Count Dookkake
Member
It wouldn't be fair to try to compare Avatar against characters from a bunch of different movies. Just pick one that you think does a good job.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Rottenwatch: AVATAR (82%)
- Thread starter SCULLIBUNDO
- Start date
- Status
ryutaro's mama
Member
This page is gonna be good.
I think the characters in Avatar are on par with Cameron's past films. It's one of his most serious movies - a lot less comedy relief than his previous films and most movies on that list. I think Indiana Jones sets the bar for lead characters in adventure films, but the goal of that character is different from anything in Avatar.border said:
But to run with Lord of the Rings (to be fair, I thought Jackson butchered most of the characters), I think Quaritch was a much more interesting and compelling villain than Saruman, by a wide margin. And Neytiri a much stronger, more fleshed out female warrior romantic lead than Arwyn's one-note glassy slo-mo longing into the camera ever was, across three movies. And Worthington's performance was not as scowly or dirty as Aragorn, but he exuded an easy charm and underlying grittiness that I think (while different) is no less commendable.
I suppose it's kind of appropriate that the LotR movies are ones I enjoyed largely for the visuals, and found the characters very hit or miss. :lol
If you're demanding that one be picked, then it'd have to be Indiana Jones then. He's funny, resourceful, and heroic while maintaining the sense that he's a vulnerable everyman. His one-liners never flop -- "Why'd it have to be snakes?" and "No ticket" will live on forever 
He has a set of values but isn't too self-righteous about it.
By contrast Jake is just more bland, more preachy and very nearly becomes a god of sorts. Less relatable, less likable, more serious and more bound to his morals.
He has a set of values but isn't too self-righteous about it.By contrast Jake is just more bland, more preachy and very nearly becomes a god of sorts. Less relatable, less likable, more serious and more bound to his morals.
Jake's preachyness was definitely over the top and unnecessary. The whole scene in front of that tree was not necessary at all. Again, it jarred me out of the experience when that stuff came about. He's definitely not a likable character at that point in the film, almost from then on out actually. I think he had more charm as a cripple 
ryutaro's mama
Member
border said:If you're demanding that one be picked, then it'd have to be Indiana Jones then. He's funny, resourceful, and heroic while maintaining the sense that he's a vulnerable everyman. His one-liners never flop -- "Why'd it have to be snakes?" and "No ticket" will live on forever
Sounds a lot like Han Solo...
I don't think Neytiri or Jake is anywhere near Ripley.....as much as I liked some of Neytiri's snarling, I don't think it has half the effect of Get Away From Her You Bitch. And Paul Reiser is a much better as the sniveling Company Man.
I'd argue that the standout performances in LOTR do not really have analogs in AVATAR, which is another reason it's not a good comparison. Arwen and Aragorn have long segments, but the best part of the films are the Hobbits and Gandalf. Some of the periphery characters are really fantastic too though -- Boromir, Faramir, and that insane king played by the dude from Fringe.
I think LOTOR is worth mentioning if only because you feel much more drawn in to Hobbit society in just those first 30-45 minutes than you do throughout all of Avatar. The Na'vi are never more than stoic tribal types -- there's nothing folksy or lovable about them.
I'd argue that the standout performances in LOTR do not really have analogs in AVATAR, which is another reason it's not a good comparison. Arwen and Aragorn have long segments, but the best part of the films are the Hobbits and Gandalf. Some of the periphery characters are really fantastic too though -- Boromir, Faramir, and that insane king played by the dude from Fringe.
I think LOTOR is worth mentioning if only because you feel much more drawn in to Hobbit society in just those first 30-45 minutes than you do throughout all of Avatar. The Na'vi are never more than stoic tribal types -- there's nothing folksy or lovable about them.
Count Dookkake
Member
Indiana Jones is a fine comic hero. Unfortunately, much of his antics (particularly the over-the-top stunts and one-liners) all too often remind the audience they are watching a character in a movie and not a real person. Also, he serves no great purpose in the plot. The Nazis would have been melted by God without his involvement.
Next.
