posted
I think, Samprimary, that if the movie sweeps the Razzies the people you had the bet with should have to eat the hat.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is pretty crass in places and not for the faint of heart.
After reading paragraph four, I'd call that an understatement. Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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 ~~
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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)
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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
Sam, I'm curious: why do you hate the existence of this film so much?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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)
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.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, why are you so determined to like this movie? Have you seen it yet? It's a bit puzzling, to be honest.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
*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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1295 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1295 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
