Comments on: Avatar: A Decent Cartoon with Good PR

By: Lair Links for 2010.03.05 | The Secret Lair

Lair Links for 2010.03.05 | The Secret Lair — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:47:30 +0000

[...] “[O]nce [your] movie is over two hours long, you really shouldn’t be allowed to use slow mo at all. That should be a law.” — SFF author A. Lee Martinez (A Company of Ogres, The Automatic Detective) reviewing Avatar. [...]

By: Mollyscribbles

Mollyscribbles — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 03:08:11 +0000

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs was awesome on multiple levels — not just Mr. T, it had NPH and Bruce Campbell and was directed by the same guys behind the awesome-yet-short-lived Clone High. And the reverse makeover — the dream of every girl in glasses who’s been pissed off by Hollywood’s standard concept of a makeover.

Avatar is . . . a crossover between Fern Gully, Pocahantas, and the Smurfs. *reads other comments* Yeah, that’s the general sentiment. I enjoyed it in the same way I enjoyed Titanic — that is to say, I zoned out on the main plot and went “Oooh, pretty!” at the scenery and squeed over some secondary characters.

And, uh, when I read the subject line, I thought you were talking about the other Avatar (which is an actual cartoon). Which also has a movie coming out, which I will not mention because it would lead to me ranting extensively about casting decisions.

By: Adam Roberts

Adam Roberts — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 22:18:37 +0000

I have yet to see this. I just find it REALLY hard to stomach many movies that run considerably over two hours – especially science fiction. Don’t get me wrong, I love science fiction – books. Movies and television, not so much!

By: Jamie Gibbs

Jamie Gibbs — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:39:24 +0000

I agree completely. Avatar has been slated as being a rip off of Pocahontas/ Fern Gully/ The Smurfs by many who watched it, and you’re right – it doesn’t matter. The fact that it’s so similar to those other stories only proves that it’s a tried and tested formula. The problem with Avatar is that it’s too damn long and draws out what could have been a much more exciting, but much shorter, feature.

I still recommend Avatar to people, but only in the cinema, and only in 3D. Once this thing hits DVD people aren’t going to be bothered with it. Cameron may have done better if he had split the thing into 2 movies, and made each one more of a spectacle so the audience would be gratified by seeing 90 minutes of space battles and hyper-tech confrontation.

By: Nicole Peeler

Nicole Peeler — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:31:46 +0000

I was slightly obsessed with this film and its cultural significance (really, that’s how I think, don’t you want to slap me?), and I blogged about it twice.

I think your comments regarding its not-quite-cartoon nature are astute, and point to a general, cultural-wide degradation of the cartoon in the USA. Most of US society has decided cartoons are for children or geeks, and that’s the end of it. When I wrote TR I had it “filmed” as a cartoon in my brain, and was therefore thrilled when I saw the cover. All the people who HATE the cover (it’s like marmite), at some point say it’s cartoony, which for them means childish, inappropriate for adults, etc.

I think this is very sad and very silly, but I think it’s also very interesting in light of Avatar’s popularity and what you’re saying about its cartoon links. Maybe it’s the thin edge of the wedge, bringing cartoon-love to America?

Anyway, here are my takes on Avatar. The first is (relatively) serious:

http://www.nicolepeeler.com/2009/12/on-avatar/

And this is the naughty review (Smurf sex! Smurf sex!)

http://reluctantadults.blogspot.com/2009/12/nicoles-naughty-review-of-avatar.html