Next.
Completely disagree with you equating cinematography to visual effects but I accept your criticism of calling it a checkbox item. Obviously when it isn't done well it can certainly affect the quality of a movie. My point is my main requirement for a effects laden movie is that the effects be believable, so believable that I don't view it as an effect and concentrate on what I really care about: the story, the writing, and the characters.GhaleonEB said:
As what has already been noted in this thread you don't have to sacrifice story and characters because of effects and action. Cameron did an amazing job of this in movies like Aliens and the original Terminator. The reality though is that Cameron just isn't a very good writer. Like that posted review noted would any competent writer include a line "Shock and Awe" especially after being beating your audience over the head with a sledgehammer about how this is supposed to be an indictment of rightwing conservative beliefs.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
border said:
Bad comparison to make. The Na'vi are supposed to be the direct opposite of hobbits. We're first introduced to them as being dangerous and lethal. Of course they're not going to be coming across as folksy or lovable. They're characterised as strong-minded, where as the inhabitants of Hobbiton are primarily a weak bunch.
For the record, I definitely like the characters in LotR more than AVATAR. But then FotR is my favourite film of that decade.
ryutaro's mama
Member
Combine said:Jake's preachyness was definitely over the top and unnecessary. The whole scene in front of that tree was not necessary at all. Again, it jarred me out of the experience when that stuff came about. He's definitely not a likable character at that point in the film, almost from then on out actually. I think he had more charm as a cripple
Naw, it was necessary...it showed his full transition to being on the side of the Na'vi. Remember, when he first got to Pandora, he was looking to help the military contractors to usurp the Na'vi in exchange for his legs. He thought that was was his cause/reason for for being there.
Over time, he finds another cause worth fighting for.
Count Dookkake
Member
ralexand said:
Are you trying to tell me that you can't read? :lol
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
come on, the tree scene was horrible and totally unnecessary. plus, it came after he had already taken sides with the na'vi.ryutaro's mama said:
i didn't see it on my first viewing cos i had to run to the bathroom, but the second time i was rolling my eyes at how corny it is. it's preachy and has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. i can overlook it cos of how enjoyable the rest is, but i wish it'd been taken out.
Count Dookkake said:
Well, I thought we were going to compare and contrast the merits of the specific characters. If you are just going to look for the most cynical way to dismiss whatever I name, then there's no point. I would however argue that if "reminding the audience that they are watching a movie" is a bad thing, then taking up the defense of a 80% CG film full of aliens is not congruent. People like heroes and archetypes, but they just like some archetypes better than others. You don't need a hero that's completely realistic, just one that's likable and relatable but still admirable.
ryutaro's mama
Member
ralexand said:
How subtle should/could he have been? He was still an outsider trying to convince the Na'vi to trust him and at the point you are talking about, time was running out.
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
we're talking about the 'talking to the tree' scene right? not the one where he rallies the na'vi around him with the big speech? i'm referring to the one where he hooks up his hair-thing to the tree and talks to it. horrid. :lolryutaro's mama said:
We're going to have to agree to disagree. I think there are a handful of bad lines in the movie, including the one you mention. But I think Cameron is an under-rated writer (which encompasses more than dialogue), and despite some clunky dialog (which exists in most of his movies) I think Avatar is strongly written. I also don't think he sacrificed story or characters for effects and action.ralexand said:
However, Cameron has said he decided on a simple, recognizable plot arc specifically because he wanted viewers to be able to grasp and follow the story easily given what he wanted to throw at them visually. I think that was a pretty savvy creative decision, but I can how that would be what you described.
