# [Trailer] Last Airbender: what's the appeal?



## roguerouge (Jun 23, 2010)

Look, I don't even know what Last Airbender is, only that several friends had a long conversation about it while I ignored them to watch the Super Bowl. But these ads really blow.

As far as I can tell by the recent ads, this is an action movie featuring a child in the main role, with no memorable villain or world, and no love interest. In addition, it seems to be a Mary Sue Chosen One narrative. Worst yet, their footage is so bad, they've resorted to flashing nouns like "Evil" and "Good" at the screen, which is always a bad sign. 

My friends at the Super Bowl seemed to really respect the source material, but the ads don't convey that. 

Fans of Airbender: is this a good work advertised badly, or is this Howard the Duck?


----------



## Mark (Jun 23, 2010)

roguerouge said:


> Last Airbender: what's the appeal?





I'll be seeing it on the big screen (opening weekend/morning/matinee) strictly because of the effects.  I know nothing about, nor will I investigate, the source material.  I have no interest nor care if there is a story.  I saw a trailer when I went to see Ironman 2 that has convinced me it will be a spectacle that I will want to have seen on a big screen.  If there is a 3D IMAX version, and I like the five dollar (morning/matinee) version enough, I might go and see it on that level as well.  Again, this is strictly for the effects.


----------



## fba827 (Jun 23, 2010)

Regarding the original cartoon: I avoided it like the plague -- I didn't like the animation style and just seemed so over the top.  However, I ended up seeing one episode at a cousin's place when he was watching and, frankly, I was hooked and had to watch the whole series.   I enjoyed the story as a whole that much - it was a well developed world and mythology/history.

Regarding the movie: I am guessing they'll do season 1 from the show. so it won't be the whole story, hence, no idea how much it will end up being chopped/etc.  I am guessing the focus for the movie will be more on special effects than anything else, and no idea about the acting...


----------



## Darth Shoju (Jun 23, 2010)

roguerouge said:


> Look, I don't even know what Last Airbender is, only that several friends had a long conversation about it while I ignored them to watch the Super Bowl. But these ads really blow.
> 
> As far as I can tell by the recent ads, this is an action movie featuring a child in the main role, with no memorable villain or world, and no love interest. In addition, it seems to be a Mary Sue Chosen One narrative. Worst yet, their footage is so bad, they've resorted to flashing nouns like "Evil" and "Good" at the screen, which is always a bad sign.
> 
> ...




The original cartoon was excellent IMO, and not just "good for a kid's show". The story, the characters, the world, the animation -- all were top shelf.

However, based on your post I'm not sure if you should bother with either the TV show or the movie. Frankly they don't seem like something you'd be interested in.


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 23, 2010)

roguerouge said:


> Fans of Airbender: is this a good work advertised badly, or is this Howard the Duck?




The animated series is excellent.  Well worth watching.

A fair amount of the movie excitement is likely by the fans of the cartoon.  Whether the movie lives up to expectations or not remains to be seen.  it could be really good - or just a poorly made film that fails to capture what the animated cartoon had.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 23, 2010)

I thought the animation was garbage from what I saw so I never got in to the cartoon. The movie might be cool though.


----------



## CrimsonReaver (Jun 24, 2010)

As a 30-something anime fan (or I should say anime snob, since I'm extremely picky about what I like), I initially dismissed _Avatar: The Last Airbender_ as a crappy kids' cartoon, probably on par with Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon, without ever really watching an episode.  It wasn't until I gave the show a chance - stopping to watch a random episode because I heard Mako's distinctive voice and it made me curious - that I was surprised by how genuinely engaging it was.  They crafted a really interesting world and mythology (which, as a gamer, is absolutely going to hook me) with characters that were surprisingly endearing.  And when you can get *me* to like child/young adult heroes, that's huge.  I was also really surprised to find myself laughing at some of the humor, which is another rarity in anime or cartoons that seem geared more toward a younger crowd.  I was shocked by how much I enjoyed it.  So, yeah, the source material comes highly recommended (even though the animation itself isn't anything special).

As for the movie...  There's a ton of potential there but, sadly, I don't have faith in Shyamalan to not screw it up.  And, again, I really hate kids, so if they didn't get some really talented youngsters who are able to perfectly match the sort of quirky charm, crisp chemistry, and emotional depth captured by the voice actors of the cartoon, it's going to be insufferable.  Some of the effects they show in the trailer look cool, but it'll likely turn into CGI-overload when you consider all the effects they're going to have to do - and they probably won't opt to do any of them with practical effects.  

As someone who really liked the cartoon, I can't say I'm all that excited for the movie and I kinda wish they'd left it alone.


----------



## SKyOdin (Jun 24, 2010)

I am a huge fan of the original cartoon. Just about everyone in my main college D&D group was into it. It knew both how to be funny and light hearted enough to appeal to kids, but also how to be cool, action-packed, and intelligent enough to appeal to teens and young adults.

I for one am probably not going to watch the movie. Based on the trailers, it looks like a straight adaptation of events from Book 1: Water (the first season). Since there is likely to be nothing new, and there are likely going to be things my inner nit-picker will get upset about, I am not very enthused. The fact that the trailers listed M. Night Shyamalan as the writer but didn't mention anything about the movie being based scene for scene on a popular cartoon was a little off-putting as well. At least some credit to the original creators seems to be in order.


----------



## Pbartender (Jun 25, 2010)

roguerouge said:


> ...with no memorable villain or world, and no love interest...




I wouldn't be so certain about these.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jun 26, 2010)

roguerouge said:


> Fans of Airbender: is this a good work advertised badly, or is this Howard the Duck?



We'll find out.

I was totally won over to the animated series, catching a piece of an episode here and there. The very first thing that struck me was that the "bending" was honest to goodness real kung fu styles. I was blown away that what I thought of as a throw away kids animation show bothered to use real world kung fu, and it was pretty darn consistent through everything.

Then I noticed the top notch story, character chemistry, and world building.

Watched it all with my son to the conclusion, but I went out and bought the seasons on DVD for myself.

I'll defend the _Avatar_ TV series to the end. But I'm reserving judgement towards the _Last Airbender_ movie.


----------



## Felon (Jun 26, 2010)

The problem with the trailer is that its tone is way too heavy. There's not a smile to be found, and that alone distances it from the animated series. 

This should be billed as a movie that's epic, but is also full of warmth and fun. Basically, the sort of things that make Disney's animated films smash hits. Instead, we have something that looks too youth-oriented for grown-ups and too morose for kids.

