The Last Airbender
 

Havent seen the movie but Ive been reading up on the net. Unfortunately its bad reviews all around.

Its disappointing because there was potential here... despite Shyamalan f*cking up the casting with the whole racial controversy in which I thought there was one as well as a lack of martial arts expertise.

Anyone seen it yet? What are your opinions?

I've seen it.

Horribly fast pacing, no development of ANYTHING, bad acting from the main characters, and overall by the end of the movie you don't really give two sh*ts about anything.

It was really dreadful to watch. There were a few interesting moments, but nothing more than that. I went into the theater with an open mind and was still disappointed!

What hurt it the worst was, again, that you don't care about anything. You don't care that the world is under attack, or that Aang is important. You don't care if people are dying. You don't care about the spirits, even when one is being stabbed to death. There's a lack of connection between everyone on screen, and we're left in a loop.

Not to mention doing a three minute dance to do the smallest bending is very silly to watch.

Just my opinion on it.

yea m night shyamalan's movies have gotten worse and worse since signs and the sixth sense. i was hoping he wouldn't ruin avatar but it appears as if he did. I'm still going to see it (die hard avatar fan) but still. Why couldn't they get a director who doesn't specialize in twists?

And the whole race thing is completely stupid. "well the good guys are white, so that means THEY'RE RACIST!!!" its so dumb! who cares. He just made every tribe the same colors, like it should be. I think he should have made the air tribe white, and the water inuits like in the cartoon, but i guess that was shyamalan's "twist".

oh and isn't an anime styled cartoon supposed to not look like any specific race anyway?

Many of Shyamalan's movies have an acquired taste, so when I hear bad reviews, I can only assume so much. With me, he's had an almost perfect record for good movies; I'm hoping this won't be his first mistake, which is indicated by a lot of people. I still have to see the movie.

I usually dislike rushed storylines, where the director's fail to connect you to the characters... before they die. And then there's that attempt to salvage the scene by adding dramatic music.
... Kind of like Transformers.

I'm hoping that's not the case here.
Though, I kind of trust Pocky's words.

I appreciate it seems like an overblown reaction to what is basically a kid's film, but the controversy over the casting isn't 'completely stupid'. M. Shymalan took three ethnic minority heros and made them all Caucasian. It may be an anime, and facially they may not look like 'any specific race' but the characters still have strong associations in culture and clothing with certain races and those races aren't even remotely Caucasian. The fact that he made every other background character non-Caucasian is irrelevant; they're not the crux of the story, nor the overt heros. It's an especially poor thing to do when the whole of the story is about inter-ethnic group war and peace. And people really do care. In the anime, for once it's their face saving the world, but when the series finally gets some recognition, bam! that's taken away and given to Caucasians. Again. And right on the heels of the other Avatar controversy, and the Prince of Persia controversy. It's the third kick, and although it seems a relatively small thing, it's all part of something much bigger.

He might have got away with it if he'd cast one of the four main characters as Caucasion on a merit basis, but he cast all four (an even more glaring error compared to his deliberate choice of background cast) and then only by chance was Dev Patel cast as Zuko.

I don't know; to me M. Shymalan had the perfect chance to make a great film for kids with a minority hero, in contrast to all those hundreds of other films with caucasian heros, which would have then fitted with the original, very popular story, and might have actually gone beyond the mould. Now it's probably just going to flop.

For the record though, I don't think it was meant maliciously, like some people think; it was probably a case of standard hollywood pressure and the dim idea that white cast=money made at box office. Thoughtlessness, really.

Anyway I'm going to wait till it's out of box office before I see it; I'm not so fussed about seeing it soon or in 3D. By all accounts it's kind of blah story-wise, and it's not even aimed at my age-group so I probably will find it lacking.

From the explanations given by the director, he says it was not a conscientious choice to cast Caucasian actors in the lead roles. He says met the kid who got the role of Aang and he knew he was The One. Same with casting the other kids. He says the images of the characters were vague and that they could be of any race. He also says he could not have made a "racist" casting choice because he is not Caucasian.

I find it hard to believe that not a single person on his staff and crew pointed out the risk he was taking in not using the obvious cultural clues from the series and casting Asian and Inuit actors.

