Yes there was a movie made. It was horrible. They pronounce all the names wrong, pulled a racist under tone theme with all the nations, rushed a whole season into a hour and thirty minutes. The entire thing was a hot mess...I think any true Avatar fan doesn't count is as part of the franchise.
I'm a huge fan of the cartoon but I also really enjoyed the live action movie. There were a lot of creative differences but it was all amazing to me and I wish more people were more open to it so they would make more movies but meh, I don't see it happening.
What you call "creative differences" I call crappy writing and, if not necessarily racism, at least cultural insensitivity.
The writing and characterization in the live-action movie is terrible. Pretty much everything that made the characters unique and likeable is taken away. Everything that made Katara a strong and well-rounded character is given to Aang. Her inspirational speeches, passion for helping others, etc. The stuff that isn't given to Aang, like her temper, is just removed completely. They don't show her fight with Pakku*, which was a major milestone for her character. But that's because her character is basically just a prop throughout the movie.
*I am aware her fight with Pakku was included in a deleted scene, but that is my point, it was deleted - in other words, deemed too unimportant for the main screening.
Katara is basically reduced to the stereotypical passive female role where literally all she does is stand around, look pretty, and deliver bland narration. Sokka is completely stiff and humourless, basically turning him into an entirely different character and not a very likeable one at that. Aang shows no playfullness or any of the mischievous trickster-like nature that made him such a unique hero. Indeed, his identity beyond being the Avatar/Chosen One is so unimportant that he doesn't even get around to introducing himself to Katara until a third of the way through the movie, AFTER they've already left the south pole.
Those aren't creative differences, that's just crappy writing.
As for the cultural insensitivity, I am aware that M. Night Shyamalan is of South Asian descent and he cast South Asian actors to play Fire Nation characters in part because he thought Dev Patel was a good fit for Zuko. I am not against the idea of introducing more cultural diversity.
However, when the original cartoon had dark-skinned protagonists from a culture clearly based on Inuit cultures, casting these characters with white actors shows extreme cultural insensitivity at the very least.
This is the complete opposite of introducing more cultural diversity. White actors are already the norm - they already get the lion's share of leading roles in Hollywood. Whites may be the majority in America, but the representation of white people in American movies and television is still hugely disproportional to the number of white people that actually make up the population. And the representation of minority characters when they do show up is often still problematic.
What purpose is served by taking the already rare ethnic minority protagonists that are out there and replacing them with white people? Not a purpose that caters to diversity, that much is certain.
Not to mention the problematic implications of simultaneously casting the antagonists with dark-skinned actors. Regardless of why Shyamalan might have done it, it still fits very disturbingly into racist trends of light-skinned heroes and dark-skinned villains.
Furthermore, as far as I remember the only East Asian actors that showed up in the live action movie where background extras, and I'm pretty sure they only showed up in one scene. And this is a movie based a cartoon that was inspired heavily by East Asian cultures, and in which many of the characters were depicted with East Asian features and given East Asian names? That is pathetic.
So no, I can't agree with you. As far as I'm concerned, I did give this movie a fair chance. I went to see it in theatres despite my misgivings about the casting and I honestly tried to find the good in it. But really, there is very little good there. Sokka's line from the Ember Island Players really does fit it perfectly: "The special effects were decent" and that is pretty much the only good thing about it.
tl;dr: You cannot convince me the live-action movie deserves a chance. I am glad it got canned, because it was terrible.
I'm a huge fan of the cartoon but I also really enjoyed the live action movie. There were a lot of creative differences but it was all amazing to me and I wish more people were more open to it so they would make more movies but meh, I don't see it happening.
What you call "creative differences" I call crappy writing and, if not necessarily racism, at least cultural insensitivity.
The writing and characterization in the live-action movie is terrible. Pretty much everything that made the characters unique and likeable is taken away. Everything that made Katara a strong and well-rounded character is given to Aang. Her inspirational speeches, passion for helping others, etc. The stuff that isn't given to Aang, like her temper, is just removed completely. They don't show her fight with Pakku*, which was a major milestone for her character. But that's because her character is basically just a prop throughout the movie.
*I am aware her fight with Pakku was included in a deleted scene, but that is my point, it was deleted - in other words, deemed too unimportant for the main screening.
