This content argues that the film Avatar and its sequel are critically misunderstood and often dismissed with superficial, subjective criticisms. The author aims to provide an objective analysis of the films' craft, world-building, and narrative structure, defending them against common, often flawed, critiques.
Mind Map
Click to expand
Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate
That's weird because my take is that
it's very unrealistic how they would
like do all this stuff considering they
have an entire planet to work with and
they seem to be specifically
cartoonishly evil in a lot of ways and
incompetently so to try and get what
they want.
>> I assume you realize that you need
psychiatric help. [music]
[music]
>> I cannot believe you made me do this.
You fools. You absolute [ __ ] fools.
Whether or not you like Avatar is not my
business. That's your subjective
emotional response and I have no stake
in that business. But you didn't just
leave it there.
You said it was bad. And that's where I
come in. Avatar is not a bad movie.
Calling it bad has been a sentiment
that's been pared for years with very
little push back. 15 years after the
first movie released, we're getting the
long- aaited sequels that promise to
expand the interplanetary conflict the
first film started. And as [music] such,
these movies are still embedded into
popular culture. Even still, they've
managed to avoid serious critical
discussions like the mega blockbusters
of the 2010s and the 2020s since it
seems more profitable to scream at the
brick wall of the modern media culture
war. Let's be honest, we're all guilty
of this [ __ ] Pre207 writing discussion
boiled down to the innaneity of
emotional responses to [music] stories
rather than discussing the craft of
storytelling itself, breeding
generations of pseudocritics. Cringe,
lame, boring, they're all words. Words
of the subjective variety. They're valid
to feel, but you can't just whip them
out in discussion of storytelling
quality as a catch-all stance immune to
criticism. Then there are criticisms
like preachy, too long, too much action,
and [music] too much CGI, which are all
based on measurable aspects of a movie,
but the threshold between acceptable and
unacceptable is based on tolerance,
which is itself subjective. There's a
reason the standard I use is based on
internal consistency and objective
craft, since that's something I can
point to and explain in the same way I
can point to the cracked foundation of a
house. this is what happened versus how
it made me feel type thing. Talking
exclusively about how a movie made me
feel is a benign narcissism that I'm not
really interested in discussing. And in
that same line of thinking, this video
won't cover any criticisms that fall
into category zero, the [music]
subjective response. They have no weight
in what I'm about to break down, nor
does what I have to say do anything to
rebuke them. None of the arguments I'll
use in this video will resort to what I
like or dislike about this movie. I
could simply not cover this movie
altogether, and the points I'll lay out
will be true, regardless of if this
video existed or not. But before I
continue, I have to address the big blue
alien elephant in the room. I'm aware
that local sprint man made his own
videos on Avatar a few years ago that
cover the same general thesis. But given
that he's doing a bit of a rebrand, I
feel it prudent to go a little deeper
into the topic and update some of the
defenses of the series since those were
made with limited and outdated context.
They're still great. So, if you haven't
seen them, check them out if you still
can. You might have gone off the rails
recently, but they're still fantastic
videos. So, there's this weird thing
that people do when they watch a movie
covering certain subject matter where
they'll start defaulting to category
zero arguments. Because this movie
covers topics that align with real world
instances of colonialism, they'll argue
that it's morally bad for portraying a
guy as the standin for the invading
culture, switching sides and helping the
indigenous stand-ins fight back. I can
get how this can rub people the wrong
way, but there's nothing about the movie
itself that's bad because of it. That's
moralizing. And morals are based on
arbitrary standards society collectively
agrees on an appeal to popularity. that
is again falls deep in category zero. I
might object to monarchy, but that
doesn't make Lord of the Rings a poorly
constructed story on the grounds of
advocating for hereditary rule. But then
there are people who put a spin on that
and criticize how the movie portrays a
pretty black and white simplistic
narrative that apparently should be more
complex, either for reasons of personal
taste in their investment in the story
or as an allegory for real world
instances of colonialism. Obviously, the
latter falls into the moralizing
category, but the first is also category
zero to a T. But the general idea that
it's too simple of a movie given the
subject matter is something that I'd
like to push back on, but you'll need to
hear me out for a bit. Part of the more
complex nature of this movie boils down
to the worldbuilding. Now, this is a
sci-fi movie exploring traditional
fantasy tropes. Tribes that worship
nature, forest spirits, the whole
shebang. The reason I bring this up is
because of criticisms I put in category
1. The first category that at first
glance holds any weight as criticism.
Jacob, say his name, Sully, is running
around the forest in his psychic clone
flesh puppet while Natiri Teska Moatite,
yes, that's her real name, look it up,
finds Jake in the woods and nearly kills
him. Then she stops because a seed from
the sacred tree stopped her. Pause. I
already hear people mashing their
keyboards at the idea that the mother of
Deosex Machin has happened. But one
thing we need to remember is that this
movie firmly establishes that the deity,
the Na'vi worship, is real. The fungal
network of the entire planet is a
collection of the minds of all living
things in that [music] world. Now, you
can resort to category zero and start
discussing how it's a morally corrupt
planet that is pretty much a parasitic
organism harvesting the minds of its
inhabitants. But that's a pretty weird
thing to do given the scale of what Awa
is. This would be like applying human
moral labels to Lovecraftian monsters or
even just God, like traditional biblical
god. The concept of human morals don't
apply to creatures that have literally
no equal. This movie presents Awa as a
benevolent nature goddess, not as a
mental parasite. So, as part of good
faith engagement with this movie boils
down to accepting that premise, whether
we object to that in our real world or
not, this movie establishes an
unambiguous God who gave an unambiguous
sign to Natia that Jake is someone worth
sparing. Whenever these movies talk
about sacred spirits or the magic,
whatever, you have to accept them as
canon and ignore your personal biases to
see the bigger picture of what the story
is conveying. Because of these facts,
nothing to do with the forest itself and
the behavior of animal life in this
world is contrived. It covers its own
bases. Avatar is a deeply [music]
religious film. Not in the sense that it
advocates for any specific religion, but
because it legitimizes the concept of
religion in a way that's pretty rarely
seen in sci-fi and is much more common
in fantasy. And while I'm not religious,
I'm not going to let that project onto
my analysis of this movie. Without
giving context for what awe is, the
story will be far worse. So, when
they're losing the final battle and a
bunch of forest creatures join the
fight, that's not just a bunch of
animals randomly helping for the sake of
the plot. That's a character making a
conscious choice to help. One of the
biggest points of praise for the series
is that Pandora itself is a character in
its own right, but they normally mean in
terms of presentation. The ironic thing
is that canonically Pandora is a
character. The context of the world
alone sets this apart from other movies
in totality. And [ __ ] me, let's address
this [ __ ] Over the years, the
predominant criticism levied against the
first movie is that it's too similar to
other movies. As if originality and
quality had anything to do with each
other. ironic since the majority of
criticisms against this movie haven't
changed since 2000 father [ __ ] nine.
But I'd like to bring out how the nature
of human imagination is a fickle [ __ ]
We think imagination is limitless, but
in reality it's bound to what we know.
