|
I'll put this in movie terms with the hope that it makes some better sense, because apparently what I have been describing has not worked. Movies (and plots) don't need to be revolutionary to be good and engaging, and they don't have to be familiar to be engaging. You're right that no plot is truly revolutionary, nor were the plots of the movies I listed.
With the exception of FernGully, though, which is mostly in the list as a joke, both Pocahontas and Dances with Wolves worked as engaging movies for their respective target audiences. Pocahontas isn't a Disney masterpiece, but it's certainly a fun animated movie, and Dances with Wolves (whatever else Costner did afterwards) is a pretty fantastic movie. Avatar bothers me because Avatar's plot is similar to Dances with Wolves, but feels like it was written by the people who wrote FernGully. It has an immense, obvious agenda that it spends the whole movie pounding into your face. The characters are all exaggerated archetypes. There's no nuance. There's no tongue in cheek. No texture.
I don't think people are getting lost in the story of Avatar; I think they're getting lost in the world. And, for all the money and time James Cameron spent making this movie, I think he could've done a better job making the story as compelling as the world is. Maybe he'll be able to pull off a second act as good as the Empire Strikes Back to redeem Avatar's shortcomings the way Empire redeemed many of A New Hope's, but standing alone, it's pretty bare.
|