Katara is basically reduced to the stereotypical passive female role where literally all she does is stand around, look pretty, and deliver bland narration. Sokka is completely stiff and humourless, basically turning him into an entirely different character and not a very likeable one at that. Aang shows no playfullness or any of the mischievous trickster-like nature that made him such a unique hero. Indeed, his identity beyond being the Avatar/Chosen One is so unimportant that he doesn't even get around to introducing himself to Katara until a third of the way through the movie, AFTER they've already left the south pole.
Those aren't creative differences, that's just crappy writing.
As for the cultural insensitivity, I am aware that M. Night Shyamalan is of South Asian descent and he cast South Asian actors to play Fire Nation characters in part because he thought Dev Patel was a good fit for Zuko. I am not against the idea of introducing more cultural diversity.
However, when the original cartoon had dark-skinned protagonists from a culture clearly based on Inuit cultures, casting these characters with white actors shows extreme cultural insensitivity at the very least.
This is the complete opposite of introducing more cultural diversity. White actors are already the norm - they already get the lion's share of leading roles in Hollywood. Whites may be the majority in America, but the representation of white people in American movies and television is still hugely disproportional to the number of white people that actually make up the population. And the representation of minority characters when they do show up is often still problematic.
What purpose is served by taking the already rare ethnic minority protagonists that are out there and replacing them with white people? Not a purpose that caters to diversity, that much is certain.
Not to mention the problematic implications of simultaneously casting the antagonists with dark-skinned actors. Regardless of why Shyamalan might have done it, it still fits very disturbingly into racist trends of light-skinned heroes and dark-skinned villains.
Furthermore, as far as I remember the only East Asian actors that showed up in the live action movie where background extras, and I'm pretty sure they only showed up in one scene. And this is a movie based a cartoon that was inspired heavily by East Asian cultures, and in which many of the characters were depicted with East Asian features and given East Asian names? That is pathetic.
So no, I can't agree with you. As far as I'm concerned, I did give this movie a fair chance. I went to see it in theatres despite my misgivings about the casting and I honestly tried to find the good in it. But really, there is very little good there. Sokka's line from the Ember Island Players really does fit it perfectly: "The special effects were decent" and that is pretty much the only good thing about it.
tl;dr: You cannot convince me the live-action movie deserves a chance. I am glad it got canned, because it was terrible.
Most of your issues seems to be with race and I disagree with everything you said on that. I'm not even going into it, your interpretations of the situation seem warped to me.
As far as Aang not feeling his usual bubbly self, I agree that he was portrayed a little differently and that falls into the creative differences I mentioned, which you label "crappy writing" and that is your opinion, you're entitled to it, but I don't see you writing any movies, just saying. Also, about the deleted scene you mentioned and in regards to final cuts in general, that's usually above the writer's head so your venom might be directed in the wrong direction there.
You clearly have intense opinions about the film, as I'm sure a lot of other folks do. I just want to say that I don't care about anyone's heated opinions and frankly I don't wish to hear them. I'm open to discussions (after I've had coffee) but to anyone who wants to talk at me with a closed mind and no room for discussion please don't bother.
I didn't like it, not one bit. I tried really hard to, but I know they really could have done so much more with it, and that's why I'm disappointed. crying
I'm a huge fan of the cartoon but I also really enjoyed the live action movie. There were a lot of creative differences but it was all amazing to me and I wish more people were more open to it so they would make more movies but meh, I don't see it happening.
What you call "creative differences" I call crappy writing and, if not necessarily racism, at least cultural insensitivity.
The writing and characterization in the live-action movie is terrible. Pretty much everything that made the characters unique and likeable is taken away. Everything that made Katara a strong and well-rounded character is given to Aang. Her inspirational speeches, passion for helping others, etc. The stuff that isn't given to Aang, like her temper, is just removed completely. They don't show her fight with Pakku*, which was a major milestone for her character. But that's because her character is basically just a prop throughout the movie.
*I am aware her fight with Pakku was included in a deleted scene, but that is my point, it was deleted - in other words, deemed too unimportant for the main screening.
Katara is basically reduced to the stereotypical passive female role where literally all she does is stand around, look pretty, and deliver bland narration. Sokka is completely stiff and humourless, basically turning him into an entirely different character and not a very likeable one at that. Aang shows no playfullness or any of the mischievous trickster-like nature that made him such a unique hero. Indeed, his identity beyond being the Avatar/Chosen One is so unimportant that he doesn't even get around to introducing himself to Katara until a third of the way through the movie, AFTER they've already left the south pole.
Those aren't creative differences, that's just crappy writing.
