... if M. Night Shmayamalayakananan's The Last Airbender live action movie didn't suck?
Well it's about to be released.
Just thought I'd keep the info recent.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Was there an objective metric for measuring its suckitude? An RT (fresh) or Metacritic score?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Here lemme drag it up (i think where I first posted it is now a ghosted thread or SOMETHING)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I am going to the movie with two other people. if we all come out agreeing it sucked then I don't have to eat the hat.
If there is any disagreement, even from me, about it SUCKING, it comes down to metacritic.
If the movie fails metacritic (0-59) i don't eat a hat.
If the movie gets a D on metacritic, it's put up to a vote (not by you guys, the voting team has already been selected).
If the movie gets positive accreditation by metacritic i just eat a hat.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
What kind of hat are we talking here? Baseball cap? Fedora? Sombrero? Beanie?
Also, if it comes down to hat-eating, we want video proof.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
It doesn't matter what metric we use, guys. He's not going to eat the hat.
Just to be clear, this isn't meant to impugn your honor, Samprimary. It's just that there's really no question that the movie is going to suck. Terribly.
...Though if it comes to it, go for the sombrero. Seems like the easiest to digest.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Also one of the largest, though...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah it's a decently sized knit cap. It is certified non-toxic. Also not a pushover like a gas station baseball cap.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Also one of the largest, though...
Not by mass, quite possibly. And the volume is largely air. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I bet a sombrero blended into a few fruit smoothies wouldn't be so bad to take down.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Since it's The Last Airbender I think he should eat this. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think it's a guaranteed fail.
I'm holding out hope. The previews look good, blah, whatever, previews are awful predictors these days on what ends up being good and bad (though frankly, I think if it looks bad in a preview, it ends up being awful, whereas some that look good go both ways). But we know he CAN make a good movie, and this is with someone else's material. Both the creators of Avatar gave Shyamalan a thumbs up when they saw where he was going with it. We might all be pleasantly surprised.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
But it doesn't look good in the preview. The few lines we see delivered are lackluster, and that's from the principal characters!
As a fan of the show I know I will react particularly badly to the hideous butchering that will take place, but I think even taken on its own it's going to end up pretty lame.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: Both the creators of Avatar gave Shyamalan a thumbs up when they saw where he was going with it.
Yes, but Avatar turned out to be Ferngully meets Pocahontas (in 3D!).
I'm pretty sure it's gonna suck.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
...was that a joke?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
It looks like a decent action flick but Shyamalan's last 3 movies have really sucked, so I don't have much hope.
Then again with all of the material he has at his disposal I don't know how it can suck that bad.
How will we know you actually ate the hat though SamP? Please tell me you are going to record it and post it on Youtube.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"But we know he CAN make a good movie..."
I'm not so sure anymore. What if the first couple of movies were good because Shyamalan wasn't yet arrogant enough to push his bad ideas past the advice of all the other people working on the movie?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But we know he CAN make a good movie,
Yet I am willing to go on record a year in advance that: I am so confident at this juncture that he WILL make this movie suck terribly that I am going to literally eat a hat if this does not come to pass
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
But you have still refused to specify what kind of hate you are going to eat. How do we know you aren't planning to pull some sort of bat and switch ? If you lose you will probably produce a a gummy hat and eat it but if you win you will insist you were planning on the stetson?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: But you have still refused to specify what kind of hate you are going to eat. How do we know you aren't planning to pull some sort of bat and switch ? If you lose you will probably produce a a gummy hat and eat it but if you win you will insist you were planning on the stetson?
whut
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Yeah it's a decently sized knit cap. It is certified non-toxic. Also not a pushover like a gas station baseball cap.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Next up on Fox News: Samprimary says he'll eat a hat, but can he be trusted not to be running an elaborate scam? Also: The controversy continues. Samprimary still not cleared of potential involvement in the Hatrack hatespamming event?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
mmmmm....gummy hat... Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Racebending has a spoiler-rific rundown of the differences between the series and the film: Here it is
Upon reading this, it seems that Samp will continue to have a hat-free diet.
[ June 30, 2010, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
So far a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes would indicate a hat free diet.
quote: The Last Airbender is dreadful, an incomprehensible fantasy-action epic that makes the 2007 film The Golden Compass, a similarly botched adaptation of a beloved property from another medium, look like a four-star classic.
quote:The Last Airbender is an agonizing experience in every category I can think of and others still waiting to be invented.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
oh my god. ZERO.
ahahahahahaha
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh dear. I'm starting to feel bad for Shyamalan.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Ooo...a new review. See if you can guess from the quote if it bumped it to 1%.
quote: Slavishly amateurish with no heart. Cold, not engaging, and dull. Bad writing and film school-level directing.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
how bout this one
quote:The picture drags along the ground like a fresh corpse, treating its own myth as homework and the participants as burdens, while feeling around a fantastically wasted world of weathered environments and ornate set design.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Even Eclipse managed 50%. I think we might be reaching epic levels of suck here.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
wow, while I honestly am not worried much about changing facts of the story in terms of overall quality (acting/internal-coherence is more important). But getting rid of Roku? Why would that be a remotely good idea? I don't think it saves much time, (and you could easily compress the Roku-segments that ARE lengthy).
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
There is a potential meme lurking here somewhere. I haven't checked a site so much since I watched Ron Paul's money bomb donations come in real time. I am anticipating that moment when I will see the first person give a fresh tomato.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: Where to start with this one? How about this: If any movie ever warranted a class-action lawsuit against the filmmakers, it’s The Last Airbender.
quote: The Last Airbender is a joyless, soulless, muddled mess, but the worst part of all doesn't come until the very end. That's when it makes the clear suggestion that two more such movies are in store for us
quote:Who would have thought Shyamalan would come up with a movie that makes his Lady in the Water look positively sensible?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
A.V. club gave it an F. It rarely gives any movie an F. They generally give better scores indicating it is subpar or failing in many ways but still possesses merit to some audiences.
F means complete failure.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
It's not quite fair until the metacritic scores come out, 'cause a 0 can just mean that everyone assigned it a 4.9 instead of half thinking it was great and half thinking terrible. But yeah, this is looking pretty terrible and I am struggling to figure out how you could possibly mess up the movie this bad.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If you check out the full reviews, there's only one that could be called above a 2 or 3 out of 10 (and most are pretty clearly 0's or 1's). That one basically says "sure, horrible for anyone above the age of 11, but I think the kids might like it a little".
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, man. Just looking at the changes, even if I hadn't seen a single review, would probably make me think this is going to be just plain terrible. Not showing Zuko's Agni Kai with his father? That is one of the single most powerful events in the entire story, and more than any other single event helps explain his character.
Not showing Aang's life prior to freezing too, great choice, that's not important to understanding him at all!
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
How much is Shyamalan the victim of his own reputation here? Did everyone go in determined to hate it?
Not much, and no?
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Oh, man. Just looking at the changes, even if I hadn't seen a single review, would probably make me think this is going to be just plain terrible. Not showing Zuko's Agni Kai with his father? That is one of the single most powerful events in the entire story, and more than any other single event helps explain his character.
Not showing Aang's life prior to freezing too, great choice, that's not important to understanding him at all!
I was convinced when I read of all of the telling-not-showing going on. Exposition via voiceover is *boring*.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The only time I can recall right now where it really worked well was when it's a combination of voiceover and showing, like the prologue in the LotR series.
My only sliver of hope here is that some reviews are likening it to A-Team in that it's awful, whereas I thought the movie was decently fun for an action flick. Maybe I'd better bring a book and a flashlight, heh.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
but what's A-Team's score on RT?
Also: Metacritic's score will take a while to tabulate.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I did just notice that rottentomatoes says the "average review" is a 2.5, so that is at least something to go by.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:"The Last Airbender" is an agonizing experience in every category I can think of and others still waiting to be invented. The laws of chance suggest that something should have gone right. Not here.
. . .
I close with the hope that the title proves prophetic.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Metacritic tabulation is up. currently it is sitting at 13
13.
For comparison, that puts it on the same level as Freddy Got Fingered.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Man, I'm not sure whether I'm more disappointed that I don't get to see a decent rendition of this story or that I don't get to see Samprimary eat a hat.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Regardless, my promise involved watching the movie with my friends.
I'm going to liveblog it. If someone would be so kind as to volunteer to upload that to here, then, you can all at least witness my live suffering.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
When is this happening again?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
if at all possible, opening night. otherwise at 5 the next day.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Can anyone tell me why there are so many charges of racism? This is an American cartoon, Aang looked white, and both Katara and Sokka had blue eyes (if they were moderately tan).