Rotten Tomatoes has given this film an 8% score, reviewers are comparing it's dreadfulness to Battlefield Earth. What a mess. As much as I likes the animated series, not a chance I'm going to see this film.

Really too bad, I liked both The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable.

yea i'd have to agree with you for the most part. M Night was probably going for the different race thing like in the animated series, but since the animated series deals mostly with different races within the asian people, he probably thought to relate it to the world, but went in the wrong way. The main problem being him not thinking of the air nation and water nation being different nations, or it not mattering. Instead he made the water tribe white and aang white. he probably was being pressured into stronger diversification so he hired a famous person of another ethnicity: Dev Patel. So then he cast him as prince zuko and made the fire nation dark skinned and it all went down hill.

As for M Night Shyamalan saying he's not racist because he's indian, I think thats crap. anyone can be racist. not just whites. thats completely insane. you dont get a get out of jail free card just for being darker skinned.

My main reason for being angry at the whole racism thing is that its only racist if you think it is now. Its not like he's paying dev patel less, or the white actors more. He picked his cast originally based on their acting abilities. chances are he didnt mean anything against any races. people. its only racist of you make it out to be.

They're not fully white is the difference between the water and air nations. Water is a mix of inuit, russian, and white (russian and white comming from the Northern Water Tribe, which is where Katara, Sokka, and Gran Gran come from), and air is a mix of many half-white races. The reason for air being so mixed is, first off, because Noah himself looks like a mix of races, plus if you put it into the perspective of Avatar kids from all over the world are being brought to the temples to become monks. Since they come from all over the world, there's bound to be some kind of mix in them.

The people who think it's racist, their words wore off after a while. But now, the same people are saying "I'M GLAD THERE WERE NO ASIANS BECUASE THIS MOVIE SUCKED! I'D HATE FOR AN ASIAN TO BE IN SUCH A HORRIBLE MOVIE! YOU SPARED THEM NIGHT! HAHAHA!" They just sound butt-hurt imo.

Are you talking about the movie?

The anime is almost entirely influenced by East Asian culture. And the majority of that is Chinese. Only the Inuit looking, Southern water tribe is the exception.

It sounds like Shyamalan re-imagined the world which I suppose takes care of the racial controversy but then a whole other controversy arises.

First of all to fans it is blasphemy. I mean how would Batman fans feel if Gotham city resembled Miami rather than New York in the next Batman movie. Perhaps an exaggerated analogy but you see my point I hope.

Second of all it raises the question... why?

Finally, if Shyamalan hadnt reimagined the world or toned down the Asian influence present in the cartoon, the racial controversy would still be a valid concern I think. To show you how I would like to ask you the question.

If the main characters of Lord of the Rings were a mix of Africans or Asians... would that effect your experience of it in any way?

To me it would. A world based on European folklore with Africans or Asians running about the place would make the world unbelievable.

That doesnt make me racist.. It makes me closed minded sure... But I dont mind being closed minded when it comes to my imagining of how a people should look in a particular type of imagined world.

Yes, I was talking about the movie.

For me, the races of Avatar are complete opinions. I grew up on Avatar forums, and there were always 20 page long discussions over what race these cartoon characters were. Some said Katara and Sokka were black, or Zuko was white, or Aang was this, and Iroh was that, momo was mexican, etc. Many people interpreted their races differently, including myself. I saw the Asian influences, but evertime I saw Aang, I didn't think "Asian boy", I thought "Air Nomad". Their races were always speculation, but the real races of these characters were just like the Avatar world -fictional.

So we all imagine the world differently, which is fine. But now that one interpretation won over another, something had to go down ;)

I've never seen Lord of The Rings. But since these races are so speculated, the most I could have asked for was at least a decent portrayal of the characters personalities. I didn't get that, but changing the main character's races to Asian and Inuit wouldn't make the actors portrayal any better.

I heard he was pretty hell-bent from the outset on the girl he cast as Katara, which probably screwed up his options from the beginning as then he was more or less forced to make Sokka Caucasian too. Whether or not he bowed to pressure later is one thing, he might have done but more to the point is that the official story of Dev Patel's casting is he was called in by chance only because the guy Shymalan originally wanted couldn't make it to the actors training camp due to prior commitments. So even there, he's ~admitting~ his only ethnic protagonist actor was only a substitute and not his first choice.

