Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
There's also a much stronger prevalence to adhere to 'Canon' in western media, while media from Asia tends to be less concerned with continuity between separate entries over time.
JNAProductions wrote: Do you feel that Avatar has had large cultural impact?
I don't. I enjoyed the first film (saw it in theaters) for the spectacle, but that's about it. I don't plan on seeing the sequel, because the spectacle was enough the first time, but I hold no ill will towards those who do want to see it.
It's good for what it is-a spectacle. The effects and cinematography were absolutely AMAZING... And that's about it. As a result, while it's a fun movie to watch on the big screen, it doesn't have much impact outside that.
The answer to that is that feelings are not facts.
The only facts that can be measured are the revenues, and even they are arguable.
BS. If you want to try & measure the effects of a film on culture? Try Star Wars. Just the original from 1977.
Sure, it made crazy $$ for it's day. But it also:
*gave us characters, imagery, dialogue, & music that'll still be remembered come 2077
*greatly affected what types of films (and TV) were produced in its wake,
*affected the entire FX industry tech wise
*drastically affected the careers of its stars
*radically changed how movies were merchandised
*Propelled ILM to the top of the FX industry for many years to come
*Lifted the toy company Kenner to the height of it's industry - wich in turn affected both toy manufacturing & big retail.
*People remember where, when, & with whom they saw this movie for the 1st time.
*and into the '80s? Go look up "Star Wars" as related to the Cold War.
Avatar?
Yes,it made a crap ton of $$
No doubt it also affected the tech of FX/CGI (Cameron's films are known to do that)
Beyond that? Nil.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Is Avatar the Last Airbender the series where “There is no war in Ba Sing Se” comes from?
That and 'until the fire nation attacked' are probably it's most famous memes.
And 'there is no war in ba sing se' also goes into how cultural memory plays with and off of current events, as that meme especially hit a huge peak on the internet during the years of 2019-2021 during COVID as a response to <censored political topics> that won't be mentioned here, but that's another way something just kind of endures culturally. It has something about it that gets picked up on, spreads, and persists because for some reason or another it's seen as currently relevant. And that hasn't happened with anything from the Avatar film as far as I know.
The furthest anything got on that front were jokes about 'tail head sex' spawned by a robot chicken gag skit.
I think "that's rough buddy" is the other big one.
BobtheInquisitor wrote:It’s odd that I feel more impact and more presence from an Avatar I’ve never seen than from the two movies I have seen.
The animated Avatar series are genuinely worth a watch. They fall into the category of media aimed primarily at kids that doesn't (erroneously) assume kids are dumb. As a result, the story and characters are very compelling. There are some really good character arcs.
I also recommend The Dragon Prince by the same writers.
ChargerIIC wrote: If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
LordofHats wrote: There's also a much stronger prevalence to adhere to 'Canon' in western media, while media from Asia tends to be less concerned with continuity between separate entries over time.
If anything its a kind of yes and no.
If we compare something like Ghost in the Shell which has several continuities now in anime. The original films, the Stand Alone Complex series and film and the origin story series. Each one is separate and yet each one could "almost" work as a single continuity (honestly the only thing that kind of breaks it is Togusa as he's a rookie to the team in the films which makes it hard for them to follow the SAC series).
Meanwhile with the USA each time they re-invent a story they often make massive sweeping changes to things. Granted there's also the DC/Marvel setup where you get both kinds, though one could argue that the sheer volume of reboots and restarts and such going on there just beats past any patterning through sheer weight of numbers.
I think the concept of Canon is interesting. For me its not so much that people require every part of a story to be fleshed out; but more that people "want to know more". The issues often stem from the fact that the company side of "showing more" is often more a case of "follow the money" which means it enters the state of being a company product. I think Starwars 7-9 is a good example here of films made by a company machine rather than by an author/creator who had a very clear singular vision and drove that forward through the production process. Even if that vision would have been changed through production you can very clearly tell the differences between structured films that are made to work to a grand plan and those that are thrown out based on company formulas and such structuring things.
There's also just the fact that some prequels and such just get - well - bad writing.
