entirely original but District 9 dealt with a theme in a totally new and refreshing way, that was completely unpredictable, whereas I knew what was going to happen in Avatar from the get go. It never tried anything different or interesting.

Avatar was Pocahontas and the Mission combined. It had literally nothing to say... actually, I don't really remember anything they said that was worth remembering. Don't let the visuals blind you to a bankruptcy of thought or intellect in the scriptwriting process. It's still worth watching and a masterpiece on the technical side of things, but the story was pants.

Have you ever seen any body horror films of the 1980's? District 9 was practically the same formula in a completely different setting. Isn't that your argument against Avatar? Pocahontas in space?

[setanta]

Originally Posted by IheartBB

Have you ever seen any body horror films of the 1980's? District 9 was practically the same formula in a completely different setting. Isn't that your argument against Avatar? Pocahontas in space?

That's not it at all. I've never seen a film like District 9 before, that dealt with certain themes in a sci fi setting, and did so in a totally fresh and exciting narrative style, that challenged me as a viewer. Avatar on the otherhand basically cut and pasted an old tired narrative structure to a fantasy enviroment, without adding anything new to proceedings.

[IheartBB]

Originally Posted by setanta

That's not it at all. I've never seen a film like District 9 before, that dealt with certain themes in a sci fi setting, and did so in a totally fresh and exciting narrative style, that challenged me as a viewer. Avatar on the otherhand basically cut and pasted an old tired narrative structure to a fantasy enviroment, without adding anything new to proceedings.

The fantasy environment wasn't adding anything to the proceedings?

I think we're going down the wrong path here. I'm not claiming Avatar to be an original film and can totally see the Pocohontas comparisons. Despite this, I still found it to be a great cinematic experience, and I think Cameron's vison of Pandora and special effects should be given more credit. They are not used mindlessly just for the sake of it. They are used to represent this complex world. All I'm saying is that there have been so many cases similar to this in recent years that the whole argument of originality has become (or is becoming) irrelevent. Avatar, due to it's high profile director, use of new technology and record breaking box office takings has therefore taken the flack for modern day scriptwriting failures. Hence why I called it unfair in the first place.

[setanta]

Originally Posted by IheartBB

The fantasy environment wasn't adding anything to the proceedings?

I think we're going down the wrong path here. I'm not claiming Avatar to be an original film and can totally see the Pocohontas comparisons. Despite this, I still found it to be a great cinematic experience, and I think Cameron's vison of Pandora and special effects should be given more credit. They are not used mindlessly just for the sake of it. They are used to represent this complex world. All I'm saying is that there have been so many cases similar to this in recent years that the whole argument of originality has become (or is becoming) irrelevent. Avatar, due to it's high profile director, use of new technology and record breaking box office takings has therefore taken the flack for modern day scriptwriting failures. Hence why I called it unfair in the first place.

I think how you choose to illustrate a certain theme, story or subject is hugely important and unfortunately Avatar failed miserably in this area. The story outline is irrelevant here; its the method and creativity that's important and unfortunately Cameron was only concerned in the technical and visual aspects of the film. It's a by the numbers copy of Pocahontas, with a bit of the Mission thrown in. Terribly dull.

And it's not a complex or original world either - it borrows heavily from Native American and African culture and spirituality which was actually quite cringey for me to watch, especially when the chanting started and all of that nonsense. I mean, how transparent can you get? Might as well have tatooed I'm The Bad Guy on the commanders forehead. It was just a very tired narrative which never attempted to challenge the viewer. Leave your brain at the doorstep kinda film.