All stories are based on something, and
your ability to recognize similar
patterns between stories doesn't make
any of them inherently worse. That's yet
another category zero level argument
since it's all about the viewer's
perception instead of anything related
to the movie itself. [music]
>> But Avatar is filled with tropes. It's
tropey chroy mcrop face Donald Trump
trope. I know this movie is littered
with tropes, but I'd like to ask why
tropes are a problem. Like genuinely,
I've never seen a concrete reason for
why they're a problem. I've said it in
previous videos, but a movie having
similarities to other movies holds zero
weight as a criticism since all stories
we've ever made are based on something
else. All characters and stories will be
based on something within the confines
of human existence. Be them other
stories or real instances of history.
Our individual recognition of familiar
storytelling beats does not change the
quality of a movie at all. As a thought
experiment, consider what value tropes
have in an objective analysis if you
don't notice them. What if you enter a
movie with a very loose understanding of
certain patterns and you don't notice
anything familiar? Like, if you've never
seen other movies, does that
automatically make the movie better? And
I'm not even advocating for the idea
that tropes are good or bad. I'm just
saying they hold no weight. They're not
good or bad. [music]
[music]
Anyways, with that very carefully
thought out transition, I'm going to use
this section to discuss a dumb
conversation I had recently. Nothing
personal, but it's a microcosm of what
the average online pseudocritic thinks.
So, the criticism of unoriginality is
lame, but so is the criticism of
simplicity. This silly individual logged
onto the she Twitter knockoff and with
the indomitable human spirit burning in
his soul made the claim that Avatar's
story is commonplace and pedestrian,
which was met with my trademark snark,
pointing out how that statement isn't a
valid criticism. Then they replied,
"Well, I use the word story very
loosely. I just mean all the scenes in
the dialogue and the plot and
characters. It's all predictable,
simplistic, mannered, pedestrian. If it
took out the CGI, what would you have
left?" Which, [ __ ] me. This is just
doubling down on the principle I took
issue with in the first place. You
cannot just say stuff and expect it to
make sense. You have to think about what
you are saying.
>> And then I replied, notice how none of
these criticisms have any weight in an
objective sense. You're resorting to
buzzwords instead of pointing to actual
flaws. And instead of understanding what
I'm saying and knowing the difference
between objectivity and subjectivity,
they then said, "Well, I was being
somewhat conversational describing my
reaction." You did not have a similar
one. I think it's pretty common to say
that these are popcorn movies. you turn
off your brain. I mean, what's the point
of the CGI? If you took it out, what is
left? Somehow, still not understanding
the basic point I'm trying to convey, I
then said that if you took away the CGI
visuals, you'd still have a story. Aside
from turning this conversation into a
literal back and forth about the obvious
existence of a story, they were at least
trying to engage with this conversation
in earnest. So, credit where it's due.
At one point I asked how recently
they've seen Avatar, a question that'll
never be answered because of course
[music] most people who [ __ ] on Avatar
haven't seen it in a decade and a half.
But then they clarified their statement
saying, "I just realize I said the story
is simply common place and pedestrian. I
did not say the story was simple, and
common place certainly refers to one,
but I thought we were talking about two.
Which are you talking about?" Which
isn't really relevant to the point, so I
just ignored it. And nonetheless, it's a
poor argument to make against either
movie. They could be saying this about
Pirates of the Caribbean or the new Ice
Cube: War of the Worlds movie, and I'd
use the same argumentation in the face
of shitty, vapid criticism like this.
So, ignoring that irrelevant factor, I
replied, "Common Place and Pedestrian
are unquantifiable statements. I could
explain for days on end how they're more
tightly crafted than most give them
credit for, and you could rebuke them by
saying the same thing. It's an
unfalsifiable statement since there's
literally no backing in objective
context." And then they accuse me of
using AI to debate on social media, so I
stopped giving a [ __ ] For the sake of
argument, I'm going to assume what they
meant. I'm going to assume that they're
making the same tired argument that
Avatar is an unoriginal movie. The story
of Avatar is simple and simple [music]
means bad. It's an ironically shallow
criticism given that it's preaching
about the value of originality and
complexity when the argument itself is
unoriginal and not complex. [music]
But pretending that isn't a non-starter,
I might as well make my case. Simplicity
does not matter because all stories are
simple. They exist in simple frameworks
that are confined to a few hours at
most. But I'd argue it isn't even true.
The foundation of Avatar is a simple
framework, sure, but every element of a
film is explored to the necessary extent
they should be to make this kind of
story work. One of the most effective
ways to write a story is to have a
general premise already established, a
basic log line to build off of. Imagine,
if you will, a story about a father
trying to save his recently kidnapped
son. That is quite literally one of the
most ubiquitous story types that exist
about someone trying to rescue someone
that they love. But a dynamic between a
parent and child is a very specific one
that creates a ton of drama. between the
two, only necessitating certain
characters to be involved in the core
conflict. Take any well-rounded script
and toss in an additional character for
the sake of it and see what happens.
Writers should stick to necessary
perspectives on the plot only. These
perspectives are the characters and only
those with the most intense personal
connection to the core premise should be
the main protagonist. So, with the story
about a human corporation mining
valuable resources on an alien world
where the native population is fighting
back, it only makes sense that the
protagonist is someone who's personally
and emotionally invested in the conflict
itself. His own arc being an extension
of both sides. Starting off as a human
trying to help the corporation in their
mining operation, ending the story being
fully accepted into the native culture.
Predictable, sure. Cliche, sure. Simple,
sure. But I'd encourage you to consider
this a disciplined focus rather than
simplicity. I can get why people would
think this is simple. That itself has
more complexity to it than the veneer of
simplicity that people try to wrongly
project onto this film simply because
they'd rather compare it to other
movies. And that takes me to category 2.
It's just like other movies. The scope
of human imagination is limited. Try to
imagine a new color. Our minds are
limited to things that we can observe.
Hence why aliens and fiction are more
often than not based on creatures on our
own planet. Fictional governments will
be based on real world governments.
Relationships will be based on real
relationships that exist in our own
world. Religions will be based on our
religions and the list goes on. This is
an implicit element of human creativity
and we should not see it as some kind of
artistic weakness. I've made it clear
many times before that I think
relatability to a story is an impossible
task for any writer given the vast
differences in human experience that the
audience will inherently have. But in
that same line of thinking, I also
understand that relatability is a pretty
solid consumer psychology tool to help
an audience engage with the art on a
subjective level. Think of how many kid
shows are about a kid since kids can't
fully relate to the struggles of an
adult character. So familiarity is not
only an invalid criticism, but also it
can be used on a psychological level to
help the audience connect with the
story. That being said, I don't want to
hear anybody come to me asking to make a
video on how to make characters
relatable, since in practice, it's a
pretty nebulous concept. What I'm
getting at here is that all stories will
have some relatable elements to them,
which are symptoms of using elements
that already exist in other stories or
circumstances from the real world. And
that's not a good thing or a bad thing.