It isn't like it was a real anime, though I'm inclined to believe that many people mistakenly think that it is. Why do they have to be Asian? I always figured that Katara and Sokka were Eskimo. . . .
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Well I'm still going to the midnight show tonight but all the bad reviews mean that a quick trip to the daquiri shop will be necessary.
The last few months I've come to terms with it sucking but I'm overwhelmed by all the horrible reviews. But hey, I've sat through Spiderman 3 and my family dragged me to see Grown-ups this week, so I should survive the experience.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Oh dear. I'm starting to feel bad for Shyamalan.
I felt bad for him after Lady in the Water. I thought that movie was the one where his ego got bruised and so he took a step back and figured out what had happened.
Now this movie has happened and he has to take more beatings. I hope he won't give up, but now I don't know who is going to trust him with a movie now.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: if at all possible, opening night. otherwise at 5 the next day.
I still don't understand how rewarding a shitty movie by seeing it on opening day is the best way to show the world that it sucks.
The production company doesn't care whether it sucks. If it makes money, they're making a sequel.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
My hope is it makes enough money for a sequel but that the reviews will lead to Shymalan being fired.
Won't happen, but I can dream.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Someone could just do a totally unrelated remake a la Hulk.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: if at all possible, opening night. otherwise at 5 the next day.
I still don't understand how rewarding a shitty movie by seeing it on opening day is the best way to show the world that it sucks.
The production company doesn't care whether it sucks. If it makes money, they're making a sequel.
pffffff I'm not going to pay for this movie, are you nuts?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I'm not aware of any other ways to see movies in theatres, so no, I don't think I'm crazy.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:“What’s great about doing something like that is that let’s say your instinct is to distill me down into three characteristics: thrillers, scary, twist. Let’s just say, ‘Oh, that’s what he does,’” Shyamalan explained. “Then when they come see ‘Last Airbender’ – which has none of those three things in there - and yet, you’ll be able to tell in 30 seconds that I directed it.
lol
--j_k
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
Aw man... I was hoping Samp could have his hat eating fun kinda like Werner Herzog had his shoe eating fun.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Can anyone tell me why there are so many charges of racism? This is an American cartoon, Aang looked white, and both Katara and Sokka had blue eyes (if they were moderately tan).
It isn't like it was a real anime, though I'm inclined to believe that many people mistakenly think that it is. Why do they have to be Asian? I always figured that Katara and Sokka were Eskimo. . . .
The series was based in an obviously Asian-inspired world, using elements of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Inuit, and Southeast Asian cultures to weave the background of the story. The creators took great care in making this representation as authentic as possible: they used authentic Chinese handwriting whenever writing is seen on the show, they used Eastern martial art styles for the different kinds of bending, and had several cultural consultants guiding their production decisions. Additionally, most of the animation team was from Korea, so the actual work of the show was produced by Asian artists.
In spite of this, Paramount made conscious decisions throughout the production process that excluded actors of Asian decent in the leading roles. When they held casting calls for the four leads, they called for "Caucasian or any other ethnicity". It wasn't about getting the best actors for the role, or trying to represent the original idea of the story, but about defining an arbitrary standard for Hollywood success. The four leads, who were supposed to represent three distinct cultures, were all initially cast by white actors. Dev Patel was cast when the original actor backed out, but since his role for the majority of the series is the main antagonist, it didn't do much to assuage concerns in the Asian American community.
The Last Airbender isn't really unique among American films. This was business as usual for Paramount, and reflect a long-standing habit of institutionalized racism that still exists today. Asian-American actors are, for whatever reason, not considered as bankable as white actors, and so never have the opportunity to take on leading roles in major films.
The difference was, though, that TLA fans already cared deeply about the show, and were able to use the internet to promote recognition of the unfair casting practices and activism efforts. The lj group "Aang Ain't White" led to the formation of Racebending.com, which provides a lot more information than the little bit I'm giving here on the issue, especially as it pertains to TLA.
In spite of this, it appears that racially insensitive casting might be the least of TLA's problems, but there you go.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I'm not aware of any other ways to see movies in theatres, so no, I don't think I'm crazy.
1. You sneak in. 2. You pick up a stub from someone on the way out, then wave it on the way in. 3. You buy a ticket to another movie, then walk over to it.
or my chosen method
4. be buddy-buddy with management at a cineplex.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
YUO CRAZY MAN (jt so crazy)
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:I felt bad for him after Lady in the Water. I thought that movie was the one where his ego got bruised and so he took a step back and figured out what had happened.
Now this movie has happened and he has to take more beatings. I hope he won't give up, but now I don't know who is going to trust him with a movie now.
What if the opposite is actually happening? Everyone, myself included, tends to think he is a brilliant director because of Sixth Sense but is having a string of bad luck coupled with an over inflated ego.
What if he truly is a mediocre/bad director at heart? What if he is no better then any other average person off the street, but sometimes in a fluke even the Average Joe can make something brilliant?
I am beginning to think it is unfair to expect greatness from him because he doesn't have it in him. To be fair I haven't seen this movie yet. If it is as bad as I am led on to believe then I think my opinion of him will be cemented in him being a truly horrible director who had found the right synergy to make one great movie and a few mediocre movies.
quote: “What’s great about doing something like that is that let’s say your instinct is to distill me down into three characteristics: thrillers, scary, twist. Let’s just say, ‘Oh, that’s what he does,’” Shyamalan explained. “Then when they come see ‘Last Airbender’ – which has none of those three things in there - and yet, you’ll be able to tell in 30 seconds that I directed it. Now you’ll have to go, ‘Wait, I realize there are other things that define him. [Things] I knew, but was never really acknowledging them on the same level as these other characteristics.’”
At least I agree with him; he is being redefined. It is sad to see him compare his potential Airbender Trilogy to Shakespeare and The Lord of the Rings. I watched it on Rotten Tomatoes go from 0% to 10% to 08% and now at 07%.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Wow... I am so annoyed that he ruined a perfectly good series. Dude should have gone all miyazaki and made it animated! Or at least he should have picked some Asian Main Actors with contacts because they have eyes based on elements. but noooooo. He did not do those things. I think I will stop watching any movie based on something I like to avoid frustration.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
M. Night is difficult to discern, but personal accounts of working with him are helpful (hint: he's got an ego and obsessivity issue)
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
So I'm sitting in the theater waiting for the movie to start. Already had two margaritas and I've got a large daiquiri sitting next to me.
There's a girl in front of me with a blue arrow painted on her forehead. A group of 40- and 50-something women are sitting behind. Should be an interesting audience.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Wow... I am so annoyed that he ruined a perfectly good series.
I'm watching the series right now. Don't worry -- it's still good. It hasn't been ruined.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: So I'm sitting in the theater waiting for the movie to start. Already had two margaritas and I've got a large daiquiri sitting next to me.
There's a girl in front of me with a blue arrow painted on her forehead. A group of 40- and 50-something women are sitting behind. Should be an interesting audience.
Oh is it 3d? 3d is said to be a total scam
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Expect applause at the beginning!
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Yeah, it's 3D. I would have preferred 2D but it wasn't an option.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I'm not aware of any other ways to see movies in theatres, so no, I don't think I'm crazy.
1. You sneak in. 2. You pick up a stub from someone on the way out, then wave it on the way in. 3. You buy a ticket to another movie, then walk over to it.
or my chosen method
4. be buddy-buddy with management at a cineplex.
1. I'm not in high school 2. I'm not in high school 3. I actually have done that in the past, but only to get matinee pricing for a showing that started 20 minutes after matinee time was over. 4. That does sound like the best option, though not the simplest.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Okay. That movie was NOT BAD. I mean, I appreciate all the lowering of expectations. But at the end of teh day? It was enjoyable.
It's not the cartoon series that we all love, but it was fun, and even moving, at times.
The most infuriating thing of everything is that they had the AUDACITY and ARROGANCE, to change the freaking PRONUNCIATION of the names of our favorite characters!!!!
Did they forget that it wasn't a book? It was a TV SHOW!!! We pronounce Ang, Sokka, Iroh, not Ahng, Soka, and eeroh. Jeez.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Can anyone tell me why there are so many charges of racism? This is an American cartoon, Aang looked white, and both Katara and Sokka had blue eyes (if they were moderately tan).
It isn't like it was a real anime, though I'm inclined to believe that many people mistakenly think that it is. Why do they have to be Asian? I always figured that Katara and Sokka were Eskimo. . . .
What sarcasticmuppet says.
However I am still optimistic. I prefer a bad-but-not-macabre adaption to no adaption.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I prefer a bad-but-not-macabre adaption to no adaption.