As for the cultural insensitivity, I am aware that M. Night Shyamalan is of South Asian descent and he cast South Asian actors to play Fire Nation characters in part because he thought Dev Patel was a good fit for Zuko. I am not against the idea of introducing more cultural diversity.
However, when the original cartoon had dark-skinned protagonists from a culture clearly based on Inuit cultures, casting these characters with white actors shows extreme cultural insensitivity at the very least.
This is the complete opposite of introducing more cultural diversity. White actors are already the norm - they already get the lion's share of leading roles in Hollywood. Whites may be the majority in America, but the representation of white people in American movies and television is still hugely disproportional to the number of white people that actually make up the population. And the representation of minority characters when they do show up is often still problematic.
What purpose is served by taking the already rare ethnic minority protagonists that are out there and replacing them with white people? Not a purpose that caters to diversity, that much is certain.
Not to mention the problematic implications of simultaneously casting the antagonists with dark-skinned actors. Regardless of why Shyamalan might have done it, it still fits very disturbingly into racist trends of light-skinned heroes and dark-skinned villains.
Furthermore, as far as I remember the only East Asian actors that showed up in the live action movie where background extras, and I'm pretty sure they only showed up in one scene. And this is a movie based a cartoon that was inspired heavily by East Asian cultures, and in which many of the characters were depicted with East Asian features and given East Asian names? That is pathetic.
So no, I can't agree with you. As far as I'm concerned, I did give this movie a fair chance. I went to see it in theatres despite my misgivings about the casting and I honestly tried to find the good in it. But really, there is very little good there. Sokka's line from the Ember Island Players really does fit it perfectly: "The special effects were decent" and that is pretty much the only good thing about it.
tl;dr: You cannot convince me the live-action movie deserves a chance. I am glad it got canned, because it was terrible.
Most of your issues seems to be with race and I disagree with everything you said on that. I'm not even going into it, your interpretations of the situation seem warped to me.
As far as Aang not feeling his usual bubbly self, I agree that he was portrayed a little differently and that falls into the creative differences I mentioned, which you label "crappy writing" and that is your opinion, you're entitled to it, but I don't see you writing any movies, just saying. Also, about the deleted scene you mentioned and in regards to final cuts in general, that's usually above the writer's head so your venom might be directed in the wrong direction there.
You clearly have intense opinions about the film, as I'm sure a lot of other folks do. I just want to say that I don't care about anyone's heated opinions and frankly I don't wish to hear them. I'm open to discussions (after I've had coffee) but to anyone who wants to talk at me with a closed mind and no room for discussion please don't bother.
That is fine, I can agree to disagree with you.
I responded to your post the way I did because I felt it was a problem to say that the movies were beautiful and that people should give it a chance without acknowledging that there are real problems with it. It seemed to me that you didn't understand why people have problems with the movie, so I wanted to clarify why I and many other people dislike it so much.
My "venom" as you call it is not directed entirely or even mostly at the M. Night Shyamalan, though I can see in hindsight how my post came across that way, so I apologize for the confusion. My problem is with the nature of the industry that perpetuates these stereotypes. And the race issue is definitely a real one, if you can't see it then I don't know what else to say to you. I don't have the time or energy to get into the issue any further than I did, so I think I will just agree to disagree with you then.
In my view I did present a well-reasoned discussion post with logical arguments to back up my claims, but if you want to dismiss them all as 'close-minded' simply because you don't agree with me, then you are right I don't see the point in discussing it further.
By the way, I do not need to write movies myself to recognize poor writing when I see it. Most professional movie critics are not professional movie writers, just saying.
I'm a huge fan of the cartoon but I also really enjoyed the live action movie. There were a lot of creative differences but it was all amazing to me and I wish more people were more open to it so they would make more movies but meh, I don't see it happening.
What you call "creative differences" I call crappy writing and, if not necessarily racism, at least cultural insensitivity.
The writing and characterization in the live-action movie is terrible. Pretty much everything that made the characters unique and likeable is taken away. Everything that made Katara a strong and well-rounded character is given to Aang. Her inspirational speeches, passion for helping others, etc. The stuff that isn't given to Aang, like her temper, is just removed completely. They don't show her fight with Pakku*, which was a major milestone for her character. But that's because her character is basically just a prop throughout the movie.
*I am aware her fight with Pakku was included in a deleted scene, but that is my point, it was deleted - in other words, deemed too unimportant for the main screening.