It's just kind of a reality we have to
deal with. In that same line of
thinking, people will often reduce
Avatar to smurf aas with wolves in space
as of reducing the basic structure of a
plot into a simple sentence can fully
convey what the story actually is. In
various poorly argued responses to my
villain worship video, many people
compared Jake's story in Avatar to Paul
and Dune. That was by design, of course,
on my part. They're two characters that
experience very similar general plot
points. They're both men from another
world who get lost in an indigenous
culture and fight alongside them against
other worldly invaders after having
spent a significant amount of time
learning their ways and becoming
accepted into their culture. But of
course, both stories have more they
bring to the table than the basic
outline. That step number two of writing
anything. The minutiae of how the story
progresses, the world building, and
especially the characterization of the
protagonist and the antagonist will set
the trajectory of a story in an entirely
different direction. The liar reveal
element of Avatar sets Jake on the path
of forgiveness and the expansive space
opera and hyperpolitical world of Dune
sees Paul go on the path of becoming a
conqueror. We can apply this logic to
other stories too. Pocahontas is told
from the perspective of an indigenous
woman instead of from the perspective of
the invader and the conflict ends with a
peaceful resolution instead of a war.
The magic that exists in the movie is
much less quantifiable than Avatar
existing as a vague mystical force
without any real explanation or utility.
And with Dances with Wolves, the same
logic applies. The protagonist is a
Union soldier during the Civil War. A
man seeking peace on the edge of the
frontier. And the conflict didn't end
with victory, but kind of in a real
world historical inevitability. There's
no in universe magical force that helps
anyone since this is based on actual
real world history. Shockingly, the
limited scope of human imagination
creates stories that have fundamental
similarities, but the context is what
sets them apart. Can you name one other
movie with the plot structure that has
an objectively real biochemical in
universe magic system that links all
minds on the planet creating an
objectively real god? When I said Avatar
is a very religious movie, I didn't mean
in the sense that it's a moral directive
telling the audience to believe in God,
but that it's quantifying God in a way
where there are two cultures that could
see the same concept and get two vastly
different takeaways. Human seeing a
fungal network mirroring a brain and the
Na'vi seeing Awa. But cycling back to
focus on how the protagonist works in
this movie. Jake isn't a one-dimensional
character as many a film critic have
tried to claim over the years. Now, I
get how someone can look at Jake and see
a boring character the same way I can
see people finding Luke Skywalker or
Froto Baggins or Cassie andor Will
Turner boring. That's a reasonable
position to have and I won't give
someone [ __ ] for that. But I will give
push back if that's used as an objective
criticism. There's tons of material
there that builds Jake up to be a
fantastic thematically relevant
protagonist. For one, he actually has a
pretty solid foundation. Starting off as
a character devoid of any meaningful
purpose or human connections. He doesn't
mention that he has any family aside
from his recently deceased brother, who
he's taking the place of in the Avatar
program. No girlfriend, no kids, no
parents. He takes the job for a hefty
paycheck. Coming from a military
background, he finds greater camaraderie
with Cor than with the scientist he's
supposed to work alongside. He gets lost
in the jungle on his first mission in
his Avatar body. Nearly gets killed by
Natiri, but stops when Awok gives her a
sign that he's worth sparing. She brings
him back to her clan and the spiritual
leader of the clan vouches for him. As
an aside, some people believe that the
Na'vi think that he's a member of their
species, but they're fully aware of what
the program is and only take a chance on
him when they understand that he's a
blank slate of ideology that could be
brought into the fold to mend
interspecies relations. Mati is tasked
with teaching Jake their ways, all while
he's giving intel to Quorich on how to
destroy their home to extract resources.
But once he learns how to fly on an
Echron, he switches sides to see himself
more with the Na'vi than with the RDA as
the culmination of the months they spent
together. Neat filmmaking detail. The
RDA base is shot and lit very
differently from this point forward from
how it was earlier, conveying visually
that he's fully on board with the Na'vi
and fully in love with Nati. His arc is
someone who's caught in between two
worlds and having to come to grips with
their very real diametric opposition and
how he can't entertain both for long
without serious repercussions. And once
[ __ ] hits the fan, he has to give
himself to the Na'vi in the most radical
way possible in order to win their trust
back. People often misinterpret or even
straw man the scene where Jake returns
with Turo as him hijacking the religion
to weaponize the Na'vi against his own
species for selfish purposes, which holy
[ __ ] there couldn't be more blatantly
wrong if they tried. He believes it full
stop. He doesn't say, "Follow me and I
will lead you to paradise like a
sociopathic monster with the goal of
fulfilling some personal vendetta." On
the topic of Jake's moral character,
there's another weird criticism that
he's actually the villain of the story.
In spite of the narrative framing him as
the hero, aside from the fact that most
characters consider themselves heroes
from their own perspective, villains
oftentimes included. This is an argument
built on a foundation of air. I have a
question for the class, and don't look
these up. From memory, why are humans on
Pandora? If you said to mine unoptanium,
you'd be correct. Follow-up question,
what is unanium used for? If you said
that it's a room temperature
superconductor that's valuable in energy
production, you'd also be correct. But
I'd wonder how you knew that without
looking it up. See, there's been this
weird misconception for years that
humanity is on the brink of collapse.
And the people on Pandora are working
tirelessly to save humanity from a
cataclysmic fate. But even Mr. Fantastic
couldn't stretch that far. They never
once in this movie hint at the dire
state of humanity that so many people
seem to think is the core of the film's
[music] plot. But the crux of the
argument I'm hoping to debunk here is
that Jake is a villain. apparently for
betraying his own species, which no,
he's betraying a private corporation
that doesn't care about the health and
safety of the billions of people on
Earth. In fact, any illusion to the
survival of humanity being at stake is
external material that isn't tied to the
film itself. The equivalent of looking
at plot holes in Obi-Wan Kenobi and
claiming their problems with the
original Star Wars. What that external
media will also tell you is that the RDA
actively suppresses the synthetic
production of unoptanium on Earth for
the purposes of having a monopolistic
hold on the resource and that unoptanium
extraction in Africa put the planet into
such a dire state. [music] But none of
that information comes from this movie
and thus isn't something that could be
used in criticism levied against it. And
if merely betraying one faction of
corrupt genocidal humans is grounds
enough to call Jake a race traitor, then
what the [ __ ] are we even doing here?
Growing up is realizing he was the good guy.
guy. [music]
>> People forget that the RDI operation on
Pandora was a single mining outpost with
a limited security team. This might seem
like some stupid obvious [ __ ] I'm
bringing up, but it's necessary context
for why these criticisms don't hold any
water. Selfridge makes it abundantly
clear why they're doing this, too.
>> This is why we're here. Unobtanium.
Because this little gray rock sells for
20 million a kilo. That's the only
reason. It's what pays for the whole
party. It's what pays for your science.
>> Now, correct me if I'm wrong here. That
doesn't quite sound like the words of a
man who cares about other people. The
citizens of Earth aren't better or worse
off because of Jake's actions on
Pandora. Moving on. Uh, isn't it
convenient that Jake had a twin brother
in the Avatar program?
