Trope-a-Dope

[dead_rebel]

I don't dislike Avatar because it isn't original, but because it does absolutely nothing unique in any way except for the CGI.

I disagree.

I thought the way Avatar delved into great detail about both opposing cultures, all the characters, their motivations, the technology, the biology of the forest, ect.

A ton of the small details where pretty original and the presentation of the whole thing made the movie a blast to watch. I honestly don't see how you can find NOTHING original about Avatar. There is soo much there.

The opposing cultures were unique? Please, the Na'vi were obviously Native American Indians and the Mercs were the invading British. You can't defend their opposing cultures as unique.

And are we still on about Avatar? Over it. It'll probably win the Oscar, undeservedly. James Cameron will continue to ride the hype train, undeservedly. The majority will ride the bandwagon, and we'll all get over it.

Avatar is not a bad movie, much in the same way Juno wasn't bad...both however didn't deserve the gigantic amounts of hype that they got.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

I don't dislike Avatar because it isn't original, but because it does absolutely nothing unique in any way except for the CGI.

I disagree.

I thought the way Avatar delved into great detail about both opposing cultures, all the characters, their motivations, the technology, the biology of the forest, ect.

A ton of the small details where pretty original and the presentation of the whole thing made the movie a blast to watch. I honestly don't see how you can find NOTHING original about Avatar. There is soo much there.

The opposing cultures were unique? Please, the Na'vi were obviously Native American Indians and the Mercs were the invading British. You can't defend their opposing cultures as unique.

And are we still on about Avatar? Over it. It'll probably win the Oscar, undeservedly. James Cameron will continue to ride the hype train, undeservedly. The majority will ride the bandwagon, and we'll all get over it.

Avatar is not a bad movie, much in the same way Juno wasn't bad...both however didn't deserve the gigantic amounts of hype that they got.

I hope Cameron DOES keep riding the Hype train. Because the next stop is supposedly Battle Angel, and he BETTER freaking not ruin that series. Hopefully all these expectations will push him to come up with an excellent film, and maybe bring some more publicity to a shamefully underrated series.

Also, all the CG strides made in Avatar can finally be put to excellent use in rendering the incredible landscape of the scrapland and its denizens. I mean, prior to movies like Avatar I would have said it would be very difficult to make a live-action version of Battle Angel simply because you could never get the CG looking good enough, and practical effects just wouldn't cut it for a movie based on this series.

 

[silentsentinel]

Damn, Bob. I never read your column before (just watched your videos) but that was an absolute pleasure to read.

 

[AcacianLeaves]

Out of curiosity Bob, why do you feel the need to defend Avatar every other week?

There are, approximately, THREE "newsworthy" current-events stories in mainstream film journalism: "Avatar" being a huge phenomenon possibly rewriting the rules of blockbuster movies and movie releasing (i.e. EVERY DAMN MOVIE is being made for 3D now,) The Oscars which this year is dominated by the Avatar/Hurt Locker rivalry, and "what's gonna happen to Roman Polanski?" That last one I've previously sworn-off covering until something new happens, so... there ya go

Huh, really? Avatar is the only actual movie worth discussing anymore? You sir, are very silly. I guess there's no point in even talking about Shutter Island, huh? We should just stop making movies altogether, Avatar has conquered all of cinema! Look, it hasn't re-written anything. The same kinds of movies that have been in 3D will continue to be in 3D - children's movies and one or two spectacle action flicks. Not to mention a huge chunk of the movie-going population has no interest in 3D. It will continue to be a nice feature that some people will enjoy, but it's not as if we'll have to wear goofy glasses to every movie we go to see from now on.

Not to mention nobody's really talking about the 3D when discussing Avatar, they're just arguing whether or not its blatant unoriginality discounts its potential merits.

But seriously man, maybe there are only three things that you're interested in discussing about movies - but surely you can see that's not universally true by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[sooperman]

Out of curiosity Bob, why do you feel the need to defend Avatar every other week?