The only facts that can be measured are the revenues, and even they are arguable.
As I said before, if I were looking for fans of Avatar to bond with, I wouldn't come here, because here there are none.
Then where would you go? Give examples of where the apparently massive Avatar fanbase is.
You're saying people here are wrong or only using feelings instead of facts but all you've offered up is opinion. You keep saying that those who say the movie didn't have a cultural impact are wrong but haven't provided any evidence to the contrary. The only thing you mention is that the movies made a lot of money.
Okay, I think you've got the wrong end of my argument, which is my fault. Let me restate the issue.
The question asked is this; why has Avatar, despite its enormous globe-spanning success, failed to make any lasting impression on the popular culture? Compared to a TV show that didn't even last for three full seasons from 1966 to 1968 has had a far bigger impact. How did that happen?
The argument then expands to this means the film's success is down to spectacle, and that at best it is mediocre; the pizza of films.
The point pivots on these assumptions:
1. The importance of memes.
2. The importance of quotable dialogue.
3. The lack of a visible fanbase.
And this leads to the conclusion that Avatar has had no impact on our culture.
But, that's all they are: assumptions.
If one uses them as a measure of cultural impact, and by extension the measure of the value, then the arguments leads to absurd conclusions.
For example, Star Trek lasted for three full seasons from 1966 to 1968 has had a far bigger impact. How did that happen?
It happened because at that time, and in those days before cable, before the internet, it met an unfulfilled demand. It was a time when SF changed from being Geeky rubbish, below contempt, to Geeky rubbish that made money.
Today, with SF being no longer unacceptable because it makes money, and capitalism is all about making money, there has been a glut of SF made. So much made that it totally dominates the media.
And here is the question restated again; why is Avatar such a cultural blank?
The question is laden with assumptions.
If you take this assumptions as true, then one is led inexorably to one conclusion.
If one challenges said assumption then one has to defend them against the received wisdom of the group.
This leads to confrontations, and the number one strategy for dealing with confrontations is avoidance.
Just because you can rally a majority to agree with the assumption doesn't make it true. It just makes it the majority viewpoint. History is full of majority viewpoints that were wrong.
My harsh, but fair IMO ;-) viewpoint is that Dakka Dakka membership doesn't like Avatar. That's it, the totality of my argument. End of discussion.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: I'll even go farther, I'll say that the Airbender Avatar has a far larger impact. "Everything changed when the Fire Nation attacked," is a line I've used many times and it always gets a response. Lots of kids (and their parents) saw that series, which is why - despite an awful live-action film - the franchise still has legs.
Not long ago they KSed an RPG for the franchise, and it did $9.5M, the biggest RPG Kickstarter yet:
I would say the main "problem" for Avatar fans is that there's not enough stuff for them to consume, because everything released sells like gangbusters.
That might change when the Netflix action series go live, but there's movies in the works now, done by the original creators.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/05/26 11:13:52
Paint it Pink wrote: Okay, I think you've got the wrong end of my argument, which is my fault. Let me restate the issue.
The question asked is this; why has Avatar, despite its enormous globe-spanning success, failed to make any lasting impression on the popular culture? Compared to a TV show that didn't even last for three full seasons from 1966 to 1968 has had a far bigger impact. How did that happen?
Star Trek wasn't actually talked about in the initial post at all, in fact, the other Avatar (the TV show) was. You've latched onto Star Trek for some reason though not sure why.
Spoiler:
The argument then expands to this means the film's success is down to spectacle, and that at best it is mediocre; the pizza of films.
The point pivots on these assumptions:
1. The importance of memes.
2. The importance of quotable dialogue.
3. The lack of a visible fanbase.
And this leads to the conclusion that Avatar has had no impact on our culture.
Actually far more points were brought up such as the bland characters, basic plot, and lack of merchandising. The two things people agree on are that the films made money (which is not an argument for cultural importance in the opinions of many) and that technologically it was groundbreaking.