>> Do you [ __ ] know what an inciting
incident is? The uninformed might say
that this is the inciting incident, but
this cycles back to the first major
point that Awa is real. This scene is of
two characters seeing Jake. One of them
being for the first time and the other
one who just recently had their own
encounter with Jake and is saying to the
new character, "Nah, this guy's chill."
An inciting incident can be convenient,
and all that matters afterwards is that
the rest of the story flows naturally
without contrivances or plot holes that
hurt the stakes. Naturally, Awa is an
omniscient in the more classical style
of a monotheistic god, meaning that
characters aren't without their own
agency. Another interesting plot hole
allegation is of the Na'vi taking Jake
in no questions asked. Many people think
Jake is allowed to stay because the
Na'vi think he's one of them, but like
most cases of Avatar discourse, people
have some false memories at play. The
Na'vi are well aware of what the Avatar
program is, and the obvious differences
exist between Na'vi and Avatars. They
take Jake in for two reasons. The clan's
spiritual leader vouched for him and he
admitted that he wasn't fully on board
with the RDA's practices. So later when
it flips out on Jake, it's not because
she thought this English-speaking man
she found wearing human clothes was a
Na'vi, but because she trusted him with
his lies of being there to learn their
ways, and is further dumbfounded how her
faith at Awok had lead her astray, given
how real everything has been for her so
far. Ny and her clan aren't dumb for
believing Jake when they're given every
single possible reason to. And on the
Avatar program itself, many say that the
concept of these flesh robots is
inherently illogical since they have
very likely more cost-effective amp
suits. But think about what kinds of
scientific research could be done with
these giant clunky military vehicles.
Meanwhile, an avatar is as dextrous as a
human while being perfectly suited for
the environment. While Unentanium is the
sole reason they're on Pandora, it's a
new frontier that could very easily have
more than one highly valuable resource
hiding in remote corners. They only have
one mining outpost in the first movie,
so their understanding of the moon is
limited to what they can observe from
space and what's immediately around
them. And by the time of the way of
water, they explore this exact concept.
I've also seen people say the RDA should
just move their main base of operations
from Hell's Gate to another part of the
planet for the sake of avoiding
confrontation with the Na'vi, which is
an exceptionally strange point of
criticism to make since space travel is
shown to be pretty limited in spite of
being more advanced than it is in real
life. And they'd also be flying into the
dark to find a location where there
aren't any Na'vi, which is especially
hard when their primary settlements are
in treetops. Maybe they could find
places in the plains or the ocean, I
hear you saying. But then we run into
two annoying factors. Na'vi still live
in these areas, and the pollution coming
from their mining equipment would still
likely cause hostility. They have the
current base of operations they run, and
they're trying to expand it. This is
also where I have to add that the RDA
has been on Pandora for a while, hence
why some of the Na'vi learn English at
Grace's school, and why they're such a
disdain for their mining operations.
They've built up infrastructure here
that would be a massive waste to abandon
just because some Na'vi are a pain in
the ass. They aren't even a significant
enough threat until the end of the
movie. And even then, they were losing
the battle before Awa stepped in.
Another insane alleged plot holes that
the RDA should have nuked Pandora from
orbit or destroy the moon in totality
using an FTL ship, which is just
[laughter] what they still need the
planet for any number of other possible
business ventures. Destroying everything
would be premature. And again, the
greater franchise as a whole explores
the possibility of other purposes for
Pandora. And that's why Avatar isn't a
bad movie. Those are most of the
criticisms I've heard over the years,
barring the cringe meta pseuda
criticisms. So, that's all I've got for
why this movie isn't bad. And you'd be
excused for assuming this video was over
because of my conclusive tone. Because
now I'm going to talk about why Avatar
is a good movie by taking the already
solid narrative structure to create
focused character dynamics and an
intricate plot effortlessly. Jake is
introduced to us as a fish out of water.
This is one of the most common writing
tropes because it's the easiest one to
use as an entry point for an audience
into a new world. That way, characters
can exposite information to the audience
through the protagonist without creating
an awkward situation where characters
who should know what kind of situation
they're dealing with are being told how
to deal with it. And to double down on
how out of place Jake is in this world,
he has an in universe voice over
narrating his experiences. This then
gives Jam Cam the ability to explore
just how he thinks and feels in any
major plot point while also tying into
the lore. since the RDA scientists are
supposed to record video logs so they
don't go crazy. And it's used against
him by Quoric before the Home Tree
attack. That isn't to say that created a
total blank slate. He's emotionally
immature and has experience in the
Marines. And through those experiences,
he manages to find more common ground
with Korage and Trudy than with Grace
and Norm. Obviously, his close ties to
Cororage bites him in the ass, and it's
rooted in a sense of alienation and
desire for human connection. He took his
brother's job in the Avatar program for
a quick buck, evidently not giving that
much of a [ __ ] about anyone else on
Earth, to the point where he'd be fine
with going light years away with zero
contact. This same desire for connection
is then played into when he meets Mati
and their growing relationship over the
next few months comes down to his
open-mindedness, but also it blows up in
his face because he wanted to have his
cake and eat it too. He loses sight of
both very equally real lives he's been
living. And in a moment of reflection,
he chooses to give himself to the Na'vi
in the most radical way to wash away his
sins. Everything to do with this
character is based off of rudimentary
setups and payoffs that most would call
simple. But I'd encourage anybody to
remove that word from their critical
vocabulary and replace it with focus.
Jake is a focused character whose
perceived character faults are also his
greatest strengths that help him win the
day in the end. People also forget that
his choice to aid the Na'vi in the end
is also after having spent the entire
course of the movie learning his place
in their culture, fully respecting the
command of sut even after multiple
conflicts with him. Natiri is the
underrated MVP of the story, and that's
not just because she's played by the
goat, but also because her character is
the emotional core of the narrative.
Everything to do with the themes and
plot and character developments tie back
to her unwavering loyalty to her home
and her joyful nature as a total free
spirit once she has someone to bounce
off of. Hell, she pulls up to the
function saying she [ __ ] the foreign
exchange student and tossed away
generations of rigid tradition just
because she felt like it was right. A
core theme of this movie is the freedom
Pandora gives, and she's the embodiment
of that very concept. The romance is
predicated on the freedom of choice they
have and is explored through the nature
of flight. Flight is probably one of the
most common themes when it comes to
romance, but it's used so often because
it conveys so damn well visually how the
characters are feeling. Some might call
their romance shallow, as if most
romances and movies aren't just as
lacking in complexity given this pesky
thing called a runtime. But the romance
here is built on the more complex
framework of liberating feelings and
simply going at each other like on
Animal Planet. Doubling down on the
villains, Jam Cam uses every trick in
the book to make these guys both
menacing and funny as hell. They're
treated with the same level of
tongue-in-cheek comedy with their brutal
deaths as the Germans in Indiana Jones.