Katara is basically reduced to the stereotypical passive female role where literally all she does is stand around, look pretty, and deliver bland narration. Sokka is completely stiff and humourless, basically turning him into an entirely different character and not a very likeable one at that. Aang shows no playfullness or any of the mischievous trickster-like nature that made him such a unique hero. Indeed, his identity beyond being the Avatar/Chosen One is so unimportant that he doesn't even get around to introducing himself to Katara until a third of the way through the movie, AFTER they've already left the south pole.
Those aren't creative differences, that's just crappy writing.
As for the cultural insensitivity, I am aware that M. Night Shyamalan is of South Asian descent and he cast South Asian actors to play Fire Nation characters in part because he thought Dev Patel was a good fit for Zuko. I am not against the idea of introducing more cultural diversity.
However, when the original cartoon had dark-skinned protagonists from a culture clearly based on Inuit cultures, casting these characters with white actors shows extreme cultural insensitivity at the very least.
This is the complete opposite of introducing more cultural diversity. White actors are already the norm - they already get the lion's share of leading roles in Hollywood. Whites may be the majority in America, but the representation of white people in American movies and television is still hugely disproportional to the number of white people that actually make up the population. And the representation of minority characters when they do show up is often still problematic.
What purpose is served by taking the already rare ethnic minority protagonists that are out there and replacing them with white people? Not a purpose that caters to diversity, that much is certain.
Not to mention the problematic implications of simultaneously casting the antagonists with dark-skinned actors. Regardless of why Shyamalan might have done it, it still fits very disturbingly into racist trends of light-skinned heroes and dark-skinned villains.
Furthermore, as far as I remember the only East Asian actors that showed up in the live action movie where background extras, and I'm pretty sure they only showed up in one scene. And this is a movie based a cartoon that was inspired heavily by East Asian cultures, and in which many of the characters were depicted with East Asian features and given East Asian names? That is pathetic.
So no, I can't agree with you. As far as I'm concerned, I did give this movie a fair chance. I went to see it in theatres despite my misgivings about the casting and I honestly tried to find the good in it. But really, there is very little good there. Sokka's line from the Ember Island Players really does fit it perfectly: "The special effects were decent" and that is pretty much the only good thing about it.
tl;dr: You cannot convince me the live-action movie deserves a chance. I am glad it got canned, because it was terrible.
Most of your issues seems to be with race and I disagree with everything you said on that. I'm not even going into it, your interpretations of the situation seem warped to me.
As far as Aang not feeling his usual bubbly self, I agree that he was portrayed a little differently and that falls into the creative differences I mentioned, which you label "crappy writing" and that is your opinion, you're entitled to it, but I don't see you writing any movies, just saying. Also, about the deleted scene you mentioned and in regards to final cuts in general, that's usually above the writer's head so your venom might be directed in the wrong direction there.
You clearly have intense opinions about the film, as I'm sure a lot of other folks do. I just want to say that I don't care about anyone's heated opinions and frankly I don't wish to hear them. I'm open to discussions (after I've had coffee) but to anyone who wants to talk at me with a closed mind and no room for discussion please don't bother.
That is fine, I can agree to disagree with you.
I responded to your post the way I did because I felt it was a problem to say that the movies were beautiful and that people should give it a chance without acknowledging that there are real problems with it. It seemed to me that you didn't understand why people have problems with the movie, so I wanted to clarify why I and many other people dislike it so much.
My "venom" as you call it is not directed entirely or even mostly at the M. Night Shyamalan, though I can see in hindsight how my post came across that way, so I apologize for the confusion. My problem is with the nature of the industry that perpetuates these stereotypes. And the race issue is definitely a real one, if you can't see it then I don't know what else to say to you. I don't have the time or energy to get into the issue any further than I did, so I think I will just agree to disagree with you then.
In my view I did present a well-reasoned discussion post with logical arguments to back up my claims, but if you want to dismiss them all as 'close-minded' simply because you don't agree with me, then you are right I don't see the point in discussing it further.
By the way, I do not need to write movies myself to recognize poor writing when I see it. Most professional movie critics are not professional movie writers, just saying.
I just do not interpret the situation the same way you do. If the movie had been made to exact cartoon detail (which it clearly was not, names were pronounced differently, effects were displayed differently,) then the entire cast would be Asian. People complain that the primary roles were given to white people, but the primary villain is not white, but that doesn't count because he's a villain? That's as much a sought after role as the good guy. I don't even get that logic. If YOU want to keep perpetuating that certain-colored races are the good guys and certain color races are the bad guys go right ahead, but in doing so you are holding us all back. I don't think the movie is racist, I think you are, for looking so hard to find reasons to fight and argue about race where none were intended.