But as to those points you mentioned they are entirely fair ones. Memes are an important part of modern culture, especially for younger generations. They've transcended the internet and made their way into common vernacular for many people. Things like "I can haz Cheezburger?" or "Roadwork ahead? Yeah, I sure hope it does" are common enough phrases to hear in certain circles. Loads of people find their humour in memes and Avatar has one off the top of my head which is itself a variation on the misinterpretation memes.
This leads into the lack of quotability in Avatar. Much like memes, movie quotes often make their way into the common vernacular, and phrases like "I am your father" or "You talkin' to me?" are used by people even if they haven't seen the media in question or are not part of the fanbase. One of the quotes you said makes Avatar quotable literally starts with a quote from another far more culturally impactful film.
And as for a fanbase, where is it? You claim it exists but then can't actually provide evidence to support that. You just keep saying "It's not on Dakka" but that doesn't prove it exists.
Spoiler:
And here is the question restated again; why is Avatar such a cultural blank?
The question is laden with assumptions.
If you take this assumptions as true, then one is led inexorably to one conclusion.
If one challenges said assumption then one has to defend them against the received wisdom of the group.
This leads to confrontations, and the number one strategy for dealing with confrontations is avoidance.
Avoidance leads to confrontation, not discussion. If you can't defend your views in a discussion then at no point do you deserve the right to sit there all content and claim you won the argument. You disagree with the conclusions people here have come to but can't argue your views beyond "You're wrong I'm right.".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/05/26 11:30:10
Aash wrote: When it comes to revenue, I think merchandise sales and memorabilia would be a better way to measure cultural impact than box office revenue.
I'm not sure. I can't remember seeing much, if any, Indiana Jones merchandise, but it definitely had a big cultural impact.
Even post box office purchases (DVD, Blu Ray, Streaming) would only tell you how often it'd be watched and not how much cultural impact it had.
Maybe it needs to be something less tangible like the number of people in a random group understand a reference to it. Or the number of parodies or mentions in TV shows or something.
So yeah make a film for kids and merch the heck out of it and a film that likely has very low cultural impact, can generate a fortune in toy sales (which isn't saying Cars is a bad film)
Ker-chow!
I think Cars has had a huge cultural impact, but remember it's a kids movie* that came out in 2006 so will only really have made an impact with people who are or have had kids at the watching ages about the.
*With lots of oblique adult humor that comes with later Disney/Pixar films. "I'm in the Piston Cup" "He did what to your cup?", and so on.
(I have kids, I know all 3 films more or less verbatim).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/05/26 12:30:17
Paint it Pink wrote: The question asked is this; why has Avatar, despite its enormous globe-spanning success, failed to make any lasting impression on the popular culture? Compared to a TV show that didn't even last for three full seasons from 1966 to 1968 has had a far bigger impact. How did that happen?
No, that's not the question, it's just one of many examples of how shows that were commercial failures nevertheless resonated in the culture. Avatar is the counter-example - a commercial success with almost undetectable cultural impact.
The argument then expands to this means the film's success is down to spectacle, and that at best it is mediocre; the pizza of films.
The point pivots on these assumptions:
1. The importance of memes.
2. The importance of quotable dialogue.
3. The lack of a visible fanbase.
And this leads to the conclusion that Avatar has had no impact on our culture.
No, those are criteria, not assumptions. To declare something culturally important, we need some sort of metric, a standard of comparison. Memes, the prevalence of quotes in everyday conversations and a dedicated fan base are clear and obvious indicators of cultural impact.
If one challenges said assumption then one has to defend them against the received wisdom of the group.
Yes, and you could do this quite easily by giving an alternative standard by which cultural impact should be measured.
This leads to confrontations, and the number one strategy for dealing with confrontations is avoidance.
Not if you want to have a meaningful debate. If your "number one strategy" for dealing with disagreement is to run away, I don't think that is very effective, or sustainable.
My harsh, but fair IMO ;-) viewpoint is that Dakka Dakka membership doesn't like Avatar. That's it, the totality of my argument. End of discussion.
That is of course at odds with the overwhelming sentiment that the film is enjoyable. Indeed, that's the point of the discussion - how is such a popular film a cultural blank? I haven't seen the films, so I can't like or dislike them. I am therefore neutral, I have no axe to grind one way or another.