All three seasons of the animated series are now on Netflix Watch It Now. Well worth it if you can come to terms with the main characters being kids. First season is not quite as good as the rest (the second season introduces some great characters to the cast), but really can't be skipped.


----------



## Felon (Jun 26, 2010)

Pbartender said:


> I wouldn't be so certain about these.



Perhaps instead of "memorable" a better word choice would be "discernable".


----------



## Pbartender (Jun 26, 2010)

Felon said:


> The problem with the trailer is that its tone is way too heavy. There's not a smile to be found, and that alone distances it from the animated series.
> 
> This should be billed as a movie that's epic, but is also full of warmth and fun. Basically, the sort of things that make Disney's animated films smash hits. Instead, we have something that looks too youth-oriented for grown-ups and too morose for kids.




I think that gets to the heart of the problem...  They're marketing the wrong movie to the wrong audience.  They're focusing on the epic action and the heavy drama in the ads and trailers, and leaving out all the rest.  



Felon said:


> Perhaps instead of "memorable" a better word choice would be "discernable".




At least in the ads...  In the show, at least, there were multiple love interests for each of the main characters, the world was vast and detailed, and the villains were as just as complex personalities as the good guys.

The latest trailer (I got to see it before Toy Story 3), touches on the love interests and the villains in just this manner, but unfortunately you wouldn't notice it, unless you'd already seen the cartoon and were paying close attention.


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 26, 2010)

Pbartender said:


> I think that gets to the heart of the problem...  They're marketing the wrong movie to the wrong audience.  They're focusing on the epic action and the heavy drama in the ads and trailers, and leaving out all the rest.




Agreed.




			
				pbartender said:
			
		

> At least in the ads...  In the show, at least, there were multiple love interests for each of the main characters, the world was vast and detailed, and the villains were as just as complex personalities as the good guys.




Hopefully the trailer is just doing a poor job representing the movie and it isn't that they decided to make the movie all epic action and such.  It could be a good movie if they stay true to the series.


----------



## Mark (Jun 26, 2010)

Felon said:


> All three seasons of the animated series are now on Netflix Watch It Now. Well worth it if you can come to terms with the main characters being kids. First season is not quite as good as the rest (the second season introduces some great characters to the cast), but really can't be skipped.





Thanks for the tip.  I watched the first couple of episodes.  It's not in my, admittedly narrow, wheelhouse regarding the type of animation I enjoy.  I will probably watch a handful of the episodes more if people could steer me toward some with more epic battles and interesting creatures and such that might appear over the three seasons (TIA).  The whole hidden destiny set up gets overused in tv and movies, has for a long time, though I fully understand it is a tried and true plot.  The style of humor displayed in the first couple of episodes it is little too eye-rolling for me, too, though I also understand that fits with that style of animation.  It didn't draw me in when I first encountered it with the original Speed Racer cartoons when I was younger so I doubt watching more is going to adjust the vibe for me.  I'll probably enjoy the darker live-action movie with all of the effects, though, so I'm still planning to see that.


----------



## CrimsonReaver (Jun 26, 2010)

Pbartender said:


> I think that gets to the heart of the problem...  They're marketing the wrong movie to the wrong audience.  They're focusing on the epic action and the heavy drama in the ads and trailers, and leaving out all the rest.





And I think that's why I'm even more pessimistic about the live-action movie, because I'm seriously starting to doubt 'the rest' made it into the movie at all.  How many movies has Shyamalan written/directed that had any sort of bright, lighthearted, fun and cheery moments?  His stuff has always been so quiet and somber, bordering on depressive.  I'm really worried he sucked out all the fun and turned Aang into some brooding, morose, reluctant hero/child-savior who sulks and angrily rants about his unwanted destiny, made Katara into a snotty, exasperated bitch, and Sokka into a solemn, humorless warrior.

Quite frankly, after _The Happening_, I don't know how the hell Shyamalan still has a career.  (Well, I mean, I guess because that turd still turned a profit and that's all movie studios care about.)


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 26, 2010)

I don't care for anime, but I'm watching the animated show on Netflix Instand streaming and I just love it. It's surprisingly funny and touching. Add in untraditional heroes (inuit culture) and good action, and I'm sold.

The movie? I dunno. Casting all white folks irks me a little, and I see no sign of the humor. i'll wait and check reviews.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jun 26, 2010)

Mark said:


> I will probably watch a handful of the episodes more if people could steer me toward some with more epic battles and interesting creatures and such that might appear over the three seasons (TIA).



Hmm, epic battles?

S1 Ep 7, The Spirit World, Winter Solstice: Part 1 (Not much action but the story continues over to part 2 that has some awesome action, you might want to skip if only because all episodes begin with that "Previously on Avatar . . .")
S1 Ep, 8, Avatar Roku, Winter Solstice: Part 2
S1 Ep 19, The Siege of the North: Part 1
S1 Ep 20, The Siege of the North: Part 2

There's a lot of Season 2 with cool action
S2, Ep 1, The Avatar State (. . . more of a plot point but we see Aang achieve avatar state for the first time)
S2 Ep 3, Return to Omashu
S2 Ep 5, Avatar Day (Avatar Kyoshi is full of awesome)
S2 Ep 6, The Blind Bandit
S2 Ep 8, The Chase
S2 Ep 10, The Library
S2 Ep 11, The Desert (First time we see scary angry Aang)
S2, Ep 13, The Drill
S2 Ep 19, The Guru
S2 Episode 20 The Crossroads of Destiny

S3 Ep 5, The Beach (The fight with "Sparky Sparky Boom Man")
S3 Ep 6, The Avatar and the Fire Lord
S3 Ep 7, The Runaway
S3 Ep 10, The Day of Black Sun, part 1
S3 Ep 11, The Day of Black Sun, part 2
S3 Ep 18-21, (Finale)


----------



## Felon (Jun 26, 2010)

Mark said:


> Thanks for the tip.  I watched the first couple of episodes.  It's not in my, admittedly narrow, wheelhouse regarding the type of animation I enjoy.  I will probably watch a handful of the episodes more if people could steer me toward some with more epic battles and interesting creatures and such that might appear over the three seasons (TIA).



I pretty handily loathe the whole "chosen one" power fantasy that Hollywood has indoctrinated us to accept as a cornerstone of all great epic adventures. That's why Harry Potter never really gained any traction with me. But, Avatar overcame my biases. This is not a show that one steps back from in order to marvel at the intricacy of the plot. 

