Avatar 2

Stormy · May 04, 2010 8:45 PM

A Guy wrote:

He still had to prove himself - without the whole event with the seeds, he wouldn't have even been allowed to try. Even then, there are those that doubt him.

I realize that; I just tend to dislike "chosen one" storylines and feel like it would have taken more effort and been more realistic without it. *shrug* It was just a stupid excuse to make the Na'vi except him when it wouldn't have been plausible any other way unless he had impressed them in some way.

Also, the self-insert accusation? Proof of that, please? You could argue that every single hero is a self-insert without proof.

OK, point me to where I said that he for sure is a self-insert. The closest I said to that was that self-insertion is a common trait of sues and that based on what I've heard about James Cameron's inflated ideas about his film and how much he loves it, I could see Jake being one. From what I've heard, James Cameron honestly thinks his own film the greatest film of all time. Egotistical much? =/

And Mary Sue/Gary Stu is just a term that's getting sprinkled around like jimmies on an ice cream cone these days - just "Oh, X special thing happened to Y" or "Y did X spectacular thing" seems to be enough of a qualification these days.

I know that, too. Like I said, I think there are different levels of Sues, and he just barely falls into the category because of the chosen one crap and how easily everything seemed to come to him. He's more of just a boring protagonist, is what I probably should have said.

That it was. But then again, I frequent TV Tropes, so every plot is as predictable as the sun rising to me.

And if people who don't frequent TV Tropes still find it predictable, that makes the story even less original. tongue

A Guy · May 04, 2010 9:05 PM

I realize that; I just tend to dislike "chosen one" storylines and feel like it would have taken more effort and been more realistic without it. *shrug*

You're assuming that chosen one -> good at learning, when it's just as possible to say good at learning -> chosen one.

OK, point me to where I said that he for sure is a self-insert. All I said is it seems like he easily could be based on what I've heard about James Cameron's inflated ideas about his film and how much he loves it. From what I've heard, he honestly thinks his own film the greatest film of all time. Egotistical much? =/

Any character can be a self-insert. And by the way...

http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross

I know that, too. Like I said, I think there are different levels of Sues, and he just barely falls into the category because of the chosen one crap and how easily everything seemed to come to him. He's more of just a boring protagonist, is what I probably should have said.

It takes him some time to get things, and he doesn't even know the language that well - he has to ask Neytiri's brother to translate for him when he's making a speech.

And if people who don't frequent TV Tropes still find it predictable, that makes the story even less original.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M … esAreTools

Stormy · May 04, 2010 9:26 PM

A Guy wrote:

You're assuming that chosen one -> good at learning, when it's just as possible to say good at learning -> chosen one.

Well yes, that is how I've always seen chosen one prophesies and things like that. But no matter which implies the other, the fact that he was the chosen one still caused him to be accepted despite the fact that they didn't even know him. If Cameron wanted to show he was good at learning, couldn't he have made Jake do something impressive to make them accept him? For example, maybe he could have saved Neytiri from something, showing the Na'vi that he has potential to become a good member of their tribe.

Any character can be a self-insert. And by the way...
http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross

Exactly what I'm saying. You can't be sure if a character is a self-insert or not, but you can guess. That's what I was doing.

And yeah, box office sales don't mean anything to me about the actual quality of the movie. Avatar was very overhyped because everyone knew it had been worked on for more than 10 years.

Popularity =/= quality. All box office sales can tell you is how many people went to see the movie; it says nothing about whether people liked it or not or how much better it was than other movies. Case in point: Twilight is on that list. You wouldn't argue that Twilight is one of the best movies of all time, would you? Sex and the City? They're both on the list.

It takes him some time to get things, and he doesn't even know the language that well - he has to ask Neytiri's brother to translate for him when he's making a speech.

Fair enough, but as I said before, it looked to me like no time at all had passed before he got used to it. Could have just been me getting bored and not paying enough attention, though.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M … esAreTools

Did I ever say all cliches are bad? No. I said too many of them make the movie boring and cheesy.