While I generally agree with your broad point, the bolded is an odd statement to make about a film that is being hailed as incredibly immersive; it's so successful in part because it's created such a believable world presents it in such a compelling way.border said:
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
border said:If you're demanding that one be picked, then it'd have to be Indiana Jones then. He's funny, resourceful, and heroic while maintaining the sense that he's a vulnerable everyman. His one-liners never flop -- "Why'd it have to be snakes?" and "No ticket" will live on forever
By contrast Jake is just more bland, more preachy and very nearly becomes a god of sorts. Less relatable, less likable, more serious and more bound to his morals.
i really like jake, he definitely adheres to the standard hero archtype but ive never had a problem liking or relating to people like that. maybe because im a really egotistical dude who feels like he always does the right thing. to be honest, i dont think id do justice trying to describe the character the way i really see him but ill try:
-lost, kind of trying to find his place
-suffering but mature about it
-brash
-always trying to prove himself
-a jarhead but he knows it
-curious
-adaptable
-respectful
-humble
-adventurous
i think that kind of works. simple overall yeah, but i can like simple things. that's what ive been saying for a while though and i guess ill restate it. i acknowledge that avatar has a simple, straightforward and as i like to call it, "pure", story. but just because of how it's put together and for subtle inexplicable reasons i really really liked it.
an analogy i used before was that id choose to eat the worlds best hamburger over a damn good gourmet meal.
Scullibundo said:
I'm not saying they need to be a line of cutesy plush toys, or that they should have been as lovable as the Hobbits. But damn, give me a reason to like these people. What do they do all day besides hunt, ride pterodactyls, and have weird rituals? You always feel like an outsider, even as Jake is taken more into their society.
In a sense the Na'vi have the same problems that Jake does -- kinda flat/one-note, deadly serious, and rarely treated as fallible or human.
I thought Jake was a perfectly likable and solid lead. Worthington is just innately likeable and has charisma to boot imo, I know some will disagree, but I think Cameron picked the right guy.
He brings a lot of charm to the role, the naive and almost child-like sense of personality that Jake has when he becomes a Na'vi is what makes his relationship with Neytiri, as she nurtures him, engaging.
Hes definitely no Han Solo, but Id argue he is a more likeable and engaging character to follow than Luke was in a New Hope. Much less any of the characters in Pirates of the fucking Carribean.
He brings a lot of charm to the role, the naive and almost child-like sense of personality that Jake has when he becomes a Na'vi is what makes his relationship with Neytiri, as she nurtures him, engaging.
Hes definitely no Han Solo, but Id argue he is a more likeable and engaging character to follow than Luke was in a New Hope. Much less any of the characters in Pirates of the fucking Carribean.
ryutaro's mama
Member
julls said:
OK, I thought you were referring to the scene where he is speaking before
the destruction of the Hometree
Yeah, the one you're talking about is a little preachy but remember, this scene is important because it shows that Jake himself now believes. The same mumbo jumbo that he laughed at in the beginning of his journey was now very real to him and it signifies he is now 100% Na'vi. The humans aren't his people any longer.
Count Dookkake
Member
border said:
Any character can be dismissed as poor for any number of criteria. The question is whether or not the criteria actually matter in the particular genre (or sub-genre) and in the particular work.
The charges against Sully seem to miss the amount we actually do learn about the character through performance, dialogue, action, etc. I would argue that we know as much about Sully as we do any action hero in his first film. The main reason that this stuff is overlooked is the incredible realization of Pandora. Sully is not under-written. He is written to par, but it is tough to share the screen with Pandora, even if you are suddenly 10 feet tall.
I dunno. It's late and my thoughts are jumbled.
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
i get why it's there, but it just feels like it's directed at the audience. "see? see what you're doing to earth? stop it!" (and its the lead in to the disney-scored explosion of rhinoceroses later on.ryutaro's mama said:
)i think the 'speech' scene is enough to show he's switched over.
Yeah I liked Worthington too. There is something really likeable about the guy. He executed the material he was given. I can't fault him at all nor the female lead. Only character that really bugged me was Rodriguez but that might have more to do with her as a person. She's definitely not as awesome of the badass woman in Aliens.Dead said:
ryutaro's mama
Member
julls said:i get why it's there, but it just feels like it's directed at the audience. "see? see what you're doing to earth? stop it!" (and its the lead in to the disney-scored explosion of rhinoceroses later on.
i think the 'speech' scene is enough to show he's switched over.