Like I said, season one is not when the awesome kicks in full throttle. Episodes 7-13 contain a goodly amount of action, and the two-parter season finale is pretty good. But I'd wager most adults who like it got into it during season two. So, since you've got Netflix, you could just skip to season two and then go back to previous episodes if desired.


----------



## Felon (Jun 26, 2010)

Eric Anondson said:


> Hmm, epic battles?
> 
> S1 Ep 7, The Spirit World, Winter Solstice: Part 1 (Not much action but the story continues over to part 2 that has some awesome action, you might want to skip if only because all episodes begin with that "Previously on Avatar . . .")
> S1 Ep, 8, Avatar Roku, Winter Solstice: Part 2
> ...



These are all good choices. Not to pick nits, but I'd say we all get a pretty good look at Aang in scary avatar mode first in The Siege of the North.


----------



## Mark (Jun 26, 2010)

Cool.  Thanks for the suggestions.  I'll give it another go from where I left off and if it becomes too much I'll revert to the suggested list.  I do also agree that Potter almost made me cringe early on (just the movies, I never read the books) but I managed to get over that so maybe I can do the same with this series, since it is so highly recommended.  I'd like to get through this before going to the movie so that I can keep up with the discussions among the bigger fans and experts here.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 26, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> I don't care for anime, but I'm watching the animated show on Netflix Instand streaming and I just love it. It's surprisingly funny and touching. Add in untraditional heroes (inuit culture) and good action, and I'm sold.
> 
> The movie? I dunno. Casting all white folks irks me a little, and I see no sign of the humor. i'll wait and check reviews.




That sums up my perceptions as well.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Jun 26, 2010)

For those concerned about the lack of humour, this [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxKIu_AdLCY"]trailer[/ame] seems to offer some hope.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jun 27, 2010)

Felon said:


> Not to pick nits, but I'd say we all get a pretty good look at Aang in scary avatar mode first in The Siege of the North.



Yeah, but I meant scary _angry_ Aang. The rage caused by pain.


----------



## Pbartender (Jun 27, 2010)

CrimsonReaver said:


> I'm really worried he sucked out all the fun and turned Aang into some brooding, morose, reluctant hero/child-savior who sulks and angrily rants about his unwanted destiny, made Katara into a snotty, exasperated bitch, and Sokka into a solemn, humorless warrior.




No kidding...  If I remember right, none of that is really suppose to happen until the third season.


----------



## Azgulor (Jun 29, 2010)

roguerouge said:


> As far as I can tell by the recent ads, this is an action movie featuring a child in the main role, with no memorable villain or world, and no love interest. In addition, it seems to be a Mary Sue Chosen One narrative. <snip>
> Fans of Airbender: is this a good work advertised badly, or is this Howard the Duck?




After _The Happening_, I have no idea if the live-action movie will suck.  Sadly, smart money is probably safer on betting that it will - but that's b/c of M. Night, not because of the source material.

A 30-second preview spot can't convey the setting or story in a truly meaningful way.  That's why previews generally give a bare bones summation or highlight a few elements.

First and foremost, Avatar: The Last Airbender is a kid's show.  Kid's see a kid hero, "good" and "evil" and can pretty quickly determine if they want to see it.

As for the assessment you gleaned --- you're so far off base you're on another planet.  While it's a kid's show, it had characters that grew and changed over the course of the series, a fully-realized fantasy world, and multi-dimensional characters: including the villains as well as numerous strong female roles on the hero & villain side.

Avatar: The Last Airbender may not be for everyone (the anime style turned me off initially) but if you can't find anything worthwhile in the series, I'd have to seriously question your RPG gamer cred.  If you want fantasy that's simultaneously familiar yet different, the world of Avatar makes the short list of "settings done right".  (IMO of course.)


----------



## Herschel (Jun 29, 2010)

It probably doesn't matter if it actually is any good, it's going to get buried at the box office. Absolutely destroyed. That may be too bad but those dashnab sparkly vampires, Woody, Buzz and the inexplicable draw of Adam Sandler likely mean it does nothing worth mentioning to studio exec types. 

It will have to make its hay on video, which isn't a great sign if they invested in 3D for theater.


----------



## CrimsonReaver (Jun 29, 2010)

Azgulor said:


> First and foremost, Avatar: The Last Airbender is a kid's show.




Which is precisely why the approach they've taken in the trailers is so perplexing.  Nearly every trailer/preview/TV spot I've seen appears to be promoting it like an adult (or, at best, a young adult) feature, with the focus on the fighting, the FX, and the darker elements of the story.  You'd think they'd want to cash in on the Harry Potter craze by marketing it in a similar fashion - the earlier Potter films, anyway - and that'd be totally appropriate, because it is (the source material, anyway) a kids' show that's also found a pretty solid adult audience too.  But if I had kids, based on the trailers, I wouldn't take them to see the movie because it looks to have lost a lot of the "fun" that would have excited them and kept them engaged.

Brings to mind that RedLetterMedia review of _The Phantom Menace_ where the kids are sitting in front of the television watching one of the boring political BS scenes and, even though they're fixated on the screen, you know they're thinking 'WTF?'  Okay, it probably won't be _that_ bad, but still...


I think the saddest part is, according to CHUD.com, the estimated expensive of the movie is around $280 million.  So, even if the movie is as brilliant and fun and awesome as it deserves to be, it'll likely have to make at least $330 million in the theaters for Paramount to front a similar bankroll for the next two movies.  And going up against a monster like Twilight...it doesn't look good.  They might have done better to wait until November or December.


----------



## Mark (Jun 30, 2010)

CrimsonReaver said:


> Nearly every trailer/preview/TV spot I've seen appears to be promoting it like an adult (or, at best, a young adult) feature, with the focus on the fighting, the FX, and the darker elements of the story.





That's why I'm seeing it, and probably rethinking about holding off on the 3D, in that I might just spring for the 3D (IMAX if available) right off rather than test it with a regular screen matinee.


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 30, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> Casting all white folks irks me a little



_I'm skipping my planned comment and just going to post _the director's response...


M Night Shyamalan in his own words on The Last Airbender race controversy

indiemoviesonline.com/news/m-night-shyamalan-in-his-own-words-on-the-last-airbender-race-controversy-250610


----------



## Gog (Jun 30, 2010)

frankthedm said:


> _I'm skipping my planned comment and just going to post _the director's response...
> 
> 
> M Night Shyamalan in his own words on The Last Airbender race controversy
> ...




Not saying I think he is racist but he sounds like he's a little full of himself.