A Guy · May 04, 2010 9:32 PM

And yeah, box office sales don't mean anything to me about the actual quality of the movie. Avatar was very overhyped because everyone knew it had been worked on for more than 10 years.
Popularity =/= quality. All box office sales can tell you is how many people went to see the movie; it says nothing about whether people liked it or not or how much better it was than other movies. Case in point: Twilight is on that list. You wouldn't argue that Twilight is one of the best movies of all time, would you? Sex and the City? They're both on the list.

Notice that you try to counter my objective standard by switching to a subjective standard.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I can say that a 3-hour film of paint drying is the best movie if it manages to gross more than Avatar, even if I wouldn't like it.

Did I ever say all cliches are bad? No. I said too many of them make the movie boring and cheesy.

This is subjective, so... Anyways, I've learned to appreciate a movie for whether it's good or not, not whether it has tropes or not. A good story will mix those tropes in a pleasant way. This may be a result of me seeing everything as unoriginal.

Stormy · May 04, 2010 9:43 PM

Box office sales still don't prove anything because, like I said, all it tells you is how many people watched the movie, not how good it was. It's kind of hard to argue an opinion like best movie of all time without subjective arguments because opinions, by definition, are subjective. A better argument, while still an opinion, would be reviews from professional critics.

This is subjective, so... Anyways, I've learned to appreciate a movie for whether it's good or not, not whether it has tropes or not. A good story will mix those tropes in a pleasant way. This may be a result of me seeing everything as unoriginal.

Of course it's subjective; I'm arguing my opinion. tongue

Good for you that you enjoyed it; I honestly wish I could have. I can tolerate some predictability if I like the characters, but I found the characters in Avatar just as boring as the plot.

A Guy · May 04, 2010 10:07 PM

Box office sales still don't prove anything because, like I said, all it tells you is how many people watched the movie, not how good it was. It's kind of hard to argue an opinion like best movie of all time without subjective arguments because opinions, by definition, are subjective. A better argument, while still an opinion, would be reviews from professional critics.

They prove that the movie is definitely the best in a way that can be measured, unlike opinions. Now, can you provide me with an objective standard that shows that the movie blows?

Also, what makes the opinion of a professional critic any more valid than the opinion of an average movie-goer? Fame? Should a vote count more because a celebrity voted, in comparison to an average person? I am making this argument both ways, by the way.

Stormy · May 05, 2010 2:45 AM

Sorry it took so long to post this. I had to drive home from school.

A Guy wrote:

They prove that the movie is definitely the best in a way that can be measured, unlike opinions. Now, can you provide me with an objective standard that shows that the movie blows?

Of course I can't, but I still don't understand how the number of people who watched the movie proves anything about its quality, which is an opinion.

Yes, it's the best in that it made the most money, but there are more factors to take into account than just that. People don't know if the movie is going to be good or bad before they see it. The number of viewers could be attributed to the large amount of publicity and advertising that went into the film and therefore has little relation to the quality of the movie. As I said before, popularity is not the same as quality.

If, however, you're saying it's the best in terms of monetary success, you are quite correct.

Also, what makes the opinion of a professional critic any more valid than the opinion of an average movie-goer? Fame? Should a vote count more because a celebrity voted, in comparison to an average person? I am making this argument both ways, by the way.

I'm not saying their opinions are more valid, and it's nothing to with how famous they are. It's just that professional critics are experts who generally know what they're talking about compared to the average moviegoer who might like or dislike a movie and not quite be able to place what made them feel that way.

Neotyguy40 · May 05, 2010 3:06 AM

I would like to compare this debate to the iPad debate.

With the iPad, almost every 'ordinary' person seems to like it who have tried it. That's why it's been so successful so far. The problem is the 'script kiddie tech' users complain about it's software flaws, stating that it's 'just a big iPod'. This is the reason I do not like it, because I don't feel it will be useful to me. I am not the target customer.

With Avatar, it's the same thing. Almost every 'ordinary' person seems to like it who have watched it, which is, like the iPad, why it's been successful so far (Lol, so many commas in that sentence... Curse my grammar natzi side!). The problem here? The 'high-ranged creative' people point out the flaws that escape most people. I did not notice any of those flaws when I watched it, and that is the reason it's my favorite movie. I am the target audience.

There is a target audience for everything. If you do not like a product, but notice many others do? You are not the target audience.

Does anyone agree?