You are what is wrong with Hollywood.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Ya. That irked me too. How the fire nation is Indian. Totally not in line with the movies. At all. And kinda racist.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
So I just got back from the movie and figured I'd post my thoughts before I head off to bed.
In short...it was bad. Really bad.
To put it in perspective, it made the first Harry Potter movie look like Oscar material. I can also honestly say I had more fun watching "Grown-Ups" this week. The whole movie plays like an hour and a half version of the dance scene in Spiderman 3.
Get the picture?
I was so ready to like the movie. I've had my doubts. I knew from the get-go that it would not be the next Lord of the Rings. And I was okay with that. I hoped for a post-Columbus Harry Potter level of awesomeness. I would have even settled for a Narnia level of decency. Alas...
I commend the actors for doing the best they could with such a horrible script. Most of the lines were soundbites. Characters often spoke only to reiterate what was already happening on screen. They spoke to the audience rather than to each other.
I feel bad for anyone who hasn't seen the show before. M Night didn't give anyone a reason to love Aang, sympathize with Sokka, admire Katara, or pity Zuko. The show gave him all the pieces he needed but he did nothing with him. There was no emotional attachment to anyone. I never got sucked into the drama. Never cheered with the bad guys got their butts handed to them.
The whole time I watching it, I'm thinking, "if only he'd given this scene five more minutes." An hour and half is not nearly enough time to get to all the important stuff, especially when he uses what precious time he has to repeat the same information over and over again. I get it, Zhao stole a bunch of scrolls from a secret library. I don't need to hear about it five times!
Going into this, I figured the bending and the action scenes would be the film's saving grace. Action films, no matter how terrible the plot and the dialogue, make alot of money and get lots of sequels. However, the bending is sad and the special effects look a decade old. We see atleast two scenes of Katara and Aang practicing water-bending forms without any actual water-bending going on. In the fight scenes, a long martial arts form is required to move the smallest rock or just a handful of water. Non-benders like Sokka would seem to have the advantage in any fight. He could easily smack anyone with his club before they get halfway through with their choreography.
And that's the vibe of the whole movie. Nothing makes sense. In the series, earthbenders are captured and kept on a giant all-metal barge where they can be easily controlled. In M Night's version of the universe, a whole army of earthbenders sit sadly in a quarry surrounded by dirt, rocks, and eight fire nation soldiers. When the fire nation invades the North Water Tribe, they have to bring a source of fire with them in order to bend so they use these giant metal balls that are catapulted over the walls. But in a city made almost entirely of ice, not a single waterbender thinks, "hey, maybe we should just douse their fire so they can't attack us."
Grr.
Oh, and there is an M Night twist. The twist is that he changes the ending to give us a sappy Hollywood climax.
As the credit rolled, a few people in the back applauded but the majority seemed stunned and rushed towards the parking lot. On the way out I heard:
"I can't believe I waited a year for this movie!" "With such great characters, how'd he'd end up with this?!" And the eloquent but painfully true: "Well, that sucked!"
If anyone has any specific questions about how scenes or events were handled, let me know. I'd love to save you the money it'd cost to see it yourself. All week I've been telling fans to go out and support the movie in hopes that a sequel would be better. Right now, I'm hoping a sequel will never be made. I really don't think I could handle watching M Night destroy Toph and Azula on film. It would break my heart. It was bad enough watching my beloved Sokka have his name mispronounced, given the smallest handful of lines, and be shoved to the side until it was time to make out with Princess Yue.
I plan the spend my day off tomorrow marathoning the first season and pretending the movie never happened.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Anyone who's not a fanboy seen this yet?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I prefer a bad-but-not-macabre adaption to no adaption.
You are what is wrong with Hollywood.
Sure if my money ever actually made it to holleywood with my rampant piracy of crappy movies.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I don't plan to see it first-run. If curiosity really gets the best of me, I'll see it at the dollar theater. On fifty cent night.
I'm getting paid this week, and I'm tempted to order the complete series off of Amazon, just to show my support for what the story should have been.
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: To put it in perspective, it made the first Harry Potter movie look like Oscar material.
Actually, the first Harry Potter film got 3 Oscar nominations: Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, and Best Original Score. Didn't win any, but someone thought it was Oscar material.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Ya. That irked me too. How the fire nation is Indian. Totally not in line with the movies. At all. And kinda racist.
From what I'm seeing, it's racist if the characters are white, and racist if they're not?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
m_p_h: it is racist if you make the good guys white (when they weren't in the original material), and the bad guys not white (when they were the closest to white in the original material).
You should at least check out the ad for the main character. It read "Caucasian or any other ethnicity". That speaks volumes.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I walked out and got my money back.
The movie was beyond words bad.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Good link, fugu.
I can't believe they said "Caucasian or any other ethnicity."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's down to 6% on Rotten Tomatoes. That's not something I recall seeing very often, that a bad movie gets a bad initial response, peaks, and then steadily declines. But I may be misremembering. Anyway, wow, it's looking just plain awful. I'm beginning to debate whether to use this free ticket I got for being a member on the movie.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I can only assume that sort of thing must be pretty common in Hollywood movies? Because if it weren't, I just have a hard time imagining any experienced professional dealing with media putting that sort of thing out there without thinking, "Hey, this looks kinda...what's the word...racist!"
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Ya. That irked me too. How the fire nation is Indian. Totally not in line with the movies. At all. And kinda racist.
From what I'm seeing, it's racist if the characters are white, and racist if they're not?
[ July 01, 2010, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I've looked around, and so far the examples people have posted either completely specify the ethnicity, or specify all ethnicities (with no specific one called out).
There's nothing inherently wrong with wanting a particular ethnicity in a movie part; though I hope the practice declines, sometimes you need a particular appearance to fit a character. But what's been done with ethnicity in this movie looks pretty deplorable.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Here's a thorough examination of the casting calls:
Every roll for a good guy main character asked for "Caucasian or any other ethnicity" (including Zuko, who's a good guy by the end).
This, in spite of the fact that the casting calls for Fire Nation members specified "NEAR EASTERN, MIDDLE EASTERN, FAR EASTERN, ASIAN, MEDITERRANEAN & LATINO ETHNIC GROUPS" and asked people show up wearing "ethnic attire"!
They were planning on casting everyone in the fire nation as non-white . . . and Zuko as white! There wasn't even an attempt to be consistent.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Here's a thorough examination of the casting calls:
Every roll for a good guy main character asked for "Caucasian or any other ethnicity" (including Zuko, who's a good guy by the end).
This, in spite of the fact that the casting calls for Fire Nation members specified "NEAR EASTERN, MIDDLE EASTERN, FAR EASTERN, ASIAN, MEDITERRANEAN & LATINO ETHNIC GROUPS" and asked people show up wearing "ethnic attire"!
They were planning on casting everyone in the fire nation as non-white . . . and Zuko as white! There wasn't even an attempt to be consistent.
Also, for the secondary role casting calls, they said that if you're Korean, you should come in a kimono. So, not even an attempt at cultural sensitivity, it seems.
[ July 01, 2010, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote: “What’s great about doing something like that is that let’s say your instinct is to distill me down into three characteristics: thrillers, scary, twist. Let’s just say, ‘Oh, that’s what he does,’” Shyamalan explained. “Then when they come see ‘Last Airbender’ – which has none of those three things in there - and yet, you’ll be able to tell in 30 seconds that I directed it. Now you’ll have to go, ‘Wait, I realize there are other things that define him. [Things] I knew, but was never really acknowledging them on the same level as these other characteristics.’”
The actual end result of the movie should have deflated his head a little bit.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
lol.
quote:“We want you to dress in traditional cultural ethnic attire,” [Deedee Ricketts, the casting director for the film] said. “If you’re Korean, wear a kimono. If you’re from Belgium, wear lederhosen.”
"If you're Korean, come wearing a traditional Japanese garment. If you're Belgian, come wearing some weird German thing."
edit: oh god
quote:One middle-aged black woman, clad in a denim jacket and black slacks, raised her hand. “Are you at a disadvantage if you didn’t wear a costume?” she asked, evidently concerned about her “non-ethnic” outfit.
“Absolutely not!” Ricketts reassured her. “It doesn’t mean you’re at a disadvantage if you didn’t come in a big African thing. But guys, even if you came with a scarf today, put it over your head so you’ll look like a Ukrainian villager or whatever.”
lolololololololool
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
AUGH! They really SAID SUCH THINGS?!?! ><
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: I walked out and got my money back.
The movie was beyond words bad.
When did you walk out? I was sufficiently entertained throughout.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: I walked out and got my money back.
The movie was beyond words bad.
When did you walk out? I was sufficiently entertained throughout.