"You're coming at me, the one Asian filmmaker who has the right to cast anybody I want, and I'm casting this entire movie in this color blind way where everyone is represented."

What makes him special?


----------



## Herschel (Jun 30, 2010)

His ability to create suck beyond the norm with outstanding budget support?


----------



## Herschel (Jun 30, 2010)

CrimsonReaver said:


> I think the saddest part is, according to CHUD.com, the estimated expensive of the movie is around $280 million. So, even if the movie is as brilliant and fun and awesome as it deserves to be, it'll likely have to make at least $330 million in the theaters for Paramount to front a similar bankroll for the next two movies. And going up against a monster like Twilight...it doesn't look good. They might have done better to wait until November or December.





Again, not just Twilight, but Toy Story 3 just came out AND Despicable Me comes out next week (although I think Steve Carrell sucks). This has the smell of flop sweat all over it regardless of its quality.

The only two reviews on RT are from minor players, but both said it was rotten.


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 30, 2010)

Herschel said:


> Again, not just Twilight, but Toy Story 3 just came out AND Despicable Me comes out next week (although I think Steve Carrell sucks). This has the smell of flop sweat all over it regardless of its quality.




Yep - regardless of quality of the movie, the timing for the release is quite poor with some of the movies it will be going up against.


----------



## Mark (Jun 30, 2010)

M Night Shyamalan in the linked interview said:
			
		

> The art form of Anime in and of itself is what's causing the confusion. The Anime artists intentionally put ambiguous features on the characters so that you see who you want to see in it. It's part of the art form.





Do the anime fans in this thread agree with this assessment?


----------



## Mark (Jun 30, 2010)

Gog said:


> Not saying I think he is racist but he sounds like he's a little full of himself.
> 
> "You're coming at me, the one Asian filmmaker who has the right to cast anybody I want, and I'm casting this entire movie in this color blind way where everyone is represented."
> 
> What makes him special?





I believe that is meant to be read as 'a director/filmaker can cast anyone they want' and the he 'happens to be an Asian filmmaker' etc.  I don't think he is claiming any special right based on who he is, just laying out the situation for the people who are pointing the "racist" finger in the direction of the film and toward him by default.  However, I can see how it might be read in a way that would make you post the question that you did.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Jun 30, 2010)

You can pretty much get ATAB on Amazon for about $26 each season, which IMO is better than going to the movies.  You get 20 half-hour episodes per season.  

A better entertainment value, IMO.


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 30, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> You can pretty much get ATAB on Amazon for about $26 each season, which IMO is better than going to the movies.  You get 20 half-hour episodes per season.




And for people that are curious but not sure they want that investment, they are available for streaming on Netflix.


----------



## CrimsonReaver (Jun 30, 2010)

Mark said:


> Do the anime fans in this thread agree with this assessment?




No, I think that's a load and an extremely weak-ass explanation.  I might have had more respect for M. Night if he came out and said, "Look, there aren't enough quality Asian/Indian/foreign actors who speak English well enough to make casting them in this big budget project practical.  It's a very limited pool to be drawing from, so I opted to go with predominantly white American actors.  Plus, since I'm making this for an American audience first and foremost, and white faces will sell better."  I'd still think he's a douche, but at least he'd be an honest one.

Although, he can't use the argument that a Western audience wouldn't respond well to an unknown Eastern cast.  Because, quite honestly, aside from Dev Patel and Aasif Mandvi - two of the very few non-white dudes in the cast - I don't know who the hell the other actors are!  If you're going to go with virtual unknowns anyway, why not bring more Asian actors into the fold?

Though, in fairness, I think the argument that this is racism is only exacerbated by the fact that this is coming on the heels of _Prince of Persia_, another movie that seemingly chose to use as many non-authentic actors as humanly possible.


And am I the only one who suspects that even if Mako were still alive, Shyamalan wouldn't have offered him a role - any role - in the film?


----------



## Herschel (Jun 30, 2010)

More reviews coming in, from better reviewers, and with more brutality.

Ebert: The Last Airbender is an agonizing experience in every category I can think of and others still waiting to be invented

Burr: The Last Airbender is dreadful, an incomprehensible fantasy-action epic that makes the 2007 film The Golden Compass, a similarly botched adaptation of a beloved property from another medium, look like a four-star classic.

Lemire: The Last Airbender is a joyless, soulless, muddled mess, but the worst part of all doesn't come until the very end. That's when it makes the clear suggestion that two more such movies are in store for us.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 30, 2010)

The cartoon is great, if you have any interest in seeing the movie just watch the TV show.  I hope the movie is good but the more I read the less that seems to be true.


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 30, 2010)

Herschel said:


> More reviews coming in, from better reviewers, and with more brutality.
> 
> Ebert: The Last Airbender is an agonizing experience in every category I can think of and others still waiting to be invented
> 
> ...




Wow!  Brutal.  I guess I might have to pretend the movie doesn't exist to like I do the Matrix sequels.


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 30, 2010)

dp...


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 30, 2010)

I had been _hoping_ the trailers had been clumsily redubbing in the actors lines to fit the trailer format. Sadly, it now sounds like those clunky deliveries are really part of the movie.







			
				Keith Phipps said:
			
		

> (Star Noah Ringer, who plays a messianic figure who might unite the warring forces, delivers his lines as if reading a book report, and his older co-stars don’t fare much better.)




WTF did they do to Appa's face 

And crashing this up against Eclipse? Wasn't a _decent_ chunk of the show's success from its cross gender appeal? How myopic do the meddling executives have to be to ignore that?


----------



## CrimsonReaver (Jun 30, 2010)

Yeah, that's pretty rough...  Though, I think Ebert has gone senile, because he tends to trash great movies while praising stuff that's only mediocre, so I tend to dismiss him out of habit.  It's not sounding promising though.  

So, apparently, the runtime is only 103 minutes.  Yeah...  I'm betting that's half the problem right there.  Trying to cram almost 7 hours of story, character development, and action into less than 2 hours?  Sure, there's definitely stuff that could be trimmed, side stories that aren't essential to the main plot, but what the hell were they thinking?  At the very least, the movie should have been 150 minutes, though preferably closer to 180.  Hell, every Harry Potter film - a fair comparison, since it's another series primarily aimed at a younger crowd but with an appeal to people of all ages - was over 2 hours, with most hitting 2 and a half hours.  And they really thought they could be The Last Airbender in under two?


