Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Green Lantern vs. The Last Airbender - Freakin' Awesome Network Forums
11 views
Skip to first unread message
TMC
Apr 20, 2012, 9:05:15 PM4/20/12
to
http://officialfan.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=offtopic&action=display&thread=423218&page=1
« Thread Started Today at 2:21pm »
See, to explain - thanks to a conversation with my brother yesterday,
it occurred to me that I don't know which of these two I disliked
more. So I thought it might make for an interesting poll to see what
others think.
What makes it difficult for me is the details of it. Last Airbender is
pretty consistently bad, Eeroh and Zhao aside, but it's mostly just
boring or goofy, and in some ways can be enjoyed. Green Lantern has
some fun moments on the contrary, but at the same time when it's bad,
it's really bad. Especially that first half hour, which if not for the
fact that someone dropped me off at the theater I'd have probably
walked out after. It gets a bit better after that, but still.
So... Yeah. Have at it - which of these movies is better?
« Reply #2 Today at 2:25pm »
Airbender's sins are worse than Green Lantern, IMHO. It white-washed a
story with heavily asian themes, butchered one of the most well-
written strong female protagonist characters, and had a horrible actor
in the title role. Asif Mandvi as a villain. Told rather than showed.
Green Lantern was just another crappy superhero movie, of which there
is no shortage.
« Reply #3 Today at 2:25pm »
Green Lantern. At least it had Mark Strong being an amazing casting
choice as Sinestro. The Last Airbender had nothing.
« Reply #4 Today at 2:26pm »
Green Lantern at least TRIED to be good. It failed, but dammit, they
gave it their best shot. Airbender was just something M. Night did to
try and make his kids happy, and he screwed the pooch in a big way.
« Reply #5 Today at 2:27pm »
Today at 2:26pm, "Sweet'n'Sour" Spankymac wrote:
Green Lantern at least TRIED to be good. It failed, but dammit, they
gave it their best shot. Airbender was just something M. Night did to
try and make his kids happy, and he screwed the pooch in a big way.
True. And what's bizarre about that is he got into the show because
his daughter was a Katara fan, and then he proceeded to absolutely
butcher her character.
« Reply #6 Today at 3:06pm »
Today at 2:25pm, YAK MAN wrote:
Airbender's sins are worse than Green Lantern, IMHO. It white-washed a
story with heavily asian themes
But the main cast was white in the animated series, too. The only one
who could fall under similar background was Brasco. Hell, the live
action movie features an actual Asian guy in the main cast, the guy
who was Sokka.
Quote:
butchered one of the most well-written strong female protagonist
characters,
By using the exact same scene from the animated series, where this
supposed"badass" was established.
Quote:
and had a horrible actor in the title role.
I considered him good. The best of the group.
Quote:
Asif Mandvi as a villain.
And doing his job well, of being an complete jackass you can't root
for and cheer when he is eventually taken down.
Quote:
Told rather than showed.
I'll give you that, but it's less the fault of the film and more
trying to stay close to the original story.
What "ruined" Airbender was the fandom being insufferably stubborn.
Without the license, it can still be considered a pretty good family
film.
There was more tangible errors from Green Lantern, even before it was
released. Without the license, it's still a troubled movie.
« Reply #8 Today at 3:16pm »
Today at 3:06pm, Michael "Mikey Cee" Coello wrote:
Today at 2:25pm, YAK MAN wrote:
Airbender's sins are worse than Green Lantern, IMHO. It white-washed a
story with heavily asian themes
But the main cast was white in the animated series, too. The only one
who could fall under similar background was Brasco. Hell, the live
action movie features an actual Asian guy in the main cast, the guy
who was Sokka.
By using the exact same scene from the animated series, where this
supposed"badass" was established.
I considered him good. The best of the group.
And doing his job well, of being an complete jackass you can't root
for and cheer when he is eventually taken down.
Quote:
Told rather than showed.
I'll give you that, but it's less the fault of the film and more
trying to stay close to the original story.
What "ruined" Airbender was the fandom being insufferably stubborn.
Without the license, it can still be considered a pretty good family
film.
There was more tangible errors from Green Lantern, even before it was
released. Without the license, it's still a troubled movie.
I'll grant you on some things, but honestly, the changes from the
series or whatever don't bug me. Even the race thing I kind of get,
though they really shouldn't have been as blatant about it as they
were and the excuse only really works if there are at least good
actors in the role. As for the kid playing Ung, he has his strengths -
good for action work and some of his delivery's done well, but his
facials are pretty laughable and nothing about his performance feels
like there's any real life to it.
What scene was that taken directly from it, though? If you're
referring to the opening with them finding Aang, in the show Katara
yelled at Sokka and was happy to call him out on his stupidity, while
in the movie she cowered in fear of the idea of angering him. Then
there's the fact that everything else worthwhile she did was pretty
much excised entirely.
Though I don't think that's entirely a sexism thing, since Soaka was
completely pointless to the proceedings as well.
Also, I'll readily grant that Last Airbender did right in some ways -
for instance, aside from the south pole a lot of the sets tended to be
very well done.
« Reply #9 Today at 3:27pm »
But the main cast was white in the animated series, too. The only one
who could fall under similar background was Brasco. Hell, the live
action movie features an actual Asian guy in the main cast, the guy
who was Sokka.
Even if the voice cast was white, the characters were clearly not. It
made zero sense to have two white kids be there when I think the rest
of the tribe was clearly Eskimo-esque as well.
By using the exact same scene from the animated series, where this
supposed"badass" was established.
Adressed by Lizuka
I considered him good. The best of the group.
You're wrong. He was terrible.
And doing his job well, of being an complete jackass you can't root
for and cheer when he is eventually taken down.
Told rather than showed.
I'll give you that, but it's less the fault of the film and more
trying to stay close to the original story.
So much was explained in narration rather than shown. That has nothing
to do with what you said, and everything to do with poor film making.
Especially bad was Asif Mandvi's expository dialogue with Fire Lord
Ozai. "I believe that...I believe that....I believe that..."
What "ruined" Airbender was the fandom being insufferably stubborn.
Without the license, it can still be considered a pretty good family
film.
If your family likes s***ty movies. The fandom was stubborn because
the show is one of the best, most accessible action adventure cartoons
in a decade. Departures should be viewed suspiciously.
« Reply #10 Today at 3:47pm »
Green Lantern.
Aside from just being a bad adaptation, Airbender is a bad movie. The
kids cast as the main characters were awful, to the point I thought
they had to be related to some financiers. I though Patel and some of
the older cast did pretty well, but we spend the majority of the movie
with three kids that are painfully wooden.