I am impressed that something as totally bad as this can entertain you. I left during the numbingly dull battle between water girl and fire guy, after a long line of other dull painfully badly acted things. The three d was such a scam I just took the glasses off and texted while waiting for this travesty to end. Eventually I could not be bothered to do even that.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
That's pretty far into the movie. I'm assuming you haven't seen the TV series. If that's the case, then I can understand why you walked out.
For me, it was interesting to see a bit more reality to a world I had only seen in cartoon.
/TV Spoilers
It's like in the 3rd book where the fire nation was putting on goofy plays about the Avatar, and the gang snuck in to watch themselves? It wasn't the original, but it was pretty entertaining.
That's how I felt.
/End TV Spoilers
Also, I thought the 3D was pretty cool. Except when the camera panned. Then, it made me kind of dizzy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: That's pretty far into the movie. I'm assuming you haven't seen the TV series. If that's the case, then I can understand why you walked out.
People who are fans of the series are gonna be more annoyed at this movie and more likely to demand their money back, I'm guessing.
If you're not a fan of the series, you don't care. It's just some dumb movie with a bunch of (apparently) bland, two-dimensional characters.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I have seen the tv series. If I had not I would have just been less annoyed but still left.
And i
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I have seen the tv series. If I had not I would have just been less annoyed but still left.
And the 3-D is a total absolute scam. I paid extra to have all the night scenes be worse.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
I'm trying to read this thread without reading too much.
I'm seeing this movie on Saturday and depressed at the fact that I will probably be disappointed.
But some of the criticism is just...ugh.
The charges of racism are absurd. Seriously, I've had it with people using the "r" word so lightly.
I have a tendency to disagree with most people at Hatrack, and I'll continue that trend here. I love M. Night Shyamalan's movies. I don't feel he's mainstream enough to make movies that everyone is going to like, however. With the exception of Sixth Sense (one of my least favorite films of his, because it had too much mass appeal), I don't think he can tell stories that interest the mainstream.
Leave that job to Stephanie Meyers. (<--Okay, below-the-belt, I admit.)
Initially, my only reason for seeing The Last Airbender was because of M. Night. However, in anticipation of the film, I started watching the animated series. *Le Sigh* So now I'm emotionally involved, with high expectations, which is always a bad place to be when it comes to adaptations.
I'm prepared to be disappointed. I'm also prepared to take into account that, even if the movie is okay, it's going to get bad reviews from the critics. They hate M. Night Shyamalan and will always hate his movies.
But, yeah, my expectations are really high. It's going to be a disappointment.
At least there's Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows to look forward to....
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
1. The charges of racism are not absurd. The casting demonstrated a more egregious example than most of the current industry standard for what is a known quantity.
2. The critics don't hate this movie because it was made by M. Night Shyamalan. They hate it because it is bad and a waste of time and money and horrid to have to sit through. Apparently. I saw over 20 reviews on RT and Metacritic where the author of the review said "I keep wanting to give M Night the benefit of the doubt, but" or "I am stubborn in my continued support of M Night but" and they all invariably conclude that the movie is terrible.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
This video is hilarious but also alittle sad. Some of the fans are over the top but there's also quite a few faces of disbelief and disappointment.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I think, Samprimary, that if the movie sweeps the Razzies the people you had the bet with should have to eat the hat.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:With the exception of Sixth Sense (one of my least favorite films of his, because it had too much mass appeal), I don't think he can tell stories that interest the mainstream.
Well that's just silly. I get not liking something that has mass appeal because you think it sucks (Brittany Spears) or your tastes are not aligned with mass appeal products, but to not like something just because many people like it sounds very high-schoolish.
One of my favorite movies I have stumbled upon is Ink, but I don't like it because it never got a mainstream distributor. I like it because it is an incredibly imaginative story that was told with fantastic beauty despite the rough edges because of a very limited budget.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Hey! It's up to 6% on RT! There's hope yet!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by lem:
quote:With the exception of Sixth Sense (one of my least favorite films of his, because it had too much mass appeal), I don't think he can tell stories that interest the mainstream.
Well that's just silly. I get not liking something that has mass appeal because you think it sucks (Brittany Spears) or your tastes are not aligned with mass appeal products, but to not like something just because many people like it sounds very high-schoolish.
Naw, sounds totally indie hipster. Totes grab a PBR, wear some thrift store gear, and hate things because they are loved.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I just read the best comment from a user responding to this review.
quote: I didn't hate this movie. This movie hated ME. It laughed like a hyena and stole my lunch money and stuffed me in a locker and hawked a loogie at me through the air vent.
...which leads me to my favorite review I have found. It is pretty crass in places and not for the faint of heart. If the link breaks the TOS feel free to delete it JanitorBlade.
quote: You start out laughing at how random and mindless everything in this movie is, but about an hour into it, you realize that the movie is actually laughing at you, for watching it in the first place. And it's laughing louder than you are, because it's got Dolby surround-sound and you're choking on your suspension of disbelief.
quote:Oh yeah - that's another one of the ways in which this movie pokes fun at the very idea of epic fantasy: the endless confusing voice-over, in which tons of important story developments happen off-camera while we're looking at a picture of a tree or a CG mountain. Because why do we privilege the story of the hero's progress over the tree?, Shaymalan asks. Why does the original Star Wars insist on showing us Luke Skywalker training with a lightsaber, instead of telling us that Luke Skywalker trained with a lightsaber while showing us a tracking shot of some rocks?
quote:It must have taken hours to get the right level of random, Ketamine-overdose level of dissociation into every scene where somebody explains about importance of the avatar and how you have to feel your feelings, in order to gerbil machete fish dumpling crank handle.
quote: There are plenty of bad movies that know they're bad — but TLA is the first bad movie that knows that you are bad...it actually MST3Ks its audience. Noah Ringer and that Civil War vampire from Twilight may seem at first to be sleepwalking through a rote adventure, but you realize at last that they're actually delivering a commentary track on your callowness as an audience. It's deadpan, but unmistakable nonetheless. Aang and Sokka become Tom Servo and Crow T. Robot, staring out of the screen and bemusedly riffing on our feeble attempts to invest in this saga.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
From the above review -
quote: Later in the film, Katara says my favorite line ever, "We need to show them that we believe in our beliefs as much as they believe in their beliefs."
Did Donald Rumsfeld write this movie? That would explain a lot, actually.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:It is pretty crass in places and not for the faint of heart.
After reading paragraph four, I'd call that an understatement. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Tropers appear to either have withheld judgement as of yet or generally seem to have warmly received it.
Looking at their explanations of some of the changes a few things start to make sense, Shamaylon wanted the ethnicity of the different nations to reflect the lead (in theory anyways) actor/hero of them and has promised that Toph will be played by an Asian next film.
Also if you do look at it Firebending seem to have gotten the biggest advantage in the original series as they were the only ones to not need to do logistics to supply their firebending while everyone else needed a source nearby. This makes things interesting as its explained that the fireboulder launching is now ALSO a tactic to supply front line soldiers with a fire source for their bending.
Its alright thinking, I know in the series it originates from the chi of the individual and it helped to give the Fire Nation an increased threat level as they were thus much better suited for aggression, but as changes go its at least interesting.
I am stil optimistic though I am pissed at Katara not being badass in the film as she was in the series.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Except that unlike with fire, there are almost always ready supplies of earth, air, and water wherever you go. naturally occurring fire, by comparison, is rare enough that harnessing it is basically one of mankind's first significant technological advances.
We don't make a note of when homo-sapiens (or predecessors) first learned how to use water.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Hey guys welcome back.
The film was terrible on every level! It was the most hilariously dumb thing I have seen in theatres since Dungeons and Dragons. It fully deserved its single-digits rating on RottenTomatoes.
By unanimous and nauseated consent as well as the overwhelmingly negative consensus of critics, I did not eat a hat.
I can sure call 'em.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
As a matter of fact this is all YOUR fault. It's only horrible because YOU said it would be.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
There is one person to blame for how dumb this movie is, and that's m. night lolbender!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Well, this is an nice turn of events. *satisfied*
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I'm just gonna come out and say it - I wasn't too disappointed by the movie. I had ridiculously low expectations that weren't met, and I could probably complain about nearly every second of the movie, but that being said, I would go see the second one, if only to see Toph and Azula.
Well, I would go see the second one if they fixed the pronunciations. Every time I heard Soka or Aang's name pronounced, I wanted to erase that second of my life.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: There is one person to blame for how dumb this movie is, and that's m. night lolbender!
That was interesting. They seem to leave out (except maybe in the cartoon) the hoards of people who supported this film (and others like it) even when it was pretty clear that it wasn't even going to be a good film.