Stormy · May 05, 2010 3:13 AM

That's a good comparison. I think I'd have to agree with you there. While the average Avatar viewer was probably blown away by the amazing visual effects, people who are more critical tend to focus on the story and the characters and point out the flaws. I'm not the only one who felt this way about it, either; a couple of my friends who also tend to be critics agreed that the only thing really outstanding about it was the special effects. People who overheard us at the lunch table were shocked that we felt that way. tongue

It doesn't mean those people's opinions are wrong, of course, just that they look at it differently and value different things in films.

What do you think was the target audience for Avatar, by the way? I felt it was kind of aimed toward everyone, with a bit of lots of different genres thrown in.

Neotyguy40 · May 05, 2010 3:29 AM

Stormy wrote:

I think I'd probably have to agree with you there. While the average Avatar viewer was probably blown away by the amazing visual effects, people who are more critical tend to focus on the story and the characters and point out the flaws. I'm not the only one who felt this way about it, either; a couple of my friends who also tend to be critics agreed that the only thing really outstanding about it was the special effects.
What do you think was the target audience for Avatar, by the way?

I think you know my point, but took it out of context. I never said that they would be thrilled by the special effects.

I personally have been reading about that technology used for over 4 years, and seeing demos of it every few weeks made me 'meh' on the effects. I personally didn't see how it was unoriginal UNTIL people started pointing it out to me. It's an intelligence thing. Look at my signature and see the scores. You will notice that I'm only average on creativity, so I didn't notice those flaws.

I feel that Avatar was targetted towards the young adults around ages 18-30. Or in otherwards, people that lost their childhood creativity yet still are entertained by that sort of thing.

Wow... I typed all of that in 2 mintues... On my iPod.

A Guy · May 05, 2010 1:30 PM

Of course I can't, but I still don't understand how the number of people who watched the movie proves anything about its quality, which is an opinion.

Of course, he still has the right to call his movie the best. You're just saying "He's wrong because I don't think it was a very entertaining movie" when there are actual facts to support him.

Stormy · May 05, 2010 3:25 PM

Neotyguy40 wrote:

[i]I think you know my point, but took it out of context. I never said that they would be thrilled by the special effects.
I personally have been reading about that technology used for over 4 years, and seeing demos of it every few weeks made me 'meh' on the effects. I personally didn't see how it was unoriginal UNTIL people started pointing it out to me. It's an intelligence thing. Look at my signature and see the scores. You will notice that I'm only average on creativity, so I didn't notice those flaws.

Hmm... Well, that's still kind of what I meant....

I figured that since I had addressed the plot and characters as being unoriginal, the only thing left that wasn't unoriginal that many people would like was special effects, so I used that as an example. I didn't necessarily mean that you would feel that way or that everyone would, though; I just that I thought that was the general attitude people had about it. "Wow, this movie looks amazing," and just not noticing the unoriginality. I also thought it would go along well with the iPad comparison, since a lot of people think the iPad looks really cool, but it really isn't all that practical.

Do I have your point right if I take out the special effects stuff? "Average moviegoers thought Avatar was a great movie because they didn't notice or care about things like unoriginality"?

A Guy wrote:

Of course, he still has the right to call his movie the best. You're just saying "He's wrong because I don't think it was a very entertaining movie" when there are actual facts to support him.

Wait, what? That's not what I'm saying at all. =/

He has the right to think it was an entertaining movie, yes. I NEVER SAID anyone is wrong for thinking that. (Edit: If you meant specifically James Cameron, I never said he couldn't think or say that, just that it seems very overconfident and arrogant.) I said I personally didn't find it entertaining and provided evidence why. You, in turn, provided factual evidence that I do not believe supports your point that the movie was entertaining.

Do I have to repeat myself again? I've said this twice already, and you have yet to address it without twisting my words. I'm not accepting box office sales as proof of how entertaining the movie is because all it proves is the number of people who watched it/bought tickets. This is much more related to how much publicity and advertising were involved in this movie than how entertaining it was. How much more clear do I have to make this? >.>

Does it maybe mean it was entertaining to a lot of people, and they said good things about it, which contributed to the publicity? Of course. I've never claimed the movie wasn't entertaining to a lot of people. Just me personally.