Awful acting, poor storytelling (I think told not shown sums it up
pretty well) and somehow boring fight sequences.
Just terrible.
At least in Green Lantern they got the name of the main character
right.
« Reply #11 Today at 3:49pm »
Good things about Airbender
Zuko and Iroh were fantastic.
Special effects were done well, even if the implementation of the
bending itself was not good (pebble dance)
Much of the set/costume design was top notch
« Reply #12 Today at 3:51pm »
Green Lantern had a few highlights, Last Airbender was just s***.
« Reply #13 Today at 3:59pm »
Green Lantern was far better.
It isn't a top tier comic book film by any stretch, I put it with
films like Ghost Rider, the Thomas Jane Punisher film, and the
theatrical version of Daredevil as C-level quality comic films. Not
HORRIBLE, but not great either. Enjoyable films for what they are.
The Last Airbender is a plague on cinema.
« Reply #14 Today at 4:02pm »
Today at 3:16pm, Lizuka wrote:
Today at 3:06pm, Michael "Mikey Cee" Coello wrote:
But the main cast was white in the animated series, too. The only one
who could fall under similar background was Brasco. Hell, the live
action movie features an actual Asian guy in the main cast, the guy
who was Sokka.
By using the exact same scene from the animated series, where this
supposed"badass" was established.
I considered him good. The best of the group.
And doing his job well, of being an complete jackass you can't root
for and cheer when he is eventually taken down.
I'll give you that, but it's less the fault of the film and more
trying to stay close to the original story.
What "ruined" Airbender was the fandom being insufferably stubborn.
Without the license, it can still be considered a pretty good family
film.
There was more tangible errors from Green Lantern, even before it was
released. Without the license, it's still a troubled movie.
I'll grant you on some things, but honestly, the changes from the
series or whatever don't bug me. Even the race thing I kind of get,
though they really shouldn't have been as blatant about it as they
were and the excuse only really works if there are at least good
actors in the role. As for the kid playing Ung, he has his strengths -
good for action work and some of his delivery's done well, but his
facials are pretty laughable and nothing about his performance feels
like there's any real life to it.
What scene was that taken directly from it, though? If you're
referring to the opening with them finding Aang, in the show Katara
yelled at Sokka and was happy to call him out on his stupidity, while
in the movie she cowered in fear of the idea of angering him. Then
there's the fact that everything else worthwhile she did was pretty
much excised entirely.
Though I don't think that's entirely a sexism thing, since Soaka was
completely pointless to the proceedings as well.
Also, I'll readily grant that Last Airbender did right in some ways -
for instance, aside from the south pole a lot of the sets tended to be
very well done.
I didn't see any of that in what you are telling me. Nothing screamed
inferior by hr actions during the opening. She always looked the more
competent of the two, same in the cartoon. She also had her own
stupidity moments and comedic moments. Nothing that makes her look
bad, just the tone of the show.
Seriously, all this talk just seems to stem from Katara not having a
"you go, girl" moment, especially during the fight in the cave. "Oh,
she lost to a man, that means it's sexist." Not mentioning the fact
that this whole badass vibe didn't start until well into the series.
It would be like making a Evil Dead remake with Ash in it, and people
complaining about him not being an ass kicking guy who spouted one
lines, even though that image of him was right in the first movie and
part of the second, and only appeared in Army of Darkness.
« Reply #15 Today at 4:09pm »
Today at 3:27pm, YAK MAN wrote:
Even if the voice cast was white, the characters were clearly not. It
made zero sense to have two white kids be there when I think the rest
of the tribe was clearly Eskimo-esque as well.
Yeah, they weren't actually eskimo elemental benders, and Johnny Depp
isn't really a european pirate, Ryan Reynolds wasn't an American space
pilot turned intergalactic police, and Robert Downey Jr is not a
snooty English detective nor a snarky millionare playboy genius
superhero. Acting. They are paid to act like whatever the script calls
for it, live action or voice.
Quote:
You're wrong. He was terrible.
It's my own view. I can't be wrong.
Quote:
So much was explained in narration rather than shown. That has nothing
to do with what you said, and everything to do with poor film making.
Especially bad was Asif Mandvi's expository dialogue with Fire Lord
Ozai. "I believe that...I believe that....I believe that..."
It was the same stuff I had to hear during the actual show, the same
ones. If anything, the license held the movie back, if they didn't
have to shove in every single thing "for the fans".
Quote:
If your family likes s***ty movies. The fandom was stubborn because
the show is one of the best, most accessible action adventure cartoons
in a decade. Departures should be viewed suspiciously.
Except for some bad pronunciation and a few minor squabbles, it wasn't
any different from the TV show and what "the fans" wanted.Hell, Koda
mentioned about how it was "too close" to the source material.
Honestly, there was nothing wrong with the movie that deserves this
kind of insults or ranting. Nothing.
« Reply #16 Today at 4:12pm »
Today at 3:59pm, Koda89, Master Ms. Fortune wrote:
Green Lantern was far better.
It isn't a top tier comic book film by any stretch, I put it with
films like Ghost Rider, the Thomas Jane Punisher film, and the
theatrical version of Daredevil as C-level quality comic films. Not
HORRIBLE, but not great either. Enjoyable films for what they are.
The Last Airbender is a plague on cinema.
This is pretty much my feelings on Lantern.
Can't fully comment on Airbender as I never saw it but from the
previews it looked horrible.
Though one of my main criticisms of GL fits with Last Airbender from
what I've heard... which is they just tried to fit way too much stuff
into one movie.
« Reply #17 Today at 4:13pm »
Today at 4:09pm, Michael "Mikey Cee" Coello wrote:
Today at 3:27pm, YAK MAN wrote:
Even if the voice cast was white, the characters were clearly not. It
made zero sense to have two white kids be there when I think the rest
of the tribe was clearly Eskimo-esque as well.
Yeah, they weren't actually eskimo elemental benders, and Johnny Depp
isn't really a european pirate, Ryan Reynolds wasn't an American space
pilot turned intergalactic police, and Robert Downey Jr is not a
snooty English detective nor a snarky millionare playboy genius
superhero. Acting. They are paid to act like whatever the script calls
for it, live action or voice.
It's my own view. I can't be wrong.
It was the same stuff I had to hear during the actual show, the same
ones. If anything, the license held the movie back, if they didn't
have to shove in every single thing "for the fans".
Quote:
If your family likes s***ty movies. The fandom was stubborn because
the show is one of the best, most accessible action adventure cartoons
in a decade. Departures should be viewed suspiciously.