Why bother making either ethical films or good ones when so many of you are willing to give them your money no matter what?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
m. night is not to blame for the systemic racism in hollywood films. he is, however, directly responsible for the extent to which this movie sucked. Including the hand-picking of a lead actor with no real acting skill of any sort.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: Looking at their explanations of some of the changes a few things start to make sense, Shamaylon wanted the ethnicity of the different nations to reflect the lead (in theory anyways) actor/hero of them and has promised that Toph will be played by an Asian next film.
Blayne, I'm really not sure why you're so keen on defending this movie, but this explanation doesn't make much sense. The folks makin' this went out of their way to change the race of the overwhelming majority of the main cast of the story, in ways that switched the protagonists from minorities (in the USA) and the antagonists to minorities (again, in the USA). If it had happened with one cultural group within the story, that'd be one thing, or maybe even two out of three, but all of them?
quote:I'm just gonna come out and say it - I wasn't too disappointed by the movie. I had ridiculously low expectations that weren't met, and I could probably complain about nearly every second of the movie, but that being said, I would go see the second one, if only to see Toph and Azula.
I was deeply disappointed in it even after, due to the overwhelmingly negative majority opinion on it, I went in with incredibly low expectations. I can't recall the last time I went into a film expecting less while hoping to enjoy it. I am interested to see Toph, but I am incredibly dubious about Azula. She did not look remotely frightening or even intimidating in the bits we've seen.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I was deeply disappointed in it even after, due to the overwhelmingly negative majority opinion on it, I went in with incredibly low expectations. I can't recall the last time I went into a film expecting less while hoping to enjoy it.
And yet you (like so many others) rewarded them. Why would they change their behaviour?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Actually, I didn't. I paid for a soda for that film, and not even all of that. Something under a dollar, if I remember correctly.
Anyway, I pseudo-rewarded the film because I was hoping against hope - because I really enjoyed the source material - that my expectations might turn out to be wrong. I think the level of offense would have to rise to a higher level than system racism before I would judge a book by its cover and not partake of it if it is panned. That is, after all, present in all Hollywood movies. In fact, present in most movies made period.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I was deeply disappointed in it even after, due to the overwhelmingly negative majority opinion on it, I went in with incredibly low expectations. I can't recall the last time I went into a film expecting less while hoping to enjoy it.
And yet you (like so many others) rewarded them. Why would they change their behaviour?
In marketing metrics and customer reception analysis, someone who buys in but then discourages others from buying in is the kiss of death for movies and games alike in sufficient numbers. when a few people (but not enough!) go see the movie and come back with a negative enough reception of it that they start a tidal wave of negative press and word of mouth, they can create a net NEGATIVE benefit that overwhelms the 2-3 dollars recouped from them by the studio that funded the project.
Me, I'm even worse. I paid exactly $0 for the movie and have issued a plenty-fun amount of viral bad press for it. This is a terrible movie!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, I am glad that you didn't reward them much and that Samprimary didn't give them anything.
And yet, they made an awful lot of money over the weekend. Somebody is rewarding them.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I am incredibly dubious about Azula. She did not look remotely frightening or even intimidating in the bits we've seen.
For anyone who is curious what M. Night will do with any character from Avatar he has not touched yet, the answer is that he will throw away all the complexities of their character and make them suck.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And yet, they made an awful lot of money over the weekend. Somebody is rewarding them.
It performed about as well as the first Chronicles of Narnia film (which got dropped by its distributor for poor results), the Golden Compass movie (which died on fire) and Batman and Robin (which ended careers and caused an entire movie genre to die on fire and remain dead for a not insignificant amount of time).
It also had returns drop off 40% by the time the fourth rolled around.
It's made about 60 million so far. It has to make over 550 million at the box office to recoup costs for the studio. And if that doesn't happen, bai bai ~~
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I am a movie critic by trade, and until recently, I got paid to tell you people which movies merely stink and which ones you shouldn’t screen near an open flame. Well, I’m putting the burden of lousy movies back on you. It’s very simple: if you stop going to bad movies, they’ll stop making bad movies. If the movie used to be a TV show, just don’t go. After Roman numeral II, give it a rest. If it's a remake of a classic, rent the classic. Tell them you want stories about people, not a hundred million dollars of stunts and explosives. People, it’s up to you. If the movie stinks, just don’t go.
10 trivia points to the first person who can name the source (without googling it)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And yet, they made an awful lot of money over the weekend. Somebody is rewarding them.
It performed about as well as the first Chronicles of Narnia film (which got dropped by its distributor for poor results), the Golden Compass movie (which died on fire) and Batman and Robin (which ended careers and caused an entire movie genre to die on fire and remain dead for a not insignificant amount of time).
It also had returns drop off 40% by the time the fourth rolled around.
It's made about 60 million so far. It has to make over 550 million at the box office to recoup costs for the studio. And if that doesn't happen, bai bai ~~
I'll keep my fingers crossed.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:550 million
Where did you get this figure?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Sam, I'm curious: why do you hate the existence of this film so much?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:I am a movie critic by trade, and until recently, I got paid to tell you people which movies merely stink and which ones you shouldn’t screen near an open flame. Well, I’m putting the burden of lousy movies back on you. It’s very simple: if you stop going to bad movies, they’ll stop making bad movies. If the movie used to be a TV show, just don’t go. After Roman numeral II, give it a rest. If it's a remake of a classic, rent the classic. Tell them you want stories about people, not a hundred million dollars of stunts and explosives. People, it’s up to you. If the movie stinks, just don’t go.
10 trivia points to the first person who can name the source (without googling it)
Jay Sherman from Coming Attractions?
Also death to web season 3!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Bob Chipman aka MovieBob is of the impression that while the movie is a failure it is however decent to its source material, made with the best of intentions, had a glorious last ten minutes, and reinstates Shamylan as a decent technical director and that as a franchise is optimistic that it will improve significantly with the second film.
Something I have confidence in as the same happened with the TV series with Toph's introduction which will happen in Movie 2.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr Strangelove: I'm just gonna come out and say it - I wasn't too disappointed by the movie. I had ridiculously low expectations that weren't met, and I could probably complain about nearly every second of the movie, but that being said, I would go see the second one, if only to see Toph and Azula.
Well, I would go see the second one if they fixed the pronunciations. Every time I heard Soka or Aang's name pronounced, I wanted to erase that second of my life.
This was done after consultation with a linguist to use a more Americanized pronounciation, akin to Chou vs Zhou.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Blayne, why are you so determined to like this movie? Have you seen it yet? It's a bit puzzling, to be honest.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Sam, I'm curious: why do you hate the existence of this film so much?
You have serious trouble differentiating hate from being terribly amused by something!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:while the movie is a failure
not known yet
quote:it is however decent to its source material
no
quote:made with the best of intentions
arguably
quote:had a glorious last ten minutes
no
quote:and reinstates Shamylan as a decent technical director
quote:You have serious trouble differentiating hate from being terribly amused by something!
Why do you find its failure to be terribly amusing? It is neither ironic nor surprising nor dismally noteworthy nor interestingly juxtapositioned against more successful films. Did its creators wrong you in some way, so that there's an element of schadenfreude there?
I'm just confused why you find this so personally interesting.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I bet a year ago that if it didn't suck I would eat a hat and suckered a fair number of my friends into accepting this bet
AND
i am interested in the future of the Avatar franchise as a whole
AND
i am very much so interested in salacious stories in film and critical reception
AND
i have been chronicling the demise of shyamalan as a filmmaker
AND
i will likely be working on avatar productions in the near future so we here are all filled with keen interest in the avatar franchise
AND
this is all hilarious and is easy to generate a fun thread out of
AND
i got quite a bit of good press out of my promised liveblog of the movie
AND
this is fun
take your pick, I'm talking about this because it's entertaining. Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I believe the point was that, out of context, it's not clear at all WHY you find it entertaining. I knew about the hat bet and presumed your interest in Avatar in general, but had no idea about a lot of the rest of it. On top of that, while I wouldn't have bet against you, I don't think there was particular evidence that this movie was going to suck anywhere near as hard as it apparently does.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:i am very much so interested in salacious stories in film and critical reception
I think this is what confuses me. You have been posting as if the failure of this film to be anything but great is "salacious" or even "juicy." Why? Was there some kind of buzz to the contrary that I just completely missed?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
How could this not be interesting? Its a stuffed head director taking a loved show and turning it into a disaster over the tears of the fanbase because he still thinks he is an arrteeste. Its m night shyster at his finest.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Its m night shyster at his finest.
