_Avatar_, directed by James Cameron

zachylon you are being ridic

i think the most salient point here is zachlyon's—the characters in this movie sucked, no one is ever going to remember "jake sully" like they did, say, ripley or sarah connor. that's not a little DRAWBACK, there is NO MOVIE without characters. that's another thing the new star wars movies got wrong. you need interesting/memorable/lovable/fascinating characters to make a movie. it's the most important thing. fail at that, and your movie fails, period.

if you liked avatar that's your business

but if you think the film has remained a part of the mainstream culture since 2009 you're out of touch with mainstream culture

i also cannot believe i'm arguing about avatar in 2012, that's the point

all you're really saying, zachylon, is that the movie didn't do anything for you. which is cool, i'm not an evangelist. you go on to make sweeping claims about the views of "the majority of the population that saw the movie in 09", but i don't know what you base that on or why i should take such claims seriously.

I don't care whether its relevant in 2012, y'all are just being rly weird about your recollections of 2009.

2009 timeline, fyi:

--LOLOL mega budget, blue ppl, Cameron douche, this will be awful and biggest flop in history (basically same pre-press scuttle as John Carter)
--Hmm ppl who saw the screenings were rly into it?
--Damn even the NYer likes it
--whoa that was amazing
--hmm yeah I grant you the story was p dumb and white savior archetype smdh
--shit I have to see it again

Like do you guys srsly not remember the mega-schadenfreude in the lead up to this thing and then the wave of goodwill when ppl actually saw it?

it's not about me!

i have been interacting with a wide variety of real human beings as far back as 2010, AT LEAST, and i don't think the film "avatar" has ever come up in discussion, once, in those years. organically or inorganically. no one gives a shit about it anymore dude.

who is disputing that this movie was successful? it won a bunch of oscars and stuff! and made all the money! but who gives a shit about it now? contenderizer! and no one else!

also, jake is a stronger character than you and s1ocki seem to think. he's not a flashy or flamboyant hero, but i think sam worthington brought a lot of depth to the role.

i'm not arguing, by the way, that the film has a great deal of cultural currency - merely that it's more substantial and worthwhile than some claimed upthread. imo, of course...

i think the most salient point here is zachlyon's—the characters in this movie sucked, no one is ever going to remember "jake sully" like they did, say, ripley or sarah connor. that's not a little DRAWBACK, there is NO MOVIE without characters. that's another thing the new star wars movies got wrong. you need interesting/memorable/lovable/fascinating characters to make a movie. it's the most important thing. fail at that, and your movie fails, period.

Well, no? I mean that's what interesting about this movie IMO. It fails at those things and yet? You can call it a 'theme park ride' pejoratively or you can call it an 'environment' non-pejoratively...

yo i'm not sure the people who were stdhs about the white savior/noble savage shit were generally the same ones saying 'i need to see this again' but sure

no one's saying it didn't make a lot of money and distract people for a month in late 2009

you seemed to be saying that? 'you don't remember 2009' were your words.

People trying to pretend Jon Lewis's version of events never actually happened are invited to consider the 'show all messages' button at the top of this thread.

who is disputing that this movie was successful? it won a bunch of oscars and stuff! and made all the money! but who gives a shit about it now? contenderizer! and no one else!

― A Little Princess btw (s1ocki)

i don't think i care about it any more than anyone else itt. i'm certainly using fewer exclamation points than you. a bunch of people on ILX seem to hate it A LOT and will make that point in no uncertain terms if given the opportunity. that's "caring about" of a sort. otoh, a few of us like it to some degree or another. i do like it, but i don't think it's a great movie or anything.

I do think it's a great movie, I'll take the arrows.

*realizes the only reason he doesn't like avatar so much is because he's head-over-heels in love with it*

LOL

again contendo i'm not actually disagreeing with you about like, jake sulee having hidden depth. i don't care enough to even think about it and not many others do. you're a fan of the movie, you're willing to spend time thinking about it and considering different angles. i'm not saying your opinions are wrong, i'm saying very few people treat the movie similarly. it isn't on the public's radar and it doesn't have any formidable nerd/cult following.

Literally no-one is claiming that it does.

you seemed to be saying that? 'you don't remember 2009' were your words.

this was a reference to contenderizer saying the movie was controversial in 2009 bc of the war, nothing else

Literally no-one is claiming that it does.

all you're really saying, zachylon, is that the movie didn't do anything for you. which is cool, i'm not an evangelist. you go on to make sweeping claims about the views of "the majority of the population that saw the movie in 09", but i don't know what you base that on or why i should take such claims seriously.

that's just agnosticism, not a positive claim about anything

I do think it's a great movie, I'll take the arrows.

would have agreed after i first saw it (2D). and after i saw it again (imax 3D). but i got bored watching the blu-ray on a nice big hi-def TV. as you say, it creates a wonderful environment, and i really do get caught up in the story, but like a lot of modern adventure flicks, it's just too damn long.