It's spiteful, I know, but I'm seriously hoping this movie is such a colossal financial failure that M. Night Shyamalan is never allowed to direct again.


----------



## Esteban (Jun 30, 2010)

Herschel said:


> More reviews coming in, from better reviewers, and with more brutality.
> 
> Burr: The Last Airbender is dreadful, an incomprehensible fantasy-action epic that makes the 2007 film The Golden Compass, a similarly botched adaptation of a beloved property from another medium, look like a four-star classic.




Wow. The Golden Compass was awful, if that statement is even remotely correct this movie could be a disaster. And they spent 280 million to make a movie that is only 105 minutes long? Really? 

If this movie tanks I would imagine it would kill M.Night's career. I just don't get  it - I thought both 'Sixth Sense' and 'Unbreakable' were brilliant, but the guy hasn't been able to create a decent movie since...


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 30, 2010)

Esteban said:


> Wow. The Golden Compass was awful, if that statement is even remotely correct this movie could be a disaster. And they spent 280 million to make a movie that is only 105 minutes long? Really?



Supposedly Suki and the earth kingdom arc of book one got cut from final release.


----------



## Krug (Jul 1, 2010)

Wow it's totally getting savaged at RT. Even *Eclipse* is at 51% (67% for Top Critics) and *TLA* is at like 7%.


----------



## IronWolf (Jul 1, 2010)

Krug said:


> Wow it's totally getting savaged at RT. Even *Eclipse* is at 51% (67% for Top Critics) and *TLA* is at like 7%.




Yeeesh!!  7%?  Looks like this will be Netflix'ed for us unless the brave folks on this message board that actually go see it in the theatre say it has some redeeming qualities.


----------



## Herschel (Jul 1, 2010)

7%? Wow, they found some reviewers who actually liked it. It was still at 0% this afternoon.


----------



## IronWolf (Jul 1, 2010)

Herschel said:


> 7%? Wow, they found some reviewers who actually liked it. It was still at 0% this afternoon.





It's drifting back down, 6% as I post.


----------



## Mark (Jul 1, 2010)

I'd love to think I'd Netflix it but I don't have a decent enough screen to make that wortwhile for just an FX movie.  I'll have to decide by then if I want to see them bad enough for a $5 early show on a regular big screen.  I think given the reports, anything more just seems like encouraging bad filmmaking.


----------



## CrimsonReaver (Jul 1, 2010)

The more reviews I read, the more I honestly believe the reviews are ultimately going to be vastly more entertaining than the movie itself.

I'm really curious to see what the weekend box office numbers end up being.  Sadly, after the scathing brutality of these reviews, I think there will be a lot of people in theaters just out of morbid curiosity.


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 1, 2010)

"It's bad, as in "Wild Wild West" will no longer be considered the nadir of July 4th weekend releases."

Ouch.

Down to 5%.


----------



## Krug (Jul 1, 2010)

I really don't have any ill will towards M Night or the film. I was hoping for it to be good cause I loved the anime. 

PS: The whole race thing didn't really bother me too much, and I'm Asian.


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 1, 2010)

Another hilarious review. Some cursing.

M. Night Shyamalan Finally Made A Comedy


----------



## Felon (Jul 1, 2010)

IGN ranks the best 10 episodes of Avatar.

I think the choice for #1 is quite interesting. I had never really pegged where the series seemed to really get its legs and rise above the level of pure kiddy fare. I'll have to go back and check it out again.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jul 1, 2010)

Mark said:


> Do the anime fans in this thread agree with this assessment?



To be perfectly fair to Mr. Shyamalan, that is actually pretty true. For all kinds of reasons, anime characters tend to be drawn in ways that make racial identification a difficult task. For the most part, character designs in anime are not meant to make their race identifiable; they are meant to make a character's individual quirks identifiable. If anything, any fan of anime can tell you that anime characters, especially those who are explicitly japanese, don't all look like a stereotypical japanese person.

A term for this that you might want to look up is "mukokuseki".

This is actually something that dates all the way back to the founding "god of anime" himself, Osamu Tezuka.

Anyways, if you want proof of this, take a look at the file I attached. Of the five girls in that image, one is of mixed japanese/caucasian descent, one is an italian-american, and the other three are pure japanese. If you can tell their races apart based on their appearance, I will be _very_ surprised.

Really, I definitely have some sympathy for Mr. Shyamalan's position. You would be very hard pressed to find actors who actually look like any of the characters from that series, simply because they so often have mixed features like dark skin, inuit culture, blue eyes, and distant genetic relation to really weird swamp people...


----------



## RedBeardJim (Jul 1, 2010)

Felon said:


> IGN ranks the best 10 episodes of Avatar.
> 
> I think the choice for #1 is quite interesting. I had never really pegged where the series seemed to really get its legs and rise above the level of pure kiddy fare. I'll have to go back and check it out again.




In the art book, the creators explain that "The Storm" was the last of the original run of episodes that Nick purchased, and when they were planning it out they didn't know yet if they were going to get picked up for a full season. So they tried to make an episode that could potentially serve as a climactic endpoint for the series up to that point.


----------



## Pseudonym (Jul 1, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> "It's bad, as in "Wild Wild West" will no longer be considered the nadir of July 4th weekend releases."




That's saying something.  I took a date to see Wild Wild West and spent the rest of the night apologizing. It was the trump card in every argument for the next four months afterward, and Avatar is worse? Shame.


----------



## Pseudonym (Jul 1, 2010)

Esteban said:


> If this movie tanks I would imagine it would kill M.Night's career. I just don't get  it - I thought both 'Sixth Sense' and 'Unbreakable' were brilliant, but the guy hasn't been able to create a decent movie since...




I still get violent when I think about sitting through The Village. Six years later and I am still pissed off.

On a side note, did he make a cameo in this film too?


----------



## Azgulor (Jul 2, 2010)

Taking the kids to see it tomorrow.  As I stated earlier, I don't have high expectations for the movie but I'll be much more interested to see it for myself or hear from gamers that have actually seen the movie.

I find movie reviewers in general, and Ebert as a prime example, as a collective bunch of pretentious a-holes.  Just b/c they're right once in a great while doesn't change that fact.

Here's hoping they're wrong, even if it's a dim hope...


----------



## Esteban (Jul 2, 2010)

Pseudonym said:


> That's saying something.  I took a date to see Wild Wild West and spent the rest of the night apologizing. It was the trump card in every argument for the next four months afterward, and Avatar is worse? Shame.