The problem is, that's all fine and dandy if it's just in your head; it not going to offend anyone if you say, 'well i imagine that they're all X', because you're not forcing everyone else to see it the same way. I can make Harry Potter a Peruvian if I really fancy, write fanfic about it and mostly get away with it. But when it's going into a major public portrayal where the actor's ethnicity is clear cut, then that's no longer going to fly. Shymalan had all the cultural pointers in the anime, he should have followed them. Instead he insisted on forcing his head-verse, and it's backfired.

It's a matter of credibility as well; Ronin's Lord of the Rings comparison kind of makes sense; the series is heavily Norse/Anglo-Saxon in the surrounding mythos and atmosphere. Even the language. So Samual L. Jackson playing Aragon (which actually sounds kind of awesome now I write it) with Jackie Chan as Elrond is going to look incredibly odd. Also explains why there was a significant British slant to the casting as well, and even the guy who played Sam had to go away and learn a specific British dialect for the role.

I hated this movie.

It was absolute garbage. The only really good thing about it was the 3-D effects of the movie. I really expected it to be good. The trailer looked really good.

As for the race of the characters, I think that people have different views on it.

The majority of the nations are Asian, and the Water nation looks really similar to Native Americans. I don't really know if that's right or not, but even in the anime, it's kind of noticable.

....which is pretty much what I had already said =\

went to see it opening day. i've never seen the avatar shows but wanted to see the movie and it sucked bad. like others have said the pacing was fast. and the actors weren't that great. i actually fell alseep around where they get to the water village

Okay first of all, they made Appa look like a complete monster!!! He looks gentle and kind in the show. Momo has batlike wings, NOT feathers!!! They cast Jackson Rathbone(AKA Jasper) as Sokka and some unknown girl as Katara. They didn't get Dante Basco(Guy that plays Zuko's voice) to play Zuko, which makes me wonder why it was made a movie anyway. I admit, the boy that plays Aang looks just like the cartoon character, but that's about it. What's worse is that the Kiyoshi Warriors aren't in it and they're a very crucial part of the show. This is the worst F**king movie ever. And it's gonna get worse. :mad: :mad: :mad:

Crap movie as i expected. The min i heard who was going to be directing it i knew it was going to fail he is M.Kight is a terrible director and anything touches turns to crap. Very disappointed as this had the potential to be a great movie and he ruined it.

Oops, sorry. I must have misinterpreted your slant. I thought you meant something slightly different.

I am SOOOO glad my plans got fouled the other night and I missed it. After reading this thread I don't care to see it. There are fewer than 5 anime that I can say I really enjoyed and this was one of them. But from the casting to some of the production issues I have noticed in the ads, this is was poorly thought out.

I completely agree with Columbine. This was a serious mistake, both in overlooking the clear cultural links and in failing to seize an opportunity to bring a remarkable film out of Hollywood.

This is a failure on the level of Mel Gibson's "Apocalypto". Badly done and insulting to the cultures that it was supposed to honor.

Just saw the movie. It was fine.

I think the primary issue has to do with people's inability to generously disassociate the movie form the animation. And I'm saying this honestly because I initially had that attitude at the beginning of the movie.

I read a few "reviews" before hitting the theatre and %90 of them began with the message somewhere along the lines of "I really loved the cartoon!" -- and that's where the problem lies. The movie may be based on the cartoon, but it is not the cartoon; it is not animated, not given the luxury of a series of episodes, nor is it full of explosive expressions, which is what makes the characters who they are in the cartoon.

"The acting was mediocre." They are kids. And, frankly, they did well for their roles. Has it been lost in consideration that a majority of the voice-acting used in the cartoon is done by adults? And that the physical acting in the cartoon is not all that physical after all? They're drawings. Voice-acting and animation makes for a more highly controllable presentation in comparison to live-action.