There are, approximately, THREE "newsworthy" current-events stories in mainstream film journalism: "Avatar" being a huge phenomenon possibly rewriting the rules of blockbuster movies and movie releasing (i.e. EVERY DAMN MOVIE is being made for 3D now,) The Oscars which this year is dominated by the Avatar/Hurt Locker rivalry, and "what's gonna happen to Roman Polanski?" That last one I've previously sworn-off covering until something new happens, so... there ya go

Huh, really? Avatar is the only actual movie worth discussing anymore? You sir, are very silly. I guess there's no point in even talking about Shutter Island, huh? We should just stop making movies altogether, Avatar has conquered all of cinema! Look, it hasn't re-written anything. The same kinds of movies that have been in 3D will continue to be in 3D - children's movies and one or two spectacle action flicks. Not to mention a huge chunk of the movie-going population has no interest in 3D. It will continue to be a nice feature that some people will enjoy, but it's not as if we'll have to wear goofy glasses to every movie we go to see from now on.

Not to mention nobody's really talking about the 3D when discussing Avatar, they're just arguing whether or not its blatant unoriginality discounts its potential merits.

But seriously man, maybe there are only three things that you're interested in discussing about movies - but surely you can see that's not universally true by any stretch of the imagination.

Two things here.

For one, don't get butthurt because this guy said something you don't like. I get what you mean, that it just isn't true, but don't get upset.

For two, you cannot say in honesty that the success of Avatar has not contributed to the popularity of 3D moives. Alice in Wonderland, Clash of the Titans, Sony's new in-home 3D moive player. A single movie making two billion dollars sure as hell encouraged those along.

Yet somehow, I get a feeling that neither of those movies are going to make as much money or generate as much discussion as Avatar did. I, personally, think that part of the reason Cameron did so well is because of all the hype his unoriginal plot raked in. It was either a clever ploy or a fluke, but it worked.

 

[pumasuit]

I wish Avatar had never existed, or that the technology behind its creation was crap. Then, the entire world would brush it off and we would be able to stave off the general decay of artistry. Instead, this Corporate Art behemoth gets to piss all over the film industry. For the kind of budget it had, the technology should have accompanied an exquisitely written story and a cast ripe with talent.
Grumble grumble.

 

[deleted_scifidownbeat]

DELETED

 

[itsmeyouidiot]

You do realize TV Tropes is, in actuality, absolutely NOTHING LIKE THIS, right?


We're not a bunch of jaded douchebags who pick apart everything we see. Mostly, we just enjoy films and anime and games and other media and practice cataloguing the various tools used in them. We couldn't care less about whether we've "seen something before." We just talk about general geekery and discuss the techniques used for world building and such.

We ENJOY television. We ENJOY movies, games , anime, and other things, and most of all, we just want to have fun. Cataloguing the various techniques is simply a way of providing material for aspiring writers to create elaborate worlds and stories.

Perhaps you all missed the part where it says on the front page "TROPES ARE NOT CLICHES". Tropes are tools. They can be good, bad, or both, it just depends how you use them.

 

[Shay Guy]

You forgot Haruhi, goddess of tropes herself.

Well, the list was getting long as it was. Regardless, the point stands -- Ken Akamatsu, Terry Pratchett, Nagaru Tanigawa, Joss Whedon, Masaki Tsuzuki (well, more or less), Rich Burlew, Hideaki Anno, and all the rest used tropes from all over as they apply. The difference is that they created their own stories with those components, and James Cameron -- so it is charged -- did not create anything of his own except the techniques used in production.

Maybe there's a division between people who read the site and people who contribute to it?

 

[AcacianLeaves]

Out of curiosity Bob, why do you feel the need to defend Avatar every other week?