I can beat that! I took a date to see 'Howard the Duck'. She still wound up marrying me even after that debacle, but to this day she still uses it against me - not that I blame her.


----------



## Krug (Jul 2, 2010)

Azgulor said:


> Taking the kids to see it tomorrow.  As I stated earlier, I don't have high expectations for the movie but I'll be much more interested to see it for myself or hear from gamers that have actually seen the movie.
> 
> I find movie reviewers in general, and Ebert as a prime example, as a collective bunch of pretentious a-holes.  Just b/c they're right once in a great while doesn't change that fact.
> 
> Here's hoping they're wrong, even if it's a dim hope...




Uh what does "right" mean? They're reviewers. It's an opinion. Not sure why people get worked up over movie reviews.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jul 2, 2010)

Krug said:


> Uh what does "right" mean? They're reviewers. It's an opinion. Not sure why people get worked up over movie reviews.



People don't understand the purpose of reading critics.  Reviews are there to ASSIST you in making the decision of what movie to see and why, not to make the decision FOR you.  Criticism is opinion, but its usefulness is not just in a 1-to-5 star rating or a thumbs up/down, but in the discussion of WHY they gave it that rating.

I see critics often give movies middling star ratings but the review itself takes great pains to point out things the reviewer did NOT like.  If you look only at the middling rating you can mistakenly assume, "I guess it's 'okay', neither great or terrible so it's worth the time and money."  If you read only the written criticism you might mistakenly assume that since the reviewer has only critical comments on the movie that the reviewer is actually trying to tell you it isn't worth your time or money when that may not be accurate.  I can DESPISE certain things about movies that I really, REALLY enjoy.  I can find a movie as a whole to be entertaining, while freely acknowledging that objectively it's AWFUL (people usually call this a guilty pleasure).

One of the dangers of being a long-term, professional film critic is that you see endless amounts of utter drek.  Heck, you see endless amounts of movies in general - and not because you are necessarily freely and genuinely interested in the style, actors, director, subject, or anything else about the movie.  You see movies because you are PAID to see movies whether you're in the demographic for the movie or not and then tell people what you think.  After a while critics can get bored or numbed by anything that doesn't shock them or do something outrageous and unpredicted.  Thus, movies that aren't aiming for high-art in the first place can be easily dismissed and unfavorably (and unfairly) criticized making the critic seem like more of a pretentious snob than he actually is.

It's possible for you to become familiar with what certain critics like, but it's IMPOSSIBLE for them to ever have the first clue what YOU like.  People have to draw out the infomation from reviews that they want and it's quite possible that one review simply isn't going to tell you everything you need.  If you're REALLY going to use reviews for more than just an unexplained thumbs up/down then you need mutiple reviews.  And you have the luxury of thinkng about a film for hours, days, even weeks before finally forming your ultimate opinion about it.  A critic has to make much snappier judgements, write a review, and then move on to the next movie.  And nobody's perfekt.

I spent several years writing reviews of every movie I saw for my personal website.  I don't think too many people outside of my own family read them but that's not why I stopped writing them.  I stopped because simply putting down a proper critical opinion in words got to seem like a chore.  I also started to get less enjoyment out of going to movies because I KNEW from past experience that most of the movies I'd go to see would wind up being so unremarkable or so frequently fail to reach their obvious potential.  But I'd only really see that when trying to dissect those movies with a dedicatedly critical eye rather than just enjoying them for what they were.


----------



## Azgulor (Jul 2, 2010)

1. If you seek a job as a movie reviewer, seeing a lot of movies is A) something you presumably enjoy, and B) your job.  I don't care how many movies they have to watch. _ It's their job_.

2. To single out Ebert, specifically, his "critical analysis" is often a whim.  It's like watching politicians.  Pull a review/speech from 2 years ago and what they were praising then, they're bemoaning now, and vice versa.

3. If they seem like a pretentious snob, it's because (at least to me) they are pretentious snobs.  I also know a duck when I see one, I know what food tastes good when I eat it, and I know when I've stepped in something squishy that smells bad.  Sure, it's all subjective, but when 96% of the time their opinions are diametrically opposed to mine AND they have little or no consistency in the expression of their opinions, I can safely say that I find them to be useless.

The whole movie review "industry" is like that.  Look at the Academy Awards.  People win b/c it's "their turn", they win b/c of their gender, their race, or the political statements made as often as someone wins for a spectacular script or performance.


----------



## Krug (Jul 2, 2010)

Azgulor said:


> 1. If you seek a job as a movie reviewer, seeing a lot of movies is A) something you presumably enjoy, and B) your job.  I don't care how many movies they have to watch. _ It's their job_.
> 
> 2. To single out Ebert, specifically, his "critical analysis" is often a whim.  It's like watching politicians.  Pull a review/speech from 2 years ago and what they were praising then, they're bemoaning now, and vice versa.
> 
> ...




Uh dude just don't read the reviews. I read reviews because they can give another perspective of the movie; it's like having a dialogue with a friend about storytelling, films and so on. Ebert can do that. A lot of the online film critics can't. They can't even tell you what the problem with a certain movie is.

I think sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic have amplified the effect of film reviewers as a whole, and even Ebert's influence. Well he did finally apologise for saying video games could not be art, at least.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Jul 2, 2010)

I saw it last night. It wasn't good.

  First off, I couldn't find a theatre playing it in 2D, and there  isn't a single 3D effect in the damn movie. This felt like extortion to  me. The 3D effect only served to screw up the focus of several scenes.

  The dialogue is awful. It exists only to relate exposition, and often  without any context. There is almost no character-building done in this  movie. Writing 101 says that when you start a line of dialogue with "As  you know...", you are setting up for a cumbersome info dump, and this  should be avoided. This happens several times in this flick.

  The plot is a haphazard mess. Clumsy voice-overs are used to bridge  scenes that make little sense on their own, or to fill in gaps right in  the middle of a scene. Flashbacks are used in the wrong places, and are  usually silent. The movie is a prime example of telling instead of  showing. The naration could easily be covered with visual clues and  character-building dialogue, or proper flashbacks. 

  The editing is incomprehensible. Some scenes have no setup at all,  and are totally confusing (this coming from an avid fan of the cartoon,  who knows the story. I can only imagine the confusion of newcomers).

  The acting is wooden, but is far from the worst part of the movie. I  actually think it could have been serviceable in the hands of a better  director.

  As far as the ethnicities are concerned, the Southern Water Tribe  seemed to be entirely inuit, except for Sokka, Katara, and their  grandma. The Northern Water Tribe was all caucasian. The Earth Kingdom  was thoroughly Chinese, while the Fire Nation was Indian. The Air Nomads  were a mixture.

