# ‘Storytelling has become the art of world building’: Avatar and the rise of the paracosm



## HareBrain (Nov 4, 2022)

Interesting article from _The Guardian_









						‘Storytelling has become the art of world building’: Avatar and the rise of the paracosm
					

James Cameron’s sequel to his 2009 fantasy epic continues cinema’s love of imaginary worlds formed in childhood that have produced some of film’s most bankable blockbusters




					www.theguardian.com
				




Do plot and character inevitably suffer when the main focus is on the world? Are we unrealistic if we want all three to be brilliant?


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 4, 2022)

In the case of Avatar, too much emphasis   was placed on the details of the world  Pandora  at the expense of everything else. What we end up with is a  visually stunning film that is empty and not very good.


----------



## Vince W (Nov 4, 2022)

Avatar had a plot?


----------



## Rodders (Nov 4, 2022)

Avatar was a huge box office success, so the world building must have carried the movie to a certain degree. (I have read that some who went to see it suffered some form of depression as the world of Pandora was so beautiful that the real world just couldn't compete.)

Personally, I loved Avatar and really wished that i'd seen it in 3d at the cinema. It was a film to be experienced

I'd argue that a huge part of Villeneuve's movie appeal is his world building (perhaps more cinematography) as well as the story.

Would games also suffer from this effect? I've played games ad nauseum because i haven't been quite ready to leave that world, yet.


----------



## Lumens (Nov 4, 2022)

Hm... This could be a forerunner to AI built worlds that you can explore on your phone or go deep with immersive VR adventures. I'd write a novel based on it but I'm so slow that by the time I've done the world building, the actual world may have caught up with me.


----------



## HareBrain (Nov 4, 2022)

Rodders said:


> Avatar was a huge box office success, so the world building must have carried the movie to a certain degree.


I enjoyed the forest parts (on IMAX in 3-D) as a visual spectacle. The rest of it was bearable the first time because i was vaguely invested in what would happen, but as it turned out, that stuff wasn't good enough for me to watch it again. It might watch it again if it had basically been a fantasy nature film.

As for this:


Rodders said:


> (I have read that some who went to see it suffered some form of depression as the world of Pandora was so beautiful that the real world just couldn't compete.)


This is itself depressing -- because they are so wrong, but clearly they haven't looked for that beauty in reality. And if people are ignorant of what we actually have, they are less likely to be interested in saving it. (Or was it just that they couldn't fly on giant lizards?)


----------



## Venusian Broon (Nov 4, 2022)

HareBrain said:


> This is itself depressing -- because they are so wrong, but clearly they haven't looked for that beauty in reality. And if people are ignorant of what we actually have, they are less likely to be interested in saving it. (Or was it just that they couldn't fly on giant lizards?)



The number of people desperate to be giant blue cat people with large eyes was, I found, a little disturbing. The human race will just evolve into furries, it seems. 

There is, surely, a large demand and interest for actual natural history documentaries, _a la _BBC Bristol and David Attenburgh, which has continued to produce ever better quality output no? 

However, that you can be temporary dazzled by an artificial 'paracosm' via technology (Great new word, I like) I could see. (I'd include computer game worlds along with Avatar as they are related in the sort of feeling they can engage.) 

I do think we humans have ways of constructing blinkers to cut down on reality and focus on immediate problems that dull other senses and viewpoints. If you are working an 11 hour day., week-in week-out where in winter you barely notice the sun because you are in front of a computer screen, or serving coffee etc. because your main concern is the mortgage, bills, kids stuff and all that, is a part of modern society.


----------



## Swank (Nov 4, 2022)

HareBrain said:


> Do plot and character inevitably suffer when the main focus is on the world? Are we unrealistic if we want all three to be brilliant?


I don't see why they should, other than the fact that Hollywood pumps out movies with bad stories all the time, regardless of the amount of worldbuilding. It is just more damning when you see a billion dollars spent on a visual spectacle and $10K couldn't be found for a decent screenwriter. (And only one screenwriter.)

Christopher Nolan and Guerimo del Toro can manage to put a good story in a very fictional world, so there is nothing mutually exclusive going on. The biggest problem is that the public sees Cameron and others as geniuses that can do no wrong, when there have always been thin writing in their output. What amazes me is the other DC stuff that involves horrid world building and bad scripts.