The first scenes we get of them are
calling Jake Meals on Wheels and
Selfridge playing mini golf from the war
room as if to say he gives so little of
a [ __ ] about the impact of what he's
doing on the environment and the Na'vi
population. And while I might not be
Grand Admiral Thron before the Ahsoka
shell ruined him, but their plan at the
end of the movie makes sense, too. Blast
the be Jesus out of the Na'vi that are
assembled at the Tree of Souls deep in
the Hallelujah Mountains hit them so
hard that they're too terrified to
strike back going forward. Jake already
revealed everything he knew about Na'vi
culture, including the significance of
the Tree of Souls, and Cor has no reason
to believe their numbers won't continue
to amass and strike back at the RDA
mining outpost. Another note I should
add is that this facility is just a
mining outpost, not a fullyfledged army
base. [music] And these guys aren't
soldiers in an active army. They're a
private security team. And he correctly
assumes that he could just push through
the mountains with relative ease and
bomb the [ __ ] out of the tree. And I say
that because he only loses in the end
because he doesn't take into account the
golden rule of the franchise. Awa is an
actual in universe character. So with
all the information he has at his
disposal, he's making only intelligent
decisions through the climax of this
movie. There's another criticism that
the RDA are lacking in character depth.
And often this boils down to wanting a
story to be physically longer, so we get
to see more of them. The trap these
arguments fall into is thinking that
more time inherently means characters
have more depth because the audience
knows more tidbits of information about
them, which I disagree with
wholeheartedly. You can theoretically
write a series that lasts for decades
that follows every single minute of
human life, but why would you? This is a
single movie that is only now getting
sequels. And in this one movie, we have
only 200 odd pages to write these guys
into. So why not try to make them as
thematically relevant as possible
instead of simply showing them more?
What purpose does simply showing more
actually have? Especially when you have
so much [ __ ] that's being set up and
paid off later. Corasually struting
around in his mech suit becomes relevant
later. Jake [ __ ] around in the woods
and learning firsthand how dangerous the
wildlife on Pandora is becomes relevant
later. The casual mention of the phrase
I see you becomes the entire thematic
[music] core of this movie and the
franchise as a whole. And none of these
scenes are written as just setup in
themselves because they already act as
great displays of characterization and
thematic exploration and payoffs from
previous scenes. And look, I'm not
trying to pretend this movie is perfect
or extrapolates on all of its narrative
topics with full force. The two leads of
this movie are characters that both lost
their siblings, and each of their
siblings deaths was responsible for
their meeting and eventual romance. You
could do so much with Niri's religious
beliefs in that context. Testing her
faith in her god in the face of such a
unique shared life experience that could
even be tested once Nati flips out on
Jake for lying. Like, holy [ __ ] there's
so much there he can do. And I don't
know if it was Jim or the studio that
cut it or even if it was ever planned,
but [ __ ] it's too good to [music] miss.
There's always more room for depth
without having to artificially pad the
runtime. But I'd only use that as a
knock against the film if the absence of
said death comes into conflict with the
themes, which in my example, it does on
a smaller level. But simply having more
time spent with the villains wouldn't
accomplish anything beyond padding the
runtime. But nonetheless, this movie has
so many setups and payoffs that don't
even register as setups and payoffs in a
mechanical sense while juggling so much
so effectively. Not until sinners have I
seen a blockbuster handle all of its
elements so [ __ ] well. When audiences
walked into the theater in 2009, we knew
nothing about this world. But coming out
of it, we intimately knew about the
culture, biology, or even how the laws
of physics work in this universe, while
also having an excellent story and
characters delivering themes as
efficiently as any writer could ever
dream of. And people write this off by
making blind comparisons to the Lorax or
Princess Monoke on the one commonality
of the environmentalist theme without
understanding how all of these stories
are fundamentally different on every
single level outside of the one shared
trait. I don't give a [ __ ] about that
one person's video comparing these
movies. Their entire premise is built on
a false comparison that ignores the
narrative and character context about
this franchise and this world. The fact
that this movie so effectively packs in
so much detail in its opening scenes,
its first few lines even without being
clunky or even requiring long scenes of
characters clunkily delivering
exposition for the sake of the audience
barereft of internal context is
monumentally impressive for introducing
such a new universe. And obviously it's
not perfect, as I've already explained,
but [ __ ] me. I'd be damned if I didn't
say I wasn't impressed. And a special
message for my fellow film nerds and
filmmakers. Shove a little class. This
movie is a shining example of how to
write an original screenplay. And people
dismiss it on the grounds of the
subjective pseudo criticisms of
moralizing. Or even by listing off all
the unique things the story brings to
[music] the table and a snide mockery as
if those elements aren't anything less
than a [ __ ] shining endorsement while
pretending it doesn't bring anything new
to the table at the same time. And you'd
be forgiven for thinking this was the
end of the video because I'm not done
yet. [music] behind me.
>> The Way of Water is also good, albeit a
noticeable step down from the original.
Similar to the first movie, this one is
the same general vapid pseudo criticisms
that people spout without a second
thought. The general accusations of
forgettability are there in spite of it
being predicated on individual interest.
Same with the benign statement of too
long, too boring. But there's one
accusation people levy against this
movie that I'd like to criticize since I
think it exposes the depths of idiocy in
the discourse surrounding these movies.
People think The Way of Water is the
same plot as the first, which okay,
let's do a rundown. Jake is now a dad,
and it's been years since he permanently
transferred his mind to his Avatar body,
and the RDA is back. Now, people [ __ ]
about the RDA being back, and especially
Quorage coming back, as if it's anywhere
near somehow Palpatine returned. For
[music] one, nothing about what happened
is impossible. We know the RDA has ships
and money to back expeditions to Pandora
and their commercial interests in
resource extraction don't magically go
away once they lose a battle. Granted,
it makes sense that they left. They
didn't lose any more OnWorld operatives
when they don't need to. But also, of
course, coming back in an Avatar body is
not only possible given the information
we already have about what Avatar bodies
are. I mean, did you watch the first
movie, but the logical move when you
have someone who spent decades of his
life getting familiar with Pandora? Why
risk losing [music] your best guy
without making a copy of his mind, which
we know is something that's possible
given what the Avatar program is? What I
will say is that I can kind of get why
people think it's a lazy creative
choice. While I don't agree with that
sentiment at all, I get why it might
seem limiting to use the same antagonist
again. But the issue with things like
Palpatines's return is that it doesn't
make any logical sense no matter how you
spin it, flying in the face of world
building and compromising on the themes
of the series in turn. While here it's
more of a personal letdown for some
audience members, especially since the
cor they're dealing with here isn't
really the same character as in the
first movie. As soon as he saw what
happened to his human body, he was
shaken to his core so badly that he felt
a personal vendetta against Nati in
particular. On top of his already
existing hatred for Jake, they also
revealed that he has a son, which is
fine, I guess. Like, I guess it's not
impossible. I mean, Chad Thundercock
here should have at least seven others.
But unlike the RDA's eventual return or
the recon backup plan, I can't call this
a logical inch character decision that
helps reinforce the intelligence of the
characters. It's more just happen
stance. Not that it's bad per se, but I
don't really think it's as airtight as
anything from the first act of the first
movie. This is a sequel and sequels
should follow up on the established
context of the previous film without
relying on pure happen stance barereft
of active character choices. And I
wouldn't be so hard on this development
if it wasn't something that needs to
happen for the entire plot of this movie
to happen because now we've got the
inciting incident of Tom Sully's death
and this movie happened to retconic a
son. One could say that this works in
the other direction for Jake and Nat's
kids, but this was the logical outcome
of the two of them having an entire
first movie built around their romance.