You keep repeating over and over that "this is a fact that supports that it's the most entertaining movie," but you have yet to answer my question of how it proves that. It's a fact, but it's not directly related to how entertaining the movie is. Find me good factual evidence for this opinion (which is impossible), and I will gladly concede.

A Guy · May 05, 2010 5:38 PM

I'm not accepting box office sales as proof of how entertaining the movie is because all it proves is the number of people who watched it/bought tickets. This is much more related to how much publicity and advertising were involved in this movie than how entertaining it was. How much more clear do I have to make this? >.>

I never siad that box office figures measure how entertaining a movie is. They measure how good a movie is, though, because that's the purpose of a movie - to make money.

Edit: If you meant specifically James Cameron, I never said he couldn't think or say that, just that it seems very overconfident and arrogant.

Seems perfectly justified to me. Also, if he likes his movie the best, why does that make him arrogant?

You keep repeating over and over that "this is a fact that supports that it's the most entertaining movie,"

Funny how you put that in quotes when I never said anything like that roll Combined with what you said before...

and you have yet to address it without twisting my words.

That makes you a hypocrite.

Stormy · May 05, 2010 6:13 PM

A Guy wrote:

I'm not accepting box office sales as proof of how entertaining the movie is because all it proves is the number of people who watched it/bought tickets. This is much more related to how much publicity and advertising were involved in this movie than how entertaining it was. How much more clear do I have to make this? >.>
I never siad that box office figures measure how entertaining a movie is. They measure how good a movie is, though, because that's the purpose of a movie - to make money.

OK, that makes sense, and I have previously agreed with that statement. In your previous post, though, you said that there was factual evidence that it was entertaining, and I assumed you meant the box office figures because that was the only factual evidence you provided.

Seems perfectly justified to me. Also, if he likes his movie the best, why does that make him arrogant?

It makes him arrogant because he claims it is the best, not that he personally likes it the best.
Can he say this? Yes, he has every right to. But it makes me lose some respect for him.

You keep repeating over and over that "this is a fact that supports that it's the most entertaining movie,"
Funny how you put that in quotes when I never said anything like that Combined with what you said before...
That makes you a hypocrite.

OK, so I shouldn't have put quotes around that because you never directly said exactly that. I think I interpreted what you meant correctly, however, which is something you evidently failed to do with my posts.

Again, you said this:

You're just saying "He's wrong because I don't think it was a very entertaining movie" when there are actual facts to support him.

You have provided no facts that support that it was an entertaining movie. The only facts you have provided prove that it was a successful movie. Unless you meant some other fact you pointed out that I missed that does somehow prove that it was entertaining, I have interpreted what you said correctly.

A Guy · May 05, 2010 6:17 PM

In your previous post, though, you said that there was factual evidence that it was entertaining,

Where did I say that?

It makes him arrogant because he claims it is the best, not that he personally likes it the best.

Do you add "I think" every time you mean to say that something is the best in your opinion? I certainly don't.

I think I interpreted what you meant correctly

No, you didn't.

Stormy · May 05, 2010 6:22 PM

A Guy wrote:

In your previous post, though, you said that there was factual evidence that it was entertaining,
Where did I say that?

You're just saying "He's wrong because I don't think it was a very entertaining movie" when there are actual facts to support him.

I don't mean Cameron is wrong in saying "it's the most successful movie of all time." It is the most successful, and there is no disputing that. I have never attempted to dispute it being the most successful. I meant I think he's wrong that it's the most entertaining. That's what I meant by "best." My opinion.

Do you add "I think" every time you mean to say that something is the best in your opinion? I certainly don't.

Not all the time, but I do when I'm trying to make it clear that something is my opinion and I know that people will disagree with me.

Again, I know he has every right to say this about his movie. It just makes me lose respect for him.

No, you didn't.

Explain what I got wrong, then.

Edit: I think what we've both got confused is whether we're talking about the quality of the movie or the success of the movie. I've been talking about my opinion on the quality for the whole time, while it seems you've been trying to prove the success, which I have previously agreed with.

Blarg, too much of the word "opinion" in one post. >.>

A Guy · May 05, 2010 6:34 PM

So, where are these facts that prove it's an entertaining movie?

There are facts to prove that his movie is the best, which is what I was referring to. May you please stop misinterpreting my quotes?