Except for some bad pronunciation and a few minor squabbles, it wasn't
any different from the TV show and what "the fans" wanted.Hell, Koda
mentioned about how it was "too close" to the source material.
Honestly, there was nothing wrong with the movie that deserves this
kind of insults or ranting. Nothing.
The hell I did!
The movie is almost nothing like the source material. They tried to
cram 20 episodes into 2+ hours.
If anything I wish it was closer to the source material.
« Reply #19 Today at 4:16pm »
Today at 4:13pm, Koda89, Master Ms. Fortune wrote:
Today at 4:09pm, Michael "Mikey Cee" Coello wrote:
Yeah, they weren't actually eskimo elemental benders, and Johnny Depp
isn't really a european pirate, Ryan Reynolds wasn't an American space
pilot turned intergalactic police, and Robert Downey Jr is not a
snooty English detective nor a snarky millionare playboy genius
superhero. Acting. They are paid to act like whatever the script calls
for it, live action or voice.
It's my own view. I can't be wrong.
It was the same stuff I had to hear during the actual show, the same
ones. If anything, the license held the movie back, if they didn't
have to shove in every single thing "for the fans".
Except for some bad pronunciation and a few minor squabbles, it wasn't
any different from the TV show and what "the fans" wanted.Hell, Koda
mentioned about how it was "too close" to the source material.
Honestly, there was nothing wrong with the movie that deserves this
kind of insults or ranting. Nothing.
The hell I did!
The movie is almost nothing like the source material. They tried to
cram 20 episodes into 2+ hours.
If anything I wish it was closer to the source material.
Oh yes, you did! You wrote those exact words!
It was in the thread I did where I rented the DVD of Airbender, and
how I was giving my thoughts on it. I said how it fit the look and
feel of the series, and you said they stuck too close, which was the
problem with it, having to fit the first book into a movie. You said
they could have been better being more loose with it.
http://officialfan.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=offtopic&action=display&thread=423218&page=2
« Reply #20 Today at 4:23pm »
Today at 4:16pm, Michael "Mikey Cee" Coello wrote:
Today at 4:13pm, Koda89, Master Ms. Fortune wrote:
The hell I did!
The movie is almost nothing like the source material. They tried to
cram 20 episodes into 2+ hours.
If anything I wish it was closer to the source material.
Oh yes, you did! You wrote those exact words!
It was in the thread I did where I rented the DVD of Airbender, and
how I was giving my thoughts on it. I said how it fit the look and
feel of the series, and you said they stuck too close, which was the
problem with it, having to fit the first book into a movie. You said
they could have been better being more loose with it.
I said that because as I said, they tried to cram 20 episodes into 2+
hours.
When trying to take just under 7 hours of content and turn it into
just 2 hours, you might as well do something your own thing.
They did not, and instead the whole thing suffered, to the point of
not looking like the original source.
« Reply #21 Today at 4:32pm »
If anything, I think Last Airbender should have been a more radical
departure from the show. Things like waiting until the very end to
introduce an important character like Yue and having Aang kidnapped
like four times over the course of a single movie are just stupid -
they work fine for a show where they have more time to work with, but
things should have been heavily retooled for the movie.
« Reply #22 Today at 4:33pm »
Today at 4:23pm, Koda89, Master Ms. Fortune wrote:
Today at 4:16pm, Michael "Mikey Cee" Coello wrote:
Oh yes, you did! You wrote those exact words!
It was in the thread I did where I rented the DVD of Airbender, and
how I was giving my thoughts on it. I said how it fit the look and
feel of the series, and you said they stuck too close, which was the
problem with it, having to fit the first book into a movie. You said
they could have been better being more loose with it.
I said that because as I said, they tried to cram 20 episodes into 2+
hours.
When trying to take just under 7 hours of content and turn it into
just 2 hours, you might as well do something your own thing.
They did not, and instead the whole thing suffered, to the point of
not looking like the original source.
So, it's too close, and also not close at all?
I can't see how. I recognized scenes straight out of the cartoon, from
the intro to the reveal of Aang to the scene with the prisoners, to
the travel to the land with the princess and even the battle. The
characters all act like I remember and it all fit with the elements,
no matter how it was explained. From all account, it does look like it
should have the Airbender name. It's not like Priest, that switched
pretty much everything out for a different story, or Transformers,
which went in it's own direction with it following the human character
of Sam instead of the Transformers.
The only differences I saw was the darker looking sets, the
pronouncing of some of the character's names, and where the element
came from, neither of those is enough to call it the worst thing ever
filmed by anyone, as it seems to be nearly everywhere.
« Reply #23 Today at 4:36pm »
Today at 4:32pm, Lizuka wrote:
If anything, I think Last Airbender should have been a more radical
departure from the show. Things like waiting until the very end to
introduce an important character like Yue and having Aang kidnapped
like four times over the course of a single movie are just stupid -
they work fine for a show where they have more time to work with, but
things should have been heavily retooled for the movie.
Or they should've made two films, with the first one ending with the
winter solstice.
Either way one thing that definitely needed to be changed was the
stupidity of the film putting the earthbender prison.......on solid
ground. It made much more sense in the show because it was on a metal
and wood platform in the middle of the sea. In the film there was no
logical way for the earthbenders to remain captive.
« Reply #24 Today at 4:41pm »
Today at 4:33pm, Michael "Mikey Cee" Coello wrote:
Today at 4:23pm, Koda89, Master Ms. Fortune wrote:
I said that because as I said, they tried to cram 20 episodes into 2+
hours.
When trying to take just under 7 hours of content and turn it into
just 2 hours, you might as well do something your own thing.
They did not, and instead the whole thing suffered, to the point of
not looking like the original source.
So, it's too close, and also not close at all?
I can't see how. I recognized scenes straight out of the cartoon, from
the intro to the reveal of Aang to the scene with the prisoners, to
the travel to the land with the princess and even the battle. The
characters all act like I remember and it all fit with the elements,
no matter how it was explained. From all account, it does look like it
should have the Airbender name. It's not like Priest, that switched
pretty much everything out for a different story, or Transformers,
which went in it's own direction with it following the human character
of Sam instead of the Transformers.
The only differences I saw was the darker looking sets, the
pronouncing of some of the character's names, and where the element
came from, neither of those is enough to call it the worst thing ever
filmed by anyone, as it seems to be nearly everywhere.
The acting was horrible, it was wrong cast, the tones were all off.
The film was mostly super serious, while the show had a balance of
seriousness and comedy, scenes were changed, like the prison scene,
doesn't make sense in the film.
