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

[BAYLOR]

It had Dances with Wolves' plot.

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

 

[Wayne Mack]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[BAYLOR]

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

 

[Vince W]

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

 

[BAYLOR]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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 Water is not the actors . It's the special effects and Amazing, stupendous, grandiose epic scenes. .

 

[Swank]

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

Just like other expensive cartoons.

 

[BAYLOR]

Just like other expensive cartoons.

Yep .

 

[Judderman]

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.