And from that position of absolute indifference, I can compare it with other movies I haven't seen, that nevertheless I know about because people constantly reference them. In that comparison, Avatar loses, and badly.
Now if you have some alternative measurement, I'd like to see it, but based on my observations, social interactions, and presence on social media, Avatar's cultural irrelevance isn't an assumption but a fact, which is the reason we are asking "why?"
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/05/26 23:48:33
Another good measure of cultural impact is imitators. Like how every movie that does even moderately well is rapidly followed by a slew of similar, and often not quite as good, films with similar premises.
And there too there's an obvious explanation for why Avatar hasn't spawned any;
It was a really expensive movie. It's not going to spawn a slew of copycats like Hunger Games or Twilight.
Avatar 1 cost a quarter of a billion dollar to make. Avatar 2 cost twice that almost. They're really expensive movies and their premises and settings alienate investment from cheap imitations that would further spread the image/idea of the movie around.
Avatar is a copycat in itself though. There is at least one meme of the Pocahontas premise having been edited in crayon to refer to Avatar stuff instead.
Please excuse any spelling errors. I use a tablet frequently and software keyboards are a pain!
LordofHats wrote: Another good measure of cultural impact is imitators. Like how every movie that does even moderately well is rapidly followed by a slew of similar, and often not quite as good, films with similar premises.
And there too there's an obvious explanation for why Avatar hasn't spawned any;
It was a really expensive movie. It's not going to spawn a slew of copycats like Hunger Games or Twilight.
Avatar 1 cost a quarter of a billion dollar to make. Avatar 2 cost twice that almost. They're really expensive movies and their premises and settings alienate investment from cheap imitations that would further spread the image/idea of the movie around.
Thing is sometimes a movie dominates so much no one even tries to touch it. Look at Lord of the Rings. Running over multiple years and yet we never really saw a huge surge in fantasy films. If anything I'd say we've had quite a lacking of solid fantasy films and adventures on the big screen. Esp if you look at live action or outside of the Pixar style of family show.
You see the same thing in video games; Starcraft 2 and Warhammer Total War almost have their respective markets entirely to themselves. Despite selling really well and being really popular games (heck Warhammer 2 is still CA's most played game ever) there is no slew of copy-cats moving into the market.
Budget certainly comes into it since there's a bunch of Civilization computer game clones out there now and I'm willing to bet they are cheaper to put together than RTS games. Or if not cheaper, simpler/easier in some aspects.
So I can agree, you'd be hard pressed to make an Avatar film that focuses on its visuals as a clone; though you could make fantasy-sci-fi films (which is basically what it is) or such. And we kind of have had a good slew of sci-fi films in general. Though I'm honestly not sure if there's a pattern or a leader of the pack that inspires. They seem to come in small waves now and then.
That said the elephant in the room right now is the Marvel/DC superhero films
LordofHats wrote: Another good measure of cultural impact is imitators. Like how every movie that does even moderately well is rapidly followed by a slew of similar, and often not quite as good, films with similar premises.
And there too there's an obvious explanation for why Avatar hasn't spawned any;
It was a really expensive movie. It's not going to spawn a slew of copycats like Hunger Games or Twilight.
Avatar 1 cost a quarter of a billion dollar to make. Avatar 2 cost twice that almost. They're really expensive movies and their premises and settings alienate investment from cheap imitations that would further spread the image/idea of the movie around.
Thing is sometimes a movie dominates so much no one even tries to touch it. Look at Lord of the Rings. Running over multiple years and yet we never really saw a huge surge in fantasy films. If anything I'd say we've had quite a lacking of solid fantasy films and adventures on the big screen. Esp if you look at live action or outside of the Pixar style of family show.
You see the same thing in video games; Starcraft 2 and Warhammer Total War almost have their respective markets entirely to themselves. Despite selling really well and being really popular games (heck Warhammer 2 is still CA's most played game ever) there is no slew of copy-cats moving into the market.
Budget certainly comes into it since there's a bunch of Civilization computer game clones out there now and I'm willing to bet they are cheaper to put together than RTS games. Or if not cheaper, simpler/easier in some aspects.