It is "too close", because they TRIED to fit too much content from the
show, they tried to stick too close to the show, but because they cut/
removed/rearranged too much stuff, they ended up not being like the
show at all.
« Reply #25 Today at 4:43pm »
Today at 4:36pm, Koda89, Master Ms. Fortune wrote:
Today at 4:32pm, Lizuka wrote:
If anything, I think Last Airbender should have been a more radical
departure from the show. Things like waiting until the very end to
introduce an important character like Yue and having Aang kidnapped
like four times over the course of a single movie are just stupid -
they work fine for a show where they have more time to work with, but
things should have been heavily retooled for the movie.
Or they should've made two films, with the first one ending with the
winter solstice.
Either way one thing that definitely needed to be changed was the
stupidity of the film putting the earthbender prison.......on solid
ground. It made much more sense in the show because it was on a metal
and wood platform in the middle of the sea. In the film there was no
logical way for the earthbenders to remain captive.
Probably cause it was established any desire to escape or rebel was
sucked out of them, until the Arrival of Aang and the reveal of the
existence of the Avatar and that big speech. They could have, but
would they have without knowing what to do after.
Plus, considered that the Fire tribe was considered to be masterful
with their element, the term "scorched Earth" might be appropriate.
« Reply #26 Today at 4:49pm »
Today at 4:43pm, Michael "Mikey Cee" Coello wrote:
Today at 4:36pm, Koda89, Master Ms. Fortune wrote:
Or they should've made two films, with the first one ending with the
winter solstice.
Either way one thing that definitely needed to be changed was the
stupidity of the film putting the earthbender prison.......on solid
ground. It made much more sense in the show because it was on a metal
and wood platform in the middle of the sea. In the film there was no
logical way for the earthbenders to remain captive.
Probably cause it was established any desire to escape or rebel was
sucked out of them, until the Arrival of Aang and the reveal of the
existence of the Avatar and that big speech. They could have, but
would they have without knowing what to do after.
Plus, considered that the Fire tribe was considered to be masterful
with their element, the term "scorched Earth" might be appropriate.
It makes no sense for that desire to be sucked from them if the prison
was on solid ground. Remember, earthbenders can teleport through the
ground! If they wanted to escape the prison in the film all they would
have to do is that teleport move.
In the show they really couldn't escape until it was discovered that
there was coal on the rig. Didn't help that they had a ruthless warden
on the rig, making it seem realistic that their will would be broken.
I just can't buy them losing their will to fight back if they are
being held prisoner near the very element they bend.
« Reply #27 Today at 4:54pm »
Today at 4:41pm, Koda89, Master Ms. Fortune wrote:
The acting was horrible, it was wrong cast, the tones were all off.
The film was mostly super serious, while the show had a balance of
seriousness and comedy, scenes were changed, like the prison scene,
doesn't make sense in the film.
I honestly can't side with anyone who says the acting was crap. Every
scene with Zuko was great, and moreso after he and Aang meet. And, for
all the crap Assif got, he was actually good at what he was cast at,
and if you didn't know him from Daily Show, no one would have cared.
And the rest of the cast, and there's no one that I would call
"horrible". Some didn't stand out, or some didn't have enough time to,
but nothing Room or MST3K level.
And, again, if the source material on the show was so racially
neutral, the voices they got didn't even sound like anything from any
Asian culture and every feature of looks didn't match up at all.
Trying to say it's the wrong cast cause they didn't go with someone
Asian for it is ridiculous to me, especially when the live action cast
was way more authentic in comparison with their backgrounds.
« Reply #28 Today at 5:01pm »
Today at 4:49pm, Koda89, Master Ms. Fortune wrote:
Today at 4:43pm, Michael "Mikey Cee" Coello wrote:
Probably cause it was established any desire to escape or rebel was
sucked out of them, until the Arrival of Aang and the reveal of the
existence of the Avatar and that big speech. They could have, but
would they have without knowing what to do after.
Plus, considered that the Fire tribe was considered to be masterful
with their element, the term "scorched Earth" might be appropriate.
It makes no sense for that desire to be sucked from them if the prison
was on solid ground. Remember, earthbenders can teleport through the
ground! If they wanted to escape the prison in the film all they would
have to do is that teleport move.
In the show they really couldn't escape until it was discovered that
there was coal on the rig. Didn't help that they had a ruthless warden
on the rig, making it seem realistic that their will would be broken.
I just can't buy them losing their will to fight back if they are
being held prisoner near the very element they bend.
And most prisons can give inmates enough stuff to either kill someone
or make an escape, but not every prisoner breaks out every single day.
Same with how most prisons in most scenes that show captives or
incarceration. Yet, you don't see people going after warders or
kidnappers on minute 1.
Honestly, even if they did, what would happen? The Fire Nation isn't
some minor group in this one area, it's a ruthless group of psychos
who go through their territory and ransack s***, from everything shown
in the movie at that point. The whole thing about "and then what"
hangs overhead, menacingly.
« Reply #29 Today at 5:04pm »
Today at 4:54pm, Michael "Mikey Cee" Coello wrote:
I honestly can't side with anyone who says the acting was crap. Every
scene with Zuko was great, and moreso after he and Aang meet. And, for
all the crap Assif got, he was actually good at what he was cast at,
and if you didn't know him from Daily Show, no one would have cared.
And the rest of the cast, and there's no one that I would call
"horrible". Some didn't stand out, or some didn't have enough time to,
but nothing Room or MST3K level.
I agree with you about Patel, I thought he was pretty good in this.
I don't watch the Daily Show so I had no prior knowledge of Assif, I
thought he was fine but not great.
But in my book the kids were bad actors. No, not to the level of The
Room or something like that but they were extremely stilted and
awkward for the vast majority.
Also the thing about the pronounciations (Avatar becoming Ah-vatar and
Aang becoming Ong), I liken it to the Silent Hill movie renaming the
Cheryl character Sharon. Why do it? It adds absolutely nothing to the
story except that every time it's said, anyone who is familiar with
the source material is just going to be annoyed by it. So why change
it in the first place?
« Reply #30 Today at 5:12pm »
Today at 5:04pm, Bobeddy wrote:
Also the thing about the pronounciations (Avatar becoming Ah-vatar and
Aang becoming Ong), I liken it to the Silent Hill movie renaming the
Cheryl character Sharon. Why do it? It adds absolutely nothing to the
story except that every time it's said, anyone who is familiar with
the source material is just going to be annoyed by it. So why change
it in the first place?
That could just be chalked up to a difference in pronouncing the name.
Same with Ryu in the Street Fighter movies having different ways of
saying his name in the various adaptations. Hell, I was saying Ryu's
name the wrong way, apparently, for several years. Yeah, the series
has the advantage of actually saying the name, but it could be a
factor over how it was repeated.