Edit: I just looked up how many films Cameron has actually directed that anyone cares about. The list is pretty short: Terminator, T2, Aliens, Abyss, True Lies, Titanic, Avatar.


----------



## HareBrain (Nov 4, 2022)

Venusian Broon said:


> There is, surely, a large demand and interest for actual natural history documentaries, _a la _BBC Bristol and David Attenburgh, which has continued to produce ever better quality output no?


Better quality visually. I don't tend to watch them, because the experience is increasingly distant from watching nature in reality, thanks to e.g. intrusive background music, use of slow-mo and time-lapse, and too much narration. It's become very artificial (even down to shooting footage of animals in captivity and not saying so during the programme).


----------



## Mon0Zer0 (Nov 4, 2022)

Vince W said:


> Avatar had a plot?



It had Dances with Wolves' plot.


----------



## Mon0Zer0 (Nov 4, 2022)

For the record, I fell asleep when I first watched it and wasn't even tired.


----------



## Ursa major (Nov 4, 2022)

Personally, I didn't watch _Avatar_ to the end -- no walking out was involved, as it was on the TV -- but I _was_ impressed with what I was seeing (even though it was on the TV and not a big screen), in terms of the world itself and the way it had been produced, so I might give the sequel a watch (on the TV) just in case the story is more engaging.


----------



## Rodders (Nov 4, 2022)

I think that the Star Wars Sequels (and to a lesser degree, perhaps the Prequels) were pretty guilty of excessive world building without strong story to back it up. The example that comes to immediately to mind is the salt skimming battle and the Casino scenes in The Last Jedi. More an attempt to outdo elements from the Original Trilogy than for any genuine need for them.

Judge Dredd (Stallones version) i thought that Mega-City one looked amazing and was defintely the most stylish thing about the movie (and i have a soft spot for that movie.)


----------



## Ursa major (Nov 4, 2022)

Rodders said:


> were pretty guilty of excessive world building without strong story to back it up


I can agree about the first two sequels (of the three that were recently shown on TV), to the extent that I haven't started watching my recording of the third because the second was rather boring, in my opinion, and I had other recordings to watch.

It didn't have to be this way: _Rogue One_ was far from boring.


----------



## Valtharius (Nov 4, 2022)

Venusian Broon said:


> The number of people desperate to be giant blue cat people with large eyes was, I found, a little disturbing. The human race will just evolve into furries, it seems.


I doubt it. I suspect the furry lifestyle is a sub-optimal reproductive strategy.


----------



## Christine Wheelwright (Nov 4, 2022)

Valtharius said:


> I doubt it. I suspect the furry lifestyle is a sub-optimal reproductive strategy.


Don't knock it until you've tried it!


----------



## Vince W (Nov 4, 2022)

Rodders said:


> Judge Dredd (Stallones version) i thought that Mega-City one looked amazing and was defintely the most stylish thing about the movie (and i have a soft spot for that movie.)


Many Dredd fans do, myself included.


----------



## Le Panda du Mal (Nov 4, 2022)

Worldbuilding can be cool or it can be ponderous. Lord Dunsany’s worldbuilding could be as simple as “there’s a wall between here and fairyland”, or he could create a whole mythic corpus like some alien scripture. If some feature of the world turns out to be deeply important to the characters then it should be built up enough to justify that. Joss Whedon’s shows tend to have pretty crappy worldbuilding and then build entire story arcs on half-baked concepts. A great significance is attached to something called a “soul” and whether a vampire has it or not, but no one bothers to ask what a soul actually is. By the normal definition something without a soul is an inanimate object. Or there is supposed to be some clear moral divide between killing humans and demons but this divide gets scrambled so many times and yet the audience is still asked to treat it as a black and white distinction at pivotal moments, eg when Faith accidentally kills a man and it precipitates a crisis leading to her turning bad.