"The only highlight was the action, and there was few action scenes." Bullshit. I don't remember where I read that, but I was remembering how absurd that sounded when I found myself satisfied by the amount of action taking place. Yes, the effects were a highlight... but the action was far from rare... and, might I add, the choreography was surprisingly good, considering the intricacies involved in some of their real martial-arts-based movements.

"It was too fast paced." That's right. I agree, it was fairly fast paced. However, I also remembered, again, that it was not the cartoon, which had the luxury of a dozen episodes to gracefully present the plot. In this case, the beginning and middle were fast-paced (in comparison to the cartoon) to cover more ground and set-up the main conflict -- all within the trime-frame of a single sitting. I found that if you can somehow manage to forget the cartoon, you can appreciate the scenes more.

"The casting was racist." I don't think so. I'm asian; I would've liked to see more asian actors... but I didn't mind... because the casting was not entirely bad. Some people think Ang should be pure asian... but there are a number of qualities needed to be filled in order to match the character of Ang: he had to be young, childish yet mature, fluent in english, and preferably capable of acrobatics or martial arts. The kid had it. Not to mention, he had genuine martial arts skills, and is half asian. And his two inuit companions? How many blue-eyed inuits will you find that match most of the qualities needed for the roles?

Shymalan was not simply mirroring the cartoon. He was attempting to convert the world into a more realistic dimension. There are people saying there were not enough East Asians... but I saw East Asians! I also saw Caucasians, African Americans, Indians, and Latinos. Note: There were hardly if not no black characters in the cartoon. I saw a literally ethnically-mixed cast. The fact that people are accusing him of racism is kind of ironic.

In the end, I do wish there were more ambient scenes, though that's just my taste. There was a lot of missed content from the cartoon, and I think that's what irked the hardcore fans the most. Taking into consideration how difficult it is to recreate the same attachment developed in the cartoon under significantly more limited circumstances, I think people should be a lot less anal about the whole thing...
The graphics and settings were beautiful, the characters were mostly accurate, and the action was not lacking.

It is not the series. It is not prodominantly composed of East Asians. It is not as graceful as the animated version... but its not all as horrible as the parrots gossip it is, either.

Just my opinion.

The reviews I read mostly blamed the acting on the script they had to work with. But yes the fact they were kids was also hinted at.

While you were satisfied with the action, the anime had much more to offer than action. It was a humanistic tale with a surprising amount of drama for something aimed at 6-12 year olds.

I dont know... they managed to successfully translate the Lord of the Rings books. Its not an impossible feat to accomplish. Difficult but not impossible.

Its not as simple as that. Throwing in token minorities doesnt counter accusations of racism. The fact is that it was a world based on Asian folklore and mythology so naturally Asian leads should have been considered (if you dont agree then I pose my Lord of the rings question to you... would a tale based on European myth and folklore go down well with you if it had a cast of Asian and Africans?) so it is puzzling why Asian actors almost make up none of the cast.

Though as I said before, if M Night Shyamalan reimagined the world then that takes care of criticisms of racism regarding the casting but it also asks the question... why would the film NEED to be reimagined? I suspect that this had more to do with making it marketable to an America that may not respond well to a cast made up mostly of Asians rather than a decision that had any racist agenda behind it. But the decision itself to cave into such a demand is still racist and thats another reason why people are saying its racist.

Again.. It seems Lord of the rings got it right...

I saw the movie tonight.

The acting was awful. Kids can act. They just didn't hire kids who could act.

For a movie that was over an hour and a half, there is maybe 15 minutes of actual action. That action is impressive, especially at the end, but it wasn't always easy to follow.

It was fast paced, which made me lost. I never watched the cartoon before. I wasn't sure who I was supposed to care about or why.

Considering this isn't set on planet Earth (right?) I don't know how it is racist.

Again... I havent seen the movie and am unlikely to go to see it considering the tsunami of bad reviews it has got.

But what I was hoping for was an Eastern epic with the scale of Lord of the Rings full of beautiful martial arts choreography and special effects in the same vein as Stormriders.

The Storm Riders (1998)

I address how it is racist in my reply to Jaydalert. And others have addressed it too.

If that is what you were hoping for, then skip it.

I don't have a context in seeing the original to say it is or it isn't racist. It was placed in a different world. People call Star Wars racist... it's not a battle I am going to get into.