So I can agree, you'd be hard pressed to make an Avatar film that focuses on its visuals as a clone; though you could make fantasy-sci-fi films (which is basically what it is) or such. And we kind of have had a good slew of sci-fi films in general. Though I'm honestly not sure if there's a pattern or a leader of the pack that inspires. They seem to come in small waves now and then.
That said the elephant in the room right now is the Marvel/DC superhero films
I'm not sure. Starcraft is very popular, but it is hardly alone in the build-and-destroy RTS genre. I think a bigger issue is that the market is already saturated with great offerings- Age of Empires 2 is still releasing DLC over 20 years after it was launched, and is competing with its own sequel AoE4.
But strategy video games often have huge legs and replayability, especially with fan-made content frequently being encouraged. I don't think they are a great comparison to films as a result. Individual films are less likely to saturate a market because people are hungry for new story and cannot easily make fan sequels to a film.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/05/27 10:05:27
ChargerIIC wrote: If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: No, that's not the question, it's just one of many examples of how shows that were commercial failures nevertheless resonated in the culture. Avatar is the counter-example - a commercial success with almost undetectable cultural impact.
Okay, I see where you're coming from. Thank you.
I did film studies back in the day, and from a historical perspective there are a load of great films, which were commercial successes in their day. But now they've been forgotten. The difference between them and Avatar is time and changes in technology from social media, where we live in a hot house environment for discussing media we consume.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: No, those are criteria, not assumptions. To declare something culturally important, we need some sort of metric, a standard of comparison. Memes, the prevalence of quotes in everyday conversations and a dedicated fan base are clear and obvious indicators of cultural impact.
It's the choice of criteria that I have the issue with. The hypothesis is that cultural impact can be reliably measured by using these criteria.
For me, what is seen as clear and obvious is anything but. Rather, I would argue that people who like to quote dialogue, make memes etc are a self-selecting group, because not everyone quotes dialogue and create new memes. It is a specific type of fan. Good for them.
But that means, if those people don't like a film, and Avatar rubs people the wrong way with its eco-warrior is good, and corporate greed backed by military power is bad, then what I think this shows is that the group who make memes, don't. For good reasons. I'm in no way saying we should force anyone to make memes.
For me, the film played with what Major General Smedley Darlington Butler said about how America used the Marines to enforce corporate profits, in his book "War is a Racket."
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: Yes, and you could do this quite easily by giving an alternative standard by which cultural impact should be measured.
Time. I know, how boring of me. But history is full of examples of media that was loved at the time it was made, and which has been consigned to the dustbin of history.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: Not if you want to have a meaningful debate. If your "number one strategy" for dealing with disagreement is to run away, I don't think that is very effective, or sustainable.
I think I haven't explained myself,and made too many assumption about what is common knowledge.
I'm a retired psychologist. From a behavioural perspective people have three responses to confrontations. Fight, flight, and freeze.
I think it's probably clear which response I've taken here in this thread.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: That is of course at odds with the overwhelming sentiment that the film is enjoyable. Indeed, that's the point of the discussion - how is such a popular film a cultural blank? I haven't seen the films, so I can't like or dislike them. I am therefore neutral, I have no axe to grind one way or another.
And from that position of absolute indifference, I can compare it with other movies I haven't seen, that nevertheless I know about because people constantly reference them. In that comparison, Avatar loses, and badly.
Now if you have some alternative measurement, I'd like to see it, but based on my observations, social interactions, and presence on social media, Avatar's cultural irrelevance isn't an assumption but a fact, which is the reason we are asking "why?"
And yet, here we are. Avatar had zero cultural impact, but made a shed ton of money. And repeated it again with a sequel so long overdue it was like watching a zombie rise from the grave.
And the people don't like the movie can arguably be said to overlap with those who generate memes and like to quote dialogue from media, don't.
The cultural importance of Avatar is getting bums on seats.
You see the same thing in video games; Starcraft 2 and Warhammer Total War almost have their respective markets entirely to themselves. Despite selling really well and being really popular games (heck Warhammer 2 is still CA's most played game ever) there is no slew of copy-cats moving into the market.