There are, approximately, THREE "newsworthy" current-events stories in mainstream film journalism: "Avatar" being a huge phenomenon possibly rewriting the rules of blockbuster movies and movie releasing (i.e. EVERY DAMN MOVIE is being made for 3D now,) The Oscars which this year is dominated by the Avatar/Hurt Locker rivalry, and "what's gonna happen to Roman Polanski?" That last one I've previously sworn-off covering until something new happens, so... there ya go

Huh, really? Avatar is the only actual movie worth discussing anymore? You sir, are very silly. I guess there's no point in even talking about Shutter Island, huh? We should just stop making movies altogether, Avatar has conquered all of cinema! Look, it hasn't re-written anything. The same kinds of movies that have been in 3D will continue to be in 3D - children's movies and one or two spectacle action flicks. Not to mention a huge chunk of the movie-going population has no interest in 3D. It will continue to be a nice feature that some people will enjoy, but it's not as if we'll have to wear goofy glasses to every movie we go to see from now on.

Not to mention nobody's really talking about the 3D when discussing Avatar, they're just arguing whether or not its blatant unoriginality discounts its potential merits.

But seriously man, maybe there are only three things that you're interested in discussing about movies - but surely you can see that's not universally true by any stretch of the imagination.

Two things here.

For one, don't get butthurt because this guy said something you don't like. I get what you mean, that it just isn't true, but don't get upset.

Yeah, I just re-read my comment and I did come off a lot more dickish than I intended to. Or, I guess, 'butthurt'. I think Bob was using a bit of hyperbole when saying that there were only three worthwhile topics in cinema. Upon a second inspection I guess he was referring to 'newsworthy' as in something people will discuss who don't normally discuss movies, which is fair enough (even if it does depress me a bit). I still think the timing was meant to fan the flames, and I really just wish we could piss on the fire and talk about something else, which is probably why I came off as an asshat. Also, I'm an asshat.

For two, you cannot say in honesty that the success of Avatar has not contributed to the popularity of 3D moives. Alice in Wonderland, Clash of the Titans, Sony's new in-home 3D moive player. A single movie making two billion dollars sure as hell encouraged those along.

Yet somehow, I get a feeling that neither of those movies are going to make as much money or generate as much discussion as Avatar did. I, personally, think that part of the reason Cameron did so well is because of all the hype his unoriginal plot raked in. It was either a clever ploy or a fluke, but it worked.

I just don't see how Avatar has 'changed the game' as much as many people seem to think. At least I don't think it was successful due to 3D, it was successful because James Cameron knows how to craft a popular movie. It was successful because it had 10 years of hype building up to it. It was successful because it released during a period of a few months when there were almost no movies worth watching, at least as far as 'blockbusters' go. If all it took to get asses in seats was a 3D gimmick, Beowulf would've made a billion. I just don't see it, and honestly the 'new 3D' didn't seem all that different to the 3D we've been watching for the past 10 years or so.

 

[Syntax Error]

This article is now rated 100% NSFFT (Not Safe For your Free Time).

Loved the epilogue, and great article overall. I myself lost a few hours in Tv Tropes. Luckily, my biological need to sleep was greater than my compulsion to read "just one more article".

 

[sooperman]

I just don't see how Avatar has 'changed the game' as much as many people seem to think. At least I don't think it was successful due to 3D, it was successful because James Cameron knows how to craft a popular movie.

It really has, if not by much. A new format of 3D was designed recently, and Avatar's success has baptized it by fire.

I also don't think that it made a lot of money because it was in 3D, but it did make a lot of money somehow, and the fact that happened to be in 3D has had that effect on the industry. Cameron certainly knows what he is doing when he tailors a movie, like you said, The Titanic showed us that, and it seems in this case he went the "hype" route.

I mean, hell, "being in 3D" is a trope, so the man knows where the money's at. The Oscars will be interesting this year.

 

[Triggerhappy938]

You forgot Haruhi, goddess of tropes herself.

Well, the list was getting long as it was. Regardless, the point stands -- Ken Akamatsu, Terry Pratchett, Nagaru Tanigawa, Joss Whedon, Masaki Tsuzuki (well, more or less), Rich Burlew, Hideaki Anno, and all the rest used tropes from all over as they apply. The difference is that they created their own stories with those components, and James Cameron -- so it is charged -- did not create anything of his own except the techniques used in production.

Maybe there's a division between people who read the site and people who contribute to it?

I don't find myself contributing much, but it more has to do with the fact that my wiki-fu is weak.