"having no cultural relevancy, 3 years after it was released" is a pretty big knock against such a huge blockbuster, basically putting it in the same category as the Transformers movies (which IMO is where it belongs, though I give Avatar credit for *trying* to be much more)

i really did go into re-watching it with an open mind, i was hoping i would like it this time

Did you mean to quote something else there, Zach?

he's not a flashy or flamboyant hero, but i think sam worthington brought a lot of depth to the role.

controllerizer

People trying to pretend Jon Lewis's version of events never actually happened are invited to consider the 'show all messages' button at the top of this thread.

^^^this

this was a reference to contenderizer saying the movie was controversial in 2009 bc of the war, nothing else

i was saying that it was (perhaps surprisingly) uncontroversial, at least on a mainstream level. few if any major conservative organizations took up arms against it. whatever controversy it stirred up was restricted to grousing on boards and in comment boxes.

Did you mean to quote something else there, Zach?

no? you said no one is claiming that avatar is still culturally relevant, i quoted contenderizer at least being 'agnostic' about my assertion that it isn't; i'm not sure why he would post that other than to imply that it might still be relevant, which... it isn't.

dear lord it's almost 5 PM

few if any major conservative organizations took up arms against it.

There was definitely at least one. I am having trouble remembering whether it was over fundamentalist concerns (movie is animist/pagan) or nationalist ones (movie likes terrorism)

you said no one is claiming that avatar is still culturally relevant, i quoted contenderizer at least being 'agnostic' about my assertion that it isn't; i'm not sure why he would post that other than to imply that it might still be relevant, which... it isn't.

― JIM THOMETHEUS (zachlyon), Tuesday, May 8, 2012 1:57 PM (41 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i voiced my "agnostic" doubts simply to make the point that unfounded claims are unfounded. i quibble with the unsupported blanket assertion that the film never meant anything to anyone.

i agree, fwiw, that avatar has dropped precipitously off the cultural radar. i came into this round of the discussion agreeing on that point and haven't changed my position.

beyond that, i've only defended what i see as the film's strengths, primarily thematic but also cinematic.

dear lord it's almost 5 PM

we ALL win.

no? you said no one is claiming that avatar is still culturally relevant, i quoted contenderizer at least being 'agnostic' about my assertion that it isn't; i'm not sure why he would post that other than to imply that it might still be relevant, which... it isn't.

Your assertion, if I've traced it back right, is that the film had no cultural currency, that it was garbage from the start, that no-one connected to it. This seems like the same argument as goole/Adam earlier, that people only went to it for the hype. If I've got you/contenderiser wrong sorry about that, but I don't think he's arguing what you think he is.

i quibble with the unsupported blanket assertion that the film never meant anything to anyone.

i quibble w ur strawman tbh

y'all

"the general mainstream" is not synonymous with "everyone, ever"

So we're looking at the world's biggest cult hit?

it's the opposite of a cult hit! everybody saw it but nobody cared about it much after a while.

^^^^^^^^^^^

Right, but still we get back to $1,000,000 gross on week 17.

to be fair that's about $28 without 3D

Not to mention the $4,000,000 on 800 screens when it was re-released four months after that - that's what fascinating, that there were still people who couldn't get enough of this film that's faded from cultural view since.

I think the porn industry usually has the answers here

i quibble w ur strawman tbh

no one was ever going to give a fuck about jake sulee and the noble blue people, and no one was going to go nuts over the story from fern gully and dances with wolves and a billion other movies.

i do agree that the film has lost its pop cultural currency. that's it.

ok great semantics i'm out

Not to mention the $4,000,000 on 800 screens when it was re-released four months after that - that's what fascinating, that there were still people who couldn't get enough of this film that's faded from cultural view since.

― Andrew Farrell, Tuesday, May 8, 2012 2:18 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

otm. the fade is fascinating, imo. it doesn't necessarily prove anything specific about the film or its place in the long-term cultural memory, what posterity will say, but it does raise a lot if interesting questions.

People forget there was "mega-schadenfreude" that preceded "Titanic," too. Which of course had its own horrible script, etc., but it at least had characters you cared about. And it was totally all about class, maaaaaan. At a time of great economic prosperity! Subversive, man, subversive.

Is there usually mega-schadenfreude whenever a film is too long in production and known to be way over budget, or does the director have to be sort of widely-resented first?

I think there needs to be some degree of hubris and/or ambition involved, sure. But I'm not sure mega-schadenfreude became a thing until the "Heaven's Gate" to "Ishtar" era, when over-budget Hollywood career/studio-killing disasters became a big punchline.

I will say that, pre-"Titanic," I don't think Cameron was resented, though he was ambitious. Post "Titanic," sure, he made a nice target. But then, if "10-foot tall blue people in 3-D" doesn't bring the advance LOLs ...