« Thread Started Today at 2:21pm »
See, to explain - thanks to a conversation with my brother yesterday,
it occurred to me that I don't know which of these two I disliked
more. So I thought it might make for an interesting poll to see what
others think.
What makes it difficult for me is the details of it. Last Airbender is
pretty consistently bad, Eeroh and Zhao aside, but it's mostly just
boring or goofy, and in some ways can be enjoyed. Green Lantern has
some fun moments on the contrary, but at the same time when it's bad,
it's really bad. Especially that first half hour, which if not for the
fact that someone dropped me off at the theater I'd have probably
walked out after. It gets a bit better after that, but still.
So... Yeah. Have at it - which of these movies is better?
« Reply #2 Today at 2:25pm »
Airbender's sins are worse than Green Lantern, IMHO. It white-washed a
story with heavily asian themes, butchered one of the most well-
written strong female protagonist characters, and had a horrible actor
in the title role. Asif Mandvi as a villain. Told rather than showed.
Green Lantern was just another crappy superhero movie, of which there
is no shortage.
« Reply #3 Today at 2:25pm »
Green Lantern. At least it had Mark Strong being an amazing casting
choice as Sinestro. The Last Airbender had nothing.
« Reply #4 Today at 2:26pm »
Green Lantern at least TRIED to be good. It failed, but dammit, they
gave it their best shot. Airbender was just something M. Night did to
try and make his kids happy, and he screwed the pooch in a big way.
« Reply #5 Today at 2:27pm »
Today at 2:26pm, "Sweet'n'Sour" Spankymac wrote:
Green Lantern at least TRIED to be good. It failed, but dammit, they
gave it their best shot. Airbender was just something M. Night did to
try and make his kids happy, and he screwed the pooch in a big way.
True. And what's bizarre about that is he got into the show because
his daughter was a Katara fan, and then he proceeded to absolutely
butcher her character.
« Reply #6 Today at 3:06pm »
Today at 2:25pm, YAK MAN wrote:
Airbender's sins are worse than Green Lantern, IMHO. It white-washed a
story with heavily asian themes
But the main cast was white in the animated series, too. The only one
who could fall under similar background was Brasco. Hell, the live
action movie features an actual Asian guy in the main cast, the guy
who was Sokka.
Quote:
butchered one of the most well-written strong female protagonist
characters,
By using the exact same scene from the animated series, where this
supposed"badass" was established.
Quote:
and had a horrible actor in the title role.
I considered him good. The best of the group.
Quote:
Asif Mandvi as a villain.
And doing his job well, of being an complete jackass you can't root
for and cheer when he is eventually taken down.
Quote:
Told rather than showed.
I'll give you that, but it's less the fault of the film and more
trying to stay close to the original story.
What "ruined" Airbender was the fandom being insufferably stubborn.
Without the license, it can still be considered a pretty good family
film.
There was more tangible errors from Green Lantern, even before it was
released. Without the license, it's still a troubled movie.
« Reply #8 Today at 3:16pm »
Today at 3:06pm, Michael "Mikey Cee" Coello wrote:
Today at 2:25pm, YAK MAN wrote:
Airbender's sins are worse than Green Lantern, IMHO. It white-washed a
story with heavily asian themes
But the main cast was white in the animated series, too. The only one
who could fall under similar background was Brasco. Hell, the live
action movie features an actual Asian guy in the main cast, the guy
who was Sokka.
By using the exact same scene from the animated series, where this
supposed"badass" was established.
I considered him good. The best of the group.
And doing his job well, of being an complete jackass you can't root
for and cheer when he is eventually taken down.
Quote:
Told rather than showed.
I'll give you that, but it's less the fault of the film and more
trying to stay close to the original story.
What "ruined" Airbender was the fandom being insufferably stubborn.
Without the license, it can still be considered a pretty good family
film.
There was more tangible errors from Green Lantern, even before it was
released. Without the license, it's still a troubled movie.
I'll grant you on some things, but honestly, the changes from the
series or whatever don't bug me. Even the race thing I kind of get,
though they really shouldn't have been as blatant about it as they
were and the excuse only really works if there are at least good
actors in the role. As for the kid playing Ung, he has his strengths -
good for action work and some of his delivery's done well, but his
facials are pretty laughable and nothing about his performance feels
like there's any real life to it.
What scene was that taken directly from it, though? If you're
referring to the opening with them finding Aang, in the show Katara
yelled at Sokka and was happy to call him out on his stupidity, while
in the movie she cowered in fear of the idea of angering him. Then
there's the fact that everything else worthwhile she did was pretty
much excised entirely.
Though I don't think that's entirely a sexism thing, since Soaka was
completely pointless to the proceedings as well.
Also, I'll readily grant that Last Airbender did right in some ways -
for instance, aside from the south pole a lot of the sets tended to be
very well done.
« Reply #9 Today at 3:27pm »
But the main cast was white in the animated series, too. The only one
who could fall under similar background was Brasco. Hell, the live
action movie features an actual Asian guy in the main cast, the guy
who was Sokka.
Even if the voice cast was white, the characters were clearly not. It
made zero sense to have two white kids be there when I think the rest
of the tribe was clearly Eskimo-esque as well.
By using the exact same scene from the animated series, where this
supposed"badass" was established.
Adressed by Lizuka
I considered him good. The best of the group.
You're wrong. He was terrible.
And doing his job well, of being an complete jackass you can't root
for and cheer when he is eventually taken down.
Told rather than showed.
I'll give you that, but it's less the fault of the film and more
trying to stay close to the original story.
So much was explained in narration rather than shown. That has nothing
to do with what you said, and everything to do with poor film making.
Especially bad was Asif Mandvi's expository dialogue with Fire Lord
Ozai. "I believe that...I believe that....I believe that..."
What "ruined" Airbender was the fandom being insufferably stubborn.
Without the license, it can still be considered a pretty good family
film.
If your family likes s***ty movies. The fandom was stubborn because
the show is one of the best, most accessible action adventure cartoons
in a decade. Departures should be viewed suspiciously.
« Reply #10 Today at 3:47pm »
Green Lantern.
Aside from just being a bad adaptation, Airbender is a bad movie. The
kids cast as the main characters were awful, to the point I thought
they had to be related to some financiers. I though Patel and some of
the older cast did pretty well, but we spend the majority of the movie
with three kids that are painfully wooden.
Awful acting, poor storytelling (I think told not shown sums it up
pretty well) and somehow boring fight sequences.