Budget certainly comes into it since there's a bunch of Civilization computer game clones out there now and I'm willing to bet they are cheaper to put together than RTS games.
Well, on this note, people tried (the grey goo RTS is the one that really stands out to me). But the Starcraft style (well, Command and Conquer style, which is to say Dune 2 style) RTS market crashed hard after starcraft 2.
It wasn't that there weren't copy cats, but after repeated failures, people gave up on that particular wing of the RTS genre for a while. It looks like its starting to come back into vogue for another try though.
Starcraft 2 itself didn't do great outside of the e-sports arena (especially in Korea). Its reception in the general market in NA and Europe was rather... mixed.
The e-sports angle definitely more than made up for it in terms of revenue, and sent blizzard trying to force that into every game they made, which is probably its biggest lasting impact. But as a single player or casual multiplayer game it didn't do all that well.
-----
Paint it Pink wrote:The cultural importance of Avatar is getting bums on seats.
Outside of truly unexpected and dramatic failures, that's every theatrical release. That's not cultural importance, that's just the standard for the industry. That also doesn't explain why it got 30%? 40%? more bums on seats than the next film despite being a void of non-content.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/05/27 13:38:27
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
Paint it Pink wrote: And the people don't like the movie can arguably be said to overlap with those who generate memes and like to quote dialogue from media, don't.
Can you prove that?
Or is that just baseless conjecture?
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
IMHO makes a movie financially successful and what makes a movie have a cultural impact are very different things.
From a financial perspective, movies are primarily a visual spectacle. They need to be able to convince crowds to pay tickets to watch them on a very big screen. Nowadays the whole cinema industry is struggling with the issue many prefer to wait a few weeks because it will be available for "free" in streaming.
Avatar succeeds at this is because visually speaking it is unchallenged. Its CGI makes the MCU look cheap in comparison, and it is best experienced in a large 3D cinema screen (which tend to be quite expensive). Moreover streaming cannot match that because we do not have personal 3D IMAX screens at our homes.
Now when it comes to having a cultural impact, there are way more variables there. How complex is the world building, merchandise and spin-offs, niche demographics that are receptive to the movie and also a good portion of sheer luck of being released at the right place and right time.
And having a movie that excels at both? it is pretty much like catching lightning in a bottle. Avatar is optimized for maximum money generation even at the cost of potential cultural impact. It is written to be as digestible as possible for as much people as possible so the plot doesn't get in the way of the CGI.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/05/27 19:44:03
Paint it Pink wrote: I did film studies back in the day, and from a historical perspective there are a load of great films, which were commercial successes in their day. But now they've been forgotten. The difference between them and Avatar is time and changes in technology from social media, where we live in a hot house environment for discussing media we consume
Are they truly forgotten, though? Avatar uses call-backs to the Wizard of Oz and all the variations of You're In the Army Now (which includes An Officer and a Gentleman, Stripes, Full Metal Jacket and countless others).
But that means, if those people don't like a film, and Avatar rubs people the wrong way with its eco-warrior is good, and corporate greed backed by military power is bad, then what I think this shows is that the group who make memes, don't. For good reasons. I'm in no way saying we should force anyone to make memes.
I cannot emphasize enough the utter irrelevance of these themes. It is universally acknowledged that protecting the environment from commercial exploitation is a good thing. My point is that this particular film is unremarkable for that very reason.
Time. I know, how boring of me. But history is full of examples of media that was loved at the time it was made, and which has been consigned to the dustbin of history.
Right, which is why we are discussing this. Avatar made big money and has no actual footprints. Weird. One might be moved to talk about it, no?
I'm a retired psychologist. From a behavioural perspective people have three responses to confrontations. Fight, flight, and freeze.
I think it's probably clear which response I've taken here in this thread.
Which is more likely to lead to a productive discussion?
The cultural importance of Avatar is getting bums on seats.
Pretty much.
Last night I watched The Princess Bride with some of my kids. All these years later, and it still cracks them up. I recall seeing it in the theater and how for years afterwards the many many quotable lines were deployed.