We had nothing indicating that Cororage
got Whoopi in the first film. But
getting back to the plot, the RDA is
back to colonize Pandora to be the new
frontier for humanity. And once again,
Warhammer fans think that this justifies
the villain's plans and the heroes are
wrong for stopping them. As if the RDA
didn't glass a continent on their entry
to Pandora as a petty shell of force
when we know they have non-lethal ways
of landing. Their characterization
justifies why they do these things, but
the movie makes it explicitly clear that
they're in the wrong. So, when Ardmore
says this,
>> Earth is dying.
Our task here is to tame this frontier,
nothing less than to make Pandora the
new home for humanity. We can deduce two
things from the context that this film
firmly establishes. Firstly, their
colonization of Pandora is still
predicated on senseless death and
destruction. And secondly, what does she
mean by humanity? Because humanity as a
term is entirely vague. Will the RDA
somehow transport the entire human race
to Pandora with their advanced yet still
technologically limited ships? Or they
only let some people go to Pandora?
Given their expressed interest in
profit, they'd probably only save the
ultra wealthy. And unless you're some
kind of corporate bootlicker, you should
be smart enough to see why that would be
a problem. Or at the very least,
understand that they're just the
furthest thing from altruistic, which
gets even funnier when we have them
using children as hostages and outright
killing a child on top of the already
thousands of children they killed in the
previous movie. But yeah, there are
still people calling these [ __ ] the
good guys. Now, obviously, Jake and Nati
aren't too happy with the RDA destroying
their home, so they lead a rebellion
against them until the RDA sends in
Recomorage. From here, Quorage captures
Spider, realizes that's his son, and
Niri, Jake, and Nayam save the other
kids. Quorage tried to use Spider to get
more information on Jake's rebellion,
and Jake and Niri fled with their family
away from the Amataya clan to hide away
with the Mechena clan. The kids
struggled to adapt to the new culture,
with Loach, in particular getting into
fights with the other kids until he met
a Tcun named Pyon. Their bond grew while
his relationship with Jake deteriorated.
All the while, Quartz was figuring out
how to lure out Jake and Airi. He scored
big by systematically targeting the Tkun
which have a symbiotic relationship with
the Mechayen and Na'vi. He managed to
target Pyon and Lowok and the other kids
tried to save them leading to the kids
getting captured and the entire clan set
out to save them. Corage made a deal
with Jake to exchange his life for the
kids and the Mechena attacked after Pyon
distracted the RDA. Natam gets aboard
and saves the others was hit by a stray
bullet and died surrounded by his
family. All the while Kiri was
recaptured by Cororage. Jake and Natiri
went apeshit. Jake almost surrounded
himself but was stopped by Natiri
holding spider at knife point. Korich
was shocked to his core once again and
let Kiri go. But the ship capsized and
everyone is trapped underwater except
Lok, Spider and Kiri. Kiri managed to
illuminate the interior of the ship
since she has a unique connection to
Awa. Spider managed to save Korage when
he was looking for Jake and Lok saved
Jake with the help of Pyon. Natan was
put to rest and Jake came to the
realization that running away could not
protect his family and that he needed to
stand and fight back against the RDA
until peace was restored. a decent plot,
but there's a few things of note. Jake
is back and he's a bit different from
the previous movie. I've watched this
movie a bunch of times with friends over
the years to get their thoughts, and one
of the leading responses they had given
has been a bit of an adverse reaction to
Jake's characterization here, and they
realize that it's a personal gripe
rather than a flaw. They openly admitted
his character is consistent with his
characterization, and any changes made
here were within character given the new
context about the stakes this movie
provides. There are, however, people who
think Jake is entirely out of character.
The argument is that his decision to
have his family leave the Omatakaya clan
was potential character assassination
since the entire first film was about
him learning to truly respect them and
their culture. I don't think this holds
much water because of the additional
context this movie makes pretty
abundantly clear. Since the events of
the first movie, Jake now has four kids
and one kid that the kids are friends
with that he effectively brought into
the fold at the end of the movie. Recon
Quorich threw a wrench into his already
existing plans of fending off the
invaders, which was implied to have been
working pretty well at the start of the
movie. We get Jake's narration about his
new life. They cut to a year later and
were introduced to the recons. In that
time, they were successful enough
against the RDA in large part because
they had the advantage of Pandora and
wildlife being on their side,
recognizing what life belongs on Pandora
or not. This is a pretty solid way of
showing how Awa is taking a more active
role in fending off the RDA as a
continuation of the events we saw at the
ending of the first movie. The reccoms
present such a potent threat because
they're biologically the same thing as
Jake, a human mind planted into a clone
Na'vi human hybrid avatar body. So with
that, the recons are able to explore
areas that normal human RDA troops would
quickly get killed in by the wildlife.
So with a threat that can basically
sneak past Awa's eyes, Jake has no
choice but to get his family to safety.
Now, I will say that it would make sense
for the film to address his departure
and how it doesn't really help the
Amatakaya at all. You'd think Natio
would have more to say about this
matter. I mean, her father only tasked
her with protecting the clan in his
dying breath, so no biggie. But one
thing we have to remember is that Jake
doesn't really have a support network to
raise his kids. There are no adoption
centers on Pandora, no powerful players
that could protect his kids. If he dies,
the RDA will continue to expand and
conquer Pandora, likely causing more
unnecessary Na'vi deaths, potentially
leading to the death of his own kids
down the line. Jake is, of course,
thinking selfishly, thinking he is the
only one who can raise his kids, and he
selfishly wants to have his kids with
him. he loves them and doesn't want to
leave them behind no matter what. And
when I say he's thinking selfishly, I
don't necessarily mean that in a
negative way. I more so mean that he's
preoccupied with maintaining his family
dynamic above all else, even if it's
irresponsible to prioritize his family
in the face of a threat against
everything he knows and loves. Now, this
movie doesn't really cover that topic
all too much, but this is part one of a
four-part story. The first Avatar had an
uphill battle of being [music] a
self-contained singular story, but this
movie can theoretically push off certain
developments down the line. Think about
how insane it would be for the Omatakaya
clan to have suffered grievous losses
because Jake abandoned [music] them. And
this would inspire him to take the fight
back to Earth. I'm just spitballing an
idea here, but theoretically, there's
tons you could do with this. What I'm
trying to get out here is that his
decision to leave is a flawed one, but
he's stuck between a rock and a hard
place with this. Either he leaves people
he loves, or he leaves people he loves.
But nothing could be more important to
him than his immediate family. Even if
in a strictly objective sense, the lies
of the entire clan supersede his family
in sheer numbers alone. Later on, he
actually shines as a brilliant evolution
of his character from the first movie.
As soon as they met the Mechena, Jake is
fully capable of adapting to the new
culture without a hitch. He's done this
before and he's so driven to hide from
the RDA for his family, so he's forcing
himself to adapt as quickly as possible.