 

[maninahat]

TVtropes maintains that "tropes" are not clichés and certainly not a bad thing. The site makes it clear that conventionalism is not only fine, but often necessary for the audience to connect with the story. All that said, there is a difference between what is conventional and what is clichéd.

Avatar borders between highly conventional and clichéd. On one side, viewers will go "yeah, I'm familiar with all what is going on, but it is still enjoyable", whilst the other side will go "come on, there is nothing new here! I'm bored."

I happen to be the latter. Avatar did tell its story very well, but that does not change the fact that I had seen the story done before many times, and it did not make me any less bored. Bob uses the example of the Mona Lisa to show how an idea does not have to be original, simply well executed. But then we haven't, as the general public, seen all that many precursors to the Mona Lisa. Had we have been in Leonaldo's time, there may well have been many people who dismissed the Mona Lisa as something they had seen before in many paintings. Some might admire the craftmanship, but others may have dismissed it as clichéd.

The only way Avatar could get a similar treatment to the Mona Lisa is if we wait until everyone forgets Pocahontas, The Last Samurai, and Dances With Wolves ever existed. Only when the precursors have dissapeared into the past can people regard the work on its own merits, and not judge it in comparrison to the works that appeared before it.

 

[Kevka]

On-topic:

Nice article, Bob. A bit long-winded but I've come to expect that from you. Keep doing it.

Rant:

There...there's so much fail in these four pages of replies that I'm sad that I read them. Are the Escapist boards really full of so many people who have to overanalyze everything just to find the one point they don't agree with and write a vitriolic post about it?

Also: Since when did the article become about Avatar? It was completely within the bounds of the point Bob was trying to make and the most recent example of the content of the article. That doesn't mean we have to commit half of the responses in the forum to it.

Off-topic:

One of the reasons I stopped paying attention to internet celebrity The Nostalgia Critic was because of his 'Chester A. Bum' review of District 9 (best movie I saw last year) where he said the film sucks because 'aliens on earth', 'robot powersuits', 'corrupt corporations', 'guys mutating into aliens', 'faux-documentary style' and 'exploding bodies' had been done in other films before and therefore District 9 had NOTHING original about it. This was the point where I just said "mate, you don't know SHIT" and decided never to take his word for anything ever again.

I couldn't find that particular video but...I suspect I'm being trolled here. Are you seriously suggesting that anything That Guy With the Glasses says as Chester A. Bum is supposed to be serious?

 

[Drmonstereater]

I feel redundant in saying this but here we go. YOU'RE RIGHT! If we try hard enough we can pick apart any movie, book, short-story, video-game, ect. ect. We have to look at something as a some of working parts as opposed to each individual piece. After all, When it comes down to it everything is made out of the same quarks gluons and to insult something because it makes us of physical matter is simply absurd. However, are you then saying that we should dismiss cliches completely?

 

[tishy19]

Wow. Never been so excited to see Krull mentioned somewhere.

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

Zooey Deschanel's character is a "Manic Pixie Dreamgirl"

QFT. All her characters. Probably has a lot to do with the actress.

 

[-BloodRush-]

great article. those aliens were burned before they knew it.

 

[Steve the Pocket]

One of the reasons I stopped paying attention to internet celebrity The Nostalgia Critic was because of his 'Chester A. Bum' review of District 9 (best movie I saw last year) where he said the film sucks because 'aliens on earth', 'robot powersuits', 'corrupt corporations', 'guys mutating into aliens', 'faux-documentary style' and 'exploding bodies' had been done in other films before and therefore District 9 had NOTHING original about it. This was the point where I just said "mate, you don't know SHIT" and decided never to take his word for anything ever again.

I couldn't find that particular video but...I suspect I'm being trolled here. Are you seriously suggesting that anything That Guy With the Glasses says as Chester A. Bum is supposed to be serious?

That's what I was gonna say. I thought his whole shtick was that he drools over everything and calls everything "the greatest movie I've ever seen in my ENTIRE LIFE!!!!!!!!" So, a movie he hates would be really good? *shrug* Too lazy to go back and check.