----------



## sule (Nov 4, 2022)

Addressing the "sacrificing story for worldbuilding" argument: some audiences like a world that feels lived-in and will forgive a weak story if it means they get to journey through a complex world with unique aspects and meet characters who feel like they could only exist in that world. Some audiences prefer deep story-telling and don't care about things that they'll only see on screen for a few moments. As much as Hollywood would like there to be, there is no one-size-fits-all, and what's fresh and appealing today won't be ten years from now. Tastes will change but, in my opinion, there are no shortcuts you can take while guaranteeing a movie's appeal.

Addressing the "Avatar has deep worldbuilding" argument: Unobtainium.


----------



## KGeo777 (Nov 4, 2022)

This is why worldbuilding never appealed to me.
Star Trek does it but it was just speculation on the future and alien worlds but the main characters were Earth-centered (Terran bigots that we are).
Star Wars did it but I had the impression it was all bubble gum wrapper trivia and not the real focus anyway. Primarily you see a Star Wars movie for adventure and action.
Or did.
Cameron is funny--he is no doubt the single-most important filmmaker of spfx around today. It not for him, there would not have been the cgi dinosaurs in Jurassic Park (for better or worse).
And he did achieve something with Avatar which was  impressive-that is, he came up with some technological developments for world-building in film which was new and probably would have been amazing to see in a theater. I also saw it on a (small)tv and yet I was impressed by that scene where they are falling in the sky. There is some amazing spfx achievements in it but the story and characters are rather vapid even though he does care about drama. It's just not the most exciting story to make for this technology.

The problem is, realistically, the story and characters don't really matter in these things.
Avatar is not about the story or character--the prime reason he wanted to do it was to explore technological means of creating fully realistic CGI environments. The studio tells him -- "if you want this, you have to do a story that has certain elements we want to preach to the public about." So Cameron does that.

Lucas did too actually.
I have no interest in rewatching Avatar. I remember it--the scenes, etc, but it didn't interest me enough to revisit.

Yet I will be rewatching Frogs or the Flesh Eaters again and I bet a week of catering on Avatar films is more expensive than those films cost to make and market.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 4, 2022)

Vince W said:


> Avatar had a plot?



The movies stunning visuals  stunned  as and ate it .


----------



## Vince W (Nov 4, 2022)

Frankly, I didn’t find Avatar’s visuals all that stunning. To me they were completely artificial and cartoonish. I put them on the same level as Rocket Robin Hood.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 4, 2022)

Vince W said:


> Frankly, I didn’t find Avatar’s visuals all that stunning. To me they were completely artificial and cartoonish. I put them on the same level as Rocket Robin Hood.



Yes, an incredible  bad tv series and yet sheer awfulness and silliness makes it fun to watch . this   even recycled villains and footage from the 1960's Spiderman series .


----------



## Vince W (Nov 4, 2022)

BAYLOR said:


> Yes, an incredible  bad tv series and yet sheer awfulness and silliness makes it fun to watch . this   even recycled villains and footage from the 1960's Spiderman series .


I will not hear a bed word about RRH. It is an indelible part of my childhood.


----------



## sule (Nov 4, 2022)

Vince W said:


> I will not hear a bed word about RRH. It is an indelible part of my childhood.


Sounds like you won't be taking it lying down...


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 4, 2022)

Vince W said:


> I will not hear a bed word about RRH. It is an indelible part of my childhood.



Sorry .


----------



## Karn's Return (Nov 5, 2022)

Proper worldbuilding is about more than just the visuals. You need a history, you need substance, you need life and civilizations that make sense within the confines. And it's never really finished, to be honest...I'm still working on my first one, technically, and it's been probably twenty years.


----------



## Swank (Nov 5, 2022)

Karn's Return said:


> Proper worldbuilding is about more than just the visuals. You need a history, you need substance, you need life and civilizations that make sense within the confines. And it's never really finished, to be honest...I'm still working on my first one, technically, and it's been probably twenty years.


Well, worldbuilding for worldbuilding's sake. 

I would argue "proper worldbuilding" is when you provide a consistent enough background for the story that it _appears_ to take place in a complete world, rather than the world actually being complete.


----------



## Karn's Return (Nov 5, 2022)

Perhaps to a point, but that kind of goes out the window when you want to have a chronology.