  Appa and Momo are barely in the movie. Fire Lord Ozai is basically a  talking piece of scenery.

  Visually the movie was quite good. The sets, locations, special  effects, costumes -- all were well done and pretty accurate to the  cartoon. The bending used the same martial arts as the cartoon. The  fight scenes were solid, though kind of sparse.

  Ultimately, it was like they gave a 280 million dollar budget and a  solid special effects team to a high-school A/V club and drama class and  told them to make a movie. Since M. Night Shyamalan took credit as  writer, producer, and director, I'd say it all falls squarely on his  shoulders.

                                         I should also add that the theatre I went to was sold out,  and the audience seemed to enjoy the movie (except for the two kids  behind me), and even laughed at the weak attempts at humour. Now this could be because it's Canada Day and 31 celcius here (38  with the humidex), so people have the day off but are reluctant to go  outside for the celebrations. It's also the first night for the movie.  Frankly, I'm not really sure how it's going to do financially.

  Then again, I'm not sure how I _want _it to do. As bad as the movie  was, there were moments where I was reminded how good the cartoon was,  and how amazing this movie could have been. I'd say my ideal scenario at  this point would be for it to do well enough that they want to make the  next two, but Shyamalan can't do them due to scheduling problems or  something, and they end up giving them to a better director.


----------



## Krug (Jul 2, 2010)

It didn't do that badly at the box office. US$16.5 million on opening day. With worldwide box-office it might yet break even.


----------



## IronWolf (Jul 4, 2010)

Come on EN Worlders...  There must be more of you that went to see it anyways, right?  So what did you think?


----------



## CrimsonReaver (Jul 4, 2010)

IronWolf said:


> Come on EN Worlders...  There must be more of you that went to see it anyways, right?  So what did you think?




The reviews (and fan reactions: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHi1zaN0ooc]YouTube - FANS UNLEASH EPIC HATE FOR THE LAST AIRBENDER[/ame]) were vitriolic enough to convince me not to waste my time on something an AICN reviewer called "a hate crime against people who love movies."

Should I see it for myself rather than pass judgment based on the opinions of others?  Ideally, yes.  But I absolutely refuse to give my money over, purely to satisfy my morbid curiosity, and have that interpreted as support for crap cinema.


----------



## frankthedm (Jul 4, 2010)

While pehaps the critics are being a little too harsh, It was _not_ good. There is a chance to enjoy some aspects of the movie, notably the scenery, but I would not recommend it unless one has money and time to waste along with a masochistic taste in movies. 

Vodka might help too.


----------



## IronWolf (Jul 4, 2010)

Yeesh!  Still doesn't look good.  Guess we'll be skipping this one in the theatres.  Thanks for the video link and feedback.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jul 4, 2010)

Lol, did anyone ever see this picture before?  Found it in the comments to a related article about the series on the website PCat's review link came from.

(Had to redact out a grandma unfriendly part in the reply included with it).


----------



## Krug (Jul 5, 2010)

US$57 million as of Sunday. So box office wise, despite the massacre it received on reviews, it's still doing ok commercially.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=lastairbender.htm


----------



## Dire Bare (Jul 6, 2010)

Darth Shoju said:


> I saw it last night. It wasn't good.




You pretty much summed up my experience with the movie today.  I did enjoy it, I don't think it's torture to watch . . . but it wasn't a good movie.  Visuals were fantastic, but storytelling was muddled and the acting was terrible.  I don't blame the actors, as many of them have proven themselves in other films, it's all in the directing.  I also thought the whole "race" controversy was BS, and I think the casting was spot on.  It's a shame the actors were directed in such a muted fashion.


----------



## CrimsonReaver (Jul 6, 2010)

Krug said:


> US$57 million as of Sunday. So box office wise, despite the massacre it received on reviews, it's still doing ok commercially.
> 
> The Last Airbender (2010) - Box Office Mojo





I never had any doubt it would still have a huge opening weekend.  If anything, the reviews likely only got even more people to check it out to see if it was truly as horrid as critics said.  The real question is what it will pull for this next weekend.  If it goes from $57 million down to, say, $8 million...

One thing seems certain: if the movie should (somehow) make enough money that Paramount greenlights the next film, M. Night Shyamalan won't be back to write and direct.  Because, despite making money, I think Shyamalan's name attached to the franchise would just be poison moving forward.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jul 6, 2010)

I agree with everyone else: it was amazingly terrible. I'm not sure if I've ever seen a movie that bad.

My recommendation: don't see it. Really.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 6, 2010)

Perhaps we should pitch a show to Bravo...the flipside to Project Greenlight.

*Project Redlight:*
Take directors who have proven themselves to be devoid of vision in their latest efforts- assuming they had it in the first place- and make them earn their way back to the top.  All participants are to be blackballed from making any movie with a budget over $20M (or 10% of their latest flop, whichever is greater) until they pass this show's test.

The test itself is simple: take a movie that is generally regarded as a dog and remake it into at least a "C" movie.  I'm talking anything that has or could have been lampooned on MST3K.  I'm talking bad ratings at Rotten Tomatoes.

If, after making a megaflop, you can take...saaaaayyyy..._Manos, Hands of Fate_...and make it watchable by the mainstream, you get to return to Hollywood's directorial "A-list."


----------



## Deset Gled (Jul 6, 2010)

Darth Shoju said:


> The dialogue is awful. It exists only to relate exposition, and often  without any context.
> 
> The plot is a haphazard mess.
> 
> ...




This pretty much sums up my opinion.  I found it kind of sad, actually.

Worst exposition/dialogue moment: during a voice over, Katara refers to Aang by name before Aang has introduced himself on screen (but after he had been discovered by Katara and Sokka, captured by the fire nation once, and been saved by K and S).  How the movie failed so badly to properly introduce the main character is simply beyond me.

Worst editing moment: during a fight scene, Aang is inside a ring using airbending an large wooden panels to hold off hoards of enemies and take them on one at a time.  This cuts directly to a scene of Aang running across the tops of some vertical logs, with no transition to explain how or why he got out of the ring or moved through the mounds of mooks.  Maybe there will be deleted scenes on the DVD to show this, but I won't be seeing them.

I will note that I thought Aasif Mandvi did a decent job in his role.