Not all the time, but I do when I'm trying to make it clear that something is my opinion and I know that people will disagree with me.

Not everyone is so careful not to trod on any toes.

Explain what I got wrong, then.

See first post.

Stormy · May 05, 2010 6:37 PM

Read my edit, please.

Basically, I've been arguing best = my opinion about the entertainment value. You've been arguing best = success.

A Guy · May 05, 2010 6:47 PM

I've been arguing objectively. You have attempted to subvert my arguments with subjective arguments of your own.

The reason I prefer objective arguments to subjective arguments is because objective arguments have a definite right/wrong answer and don't become stalemates that are just in the format of "I liked X" "I hated X" "I liked X because" "You're wrong because"... when there's nothing to be right or wrong about.

Stormy · May 05, 2010 6:53 PM

A Guy wrote:

I've been arguing objectively. You have attempted to subvert my arguments with subjective arguments of your own.
The reason I prefer objective arguments to subjective arguments is because objective arguments have a definite right/wrong answer and don't become stalemates that are just in the format of "I liked X" "I hated X" "I liked X because" "You're wrong because"... when there's nothing to be right or wrong about.

That's because I thought you were attempting to disprove my opinion with facts that didn't make sense in the context I was using. When I was talking about my disagreement that the movie was the best in terms of quality, you attempted to prove it was the best with facts that weren't relevant to the quality. That's why I was confused. I tried to explain this a couple times, and you ignored it.

It's easier to argue objectively, yeah. Every post I've made in this thread, though, was an attempt to back up my personal opinion about the movie, the reason I posted my review in the first place.

A Guy · May 05, 2010 6:57 PM

When I was talking about my disagreement that the movie was the best in terms of quality, you attempted to prove it was the best with facts that weren't relevant to the quality

You said he was egotistical for calling his movie the best. I proved that the movie could, in fact, truthfully be called the best. Then you try to dismiss the whole argument with another subjective argument.

I might be back later.

Stormy · May 05, 2010 7:06 PM

A Guy wrote:

When I was talking about my disagreement that the movie was the best in terms of quality, you attempted to prove it was the best with facts that weren't relevant to the quality
You said he was egotistical for calling his movie the best. I proved that the movie could, in fact, truthfully be called the best. Then you try to dismiss the whole argument with another subjective argument.
I might be back later.

But again, that's not what I meant by "best." I was still arguing subjectively because I was using a different definition of "best movie" than success.

I would tend to doubt James Cameron meant anything about box office sales either. When people say something is "the best," they're not usually referring to how much money it made. Didn't he also say that before the movie even came out? (I'm still trying to find a source for this, but I've heard it from more than one person.)

Edit: Also, I found this while searching: http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm
Avatar's 12th place if you adjust for inflation.

Neotyguy40 · May 05, 2010 8:03 PM

Stormy wrote:

I figured that since I had addressed the plot and characters as being unoriginal, the only thing left that wasn't unoriginal that many people would like was special effects, so I used that as an example. I didn't necessarily mean that you would feel that way or that everyone would, though; I just that I thought that was the general attitude people had about it. "Wow, this movie looks amazing," and just not noticing the unoriginality. I also thought it would go along well with the iPad comparison, since a lot of people think the iPad looks really cool, but it really isn't all that practical.

Ohh no, the iPad IS practical... Just to the target audience. My mother has gotten one on the first day, and she has been using it ever since. It's very useful for what she uses computers for, like email, movies, facebook, and now Bejeweled. But to me? It's not very practical, because I need a device that has a lot more flexibility. I use computers for playing heavy-duty games, coding, running virtual machines, homework, making hacks and mods, and running CAD software.

Do I have your point right if I take out the special effects stuff? "Average moviegoers thought Avatar was a great movie because they didn't notice or care about things like unoriginality"?

Yes, because while many were blinded from the plot by the graphics, many did not even notice that the graphics were any better than other movies. You can't exclude those that didn't notice it for other reasons. It's an intelligence thing.

EDIT and response to everything said in between:

You two are starting to get on the verge of insulting, which would be bringing up a flame war and deem you both trolls. Let's try not to call others egotistical and bring up facts that can only prove opinions.

Anyway, you both have points on each side of your debate that I can see.