----------



## The Big Peat (Nov 5, 2022)

Le Panda du Mal said:


> Joss Whedon’s shows tend to have pretty crappy worldbuilding and then build entire story arcs on half-baked concepts. A great significance is attached to something called a “soul” and whether a vampire has it or not, but no one bothers to ask what a soul actually is.



This begs the question of how you define good worldbuilding and bad worldbuilding.

If it's "does it allow the person enjoying the media to understand exactly what's going on" then, well, yeah, maybe it's bad.

If it's "does it provide the story with conceits that make it more powerful and enjoyable"... then his worldbuilding is clearly quite good.

Perhaps they are both equally valid parameters, but I know which one I prefer as an audience member.



HareBrain said:


> Interesting article from _The Guardian_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes and no.

Look, you can't do everything. You only have so many exposition scenes before you run out of momentum, only so many room for meaningful lines before action scenes drag.

But you can pack an absolute ton into a story if you pack it carefully, particularly if you look for items that are multi-purpose. Could you have an after-action scene in which the character reflects on the deeply cherished place they nearly lost (character and worldbuilding), before another character comes up and they compare cherished places (more character, more worldbuilding, advancing romantic subplot)? Yeah, probably. Maybe not everyone gets all of it but it can work.

I also think to a certain extent, once you get one element brilliant people start seeing brilliance in the other elements too.

It's harder but it seems doable to me. Besides, weren't most of us Fantistika writers trying to do this anyway?


----------



## Swank (Nov 5, 2022)

Karn's Return said:


> Perhaps to a point, but that kind of goes out the window when you want to have a chronology.


What is the function of the chronology to the story?


----------



## Vince W (Nov 5, 2022)

sule said:


> Sounds like you won't be taking it lying down...


I just saw the spelling error. Stupid tablet. I think I’ll leave it.


----------



## Mon0Zer0 (Nov 5, 2022)

Ursa major said:


> Personally, I didn't watch _Avatar_ to the end -- no walking out was involved, as it was on the TV -- but I _was_ impressed with what I was seeing (even though it was on the TV and not a big screen), in terms of the world itself and the way it had been produced, so I might give the sequel a watch (on the TV) just in case the story is more engaging.



One of my mates was a lead project manager at the Framestore where they did the VFX for Avatar. At the time he was saying how Cameron had developed a revolutionary pipeline for CG. It's quite difficult to fully emphasise just how much it revolutionised filming with CG. (I can't remember what was different - I *think* it might be the use of live / interactive CG when filming so the cinematographers had a live view of what they were filming as they had a renderer working in real time with actors in mocap suits, but don't quote me on that as I could be confused with another movie).

It still holds up CG wise, with the best of today's work - even if we're now accustomed to it as the new normal. I remember being wowed by the jungle scenes, and un-wowed by the story.


----------



## Ursa major (Nov 5, 2022)

Mon0Zer0 said:


> I remember being wowed by the jungle scenes, and un-wowed by the story.


That's a good way of putting it.


----------



## Karn's Return (Nov 5, 2022)

Swank said:


> What is the function of the chronology to the story?




Establishment of events within timeline to branch off into multiple story directions. I'm looking at beyond just a single story here, though...


----------



## Swank (Nov 5, 2022)

Karn's Return said:


> Establishment of events within timeline to branch off into multiple story directions. I'm looking at beyond just a single story here, though...


If you write the first story with only the necessary details, your chronology will be entirely open to fit other stories into it. Write the chronology first and you are writing yourself into a corner.


----------



## Karn's Return (Nov 6, 2022)

Really depends on how many avenues you're willing to explore, really. And how many non-canon spinoffs you might want to do.


----------



## Swank (Nov 6, 2022)

Karn's Return said:


> Really depends on how many avenues you're willing to explore, really. And how many non-canon spinoffs you might want to do.


Most new writer's are concerned with getting at least one book published.


----------



## Karn's Return (Nov 6, 2022)

Perhaps that might be part of the problem...


Not saying to not cement something, of course. Just have avenues for such things open later on down the line.


----------



## Swank (Nov 6, 2022)

Karn's Return said:


> Perhaps that might be part of the problem...
> 
> 
> Not saying to not cement something, of course. Just have avenues for such things open later on down the line.


Pre-planning everything is just another way to close future avenues. 