That's the contrast. A relatively low-budget film with no major stars (I think the most recognizable actor was Andre the Giant) that dominated the cultural space for years afterwards.
Clever dialog > special effects.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/05/28 01:09:58
Princess Bride is more on the other side of the spectrum, a highly quotable movie with a mediocre box office (although to be fair, cheap to produce movie) that eventually became a cult classic.
That being said, "dominated" is highly misleading. It is a cult classic, but it is quite obscure for mainstream culture.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote:That's the contrast. A relatively low-budget film with no major stars (I think the most recognizable actor was Andre the Giant) that dominated the cultural space for years afterwards..
At the time? Probably - Andre was always pretty distinctive, after all. Peter Falk would probably be your other option - I was going to suggest Fred Savage, too, but I didn't realise Princess Bride came out before The Wonder Years until I looked it up.
These days you could make an argument for any of Mandy Patinkin, Robin Wright or Cary Elwes being the stars of the cast (with Peter Cook, Billy Crystal or Mel Smith being second-tier there).
Tyran wrote:It is a cult classic, but it is quite obscure for mainstream culture.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
LordofHats wrote: Krull was a financial failure but the modern idea of what a glaive is (nothing like the historical examples) comes entirely from Krull.
They called that a glaive?!
Huh, now I know why the ninja tower upgrade in BTD5 is called a glaive thrower. Always found that one odd.
ChargerIIC wrote: If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: No, that's not the question, it's just one of many examples of how shows that were commercial failures nevertheless resonated in the culture. Avatar is the counter-example - a commercial success with almost undetectable cultural impact.
Okay, I see where you're coming from. Thank you.
I did film studies back in the day, and from a historical perspective there are a load of great films, which were commercial successes in their day. But now they've been forgotten. The difference between them and Avatar is time and changes in technology from social media, where we live in a hot house environment for discussing media we consume.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: No, those are criteria, not assumptions. To declare something culturally important, we need some sort of metric, a standard of comparison. Memes, the prevalence of quotes in everyday conversations and a dedicated fan base are clear and obvious indicators of cultural impact.
It's the choice of criteria that I have the issue with. The hypothesis is that cultural impact can be reliably measured by using these criteria.
For me, what is seen as clear and obvious is anything but. Rather, I would argue that people who like to quote dialogue, make memes etc are a self-selecting group, because not everyone quotes dialogue and create new memes. It is a specific type of fan. Good for them.
But that means, if those people don't like a film, and Avatar rubs people the wrong way with its eco-warrior is good, and corporate greed backed by military power is bad, then what I think this shows is that the group who make memes, don't. For good reasons. I'm in no way saying we should force anyone to make memes.
For me, the film played with what Major General Smedley Darlington Butler said about how America used the Marines to enforce corporate profits, in his book "War is a Racket."
I found Avatar pretty dull, and I think military adventurism supporting corporate greed is extremely bad and support environmentalism. The theme isn't the issue, at least for me. I never watched it on the big screen though, so that probably didn't help. It probably was less dull when the visual spectacle was greater.
Memes seem to be pretty common across the political spectrum amongst a large section of young people. I am frequently aware of left-wing memes (and personally encounter them more frequently than right-wing memes due to my circumstances), they are merely a common form of communication and messaging amongst online youth. I think you are going to need to back up the assertion that memes more typically support a pro-corporate anti-environment agenda to any great degree.
Essentially, it feels like a huge leap to say that Avatar has little reach in memes because of its underlying themes. The themes are not uncommon- even Frozen 2 has significant elements of environtalism and anti-Imperialism and feels to have had a bigger cultural impact outside of simply generating money.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: Yes, and you could do this quite easily by giving an alternative standard by which cultural impact should be measured.
Time. I know, how boring of me. But history is full of examples of media that was loved at the time it was made, and which has been consigned to the dustbin of history.
Sure. Which is why this thread exists to ask why that happens. I think we could reasonably broaden the topic to discuss other commercially successful but cultural forgotten films.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: Not if you want to have a meaningful debate. If your "number one strategy" for dealing with disagreement is to run away, I don't think that is very effective, or sustainable.