*laugh* Ah. Somehow I've never managed to feel for Shyamalan this level of disdain. I'm hearing from you that he's sort of your Peter Molyneux.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:i am very much so interested in salacious stories in film and critical reception
I think this is what confuses me. You have been posting as if the failure of this film to be anything but great is "salacious" or even "juicy." Why?
Because so, so, so many people I know online and off actually care about Avatar, there was lots of interest and attention on this movie. This isn't like Clash of the Titans, where nobody gives a crap. SO many people were following this actively and were going to go to it on opening night because they love Avatar the t.v. show.
Then stir in two other things.
1. It is not the failure of this film to be 'anything but great.' I didn't say I would eat a hat if the film was great. It is about this film fulfillng my expectations that it was going to out-and-out suck. Not just be okay, or mediocre, but suck.
2. The bet came about as part of watching M. Night Shyamalan's career implode on itself, which itself has a lot of "buzz."
For me personally this is great because I actually took this bet and was fully ready to eat a hat in front of god and country if I lost and, hey presto.
If you still are confused about it I will continue to point you to "it entertains me to talk about this." If that doesn't help you, then, sorry!
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Its m night shyster at his finest.
*laugh* Ah. Somehow I've never managed to feel for Shyamalan this level of disdain. I'm hearing from you that he's sort of your Peter Molyneux.
Molyneaux never thrashed a franchise I liked, so no.
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
Hmmm. I'm not sure I buy that. The 550 million would have to be worldwide gross. And even then...
This had a budget of $150 million. Only 3 films ever have crossed the $550 million mark in North America - Avatar, Titanic and TDK* - and already this year more than a handful of films have had budgets of $150 million or more.
If Hollywood execs expect every film with that sort of budget to make $550 million or more, they're dumber than I thought.
* I take that back - not even TDK crossed $550 million.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The $150 figure is purely the total costs of development. It isn't factoring in, for instance, their advertising costs. The studio spent over 300 million on this movie. I mean I'm not going to say whether or not this movie will recoup successfully, but at the same time remember that looking only at how much a movie made in america is not what it grossed in total, which is what is important.
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The $150 figure is purely the total costs of development. It isn't factoring in, for instance, their advertising costs.
I understand that.
quote:The studio spent over 300 million on this movie.
Wouldn't they make a profit at 301 million then? I'm having trouble believing they really spent another 150 on advertising AND THEN more on theater costs.
The original series is good. And popular. But more so than Harry Potter? Star Wars? Lord of the Rings? Batman? Spider-Man?
Again, if they did spend this much, they're dumber than I thought.
Of course, we should also remember DVD revenue must be counted after the theater run, but that's a diminishing return.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The Racebending guy's math theory is that the box office total doesn't subtract what the theaters will take out of it as their cut. Even if that person's idea is totally wrong and box office figure = total gross for the studio, that still puts them at about ... i dunno, roughly $325 million? Figures for the studio's TOTAL costs including advertising budgets are vague but are at dead minimum 150 for production and 130 for marketing, plus change.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Clearly the 550M number is from GHPFB* Labs.
* Gross Hyperbole Pulled from Backside
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
While if it cost 300m all told and they recoup 301m all told from the film that would be a profit, I really don't think they're in the business of spending 300m to make 301m. I mean, there were simply other things that could have been done with that money that would increase profits and prestige.
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Clearly the 550M number is from GHPFB* Labs.
* Gross Hyperbole Pulled from Backside
Heh... I think I work for them. Today has been brutal.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Clearly the 550M number is from GHPFB* Labs.
* Gross Hyperbole Pulled from Backside
On the contrary, it fits with the industry's profit model.
quote:Nowadays, in the new Hollywood, the world box office is a money loser: In 2004, the studios lost an estimated $2.22 billion on the $7.4 billion they took in from the box office. (Click here to see a table of this data.) This sad reality is not a result of the high cost of making movies, inefficiencies, or of any sort of studio accounting legerdemain. The simple fact is that the studios pay more to alert potential audiences via advertising and to get movie prints into theaters than they get back from those who buy tickets. Consider, for example, Warner Bros.' movie The Negotiator, with Samuel L. Jackson and Kevin Spacey. It was efficiently produced for $43.5 million, scored a world box office of $88 million, and appeared to be a modest success. In fact, Warner Bros. collected only $36.74 million from its theatrical release after it had paid check-conversion and other collection costs, the theaters had taken their cut, and the MPA had deducted its fee. Meanwhile, to corral that audience, Warner Bros.' advertising bill was $40.28 million, and its bill for prints, trailers, dubbing, customs, and shipping was another $12.32 million. So, after the movie finished its theater run, without even considering the cost of making the movie, Warner Bros. had lost $13 million. Why? For every dollar Warner Bros. got back from the box office, it shelled out about $1.40 in expenses, which was about average, if not slightly above par, for studio movies.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Clearly, unless this movie actually inspires people to move to mountains and follow the Way of the Water People, it is a failure.
Clearly, unless this movie goes down as the proper successor to Star Wars: A New Hope, the mighty game changer that transforms an industry and sets a new standard for filmmaking, it is a failure.
Obviously, unless this film manages to make mature adults everywhere ashamed that they are not cool enough to follow cartoons on Nicklodeon, it is an EPIC FAIL.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm sure it's fun to tear down illusory positions that nobody's really taking, but can we put the sardonic strawmanning somewhere else? Thanks.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
This movie will change everything and be in the top .01% box officewise! Anything less is failure. It's true.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Clearly, unless this movie actually inspires people to move to mountains and follow the Way of the Water People, it is a failure.
Clearly, unless this movie goes down as the proper successor to Star Wars: A New Hope, the mighty game changer that transforms an industry and sets a new standard for filmmaking, it is a failure.
Obviously, unless this film manages to make mature adults everywhere ashamed that they are not cool enough to follow cartoons on Nicklodeon, it is an EPIC FAIL.
So whose argument do you think you are talking about here?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: This movie will change everything and be in the top .01% box officewise! Anything less is failure. It's true.
Right. Like I said, this has nothing to do with anyone's argument in this thread. If it's pointless agitation you're gunning for, please take it elsewhere. TIA.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: if at all possible, opening night. otherwise at 5 the next day.
I still don't understand how rewarding a shitty movie by seeing it on opening day is the best way to show the world that it sucks.
The production company doesn't care whether it sucks. If it makes money, they're making a sequel.
I don't know whether I hope they don't or do. The fans mostly wrote off the live action avatar as a failure now, so it could just be a good mst3k.
I at least got to reverse my mistake but yeah.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I think it would be hilarious to get a sequel where M. Night barbarizes Toph (pronounced Toe-Fay, of course). Just to see how.
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Clearly the 550M number is from GHPFB* Labs.
* Gross Hyperbole Pulled from Backside
On the contrary, it fits with the industry's profit model.
Interesting article. I really didn't think most films receive ~equal advertising dollars to production dollars. But maybe more do than I realized.
And I've never considered TV licensing. I wonder how much dollar figures have changed over the last 5 years since that article though. Online viewing has skyrocketed in that time.
In any case, thanks for the link.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah, I can hardly make sense of where a given movie goes from red to black. Box office figures are almost completely deceptive now, because it's usually domestic and not worldwide, and it isn't accounting for how much the studio doesn't receive back from it. And that most studios totally expect to lose money at the box office anyway. So you hear that a movie cost 50 million to make and got 50 million at the box office and think 'ohhey, it broke even!' when in reality the studio is leagues away from breaking even.
I wish boxofficemojo had a studio intake from box office figure. Well, maybe they do, but I'm missing it. Someone did have that for James Cameron's avatar, when they noted the point that the film managed to profit at the box office despite costing an amazing amount.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
quote:I get not liking something that has mass appeal because you think it sucks (Brittany Spears) or your tastes are not aligned with mass appeal products, but to not like something just because many people like it sounds very high-schoolish.
Sixth Sense had mass appeal because it was a horror story with a twist ending, which garnered a large amount of buzz. But when it comes down to the bare-bones story, it was no stronger than his other films.
I liked his other films better, not because they were unpopular. Trust me, it's no fun to fall in love with a movie (Lady in the Water), then find out later that it's The Worst Movie Ever Made.
But, anyway, having finally had a chance to see the The Last Airbender, I can safely say it was even worse than I expected. And I went in with low expectations.
Worst Movie Ever Made?
Well, there's still Plan 9 from Outer Space, so no.
The dialogue was pretty horrendous. There were many scenes that were unnecessary and should have been cut in favor of some measure of pacing and character development.
If not for the bending, which I thought was pretty good, the choreography, and the last 20 minutes, the film would've been a complete wash.
I thought the actors they chose did well with what they were given. Some lines can't be delivered by anyone without sounding awkward or out-of-place.