I'm kind of soft pedaling around this, but the issue that seems to come up pretty often is that the key to writing popular books does not lie in extensive world building, character design, detailed world maps, sub-genre classification, multi-novel plot arcs, visual descriptions or chronologies. Those appear to be mostly things that people mistake for important, but end up taking up all their time and creative energy - or hem them into a story that they don't love as much as the thing they really want to write.

Over and over, published authors make it clear that they do not put an incredible amount of thought into these issues. If there is a sequel to be written, they find the place in time that it fits. If there is a new technology necessary to drive the plot, they create it at that time and fit it into the world of the previous book. No popular author seems to ever advise any new writer to do a lot of pre-planning beyond plot and theme for the book they are writing. 

By all means, be thoughtful in your approach. But the key to writing a good book is to spend your time writing and editing prose.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 7, 2022)

Mon0Zer0 said:


> It had Dances with Wolves' plot.



The third  film in the series will have an  Avatar/ Smurfs crossover .


----------



## Wayne Mack (Nov 7, 2022)

To address the initial question, I don't think that true worldbuilding detracts from plot and characterization, rather it supports them. Going a little deeper, I suspect that the concern is not with worldbuilding per se, but with CGI and special effects and the amount of time and effort put into creating a stunning visual image. Specifically with_ Avatar_, I find that it did not have a very deep world. For comparison, look at worlds created for _Harry Potter_ or for _Avatar: The Last Airbender_ TV series. Both had fascinating worlds that added to the plot and characterizations.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 7, 2022)

Wayne Mack said:


> To address the initial question, I don't think that true worldbuilding detracts from plot and characterization, rather it supports them. Going a little deeper, I suspect that the concern is not with worldbuilding per se, but with CGI and special effects and the amount of time and effort put into creating a stunning visual image. Specifically with_ Avatar_, I find that it did not have a very deep world. For comparison, look at worlds created for _Harry Potter_ or for _Avatar: The Last Airbender_ TV series. Both had fascinating worlds that added to the plot and characterizations.



Cameron didn't write a good story. That's the problem,


----------



## HareBrain (Nov 7, 2022)

Wayne Mack said:


> To address the initial question, *I don't think that true worldbuilding detracts from plot and characterization, rather it supports them*. Going a little deeper, I suspect that the concern is not with worldbuilding per se, but with CGI and special effects and the amount of time and effort put into creating a stunning visual image. Specifically with_ Avatar_, I find that it did not have a very deep world. For comparison, look at worlds created for _Harry Potter_ or for _*Avatar: The Last Airbender*_* TV series*. Both had fascinating worlds that added to the plot and characterizations.



I think the worldbuilding for ATLA is a good example of what you said at the start of your post (my bolding). It served the characters and plot superbly. But I don't think it's a great example of "pure" worldbuilding as such: the division of the world and population into the four bending styles just seemed artificial and unrealistic to me (especially given that two of them, air and water, had tiny populations). But no one really cares about that when they're caught up in the story, and it might be that a more "realistic" world might have overcomplicated that. Plot and character have to take priority.


----------



## Christine Wheelwright (Nov 7, 2022)

I don't think a story (novel or movie) needs to be segregated into clearly defined functions (world-building, character development, plot, and so on).  Rather the elements should coexist on the page.  The fictional world should be described through the actions of the characters as the plot develops.  Really this isn't too much to ask, it's just good writing.  Nothing is worse than paragraphs dedicated to describing the world, followed by paragraphs that move the plot, followed by paragraphs describing what characters are thinking and feeling.  Do everything at once!


----------



## HareBrain (Nov 7, 2022)

Going back to the question raised by the article, do SFF storytellers now prioritise world-creation more than they did, in the hope that this will let them exploit their creations for longer (through more films or books)? Is the idea of the series or franchise now the base level for ambition in a way it wasn't before?


----------



## Christine Wheelwright (Nov 7, 2022)

HareBrain said:


> Going back to the question raised by the article, do SFF storytellers now prioritise world-creation more than they did, in the hope that this will let them exploit their creations for longer (through more films or books)? Is the idea of the series or franchise now the base level for ambition in a way it wasn't before?


