Reviews Film / Avatar

Interesting criticism with one massive flaw: Convergent Evolution. Some designs just work really well. Bats, Birds and Pterosaurs all tackle the flight problem with the same basic solution with different tweaks given their evolutionary history. It holds true for film as well. An animal that in the script that fills the role of the horse is going to—shocker—look sorta like a horse most of the time. The only real variant there is to play with the number of limbs (2-6-8-etc)—but fast riding animals tend towards specific body types just because of the dynamic involved.

Still—your criticism holds more water than most.

I don't have too much knowledge in the field, but... Convergent evolution still allows for wildly different base designs, right? For example, octopi and fish look different, fill different niches and behave in different ways from each other, but both have evolved to survive in the same environment. An alien creature that fills the ecological niche of a horse will probably be quite horse-like, but an alien animal that has evolved from scratch to survive in the same environment as a horse doesn't have to.

As for the film version of the phenomenon, that can be bypassed as well. An alien creature that fills the plot-related purpose of a horse will be quite horse-like, but the plot may not need horses. Instead, the writer could design an entirely new creature based on a completely different mode of transportation. Sand worms dragging covered palanquins, for example. That type of innovation would not only remove the 'recycled in space' factor, but also allow for new and original scenes; As horses have been used a lot in fiction, most of the exciting things that can (more or less plausibly) happen in relation to a horse have been covered in some work. If a writer uses sand worm palanquins, there is a whole new spectrum of action to use. Underground sand worm dog fights, heroes trapped below ground due to sand worm dying, romantic picnic by an underground cavern lake... Go wild. I think less applied convergent evolution in speculative fiction would be a good thing. Anyway, thanks for your comment! It was valid, made me think and - most important of all - contained some flattery.

I think when people SAY "Avatar had amazing visuals," them, not being real critics, usually mean it was a visually-appealing and impressive-looking movie, just like every other James Cameron picture. In terms of cinematic imagery it's not very inventive, but it wasn't supposed to be. The point of the film was to do something with technology that hadn't really been done before.

You seem to be talking about the film's art design. And while it's not amazingly original, I don't think what people are praising. It is for the most part recognizably science-fiction, good-looking in 3-D, and easily understood (like space horses). This all to bring to life an alien but authentically0jngle-like environment to life in a way that couldn't be done in the past. Viewers bought it, and that's not because they have crappy taste in art, but because it was effective. That's the achievement they were going for and the achievement that they got.

Another valid comment. There are, as a matter of fact, people who praised the film for the actual imagery instead of the level of detail. There was some talk of people becoming depressed after watching the movie and comparing Pandora to the real world, right? The amount of detail in real life is pretty high, so yeah. That, however, is slightly beside the point and what you said is still relevant. My true answer to your comment is this: When making a sci-fi flick with such advanced technology and incredible budget, why waste it on something so unimaginative? Easily understood, mass appeal and whatnot. Sure. But still, I'm not asking for The Neverhood-level oddness (a man can dream, though). As I said in the review, I think it's possible to raise the originality level quite a bit while still remaining safely on the 'mainstream' side of the scale.

I was unaware that art had to follow the laws of nature.

'If anything is possible, then nothing is interesting.' Besides, people have different levels of acceptance when it comes to breaks from reality. Some think realistic works are boring, others feel that their intelligence are insulted by blatant cases of art major science. The amount of realism in a work is, as everything, a matter to consider. Anyway, whether or not one demands realism in speculative fiction, I think my argument - and the arguments of the other commenters - still stand.

Creativity and originality is over-rated.

Hm, but if you like trees (which there is nothing wrong with; I like trees, they're cool. Some of my best friends are trees!), and want to see them in 3D and extreme level of detail, just go to a forest.

Why bother going outside when man has tamed nature with a paintbrush?

"Additionally, with such an enormous budget the movie couldn't have had a more unconventional plot."

Why should it have had a less conventional plot? Who says that'd make it better? Conventions exist for a reason, and I for one have very little faith in James Cameron, of all people, to reinvent the storytelling wheel.

The problem wasn't that it was unoriginal; it was that it was dumb. If Avatar was clichéd, the solution would be to make it les obvious, not necessarily less conventional. "Conventional" and "clichéd," by the way, are not synonymous.

If I remember rightly, original concept art was far weirder than what ended up in the movie. The Banshees, for one, originally looked more like flyin manta rays than four-winged pterosaurs. It got toned down because the people in charge believed they looked far too alien and might prove too weird or creepy to some audiences.

Also, the first sets of Na'vi concept art included various protuberances such as gills and horns.

While that sounds better, I'd say 'blue humanoid with gills and horns' is only marginally more alien than 'blue humanoid'.

I thought the creature design was pretty distinct. I've been reading Wayne Barlowe's illustrated books (Expedition, Inferno, etc.) since high school, and I can spot a Barlowe-designed creature a mile away. The movie wasn't great by any stretch of the imagination, but the visual design was one of the more enjoyable things about it in my opinion.

Thanks for a well-articulated review, as well as your thoughtful handling of comments. The title might be a bit...dramatic, though, considering what typical reviews of this movie are like. :P

Reviews like this help remind me that people look for different things in art than I do. The thing that bothered you about the movie was lazy art design, probably because your talents and interests lie in that area. I am more of a story person, so I really like when a plot is handled in an innovative or clever way. Having the plot phoned in just...bugs me.

It seems like James Cameron knows how to hit the sweet spot of mass appeal - very conventional plot, characters, and art design all in a high-quality package. It results in Titanic-sized boatloads of cash and backlash, which probably just generates more money. Unfortunately, it also tends to disappoint those of us hoping for something unconventional.

^The (lack of) plot bugged me a lot too. The reason why I didn't complain about it here is that.. Well, it has been done. It seems to me that almost all negative reviews were variations on 'Beatiful but DUMB PLOT' while almost all positive reviews were variations on 'Dumb plot but BEAUTIFUL!'. I thought it was about time that someone pointed out the flaws of the visual aspect as well.

Very interesting review and I agree with you on the concept part. The creatures were really unappealing to me. The Na'vi look rather alright and cute to me, that is because I'm an anthro artist though and I'm very familiar with the world of animal anthros, both classic and modern ones but yeah...I understand that they tried to keep a minimum level of "alienization" (if I can put it that way)but it resulted in rather ugly creatures in my opinion. Not that nature is all pretty but..it's a fictional world and story anyway. People will just go for what appeals to them, most might not even care if things are logical.