Just terrible.
At least in Green Lantern they got the name of the main character
right.
« Reply #11 Today at 3:49pm »
Good things about Airbender
Zuko and Iroh were fantastic.
Special effects were done well, even if the implementation of the
bending itself was not good (pebble dance)
Much of the set/costume design was top notch
« Reply #12 Today at 3:51pm »
Green Lantern had a few highlights, Last Airbender was just s***.
« Reply #13 Today at 3:59pm »
Green Lantern was far better.
It isn't a top tier comic book film by any stretch, I put it with
films like Ghost Rider, the Thomas Jane Punisher film, and the
theatrical version of Daredevil as C-level quality comic films. Not
HORRIBLE, but not great either. Enjoyable films for what they are.
The Last Airbender is a plague on cinema.
« Reply #14 Today at 4:02pm »
Today at 3:16pm, Lizuka wrote:
Today at 3:06pm, Michael "Mikey Cee" Coello wrote:
But the main cast was white in the animated series, too. The only one
who could fall under similar background was Brasco. Hell, the live
action movie features an actual Asian guy in the main cast, the guy
who was Sokka.
By using the exact same scene from the animated series, where this
supposed"badass" was established.
I considered him good. The best of the group.
And doing his job well, of being an complete jackass you can't root
for and cheer when he is eventually taken down.
I'll give you that, but it's less the fault of the film and more
trying to stay close to the original story.
What "ruined" Airbender was the fandom being insufferably stubborn.
Without the license, it can still be considered a pretty good family
film.
There was more tangible errors from Green Lantern, even before it was
released. Without the license, it's still a troubled movie.
I'll grant you on some things, but honestly, the changes from the
series or whatever don't bug me. Even the race thing I kind of get,
though they really shouldn't have been as blatant about it as they
were and the excuse only really works if there are at least good
actors in the role. As for the kid playing Ung, he has his strengths -
good for action work and some of his delivery's done well, but his
facials are pretty laughable and nothing about his performance feels
like there's any real life to it.
What scene was that taken directly from it, though? If you're
referring to the opening with them finding Aang, in the show Katara
yelled at Sokka and was happy to call him out on his stupidity, while
in the movie she cowered in fear of the idea of angering him. Then
there's the fact that everything else worthwhile she did was pretty
much excised entirely.
Though I don't think that's entirely a sexism thing, since Soaka was
completely pointless to the proceedings as well.
Also, I'll readily grant that Last Airbender did right in some ways -
for instance, aside from the south pole a lot of the sets tended to be
very well done.
I didn't see any of that in what you are telling me. Nothing screamed
inferior by hr actions during the opening. She always looked the more
competent of the two, same in the cartoon. She also had her own
stupidity moments and comedic moments. Nothing that makes her look
bad, just the tone of the show.
Seriously, all this talk just seems to stem from Katara not having a
"you go, girl" moment, especially during the fight in the cave. "Oh,
she lost to a man, that means it's sexist." Not mentioning the fact
that this whole badass vibe didn't start until well into the series.
It would be like making a Evil Dead remake with Ash in it, and people
complaining about him not being an ass kicking guy who spouted one
lines, even though that image of him was right in the first movie and
part of the second, and only appeared in Army of Darkness.
« Reply #15 Today at 4:09pm »
Today at 3:27pm, YAK MAN wrote:
Even if the voice cast was white, the characters were clearly not. It
made zero sense to have two white kids be there when I think the rest
of the tribe was clearly Eskimo-esque as well.
Yeah, they weren't actually eskimo elemental benders, and Johnny Depp
isn't really a european pirate, Ryan Reynolds wasn't an American space
pilot turned intergalactic police, and Robert Downey Jr is not a
snooty English detective nor a snarky millionare playboy genius
superhero. Acting. They are paid to act like whatever the script calls
for it, live action or voice.
Quote:
You're wrong. He was terrible.
It's my own view. I can't be wrong.
Quote:
So much was explained in narration rather than shown. That has nothing
to do with what you said, and everything to do with poor film making.
Especially bad was Asif Mandvi's expository dialogue with Fire Lord
Ozai. "I believe that...I believe that....I believe that..."
It was the same stuff I had to hear during the actual show, the same
ones. If anything, the license held the movie back, if they didn't
have to shove in every single thing "for the fans".
Quote:
If your family likes s***ty movies. The fandom was stubborn because
the show is one of the best, most accessible action adventure cartoons
in a decade. Departures should be viewed suspiciously.
Except for some bad pronunciation and a few minor squabbles, it wasn't
any different from the TV show and what "the fans" wanted.Hell, Koda
mentioned about how it was "too close" to the source material.
Honestly, there was nothing wrong with the movie that deserves this
kind of insults or ranting. Nothing.
« Reply #16 Today at 4:12pm »
Today at 3:59pm, Koda89, Master Ms. Fortune wrote:
Green Lantern was far better.
It isn't a top tier comic book film by any stretch, I put it with
films like Ghost Rider, the Thomas Jane Punisher film, and the
theatrical version of Daredevil as C-level quality comic films. Not
HORRIBLE, but not great either. Enjoyable films for what they are.
The Last Airbender is a plague on cinema.
This is pretty much my feelings on Lantern.
Can't fully comment on Airbender as I never saw it but from the
previews it looked horrible.
Though one of my main criticisms of GL fits with Last Airbender from
what I've heard... which is they just tried to fit way too much stuff
into one movie.
« Reply #17 Today at 4:13pm »
Today at 4:09pm, Michael "Mikey Cee" Coello wrote:
Today at 3:27pm, YAK MAN wrote:
Even if the voice cast was white, the characters were clearly not. It
made zero sense to have two white kids be there when I think the rest
of the tribe was clearly Eskimo-esque as well.
Yeah, they weren't actually eskimo elemental benders, and Johnny Depp
isn't really a european pirate, Ryan Reynolds wasn't an American space
pilot turned intergalactic police, and Robert Downey Jr is not a
snooty English detective nor a snarky millionare playboy genius
superhero. Acting. They are paid to act like whatever the script calls
for it, live action or voice.
It's my own view. I can't be wrong.
It was the same stuff I had to hear during the actual show, the same
ones. If anything, the license held the movie back, if they didn't
have to shove in every single thing "for the fans".
Quote:
If your family likes s***ty movies. The fandom was stubborn because
the show is one of the best, most accessible action adventure cartoons
in a decade. Departures should be viewed suspiciously.
Except for some bad pronunciation and a few minor squabbles, it wasn't
any different from the TV show and what "the fans" wanted.Hell, Koda
mentioned about how it was "too close" to the source material.