Yes, perhaps.  But I don't think this is a creative decision.  Rather it is a sign of risk aversion within the industry.  Each installment's success is determined by the customer's enjoyment of the previous one.  This offsets the inevitable decline.  Yes, prioritization of world building makes it easier to churn out future product (default plotlines are easy to come up with and can be wedged into the existing world).


----------



## The Big Peat (Nov 7, 2022)

HareBrain said:


> I think the worldbuilding for ATLA is a good example of what you said at the start of your post (my bolding). It served the characters and plot superbly. But I don't think it's a great example of "pure" worldbuilding as such: the division of the world and population into the four bending styles just seemed artificial and unrealistic to me (especially given that two of them, air and water, had tiny populations). But no one really cares about that when they're caught up in the story, and it might be that a more "realistic" world might have overcomplicated that. Plot and character have to take priority.



And we're back to what's good worldbuilding and bad worldbuilding.

It's true that AtLA's world lacks a good deal of verisimilitude, consistency, and so on.

But its worldbuilding elements don't just serve the characters and plot, they capture people's imagination and make them want to know more about it. The bending styles and cultures and what not are part of people's enduring fascination with the world.

Maybe good and bad complicate it.

There's thorough worldbuilding, where you build worlds that have the weight and plausibility of our own.

And there's catchy worldbuilding, where you build worlds that have eye-catching cool elements that enchant audiences and ensure they return again and again. And I think the elements of catchy worldbuilding are

a) Easily understood imagination catching supernatural conceits
b) Powerful meaningful factions for fan self-identification
c) Large segments of worldbuilding that invite questions like a map saying "here be dragons" i.e. a lack of details on certain points.

Catchy worldbuilding is good for stories. Thorough worldbuilding has upsides and downsides. Catchy worldbuilding's only real downside I see is that when it doesn't work, it's lack of rigour will irk a lot of fans. But it's never complicating narratives like thorough is.



As for changing how writers write stories... I don't know. Maybe in Hollywood. Outside Hollywood, I don't know. Personally, despite having figured all of this out 5 years ago, I've done very little with that knowledge. Maybe I should.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 13, 2022)

As technology  improves  well get ever grander visual  spectacles. Here's hoping that its in consecution with good writing.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 18, 2022)

*Avatar Way of  the Water* appears to be scoring big box office numbers.


----------



## Vince W (Dec 18, 2022)

No shocks there. Still doesn't make it any good.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 18, 2022)

Vince W said:


> No shocks there. Still doesn't make it any good.



I read the plot summary of the film. It didn't make want to go and see it .


----------



## Swank (Dec 18, 2022)

BAYLOR said:


> *Avatar Way of  the Water* appears to be scoring big box office numbers.


I read it was well behind where it should be. Only $35M first night.


----------



## Robert Zwilling (Dec 18, 2022)

I would guess there are 9 basic groups reacting to AWOTW.
Like the message, like the visualization of the movie
Like the message, don't like the visualization of the movie
Like the message, don't care about the visualization of the movie
Don't care about the message, like the visualization of the movie
Don't care about the message, don't like the visualization of the movie
Don't care about the message, don't care about the visualization of the movie
Don't like the message, don't like the visualization of the movie
Don't like the message, like the visualization of the movie
Don't like the message, don't care about the visualization of the movie

The main groups driving sales are probably
Don't care about the message, like the visualization of the movie
Don't care about the message, don't care about the visualization of the movie
Like the message, like the visualization of the movie
Like the message, don't care about the visualization of the movie

The first Avatar movie got off to a slow start, but kept going strong for a long time after that. Might have to wait to see how it goes. The length is long for theaters but not bad for home theaters. There are a lot more big screen TVs around now than there was 10 years ago.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Dec 18, 2022)

Vince W said:


> No shocks there. Still doesn't make it any good.


Although not quite a classic, Mark Kermode's review of it, with Mayo, is pretty entertaining. So at least something good came from the film. (It's on the channel 'Kermode and Mayo's Take' if you want to peruse it.)


----------



## Swank (Dec 18, 2022)

Robert Zwilling said:


> I would guess there are 9 basic groups reacting to AWOTW.
> Like the message, like the visualization of the movie
> Like the message, don't like the visualization of the movie
> Like the message, don't care about the visualization of the movie
> ...