I think I haven't explained myself,and made too many assumption about what is common knowledge.
I'm a retired psychologist. From a behavioural perspective people have three responses to confrontations. Fight, flight, and freeze.
I think it's probably clear which response I've taken here in this thread.
I think the part folks are finding odd is not the instinctual reaction to confrontation, but the fact you are treating the level of discussion occurring here as at a level where it is a confrontation that would trigger a stress response. The discussion here does not look to have been especially confrontational, and the stress response you mention is only supposed to trigger when a person perceives a situation is requiring more than their immediate capacity to deal with it.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: That is of course at odds with the overwhelming sentiment that the film is enjoyable. Indeed, that's the point of the discussion - how is such a popular film a cultural blank? I haven't seen the films, so I can't like or dislike them. I am therefore neutral, I have no axe to grind one way or another.
And from that position of absolute indifference, I can compare it with other movies I haven't seen, that nevertheless I know about because people constantly reference them. In that comparison, Avatar loses, and badly.
Now if you have some alternative measurement, I'd like to see it, but based on my observations, social interactions, and presence on social media, Avatar's cultural irrelevance isn't an assumption but a fact, which is the reason we are asking "why?"
And yet, here we are. Avatar had zero cultural impact, but made a shed ton of money. And repeated it again with a sequel so long overdue it was like watching a zombie rise from the grave.
And the people don't like the movie can arguably be said to overlap with those who generate memes and like to quote dialogue from media, don't.
The cultural importance of Avatar is getting bums on seats.
That appears to be a "cultural" impact relevant only to shareholders though.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/05/28 09:18:24
ChargerIIC wrote: If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
Paint it Pink wrote: And the people don't like the movie can arguably be said to overlap with those who generate memes and like to quote dialogue from media, don't.
Can you prove that?
Or is that just baseless conjecture?
It's an equally baseless conjecture to assume memes are a measure of anything. And no, I can't.
But either could be tested, if one was so inclined. Even then, research doesn't prove a hypothesis, it only fails to disprove the hypothesis.
Tamagotchi's use to be a thing. Memes area thing.
I'm awaiting the next fad.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2023/05/28 10:42:00
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
LordofHats wrote: Krull was a financial failure but the modern idea of what a glaive is (nothing like the historical examples) comes entirely from Krull.
I loved Krull, I'd probably list it as one of my all time favorites despite not having seen it for yours. But I don't know if it's because the film was any good, or that it was just on TV all the time when I was growing up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyran wrote: Princess Bride is more on the other side of the spectrum, a highly quotable movie with a mediocre box office (although to be fair, cheap to produce movie) that eventually became a cult classic.
That being said, "dominated" is highly misleading. It is a cult classic, but it is quite obscure for mainstream culture.
I'm also intrigued by the opposite thing here, with the cult classics. There are a lot of films that were total flops at the time, and then because huge cultural pieces later. Rocky Horror was so bad that the actors didn't want to be associated with it, but it's now probably the most iconic musical film in history.
There's never been any real correlation between technical ability and popularity across any medium. Sharknado is by any measure garbage, but hugely popular (I love it). Warhams 40K can't be said to be a good game but is great fun.
So at the simplest level I guess Avatar doesn't have that 'spark' that you get from stuff like Evil Dead, Princess Bride, Sharknado, etc. I don't even know if that's a tangible thing in the movie or even something as simple as a celebrity/journalist/tv scheduler/etc liked it and included an article/mention of it, and it became popular because it was popular.
Maybe Avatar will become a cult classic in another 10 years when the kids discover it, and home cinema technology has advanced to the point it can be properly appreciated again.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/05/29 09:13:57
I doubt avatar will get a second wind in the future from home viewing because a large part of its appeal is the visual effects which can’t help but age like milk.
Other films that have had a done well after initial release are usually successful based on their writing or direction or the acting. I can’t think of any where visual effects were the major appeal that led to their latter day success.
Cadre Coronal Afterglow w1;d0;l0 