Honestly, there was nothing wrong with the movie that deserves this
kind of insults or ranting. Nothing.
The hell I did!
The movie is almost nothing like the source material. They tried to
cram 20 episodes into 2+ hours.
If anything I wish it was closer to the source material.
« Reply #19 Today at 4:16pm »
Today at 4:13pm, Koda89, Master Ms. Fortune wrote:
Today at 4:09pm, Michael "Mikey Cee" Coello wrote:
Yeah, they weren't actually eskimo elemental benders, and Johnny Depp
isn't really a european pirate, Ryan Reynolds wasn't an American space
pilot turned intergalactic police, and Robert Downey Jr is not a
snooty English detective nor a snarky millionare playboy genius
superhero. Acting. They are paid to act like whatever the script calls
for it, live action or voice.
It's my own view. I can't be wrong.
It was the same stuff I had to hear during the actual show, the same
ones. If anything, the license held the movie back, if they didn't
have to shove in every single thing "for the fans".
Except for some bad pronunciation and a few minor squabbles, it wasn't
any different from the TV show and what "the fans" wanted.Hell, Koda
mentioned about how it was "too close" to the source material.
Honestly, there was nothing wrong with the movie that deserves this
kind of insults or ranting. Nothing.
The hell I did!
The movie is almost nothing like the source material. They tried to
cram 20 episodes into 2+ hours.
If anything I wish it was closer to the source material.
Oh yes, you did! You wrote those exact words!
It was in the thread I did where I rented the DVD of Airbender, and
how I was giving my thoughts on it. I said how it fit the look and
feel of the series, and you said they stuck too close, which was the
problem with it, having to fit the first book into a movie. You said
they could have been better being more loose with it.
http://officialfan.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=offtopic&action=display&thread=423218&page=2
« Reply #20 Today at 4:23pm »
Today at 4:16pm, Michael "Mikey Cee" Coello wrote:
Today at 4:13pm, Koda89, Master Ms. Fortune wrote:
The hell I did!
The movie is almost nothing like the source material. They tried to
cram 20 episodes into 2+ hours.
If anything I wish it was closer to the source material.
Oh yes, you did! You wrote those exact words!
It was in the thread I did where I rented the DVD of Airbender, and
how I was giving my thoughts on it. I said how it fit the look and
feel of the series, and you said they stuck too close, which was the
problem with it, having to fit the first book into a movie. You said
they could have been better being more loose with it.
I said that because as I said, they tried to cram 20 episodes into 2+
hours.
When trying to take just under 7 hours of content and turn it into
just 2 hours, you might as well do something your own thing.
They did not, and instead the whole thing suffered, to the point of
not looking like the original source.
« Reply #21 Today at 4:32pm »
If anything, I think Last Airbender should have been a more radical
departure from the show. Things like waiting until the very end to
introduce an important character like Yue and having Aang kidnapped
like four times over the course of a single movie are just stupid -
they work fine for a show where they have more time to work with, but
things should have been heavily retooled for the movie.
« Reply #22 Today at 4:33pm »
Today at 4:23pm, Koda89, Master Ms. Fortune wrote:
Today at 4:16pm, Michael "Mikey Cee" Coello wrote:
Oh yes, you did! You wrote those exact words!
It was in the thread I did where I rented the DVD of Airbender, and
how I was giving my thoughts on it. I said how it fit the look and
feel of the series, and you said they stuck too close, which was the
problem with it, having to fit the first book into a movie. You said
they could have been better being more loose with it.
I said that because as I said, they tried to cram 20 episodes into 2+
hours.
When trying to take just under 7 hours of content and turn it into
just 2 hours, you might as well do something your own thing.
They did not, and instead the whole thing suffered, to the point of
not looking like the original source.
So, it's too close, and also not close at all?
I can't see how. I recognized scenes straight out of the cartoon, from
the intro to the reveal of Aang to the scene with the prisoners, to
the travel to the land with the princess and even the battle. The
characters all act like I remember and it all fit with the elements,
no matter how it was explained. From all account, it does look like it
should have the Airbender name. It's not like Priest, that switched
pretty much everything out for a different story, or Transformers,
which went in it's own direction with it following the human character
of Sam instead of the Transformers.
The only differences I saw was the darker looking sets, the
pronouncing of some of the character's names, and where the element
came from, neither of those is enough to call it the worst thing ever
filmed by anyone, as it seems to be nearly everywhere.
« Reply #23 Today at 4:36pm »
Today at 4:32pm, Lizuka wrote:
If anything, I think Last Airbender should have been a more radical
departure from the show. Things like waiting until the very end to
introduce an important character like Yue and having Aang kidnapped
like four times over the course of a single movie are just stupid -
they work fine for a show where they have more time to work with, but
things should have been heavily retooled for the movie.
Or they should've made two films, with the first one ending with the
winter solstice.
Either way one thing that definitely needed to be changed was the
stupidity of the film putting the earthbender prison.......on solid
ground. It made much more sense in the show because it was on a metal
and wood platform in the middle of the sea. In the film there was no
logical way for the earthbenders to remain captive.
« Reply #24 Today at 4:41pm »
Today at 4:33pm, Michael "Mikey Cee" Coello wrote:
Today at 4:23pm, Koda89, Master Ms. Fortune wrote:
I said that because as I said, they tried to cram 20 episodes into 2+
hours.
When trying to take just under 7 hours of content and turn it into
just 2 hours, you might as well do something your own thing.
They did not, and instead the whole thing suffered, to the point of
not looking like the original source.
So, it's too close, and also not close at all?
I can't see how. I recognized scenes straight out of the cartoon, from
the intro to the reveal of Aang to the scene with the prisoners, to
the travel to the land with the princess and even the battle. The
characters all act like I remember and it all fit with the elements,
no matter how it was explained. From all account, it does look like it
should have the Airbender name. It's not like Priest, that switched
pretty much everything out for a different story, or Transformers,
which went in it's own direction with it following the human character
of Sam instead of the Transformers.
The only differences I saw was the darker looking sets, the
pronouncing of some of the character's names, and where the element
came from, neither of those is enough to call it the worst thing ever
filmed by anyone, as it seems to be nearly everywhere.
The acting was horrible, it was wrong cast, the tones were all off.
The film was mostly super serious, while the show had a balance of
seriousness and comedy, scenes were changed, like the prison scene,
doesn't make sense in the film.
It is "too close", because they TRIED to fit too much content from the
show, they tried to stick too close to the show, but because they cut/
removed/rearranged too much stuff, they ended up not being like the
show at all.