The actors with more experience and skill made the best of it, but even they suffered from weird, unflattering camera angles, and too much, way too much over-stating the obvious.
I know there are people who take a certain amount of pleasure in seeing M. Night Shyamalan fail, but this just makes me sad.
This will probably kill off any potential for another Airbender movie, so that franchise is dead. I like the animated series, but I feel the story is stronger than the delivery--which, like the movie, can be awkward and jilted at times. So what I had hoped for, a cleaner, more powerful telling of the Avatar story, is not going to happen.
Time to find a place to sulk for awhile.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:This will probably kill off any potential for another Airbender movie, so that franchise is dead.
It will not be for lack of trying on m. night's part.
quote:'Last Airbender 2' Will Be 'Darker,' M. Night Shyamalan Says Sequel has not been green-lit, but writer/director already has two scripts in the works.
because there was any humor or happiness left to excise.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
TLA went down to 17m in the last box office tally, so it's at about 100m domestic + 10m international.
Who wants to take a bet whether or not we get a sequel? I am ambiguous, but a 'darker' sequel with toph might be twice as unintentionally hilarious!
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Yeah, I can hardly make sense of where a given movie goes from red to black. Box office figures are almost completely deceptive now, because it's usually domestic and not worldwide, and it isn't accounting for how much the studio doesn't receive back from it. And that most studios totally expect to lose money at the box office anyway. So you hear that a movie cost 50 million to make and got 50 million at the box office and think 'ohhey, it broke even!' when in reality the studio is leagues away from breaking even.
I wish boxofficemojo had a studio intake from box office figure. Well, maybe they do, but I'm missing it. Someone did have that for James Cameron's avatar, when they noted the point that the film managed to profit at the box office despite costing an amazing amount.
There was a Planet Money podcast from a few weeks back, titled "We can see Angelina's bottom line" that talked about Hollywood movie accounting. The bottom line was that one business entity might "lose" money by paying high "fees" to another corporation owned by the same stakeholders.
It was interesting.
Obviously some movies really do lose money. But a lot of the ones that purportedly don't break even are just using peculiar arrangements to obscure what's really happening. Some of the costs are really just putting money from the left hand into the right hand.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
It's looking more positive for a sequel at this point, but it still may not happen.
Aren't the creators of the animated series going to work with M. Night on the second film?
If this is the case, maybe, just maybe, they'll work to make a stronger movie than the first film. Better dialogue, a better script, a little humor, a little more time to flesh out the characters. I'm willing to give it a chance if they come out and say something along the lines of, "Hey, guys, we'll be addressing the problems of the first film."
This movie would've raked in a lot more cash if they had made a good movie. Word of mouth and staying power is a big deal.
Instead, they put a lot of work into marketing the film. The movie trailers were killer! But they neglected the actual film, which is how Hollywood works. Get us into the seats, then throw crap at us. It's bad business.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I only want a sequel if Shyamalan is removed from the project. This is only time I'm going to use the phrase "They should take a note from Twilight." The bigwigs got rid of Hartwicke as the director and I don't think she got nearly the number of director-focused negatives reviews that Shyamalan has earned.
I know he played a big role in getting the first movie greenlit, but I'd be shocked if the studio gave him another chance.
I don't think giving Bryan and Michael a bigger role would really help. They could write a great script but without a decent director on set and someone with a brain doing the editing, it doesn't matter. A funny script won't make a difference if the scenes are only used in the trailers and cut from the actual film.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by FoolishTook: It's looking more positive for a sequel at this point, but it still may not happen.
Aren't the creators of the animated series going to work with M. Night on the second film?
I highly doubt it. I believe the removal of M. Night as both director and script writer is a prerequisite.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Based on what?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
prerequisite for having a sequel, or prerequisite for having a good sequel? (And by extension, having the final movie).
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
"Not all of Shyamalan's changes in Last Airbender were wrong. For instance, as an Indian himself, he was entitled to correct the bad American pronunciations of character names in the original anime series with more correct ones."
This is from OSC's non-review. He makes some excellent points about film adaptations. However, the above statement is just ridiculous. I'm not sure if I'm more upset about the use of the word "anime" to describe an American produced animated show or OSC's belief that being Indian means that Shyamalan is "entitled" to change the pronunciations of names in an imaginary world that are based loosely on Chinese and Japanese names. Or occasionally incorrectly change names and phrases that were pronounced properly in the show (agni KI?!?0. Or not paying attention when the wardrobe department has the Korean-inspired Earth Kingdom costumes tied on the wrong side.
I guess I'm alittle wound up because I'm rewatching Book One and during the two part finale there is an ill-informed character who pronounces Sokka as "Soh-ka" and Zhao as "Choi." For a guy who claimed to have rewatched the series over and over again, he sure did miss alot.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I actually have no problem with the name pronunciation change. It's a little silly that he did that WITHOUT actually having the rest of the accent change, just those few random words. But the people complaining about the whitewashing in one breath while in the next complaining about that one point where Shyamalan reversed an instance of whitewashing in the original series seem silly to me. (While giving characters in an American cartoon American accents is understandable, it's a pretty clear cut moment in which the creators decided to "adapt" their world in advance to a western audience).
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
"Aang" and "Avatar" are really the only two pronunciation changes the argument really works for. As a result, those were the least noticeable of the changes for me. The pronunciation of "Iroh" was changed to fit the casting of a Persian actor and yet the rest of the Fire Nation characters retain that Japanese inspired names. And "Sokka" which as far as I've seen (having perused some pretty research-crazed fansites) doesn't really have any ties to Inuit language and culture. Its one of the more original names so I'm not sure what Shyamalan was attempting to correct there.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Based on what?
Based on what I know of DiMartino and Konietzko's response to the movie.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
citation needed?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: I'm not sure if I'm more upset about the use of the word "anime" to describe an American produced animated show or OSC's belief that being Indian means that Shyamalan is "entitled" to change the pronunciations of names in an imaginary world that are based loosely on Chinese and Japanese names.
I think OSC just thinks that the show is actually an anime, as opposed to a show designed and written by westerners.
quote:citation needed?
-Samprimary, 2010
[ July 12, 2010, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think OSC just thinks that the show is actually an anime, as opposed to a show designed and written by westerners.
It is an anime made by Americans.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I think OSC just thinks that the show is actually an anime, as opposed to a show designed and written by westerners.
It is an anime made by Americans.
What's your definition of anime? I know that the show's production studio and the creators maintain that it's not anime, but some people have very different definitions of the term.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Heh. It's not like I have a definition or set of criteria for you.
But if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
This man speaks the truth. I'm not sure what else you could call it other than an anime made by Americans.
I mean the first time I was sitting down and somebody turned it on after 5 minutes my brain essentially said, "Anime done by Americans looks like this."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The idea that a distinguishing feature of anime might be its non-Americanness honestly never occurred to me.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
What I'd honestly like to know is why so many of you went to see this movie when.
a) You predicted it would suck. b) The critics all said it sucked and
c) it sucked.
edited to remove possibly snarky comment. I am honestly interested in why people go to see a movie they expect to be bad.
[ July 13, 2010, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Anime is really all cartoons when you start to think about it, but mostly it has come to mean specifically Japanese cartoons. The show does pay homage to the awesome of Miyazaki.
I'm not going to see the movie. I'm watching the cartoon anime series instead and enjoying it deeply even though I've seen all of the seasons out of order but 3.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
As hilarious as that is (I say in all seriousness), um, seriously, where did you hear that? If it's some secret thing you aren't supposed to mention for creepy reasons... well, you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
As hilarious as that is (I say in all seriousness), um, seriously, where did you hear that? If it's some secret thing you aren't supposed to mention for creepy reasons... well, you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place.
I work at a place which has involvement with the Avatar franchise and gets visited by them. According to pretty much everyone who has been witness to their (guarded) opinion on the movie gets the distinct impression that they would be unwilling to work 'through' the current creative team in charge of the movie.
Not their call, though. Viacom owns everything about Avatar and can produce anything avatar related they want with or without the creative involvement of the creators.
quote:I'm not sure what else you could call it other than an anime made by Americans.
The creators call it 'anime inspired,' but not an anime. Or whatever. See atla's wikipedia. Many people's definition of anime has settled to 'them asian-lookin cartoons' as opposed to japanese animation which results in some hilarity between them and the sperglord anime purists. I dunno. There's a dude here who works directly for the show still. I'll ask if he's allowed to call the show anime. I was just told specifically not to.
quote: I am honestly interested in why people go to see a movie they expect to be bad.