This causes some great character
conflict with the rest of his family.
His dynamic with Loach in particular, I
can already tell is going to be a big
focus in the upcoming movies, and it's
especially potent since it's basically
Jake confronting a younger version of
himself. Ironically enough, Jake's
dynamic with his family really shines in
the second act in spite of his reduced
screen time since we're shown his
different approaches to fatherhood with
each of his kids. He tries to be more
gentle with Kiri since he's riddled with
self-consciousness issues, but he has a
firmer hand with Natam and Loachok,
which ends up driving Lowok away. With
the ending of the movie, we're left with
Jake now having to reconnect with a part
of himself he lost in this war embodied
Lok is Jake's second son and is
basically constantly put at odds with
his older brother Natame by Jake blaming
Lok for his immature behavior and losing
sight of his assigned duties. While
Natame is framed as the golden child,
Natame is always trying to take the
blame for Loach, constantly trying to
save him and in turn eventually gets
Natame killed. Now, the story of a man
who lost his brother to some
dispassionate thug is misunderstood by
everyone around them and seen as
inferior to [music] his deceased brother
and falls in love with a new culture
through a member of that group. Yeah,
that's a pretty neat character parallel
for what they do as setup for Lowok.
Though, it seems that they'll set him on
a different path than Jake
character-wise since he confides with
Pyon in spite of the social stigma
surrounding him for violating the
Tolkun's laws. I could easily see this
evolving into Loachok being more
interested in finding some kind of
peaceful resolution if the opportunity
presented itself, but obviously not if
the RDA still poses a threat, but that's
more predictive than discussing him
here. What we have here is a pretty
basic start to a character, but they've
set him up to have a ton of depth down
the line, and I can't wait to see how
they develop his and Jake's relationship
going forward with the affforementioned
shared experience of losing their
brothers. The Tam is all right. He
basically exists as the model soldier
for Jake to see as the responsible son
designed to contrast with Lok and shine
a light on his character flaws. As a
character, there's not really much to
him beyond his strictly utilitarian
role. Of all things, he's kind of like
Norm from the first movie as the ideal
person for a mission who butts heads
with the new protagonist. Kiri is a
strange one since her existence is
clearly planted for future stories. They
tease that she's got some kind of
mysterious backstory as the daughter of
Grace's lifeless avatar and her
connection to wildlife being pretty odd.
She occupies some of the same territory
as Lowok since they both have issues
fitting in but manifest entirely
differently. Lowok sees the treatment as
totally unfair and is overall pretty
well adjusted, but Kiri is more of a
neurode divergent Sigourney Weaver Jr.
Tuk Tier as a child. Not much more to
her than that. She serves more of a
comedic role here, so I wouldn't really
say that she's necessary for the film to
function. So, I'll bite my tongue for
now on whether or not she's unnecessary
for the franchise as a whole since we
got three movies to go. And Spider is in
this weird camp where his existence is a
bit of a retcon and we don't really get
much actual character work here, but
he's kind of essential for the story.
He's a kid who was raised on Pandora, so
he's fully engrossed in Na'vi culture.
And his thematic role here is kind of
brilliant since he's building off the
idea that humans can live on Pandora
peacefully. The sort of father-son bond
that he has with Korage works well
enough, but it's reliant on him oddly
being willing to hear him out on
anything, which I don't really think
makes all that much sense with the
context of a human boy raised on Pandora
his whole life. Why would he be even
remotely all right with Corage scoring
small victories when this man poses a
threat to his entire family? Thankfully,
he rejects Cororage at the end after
saving him. As for saving Corage, I
guess this is in character for him. He
wasn't looking for Cororic. He was
actually looking for Jake and the
others. But he was presented with an
opportunity and he took it. So I guess
that's who they're establishing him as.
Can you guys tell that this section is a
bit harder for me to discuss? Like not
as a fault of the film by any means, but
more that this movie exists as an
independent story, but also as part one
of a four-part story. So who am I to
criticize the thematic relevance of the
character when it's too early to tell
what they might do with them down the
line? As of right now, all of the kid
characters are perfectly functional with
pretty well-laid groundwork for them to
become bigger players down the line.
Unfortunately, the same can't really be
said for Natiri. She's got some
fantastic [ __ ] in the third act, but I
already discussed her not really having
anything to say about leaving the
Matakaya for a [music] new life, not
even bringing it up with Moat. You know,
the Sahik, the spiritual leader of the
clan. You'd think Moat would have
thoughts about her and Jake leaving the
Matakaya with a continuous RDA invasion.
At the very least, she has small
character beats that have her at odds
with the Mechena way of life, which are
fine on their own, but such a wasted
opportunity. Why not really dig into her
thoughts about such a huge change in her
life? Now, she does happen to have the
most tense scene of the movie with
Spider, and her dynamic with him is
mostly all right. Barring the oddity of
Jake never once mentioning [music] that
he was human, just like Spider currently
is. You can even play into the trauma
she'd have from Jake's human history
bleeding into her own life. The first
film having her life fall to [ __ ]
because of the stuff Jake was involved
in. It makes total sense for why she
forgave him, but that doesn't mean she
magically forgets her experiences. In
the realm of unmilked cows, these utters
are plump as hell. What the [ __ ] did I
just say? But as for her scene with
Spider at the end, this shows a far
darker side of her character that looks
to be further developed in Fire and Ash,
seeing as there's a new clan of Na'vi
who became disillusioned with Awa after
experiencing tragedies that they
couldn't reconcile through religious
means, and that they seem to be framing
her against the new antagonist. So,
let's see what they do with her. This
could be good or bad. I'm not psychic.
But her general vibe being that of
stubbornness to change is a pretty neat
contrast to Jake. But they really could
have done more with this to fully
explore how each family member is
struggling with this new change with the
exception of Jake because of his
previous experiences. For him, this is
nothing new. But the rest of the family
rightfully struggles with their lives
being completely upended. [music]
[music]
Pyon is the sexiest thing to ever grace
the silver screen, and you can all fight
me on this. As usual, the common moronic
gaggle of politically inept and
insidious grifters started decrying the
portrayal of this beauty as a woke
thing. They claim that it's an
anti-whaling movie and being against the
unnecessary murder of whales is woke. If
you're of this stance, [ __ ] you. Whales
are cool. But also do the bare minimum
and engage with the text for once.
actually watch the movie and discuss
what's there instead of seeing
iconography of a thing you for some
godforsaken reason disagree with and
approach the movie in good faith. The
Tkun have the appearance of whales, yes,
but they're fully sapient, even being
far more intelligent than humans. They
are capable of creating art and studying
the world around them, and are even
capable of creating philosophical
doctrines against violence that exist as
law specieswide. As usual, the movie is
saying more about these characters than
people are willing to see, and missing
out on the concept of life that isn't
humanoid, being just as deserving of the
rights of humans. Remember Jake falling
in love with the pretty alien woman?