Yeah, Cameron has a history of being a little preachy at times ( see Sarah's Connor's tirade to Miles Dyson in T2 ) but it doesn't bother me too much.
Count Dookkake said:
That's what I'm getting at though, isn't it? There are similar films that have had far better leads......it's not about comparing Avatar to Citizen Kane.
Knowledge of the character is not so much important as him being kinda fun, likable, powerful but not incapable of error. Sully just seems too rigid, too serious, too powerful. It's hardly a competition to pit Jake against a character as human and well-realized as Indiana Jones, but it was demanded that it be done. You can make a case that he's a serviceable or above-average character (if Shia LeBeouf is really the baseline for today's average), but in twenty years I doubt that people will remember Worthington's performance as fondly as they do Ford's.
Titanic ran for 10 months. Avatar has only ran for 2 months so far. Overall Titanic has sold more.Blablurn said:
However I think I read earlier that Avatar has sold equal to or more tickets than Titanic in the same time period (Dec - end of Jan) though I can no longer find the link to where I read that.
Box Office Mojo can estimate the number of tickets sold, but they only do it by dividing the box office earnings by the average ticket price for the year the film that was released. That makes it biased in favor of films that ran for multiple years (Gone with the Wind, The Rocky Horror Picture Show) and biased in favor of films like AVATAR that are probably selling tickets way above the average ticket price of the year the were released. Also, it only covers USA ticket sales and not international markets.
That said:
Titanic - 128,345,900 tickets
Avatar - 79,687,900 tickets
That said:
Titanic - 128,345,900 tickets
Avatar - 79,687,900 tickets
I'd argue that using the benchmark for a memorable adventure movie lead is just as disingenuous as using the "what did you expect, Citizen Kane?" line of argument you've been combating.border said:
And Sully is very far from rigid, serious or too powerful. One of the running jokes in the movie are Jake's repeated "look how awesome I amOHSHIT" moments (of which there are a half-dozen or so), which alone help make him neither too serious nor powerful. He's quite likable, has a subtle wit and spends half the movie making mistakes. You really have to ignore almost every scene he's in to arrive at the description of Jake you've settled on.
I actually had written that it's problematic how Jake goes from clutz to unstoppable death god in under 3 months of training, but deleted it just because I thought it was a can of worms not worth opening. By contrast Indiana Jones is never really elevated beyond what he starts out as, a likable everyman who knows his capabilities and occasionally bites off way more than he can chew (with amusing results).
I'd agree that weighing Jake against Indiana Jones is somewhat disingenuous since it's an unwinnable fight, but if you follow the conversation I was essentially forced into picking one character for comparison. Naturally I picked the most formidable opponent one, but I am more than happy to discuss other alternatives.
Luke Skywalker vs. Jake might be a more apt comparison since they are both kinda blank and boring to start with. Still I kinda like Luke better just because there's a pathos and struggle to the character that you don't really get with Jake. That moment in ROTJ when Luke cuts off Vader's hand, then stares at his own robo-hand and realizes what he's done....still gets me more than anything Sully does. Star Wars and LOTR are both interesting in that they present the possibility that in doing something you believe to be right you might succumb to a far more sinister influence. That grey area is interesting, whereas Avatar seems much more black and white. It's not hard for Jake to fight the opposing army because they're such incredible douchebags, and there's no danger that his own hatred and desire for power might overcome him. But hey, ROTJ was a second sequel and maybe we'll see more out of Jake in subsequent Avatar films.
I'd agree that weighing Jake against Indiana Jones is somewhat disingenuous since it's an unwinnable fight, but if you follow the conversation I was essentially forced into picking one character for comparison. Naturally I picked the most formidable opponent one, but I am more than happy to discuss other alternatives.