I already said why. My bet and promise that I would eat the hat if the movie didn't suck involved watching the movie with my friends. : )
Other people just have to know because they care about the franchise a lot. Others don't trust critics and just want to 'see it for themselves.' Or are just stupid and can't avoid a surefire miss cuz it has pretty ads.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: This man speaks the truth. I'm not sure what else you could call it other than an anime made by Americans.
I mean the first time I was sitting down and somebody turned it on after 5 minutes my brain essentially said, "Anime done by Americans looks like this."
I made a lengthy post on the Other Side regarding this before seeing this and related posts here, should probly take that discussion to their and consequently make it a little more lively.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote: I am honestly interested in why people go to see a movie they expect to be bad.
I already said why. My bet and promise that I would eat the hat if the movie didn't suck involved watching the movie with my friends. : )
Which then begs the question of why anyone would voluntarily agree to such a loosing proposition in the first place. If your right, you have to sit through a really bad movie. If your wrong, you have to eat a hat. You loose both ways. Why? Why?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ha. I didn't lose at all! Liveblogging the movie was massively entertaining, and people are still talking about my bet, its aftermath, what the losers had to do, what I won, and thought the whole event was hilarious and vindicating. This has all been a lot of fun.
Not to mention how fun it was to rib each other over the bet for over a year.
alternate answer: my clothes were too tight anyway
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... I am honestly interested in why people go to see a movie they expect to be bad.
For the record, I didn't. I also pirated Dragonball Z for great justice.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
quote:I only want a sequel if Shyamalan is removed from the project.
I have to say it. I'll be disappointed if Shyamalan is removed from the project. But he needs to be willing to take criticism and hear another perspective. If this isn't possible for M. Night, then I get it. He should be removed.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm reminded of the writers for Heroes, who CONTINUOUSLY seemed to understand what they had done wrong in the previous scene, wrote long posts about why it was wrong... and then continued to make different (and sometimes even the same) mistakes in the next season.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
heroes was more ambiguous to me because it represented a sort of profound failure cascade where good writers sheathed off the project, bad writers struggled with adapting tropes to a new medium, wrote themselves into corners, and had to make everyone act retarded in order to not be able to easily fix whatever situation they were in. Oh, how I wish they could have turned that around, or at least not totally failed and left us with only one decent season.
With The Last Airbender it was pretty straightforward. Literally all I had to hear was that M. Night Shyamalan was directing it, and I took the bet. It's him. You could have had Michael Bay direct the movie and it would have been better. :3
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Ha. I didn't lose at all! Liveblogging the movie was massively entertaining, and people are still talking about my bet, its aftermath, what the losers had to do, what I won, and thought the whole event was hilarious and vindicating. This has all been a lot of fun.
So what did the loosers have to do?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
between them all, pay for any movie I wanna go to for a calendar year. Among other things I won't mention. : )
But this still would have been worth it for the story alone even if I hadn't put anything up for others to lose to me.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:Originally posted by FoolishTook:
quote:I only want a sequel if Shyamalan is removed from the project.
I have to say it. I'll be disappointed if Shyamalan is removed from the project. But he needs to be willing to take criticism and hear another perspective. If this isn't possible for M. Night, then I get it. He should be removed.
I wish he could learn from his mistakes. I really believed that "The Last Airbender" could have been a turning point from him. I thought his choice to do an adaptation showed his desire to try something new and challenge himself.
However, his response to all the negative reviews has been to say "the sequel will be darker." He is obviously ignoring the criticism because I have not seen one review that said the movie was too funny and light-hearted. Now, if he owned up to the failures of the first movie and made plans to bring in a scriptwriter, make the sequel longer, and perhaps hire a consult who knows how to make action/fight films, then I'd be willing to give him a second chance. But hell would freeze over before Shyamalan shows that level of understanding and humility.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I'm reminded of the writers for Heroes, who CONTINUOUSLY seemed to understand what they had done wrong in the previous scene, wrote long posts about why it was wrong... and then continued to make different (and sometimes even the same) mistakes in the next season.
Quite frankly, even when Kring et. al. were making a show of tearing at their garments about the mistakes they had made in Heroes in the past, I felt they weren't getting it. Comments like "romance isn't really a good fit for the show" seemed somewhat akin to "Ah! This beam had wood rot! That does it. Let's build the rest of the building out of polystyrene!" By the end it didn't matter to me whether the script was pursuing romance, action, suspense, super-hero antics, special-effects sequences, or what-have-you; virtually all character actions had become plot contrivances, rather than expressions of character.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: With The Last Airbender it was pretty straightforward. Literally all I had to hear was that M. Night Shyamalan was directing it, and I took the bet. It's him. You could have had Michael Bay direct the movie and it would have been better. :3
And yet, one has to wonder why. (Why he failed, that is, not why you thought he would.) While it's true that his last few projects showed signs of a fundamental and distracting arrogance, this project was a high-budget would-be blockbuster based on a much-beloved property; it certainly seems like there ought to have been someone attached to the project with the clout and the guts to say, "You know, this really isn't going the way it should, you need to start going a different direction." Again I'm reminded of the chef's special that combines odd ingredients but which the patron decides to give a try because it sounds intriguing and, hey, the chef must know what he's doing, right? But in this case there were very real reasons to doubt the chef knew what he was doing in the first place.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:And yet, one has to wonder why. (Why he failed, that is, not why you thought he would.)
But he failed essentially for exactly the reasons I thought he would!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Because its fanfiction, the director decided that he wanted to make his interpretation the one shown on screen which means removing or adjusting things he didn't like, in theory I havet seen it yet, trying to get my mother to drive me so I can get some chinese lunch at a buffet as well.
Something tells me it would be a huge success had he gotten like 12 avatar fans in a room had them right an outline of the script and then flesh that out.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
Me and my friends happened to be the ONLY PEOPLE in the theater when we were watching this, so we just spent the whole time cracking up and making snarky remarks about it. So it wasn't bad. Also, Dev Patel is pretty hot when he's evil.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I have to say it. I'll be disappointed if Shyamalan is removed from the project. But he needs to be willing to take criticism and hear another perspective. If this isn't possible for M. Night, then I get it. He should be removed.
Wow, you think the film was that good, FoolishTook? I can see someone thinking it was...well, enjoyable I suppose, but being disappointed if he were taken off it implies it's not likely someone else could do better, or am I misreading you?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Wow, you think the film was that good, FoolishTook? I can see someone thinking it was...well, enjoyable I suppose, but being disappointed if he were taken off it implies it's not likely someone else could do better, or am I misreading you?
No, I did not like the film. But I'm conflicted as well. I can't pinpoint it, but there were parts that stuck with me.
If anything, M. Night is willing to try things that haven't been tried before. He did not take a safe route with The Last Airbender. The safe route would have been to fill the film with movie-house-approved action sequences and minimal dialogue, to take all the burden of emotional depth off the child actors who were playing the leads.
He didn't do that, and it ultimately failed. But I appreciate the effort. I don't appreciate the bad dialogue, the needless exposition, and the lack of pacing. But that can be fixed with a new scriptwriter (M. Night should fire himself), a new editor, a longer cut of the film, some acting lessons for the kids, and cleaner fight sequences.
What I fear the most is that another director may take over only to churn out a generic, martial arts, action-heavy flick just to get it out of the way.
Edited to add: ROFLMAO at those links. The cabbage guy!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
CABBAGEBENDING
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I disliked the movie but didn't hate it like my friend. I suspect that's because my friend enjoyed the anime series while I knew nothing about it. I would rate the movie a 25% because while the execution was horrible, the underlying storyline isn't broken and the visuals were nice. I think that an 8% is too harsh because there are plenty of movies out there which are fundamentally unsalvageable because of their plot and this movie is at least above that category. That said, man, it's been awhile since I've seen a movie with such an awful script. If the script were fixed and the movie devoted more time to character development and explaining what the hell is going on then it could have been decent. As it was, I had a difficult time following the character's names and the story seemed to jump from one point to another without any transitions. I don't fault the actors too much because I don't expect child actors to be able to put on a decent performance with such an atrocious script.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: You could have had Michael Bay direct the movie and it would have been better.
Yeah. I mean, the fire scenes would have been awesomely explosive!!!
I thought I would have to go to see this movie with my son. But to hear my son say "everybody says the movie sucks" was quite gratifying.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Today I finished the original series and it was SO GOOD. So funny, so powerful, so just awesome. It was great! I wish it could have lasted longer. It was a great series.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
You got your wish, google "Avatar: Legend of Kora" Paramount just copywrited the name, so we might be getting a new series soon.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
it's 'korra' and it is happening. they are staffing up on it here and at nickelodeon's animation studios.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)