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 6, 2010)

Dire Bare said:


> You pretty much summed up my experience with the movie today.  I did enjoy it, I don't think it's torture to watch . . . but it wasn't a good movie.  Visuals were fantastic, but storytelling was muddled and the acting was terrible.



Right, I agree completely. I saw it because my 12 year old Little Brother (in the Big Brother/Little Brother program) wanted to, and it was gloriously air conditioned. It was far from the worst movie I've seen (Kangaroo Jack), but damn, it was bad and fairly boring. I'm looking forward to watching the rest of the animated series to get the taste out of my mouth.

I disagree with you on the casting, though. It continuously pissed me off as I watched the film. There are several incidents where all the actors are the appropriate race in the tribe except for the main characters who actually matter. How much cooler it would have been for me if they had actually cast good Inuit actors for the main roles.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 6, 2010)

I saw it over the weekend. It's not a good film, by any means, but it's not travesty. Just a disappointment. It is surprisingly _inept_ in many places, which did surprise me, given Shyamalan's technical skills. 

It kinda reminded me, of all things, of David Lynch's _Dune_. The wrong director for the material. Except for everything Lynch did wrong, he did something else right, adding bits of his weird vision which wound up resonating w/the source material. M. Night didn't do that.

Eh, it looked pretty in places, and I wasn't bored by it, clumsy as it was. And as for the whitewashing... not to sound cynical, but as a member of a seriously underrepresented-in-popular-media ethnic minority, I'm not surprised nor particularly bothered.

Actually, I think The Rock and Keannu Reeves are pretty close to my stock, but how much is their ethnic derivation a part of their public image?


----------



## Felon (Jul 6, 2010)

$70 million over the extended weekend...but The Village and The Happening also had a strong opening.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 6, 2010)

I've resisted the urge to go and see the FX because of the outrage of the fans who like the source material.


----------



## CrimsonReaver (Jul 6, 2010)

Mallus said:


> It kinda reminded me, of all things, of David Lynch's _Dune_. The wrong director for the material. Except for everything Lynch did wrong, he did something else right, adding bits of his weird vision which wound up resonating w/the source material. M. Night didn't do that.





I'm probably one of the few people who doesn't condemn David Lynch's _Dune_.  No, it's not Frank Herbert's _Dune_, but it's definitely David Lynch's.  As sad and disappointing as it was that it wasn't a faithful adaptation of the source material, I'm still able to (mostly) enjoy it because Lynch pretty much made it his own.  If you were someone who never read the book, I think you'd be able to enjoy the movie as a weird sci-fi flick with Lynch's unique brand of bizarre visual and storytelling oddities.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jul 7, 2010)

CrimsonReaver said:


> If you were someone who never read the book, I think you'd be able to enjoy the movie as a weird sci-fi flick with Lynch's unique brand of bizarre visual and storytelling oddities.



I was someone who never read the books but saw the movie. Actually, I saw a strange 6-hour long (with commercials) version that aired on USA years and years ago. I LOVED it, I kept that VHS tape for years and watched it now and then until the tape just degraded. That extended-extended version was the only version I knew for the longest time, yet I only read the books a few years ago . . .

Okay, 'nuf on the tangent


----------



## RedBeardJim (Jul 7, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> I disagree with you on the casting, though. It continuously pissed me off as I watched the film. There are several incidents where all the actors are the appropriate race in the tribe except for the main characters who actually matter. How much cooler it would have been for me if they had actually cast good Inuit actors for the main roles.





Shyamalan justified this, IIRC, by making the Northern Water Tribe Scandinavian instead of Inuit -- and since Sokka and Katara's grandmother was from the NWT, they could be the Only White Folks in the South Pole.

What I don't know is if they explained in the movie that Gran-Gran was from the NWT.


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 7, 2010)

I just went back and watched _The Sixth Sense_, which really is a masterpiece. How the heck did Shyamalan forget all those storytelling skills in the intervening years?


----------



## Felon (Jul 7, 2010)

Eric Anondson said:


> I was someone who never read the books but saw the movie. Actually, I saw a strange 6-hour long (with commercials) version that aired on USA years and years ago. I LOVED it, I kept that VHS tape for years and watched it now and then until the tape just degraded. That extended-extended version was the only version I knew for the longest time, yet I only read the books a few years ago . . .
> 
> Okay, 'nuf on the tangent



Six hours long? Sounds more like the Sci-Fi channel mini-series than the David Lynch version.


----------



## coyote6 (Jul 7, 2010)

Wikipedia says the TV version was 190 minutes long; add in commercials, and that would push it to four hours. 

Interesting - I didn't know KTVU did their own cut.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 7, 2010)

Count me as another person who liked Dune as a book...AND the David Lynch film.

Sometimes, when you are "covering" someone else's work, you need to bring your own touch to it, or else it will only suffer in comparison.  Make it too much your own, though, and you'll commit just as grave an error as being overly faithful.

Its a fine line, and not everyone can do it.  In music, Jane's Addiction screwed up "Sympathy for the Devil" by getting overly goofy with it.  OTOH, Joe Satriani- who, IMHO can do almost no wrong- bored me to death with his nearly slavish version of the classic song "Sleepwalk."  It was as if he were afraid to be himself, too in love with the original to assert his own artistic vision on it.  Brian Setzer's interpretation manages to be both faithful to the original's spirit, but also to Setzer's unique voice as a guitarist.

Lynch's Dune took Herbert's general storyline and generally followed it...but also re-imagined it into something completely new.


----------



## Kaodi (Jul 17, 2010)

I dragged my younger sister to this (we are both in our mid twenties). I liked it well enough, though I completely agree that it could of been a lot better. My sister did not like it really, though I think she is at least interested in where the plot is going, so I am curious to see if I will be able to get her to go to the second one.

Of course, as with Transformers, why I absolutely wanted to see it was because I wanted to see how they would make bending look " in real life " . That part was decent, though I think it could have been a little more epic (Aang's tidal wave notwithstanding, of course). 

I may have had an advantage over more hardcore fans though in that I have only really seen Book III, and not even all of the early episodes of that I think. What I did see though, I thoroughly enjoyed. At some point I probably should get around to seeing the whole thing, I do not know if I could rent the series or watch it online somewhere.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 26, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Sometimes, when you are "covering" someone else's work, you need to bring your own touch to it, or else it will only suffer in comparison.  Make it too much your own, though, and you'll commit just as grave an error as being overly faithful.



For illustration's sake, here's a good example of a nice cover song:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biCaNHq7ncg]YouTube - Cat Power - New York, New York (Later with Jools Holland) [/ame]


----------