A Guy's point:
Just because something is in a factual form, does not mean it is not an opinion. If someone said, "This is the best movie" then it is an opinion. It may sound like a fact, but it is only an opinion. If someone said, "I feel this is the best movie" then guess what? It's a fact. It's a fact that he feels it's the best movie. You shouldn't get insulted if someone states an opinion, and pointing out that it is an opinion will just make it worse, since it makes them feel like their opinion doesn't matter.

Stormy's point:
Simple, you can't back up an opinion like a fact. Just because you feel something, doesn't mean that you should be defending how you feel from other people, because they can't change your opinion. It's like trying to protect a princess in an unbreakable castle. Since the castle is unbreakable, you don't need to worry about it, but you still send troops out. Don't try to back your opinion with facts, because opinions can't fight.

I am stating both of your points because it looks like the tension is building up in the past page, and you guys don't seem to listen to what each other is saying (and your not explaining your points very well).

Stormy · May 05, 2010 8:09 PM

Ohh no, the iPad IS practical... Just to the target audience. My mother has gotten one on the first day, and she has been using it ever since. It's very useful for what she uses computers for, like email, movies, facebook, and now Bejeweled. But to me? It's not very practical, because I need a device that has a lot more flexibility. I use computers for playing heavy-duty games, coding, running virtual machines, homework, making hacks and mods, and running CAD software.

Ah, I see.
What I meant by practical was the price combined with what it can actually do. My netbook was about half the price of the iPad and still does everything it can do and more. The iPad is also about the same size and weight as my netbook, so it's not as convenient to take everywhere with you as an iPod Touch would be. I guess if you're just looking for an iPod with a screen that makes it easier to see everything, it's practical, though.

Neotyguy40 · May 05, 2010 8:20 PM

Stormy wrote:

Ah, I see.
What I meant by practical was the price combined with what it can actually do. My netbook was about half the price of the iPad and still does everything it can do and more. The iPad is also about the same size and weight as my netbook, so it's not as convenient to take everywhere with you as an iPod Touch would be. I guess if you're just looking for an iPod with a screen that makes it easier to see everything, it's practical, though.

Has anyone told you that you respond VERY quickly? I didn't even finish my edit :-P

And yes, I would prefer a netbook too (though I would never use a netbook over my Macbook), but apparently many people want software that is integrated into the hardware so that it isn't 'bloated'. I think it would be better once Chrome OS comes out... IF it comes out (starting to feel like it's vaporware :'(

#51 May 04, 2010 8:45 PM

Re: Avatar 2

#52 May 04, 2010 9:05 PM

Re: Avatar 2

#53 May 04, 2010 9:26 PM

Re: Avatar 2

#54 May 04, 2010 9:32 PM

Re: Avatar 2

#55 May 04, 2010 9:43 PM

Re: Avatar 2

#56 May 04, 2010 10:07 PM

Re: Avatar 2

#57 May 05, 2010 2:45 AM

Re: Avatar 2

#58 May 05, 2010 3:06 AM

Re: Avatar 2

#59 May 05, 2010 3:13 AM

Re: Avatar 2

#60 May 05, 2010 3:29 AM

Re: Avatar 2

#61 May 05, 2010 1:30 PM

Re: Avatar 2

#62 May 05, 2010 3:25 PM

Re: Avatar 2

#63 May 05, 2010 5:38 PM

Re: Avatar 2

#64 May 05, 2010 6:13 PM

Re: Avatar 2

#65 May 05, 2010 6:17 PM

Re: Avatar 2

#66 May 05, 2010 6:22 PM

Re: Avatar 2

#67 May 05, 2010 6:34 PM

Re: Avatar 2

#68 May 05, 2010 6:37 PM

Re: Avatar 2

#69 May 05, 2010 6:47 PM

Re: Avatar 2

#70 May 05, 2010 6:53 PM

Re: Avatar 2

#71 May 05, 2010 6:57 PM

Re: Avatar 2

#72 May 05, 2010 7:06 PM

Re: Avatar 2

#73 May 05, 2010 8:03 PM

Re: Avatar 2

#74 May 05, 2010 8:09 PM

Re: Avatar 2

#75 May 05, 2010 8:20 PM

Re: Avatar 2

Board footer