« Reply #25 Today at 4:43pm »
Today at 4:36pm, Koda89, Master Ms. Fortune wrote:
Today at 4:32pm, Lizuka wrote:
If anything, I think Last Airbender should have been a more radical
departure from the show. Things like waiting until the very end to
introduce an important character like Yue and having Aang kidnapped
like four times over the course of a single movie are just stupid -
they work fine for a show where they have more time to work with, but
things should have been heavily retooled for the movie.
Or they should've made two films, with the first one ending with the
winter solstice.
Either way one thing that definitely needed to be changed was the
stupidity of the film putting the earthbender prison.......on solid
ground. It made much more sense in the show because it was on a metal
and wood platform in the middle of the sea. In the film there was no
logical way for the earthbenders to remain captive.
Probably cause it was established any desire to escape or rebel was
sucked out of them, until the Arrival of Aang and the reveal of the
existence of the Avatar and that big speech. They could have, but
would they have without knowing what to do after.
Plus, considered that the Fire tribe was considered to be masterful
with their element, the term "scorched Earth" might be appropriate.
« Reply #26 Today at 4:49pm »
Today at 4:43pm, Michael "Mikey Cee" Coello wrote:
Today at 4:36pm, Koda89, Master Ms. Fortune wrote:
Or they should've made two films, with the first one ending with the
winter solstice.
Either way one thing that definitely needed to be changed was the
stupidity of the film putting the earthbender prison.......on solid
ground. It made much more sense in the show because it was on a metal
and wood platform in the middle of the sea. In the film there was no
logical way for the earthbenders to remain captive.
Probably cause it was established any desire to escape or rebel was
sucked out of them, until the Arrival of Aang and the reveal of the
existence of the Avatar and that big speech. They could have, but
would they have without knowing what to do after.
Plus, considered that the Fire tribe was considered to be masterful
with their element, the term "scorched Earth" might be appropriate.
It makes no sense for that desire to be sucked from them if the prison
was on solid ground. Remember, earthbenders can teleport through the
ground! If they wanted to escape the prison in the film all they would
have to do is that teleport move.
In the show they really couldn't escape until it was discovered that
there was coal on the rig. Didn't help that they had a ruthless warden
on the rig, making it seem realistic that their will would be broken.
I just can't buy them losing their will to fight back if they are
being held prisoner near the very element they bend.
« Reply #27 Today at 4:54pm »
Today at 4:41pm, Koda89, Master Ms. Fortune wrote:
The acting was horrible, it was wrong cast, the tones were all off.
The film was mostly super serious, while the show had a balance of
seriousness and comedy, scenes were changed, like the prison scene,
doesn't make sense in the film.
I honestly can't side with anyone who says the acting was crap. Every
scene with Zuko was great, and moreso after he and Aang meet. And, for
all the crap Assif got, he was actually good at what he was cast at,
and if you didn't know him from Daily Show, no one would have cared.
And the rest of the cast, and there's no one that I would call
"horrible". Some didn't stand out, or some didn't have enough time to,
but nothing Room or MST3K level.
And, again, if the source material on the show was so racially
neutral, the voices they got didn't even sound like anything from any
Asian culture and every feature of looks didn't match up at all.
Trying to say it's the wrong cast cause they didn't go with someone
Asian for it is ridiculous to me, especially when the live action cast
was way more authentic in comparison with their backgrounds.
« Reply #28 Today at 5:01pm »
Today at 4:49pm, Koda89, Master Ms. Fortune wrote:
Today at 4:43pm, Michael "Mikey Cee" Coello wrote:
Probably cause it was established any desire to escape or rebel was
sucked out of them, until the Arrival of Aang and the reveal of the
existence of the Avatar and that big speech. They could have, but
would they have without knowing what to do after.
Plus, considered that the Fire tribe was considered to be masterful
with their element, the term "scorched Earth" might be appropriate.
It makes no sense for that desire to be sucked from them if the prison
was on solid ground. Remember, earthbenders can teleport through the
ground! If they wanted to escape the prison in the film all they would
have to do is that teleport move.
In the show they really couldn't escape until it was discovered that
there was coal on the rig. Didn't help that they had a ruthless warden
on the rig, making it seem realistic that their will would be broken.
I just can't buy them losing their will to fight back if they are
being held prisoner near the very element they bend.
And most prisons can give inmates enough stuff to either kill someone
or make an escape, but not every prisoner breaks out every single day.
Same with how most prisons in most scenes that show captives or
incarceration. Yet, you don't see people going after warders or
kidnappers on minute 1.
Honestly, even if they did, what would happen? The Fire Nation isn't
some minor group in this one area, it's a ruthless group of psychos
who go through their territory and ransack s***, from everything shown
in the movie at that point. The whole thing about "and then what"
hangs overhead, menacingly.
« Reply #29 Today at 5:04pm »
Today at 4:54pm, Michael "Mikey Cee" Coello wrote:
I honestly can't side with anyone who says the acting was crap. Every
scene with Zuko was great, and moreso after he and Aang meet. And, for
all the crap Assif got, he was actually good at what he was cast at,
and if you didn't know him from Daily Show, no one would have cared.
And the rest of the cast, and there's no one that I would call
"horrible". Some didn't stand out, or some didn't have enough time to,
but nothing Room or MST3K level.
I agree with you about Patel, I thought he was pretty good in this.
I don't watch the Daily Show so I had no prior knowledge of Assif, I
thought he was fine but not great.
But in my book the kids were bad actors. No, not to the level of The
Room or something like that but they were extremely stilted and
awkward for the vast majority.
Also the thing about the pronounciations (Avatar becoming Ah-vatar and
Aang becoming Ong), I liken it to the Silent Hill movie renaming the
Cheryl character Sharon. Why do it? It adds absolutely nothing to the
story except that every time it's said, anyone who is familiar with
the source material is just going to be annoyed by it. So why change
it in the first place?
« Reply #30 Today at 5:12pm »
Today at 5:04pm, Bobeddy wrote:
Also the thing about the pronounciations (Avatar becoming Ah-vatar and
Aang becoming Ong), I liken it to the Silent Hill movie renaming the
Cheryl character Sharon. Why do it? It adds absolutely nothing to the
story except that every time it's said, anyone who is familiar with
the source material is just going to be annoyed by it. So why change
it in the first place?
That could just be chalked up to a difference in pronouncing the name.
Same with Ryu in the Street Fighter movies having different ways of
saying his name in the various adaptations. Hell, I was saying Ryu's
name the wrong way, apparently, for several years. Yeah, the series
has the advantage of actually saying the name, but it could be a
factor over how it was repeated.
0 new messages