EDIT:


I will address this comment, though. There is nothing to say Americans won't watch movies starring Asian people. The success of Asian actors and Asian movies in the US is testament to that. I think you are barking up the wrong tree with this theory.

Well then know this. The original was set in an Asian inspired world. Everything from the culture of the inhabitants, the architecture, to the kung-fu, they even use kanji.

First of all its not my theory in that I didnt make it up. I read it on the net and quite a few people think it. The site racebending.com puts it forward and many reviews that Ive read have hinted that this might have been the case. I think the theory makes sense though.

Second of all let me rephrase. Im not saying that Americans are not willing to watch Asians in lead roles or Asian themed movies.... just proposing that the STUDIO made a marketing decision to remove the Asian influence to make it MORE appealing. I dont think its that far fetched. I mean I cant really explain it any other way... M Night Shyamalan had a rich and detailed world with rounded characters to work off of, not to mention an already established worldwide fanbase so why would he go and change it?

Well, I think most of the other points have been addressed and hands up, I haven't seen the movie, but as MMM says, I don't think age excuses poor acting. A rubbish script can bring down a good actor, but you can be young, and still be talented or have experience. Look at the kid in Australia (more convincing IMO than Kidman). Ditto Whale Rider. Ditto Empire in the Sun. Actually I don't think any of them were well-known or established actors/actresses at the time either.

I'm not saying there aren't better kid actors out there who are talented and experienced; that's not my point at all. I'm saying that there should be a realization that real people can't be cartoons. There is the human element that naturally brings forth things such as facial twitches and speech styles... that can disturb someone who is really expecting things to be just like the cartoon.

@Ronin: if people are hinting at a bad script being the cause of bad acting... does that really count as bad acting? I do agree, the script did seem flawed... which I refer back to the fast pacing. It seems the pace is the foundation for most of the criticism (save the racism issue)... and it's one even I'm not comfortable defending.

As for Lord of the Rings. From what I'm aware, LotR was not formerly a hit TV series. It was not originally widely known through picture, and that may be significant in this case.

The fact that the source material is animated is really no excuse. Live actors should be MORE compelling than drawn ones.

But I can't help but think of Iron Man, Spider-Man, Superman, Batman, Battle Royale, 20th Century Boys, Death Note, Detroit Metal City, Lady Snowblood, Uzumaki, Old Boy, Lone Wolf & Cub...the list goes on and on of drawn properties that have better live-action versions than The Last Airbender,

Agreeing that bad acting is bad acting no matter what. Check out the little girl who played the title role in the French film Ponette. That's stunning stuff from a four year old!

A bad script and bad directing can honestly be improved by a great actor. A bad actor can be compelled to better acting by a great director. A bad actor and a mediocre director on top of a bad script is a no win situation. I think the decent child acting in The Sixth sense was entirely on Osment and had nothing to do with Shyamalan. Same for the acting in all of Shyamalen's other films. I think he has good concepts and ideas but the execution is only as good as he casts it. It's possible that I while I liked the concept and look of Unbreakable, surely most of my enjoyment was some fine acting from Willis and Jackson.

I don't think anyone expects people to act like the cartoon characters they portray. People expect differences. Batman has been produced in all mediums numerous times but certainly nobody expects the animated versions to be live-acted out in the same fashion. People still hate the badly done productions and cheer on the good ones.

bad acting is bad acting... I dont know... I guess you might have a point.

But what difference does being a trilogy of novels as opposed to a TV series make? The point was both were immensely detailed and had far more to them than a 2-3 hour movie could handle at once. Lord of the Rings managed to do pull this feat off better than one might have expected.

Exactly!

In line with Jaydelart's comments about ways bad elements of a production can be overcome by the talents of the actors and/or directors, it only happens when the director allows the actors enough leeway to overcome a bad script, or the script and actors manage to overwhelm a poor director. If two of the three are bad the production is doomed, but enough worse is when all are mediocre and no one rises above the muck.

None of can judge which of these were the telling issues, but it seems to me it was the latter - unless the backers overruled a good director, who overruled even any good acting. Its been known to happen far too often.