User blog:Angel Emfrbl/So.. Avatar was on last night...

The TV announcer called them "giant Blue smurfs" when they introduced the program... I've heard it before, but its still funny that E4 announcer said it. XD

Overall.... It was kinda disappointing. Lots of CGi, some of the best I've seen but lots of little problems. I remember a interview saying that they wanted to get a whole world set up in one movie. Honestly... This would have been better for them spanned out on a trilogy, too many elements were suddenly thrown in, with the plot line being so predictable with no witty twist, I mean it was obvious from the start what was going to happen. This isn't a bad thing ness., but it felt lackluster. The environments were o pretty it distracted from the fact the movie was kinda actually bad... ^_-

Long story short; I watched "How to Tame your Dragon" on Boxing day, for all its worth that was a better movie and it kinda had the same plotline.

Humans Vs another culture (giant blue smurfs (XD) + dragons), with a ultimate threat being involved (big ship of explosives, big dragon) and a overall confident villain (scarred up marine, big dragon) the hero has to take out. What made HtTyD better was that there was a lot of more believable character development going on. For them, everything was new and they reacted like that. There was tension between Hiccup and his father, old versus new method of thinking, and the father was shown up. With avatar, the old views weren't tensed up enough, everyone had a habit of accepting with no doubt at all and no challenges, there were "some" but they weren't challenged enough and the hero overcame them with not enough cost to doing so. The only chance the writers had to show this off would have been the fight with the big red lizard, which they skipped out on. W... T... F...!

They didn't skip in How to train your dragon on anything, we saw every important scene before us, which meant we saw how the plot was developing. s Hiccup learn about dragons, we saw him and toothless interacting to show it and then him putting it to use against other dragons. The only time they did any skipping was when the kids were taking the training dragons to tame, and then again, thats the one time we didn't need to see it because we'd long since seen how the whole thing worked.

the other thing with the giant smurfs, was they didn't look like they actually belonged in their own world. Look, I wish I could say to hollywood sometimes, your going to have to think evolution here a little. The wings of those flying reptiles, in real life, wouldn't work to lift them off the ground. The difference between the main indigenous lifeforms and everything else on their world was too great, they were "too human". If you make a alien world, and you shape it, your've got to think about how the people look and how to explain how they came to look like this. Too often hollywood just bases their designs on humans, fearing to wonder too far from that design because it might be unattractive or difficult. But it doesn't work if you don't consider a few things along the way. Making something too human, doesn't always help build up belief. Reason being is, that the evolution of one planet will be different to that of another, therefore, things are going to be very different.

Some times will be the same, creatures will try and inhabit everywhere on that world, and they will likely have similar traits to creatures on our own. But it was my crib with the "Walking with the Dinosaurs" series when that showed on TV, you can't always rely on what we know of the real and current lifeforms. Making dinosaurs act EXACTLY the same as modern animals, is going to be a mistake, modern animals. Your guessing to fill a void you don't know.

It feels like a rant this blog, but this is one of those Titanic moments. When Titanic was released in the cinemas in the 90s I didn't watch it, but kept hearing about girls in my class going to see it more then once. Then I saw it on TV. My dad used to joke about how he watched Titanic movies all the time, expecting to see a different ending but it was always the same. Either, that was one of the most disappointing movies I've ever watched and even if I was into that sort of thing, I questioned what made this worth seeing more then once.

I'm not going to say LotRs is bad, by the way, its good. But its one of those movies that left me not feeling I had to watch it again, for the RIGHT reasons. It did what it had to do, impressed while doing it, built up tension, drama, built up a world and showed "war" in its essence. Okay, I still have issues with Gandolf's "Hand of God" moments in part 2 (both of them), but it was more impressive to watch then Avatar.

I still stand by the idea that movie should have been a 3 parter, with the third part being the aliens kicking the humans off their world. I imagine its likely their doing a sequel, I kinda haven't checked, but this one they have made should have been a three parter definitely. Or at least a two-part movie, sometimes I think trilogies don't work because the middle disappoints, and the third always is just a big flashy send off which can work or seriously disappoint.

There are movies like Nanny McPhee as well that feel "complete", like they don't need more. I felt that way about PotC. You don't always need to add more to something. If you do, wrap it up in one so that if someone misses one part of the series they can still pick up from the middle, but don't repeat the same stuff every movie so the veterans get really bored of hearing "x does y". :-/