I would have thought it was two groups:
Want to see movie.
Don't want to see movie.

Most people are unaware that a SF movie even has a message, unless it is one designed to hit you over the head.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 19, 2022)

Swank said:


> I would have thought it was two groups:
> Want to see movie.
> Don't want to see movie.
> 
> Most people are unaware that a SF movie even has a message, unless it is one designed to hit you over the head.



The star of *Avatar Way of the Wate*r is not the actors . It's the special effects and Amazing, stupendous, grandiose epic scenes. .


----------



## Swank (Dec 19, 2022)

BAYLOR said:


> The star of *Avatar Way of the Wate*r is not the actors . It's the special effects and Amazing, stupendous, grandiose epic scenes. .


Just like other expensive cartoons.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 19, 2022)

Swank said:


> Just like other expensive cartoons.



Yep .


----------



## Judderman (Dec 21, 2022)

Venusian Broon said:


> There is, surely, a large demand and interest for actual natural history documentaries, _a la _BBC Bristol and David Attenburgh, which has continued to produce ever better quality output no?


Off topic but I have found the visuals of wildlife documentaries have improved, eith rare or hard to film moments caught on camera. But not necessarily the overall quality as many of them now jump from place to place and species to species. Which gives you some wow moments but doesn't draw you in as much. Not unlike CGI.


----------



## Judderman (Dec 21, 2022)

Swank said:


> Edit: I just looked up how many films Cameron has actually directed that anyone cares about. The list is pretty short: Terminator, T2, Aliens, Abyss, True Lies, Titanic, Avatar.


To be fair this is an amazing list. Particularly for sci-fi and action fans. While Titanic and Avatar raked in the money too.


----------



## Judderman (Dec 21, 2022)

HareBrain said:


> Better quality visually. I don't tend to watch them, because the experience is increasingly distant from watching nature in reality, thanks to e.g. intrusive background music, use of slow-mo and time-lapse, and too much narration. It's become very artificial (even down to shooting footage of animals in captivity and not saying so during the programme).


Exactly


----------



## paeng (Dec 22, 2022)

According to the writer,



> “More and more, storytelling has become the art of world building,” writes Henry Jenkins in Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. “The world is bigger than the film, bigger even than the franchise – since fan speculations and elaborations that also expand the world in a variety of directions.” As one screenwriter recently commented: “When I first started you would pitch a story because, without a good story, you didn’t really have a film. Later, once sequels started to take off, you pitched a character because a good character could support multiple stories. And now you pitch a world, because a world can support multiple characters and multiple stories across multiple media.”



Ironically, that's the reason why many new movies are awful: they assumed that because a world can support so many characters and stories, then those characters and stories will be expressed effectively as long as there's a world that can imagined to allow for them. Hence, no need to "pitch a story."

The result are movies involving worlds with churned out stories and characters that are at best mediocre because of short development time.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 22, 2022)

paeng said:


> According to the writer,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We end up with 2 hour long Big screen game cut scenes in the guise of feature films.


----------



## Rodders (Dec 22, 2022)

I haven't seen Avatar: The Way of Water yet. Perhaps after Christmas.


----------



## Vince W (Dec 22, 2022)

Rodders said:


> I haven't seen Avatar: The Way of Water yet. Perhaps after Christmas.


Me too. In 2036.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Dec 22, 2022)

Vince W said:


> Me too. In 2036.


You'll be way behind. By 2036 we be at _Avatar VII: Papa Smurf returns_


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 23, 2022)

Vince W said:


> Me too. In 2036.



That's too soon to see it.


----------



## Christine Wheelwright (Dec 23, 2022)

Vince W said:


> Me too. In 2036.


I've heard it's an excruciatingly long film. Start watching now and you will be finishing in 2036 (or it will feel like it anyway).


----------



## paeng (Dec 23, 2022)

Off-topic, but in light of putting together cut scenes, check this out:

"ALIEN: ISOLATION Game Movie (All Cutscenes) 1080p HD" (warning: spoilers)






Who knows, maybe they'll make an _Avatar_ video game where the cut scenes can be turned into a movie.


----------