Luke Skywalker vs. Jake might be a more apt comparison since they are both kinda blank and boring to start with. Still I kinda like Luke better just because there's a pathos and struggle to the character that you don't really get with Jake. That moment in ROTJ when Luke cuts off Vader's hand, then stares at his own robo-hand and realizes what he's done....still gets me more than anything Sully does. Star Wars and LOTR are both interesting in that they present the possibility that in doing something you believe to be right you might succumb to a far more sinister influence. That grey area is interesting, whereas Avatar seems much more black and white. It's not hard for Jake to fight the opposing army because they're such incredible douchebags, and there's no danger that his own hatred and desire for power might overcome him. But hey, ROTJ was a second sequel and maybe we'll see more out of Jake in subsequent Avatar films.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
border said:
Yeah I don't think you can call Jake a clutz based on him trying otherwordly things for the first time. He's definitely not a clutz by any human measure.
ANH was pretty black and white, and yeah, comparing the character in a first film to a character at the end of a trilogy is beyond ridiculous.border said:
Regardless, you don't always have to turn something that is Black and White into Grey. LOTR was just fine as it is and it is for the most part completely black and white. Matrix on the other hand, went from B&W into a more Grey area, and that didn't exactly go over very well.
ryutaro's mama
Member
Scullibundo said:
But he is like a baby.
The film also establishes in the very first scene that Jake enters his avatar that he's unusually adept at using it, breaking into a full sprint and demonstrating a high level of coordination despite no training. In contrast the guy with the hundreds of hours of simulated link time was staggering about like a drunken monkey during his first link. So while cocky and imperfect, it's established early on that he's got a lot of potential in his avatar, more so than his peers, making the end point of his journey more plausible from the get-go.Scullibundo said:
Everything is relative.ryutaro's mama said:
You can categorize his status at the beginning however you like, but he goes from being a Na'vi noob at first to being greater than their greatest warriors in a pretty short span. By contrast, Indiana Jones is never really elevated that far beyond what we initially see him to be capable of. Luke Skywalker becomes a Jedi, but not the greatest of them all. The only reason he survives the trilogy is because of his own father's mercy and redemption -- otherwise he just would've gotten zapped to death by the Emperor's lightning bolts. Jake's only vulnerability is the link to his human body, and without that to worry about he probably would have made short work of robo-Quarritch.Scullibundo said:
GhaleonEB said:
Ignoring the plausibility issue, I think it's just more about where they end up. Jake achieves perfection, and does what no one else could ever hope. Corollary characters from the other franchises discussed maintain their vulnerability throughout the story and do not achieve the same heights.
The only extraordinary thing that Jake did was tame the Leonopteryx. What is wrong with the hero of the story doing something extraordinary? Other Navi have tamed it before as well, so it is not something that could never ever be done by anyone else.border said:
He doesnt win the final fight singlehandedly, in fact he was losing it. He doesnt fight better than the others, he only fights with different weapons. And if it werent for the Planet deciding to help, he would have been screwed.
border said:
At no point is Jake (in avatar form) ever made out to be a more capable warrior than the average Na'vi. He's not faster, not stronger, not, well anything more than the other Na'vi warriors. He's is fast learner, and demonstrates some leadership and balls by hopping on the big bird. But otherwise, he simply adapts to being a Na'vi - nothing more. There's not a scene in the movie where he's shown to be "greater than their greatest warriors", ever.border said:
As for the fast learning, not only is that telegraphed from the first scene in which he hops in his avatar, but it's part of the story that he's sort of meant to be one of them, from the opening line about dreams of flying, to the seeds from the sacred tree protecting him. It's part of the story, not some happenstance. So a more apt comparison would be to another story where a character rises through the ranks of leadership, not any random adventure movie.
ryutaro's mama
Member
border said:
Jake, by not being a natural Na'vi, thinks about things differently than the they do. Case in point, he goes after taming the giant banshee, a feat no natural Na'vi would try.
When you break things down, Jake was not that much of a badass by comparison outside of that.
He just had the ability to lead.
How is it a lucky coincidence?border said:
They had to move it there. They landed it there. The battle took place there. All because the Tree of Souls was there. You might as well say the Tree of Souls being there during the battle was a lucky coincidence as well.
If it was just there for no reason, then yeah itd be a lucky coincidence. But no, it was there for a reason
- Status