Well, here's his son becoming friends
with something entirely inhuman with
this design, but just as human as anyone
else deep down. That's some crazy [ __ ]
We get some hard sci-fi concepts that
people will dismiss on the grounds of
lazy bad faith projection. the reason I
drank. Along with that, some have tried
to make the same tired argument of this
movie being unoriginal by having the
protagonist create a bond with some kind
of animal without understanding that
there's a fundamental difference between
the Tolkun and the Eron. Once again,
demonstrating that a decent chunk of
detractors for these movies are
projecting the preconceived ideas onto
this franchise instead of engaging with
the text meaningfully. Which is even
funnier when people point to Jake
bonding with a skim wing as the same
thing as him bonding with an erron in
the first movie, which nope, not the
same. The Skimwing is strictly bonded
with for utility and trying to fit in
with the mech hyena for the sake of his
family. While the Echron was his gateway
to full dedication towards Natiri and
the payoff for his arc in the first film
up until that point. Also, as if to
double down on how [ __ ] up the RDA are
in these movies, they kill sapient
nonhumanoid people, beings with the
ability to create languages and create
art and philosophy and drill into their
brains for some fancy fluids, a resource
that's objectively unnecessary for the
survival of humanity. So, you can kindly
stow that response. A resource with its
one utility being the unique property to
stop human aging. Something available
only to the ultra wealthy. Man, it's
almost like I was right with my villains
video. Of all things, I'd expect this
movie to be an easier one for people to
criticize since there's more objective
faults with the script than the previous
one. More contrivances, more plot holes,
more inefficiencies. They never address
Jake's decision to leave the omatakaya
as something that doesn't protect them.
They have characters like Tuk Tyrion as
comic relief rather than being relevant
to the story in any meaningful way, only
being safe from real critical scrutiny
under the assumption that she might
become relevant a few movies down the
line with a significant time skip. The
Met Cyena disappear from the final
battle. Yes, I'm serious. They just
vanish. In spite of these obvious
issues, none of which making the movie
bad in totality. Chill out. People seem
to not be able to criticize it. Well, an
annoying pattern with this franchise
that I'm already seeing with Fire and Ash.
>> Well, this is different. Fire and Ash is
just around the corner, and I'm already
seeing people make the same dumb
arguments as before. The reality of the
situation is that we don't know what
could happen in this new movie. With the
story we're left with from the previous
movies, it's not like other franchises
where they're inheriting broken world
building or characters that just don't
work. This movie has a massive advantage
since this movie has a massive advantage
since it's inheriting a thematically
rich set of characters and stories that
can easily be expanded on. Granted, it's
always possible to take something with a
solid foundation and [ __ ] it up. Over
two movies into a series, and both
previous films range from really good to
excellent. All I'm asking of you, the
audience, as a call to action. Rewatch
these movies if you haven't seen them in
a while. Watch them in mind of the
arguments I made here. There's an
annoying epidemic of people feeling
confident in criticizing these movies
while having not seen them in [ __ ] knows
how long. I mentioned this video a
couple times before, and that's on
purpose. Remember that one stupid
comment that opened my video? It's from
an episode of the EFAT podcast where
they covered my video. Their arguments,
particularly against Avatar, were awful,
like objectively incorrect. Idiotic
claims like Quor being defensible,
humanity needing to massacre life on
Pandora to survive, or that Jake isn't a
good protagonist. You'd think a podcast
spearheaded by a guy who made his name
on alleged objectivity in his reviews
would care about, you know, being
objectively correct. It's probably a
good idea to rewatch a movie before you
discuss it. I don't know. And on that
note, while I was editing this video, I
rewatched Avatar with my friend SK, who
is working on a response to AAP's
idiotic stream, which is currently on
his channel. I'll leave a link to that
video in the description. You'll be
blown away by just how insane their
stream was, but SK did a great job
calling them out on their [ __ ]
>> He's pretty defensible, I would say.
Relations with the indigenous are only
getting worse.
>> Yeah, that tends to happen when he used
machine guns on them.
>> He is the hero. Sure.
>> Natiri's sister, Sana, stopped coming to
school. She was angry about the clear
cutting. And one day, she and a couple
of other young hunters came running in.
They had set a bulldozer on fire. I
guess they thought I could protect them.
The troopers pursued them to the school.
They killed Sanan in the doorway and
then shot the others. I got most of the
kids out, but they never came back.
D.
>> He's pretty defensible. I would say
>> these people have to learn that we don't
stop. Come on. Go. Go.
>> he's pretty defensible. I would say
>> you can't interrupt A LINCOLN PROGRESS.
>> He's pretty defensible. I would say
>> Parker, there is time to salvage the
situation. Parker,
>> shut up hole.
>> You going to shoot me? I can do that.
>> He's pretty defensible. I would say
>> I'm talking about something real,
something measurable in the biology of
the forest.
>> Which is what exactly?
>> What we think we know is that there is
some kind of electrochemical
communication between the roots of the
trees. It's a global network and the
Na'vi can access it. They can upload and
download data memories.
>> What the hell have you people been
smoking out [laughter] there? They're
just goddamn trees.
All right, let's turn up the heat.
>> He's pretty defensible, I would say.
>> And that's how you scatter the roaches.
>> He's pretty defensible, I would say.
>> Good work, people. First round's on me tonight.
tonight.
>> He's pretty defensible, I would say.
>> Stop. These are people you're about to
>> No. No. They're fly bitten savages that
live in a tree. I don't know about you,
but I see a lot of trees. They can move.
>> There are families in there. They're
children, babies. Are you going to kill children?
children?
>> He's pretty defensible. I would say
>> if you unironically think the RDA are
the heroes, or are remotely defensible,
then you're either delusional, a
genocide apologist, or a mix of both.
>> To wrap up, I think it would be valuable
to quickly talk about something that
I've put a ton of thought into. When I
opened my video and I said that you can
like whatever you want, I truly believe
that you don't have to like or dislike
what other people like or dislike.
That's totally cool. I'm a fan of the
Avatar movies, but my defense of their
writing could exist whether or not I was
a fan since I value objective criticism
and want the landscape of art discussion
to be healthier. No, an opinion isn't
inherently immune to criticism. An
opinion is based on information, and
information can be correct or incorrect.
You could say the sky tastes like the
color purple divided by Bill Murray plus
the existence of Jesus multiplied by
your grandmother's cookies. That's an
opinion you can have, but you can't give
someone [ __ ] for explaining why that
opinion makes no sense. They still have
the right to call you delusional for
something that insane. So, if someone
claims that Avatar is, say, a white
savior story when the indigenous woman
saves the day and the supposed white
standin followed and respected the
wishes of the actual clan leader, then
yeah, I can say that's an incorrect
opinion. If someone claims that the
writing of the Avatar films is bad on
the grounds of forgettability or a lack
of personal interest, and I can
absolutely point out how that's a
logical fallacy. If someone says the
villains are poorly written because
they're simple and simple means bad, I
can point out how that's ironically a
very reductive form of reasoning and is
kind of useless as a criticism. So my
ask to all of you is to see through the
noise. See through the bad arguments.
Ignore the pseudo critics online that
have inconsistent standards that they'll
gladly ignore to support their own
arguments. If you made it through this
video, you should have all the critical
tools you need to break down if the
writing in the next movie is good or
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