I'm a huge fan of the cartoon but I also really enjoyed the live action movie. There were a lot of creative differences but it was all amazing to me and I wish more people were more open to it so they would make more movies but meh, I don't see it happening.
What you call "creative differences" I call crappy writing and, if not necessarily racism, at least cultural insensitivity.
The writing and characterization in the live-action movie is terrible. Pretty much everything that made the characters unique and likeable is taken away. Everything that made Katara a strong and well-rounded character is given to Aang. Her inspirational speeches, passion for helping others, etc. The stuff that isn't given to Aang, like her temper, is just removed completely. They don't show her fight with Pakku*, which was a major milestone for her character. But that's because her character is basically just a prop throughout the movie.
*I am aware her fight with Pakku was included in a deleted scene, but that is my point, it was deleted - in other words, deemed too unimportant for the main screening.
Katara is basically reduced to the stereotypical passive female role where literally all she does is stand around, look pretty, and deliver bland narration. Sokka is completely stiff and humourless, basically turning him into an entirely different character and not a very likeable one at that. Aang shows no playfullness or any of the mischievous trickster-like nature that made him such a unique hero. Indeed, his identity beyond being the Avatar/Chosen One is so unimportant that he doesn't even get around to introducing himself to Katara until a third of the way through the movie, AFTER they've already left the south pole.
Those aren't creative differences, that's just crappy writing.
As for the cultural insensitivity, I am aware that M. Night Shyamalan is of South Asian descent and he cast South Asian actors to play Fire Nation characters in part because he thought Dev Patel was a good fit for Zuko. I am not against the idea of introducing more cultural diversity.
However, when the original cartoon had dark-skinned protagonists from a culture clearly based on Inuit cultures, casting these characters with white actors shows extreme cultural insensitivity at the very least.
This is the complete opposite of introducing more cultural diversity. White actors are already the norm - they already get the lion's share of leading roles in Hollywood. Whites may be the majority in America, but the representation of white people in American movies and television is still hugely disproportional to the number of white people that actually make up the population. And the representation of minority characters when they do show up is often still problematic.
What purpose is served by taking the already rare ethnic minority protagonists that are out there and replacing them with white people? Not a purpose that caters to diversity, that much is certain.
Not to mention the problematic implications of simultaneously casting the antagonists with dark-skinned actors. Regardless of why Shyamalan might have done it, it still fits very disturbingly into racist trends of light-skinned heroes and dark-skinned villains.
Furthermore, as far as I remember the only East Asian actors that showed up in the live action movie where background extras, and I'm pretty sure they only showed up in one scene. And this is a movie based a cartoon that was inspired heavily by East Asian cultures, and in which many of the characters were depicted with East Asian features and given East Asian names? That is pathetic.
So no, I can't agree with you. As far as I'm concerned, I did give this movie a fair chance. I went to see it in theatres despite my misgivings about the casting and I honestly tried to find the good in it. But really, there is very little good there. Sokka's line from the Ember Island Players really does fit it perfectly: "The special effects were decent" and that is pretty much the only good thing about it.
tl;dr: You cannot convince me the live-action movie deserves a chance. I am glad it got canned, because it was terrible.
Most of your issues seems to be with race and I disagree with everything you said on that. I'm not even going into it, your interpretations of the situation seem warped to me.
As far as Aang not feeling his usual bubbly self, I agree that he was portrayed a little differently and that falls into the creative differences I mentioned, which you label "crappy writing" and that is your opinion, you're entitled to it, but I don't see you writing any movies, just saying. Also, about the deleted scene you mentioned and in regards to final cuts in general, that's usually above the writer's head so your venom might be directed in the wrong direction there.
You clearly have intense opinions about the film, as I'm sure a lot of other folks do. I just want to say that I don't care about anyone's heated opinions and frankly I don't wish to hear them. I'm open to discussions (after I've had coffee) but to anyone who wants to talk at me with a closed mind and no room for discussion please don't bother.
That is fine, I can agree to disagree with you.
I responded to your post the way I did because I felt it was a problem to say that the movies were beautiful and that people should give it a chance without acknowledging that there are real problems with it. It seemed to me that you didn't understand why people have problems with the movie, so I wanted to clarify why I and many other people dislike it so much.
My "venom" as you call it is not directed entirely or even mostly at the M. Night Shyamalan, though I can see in hindsight how my post came across that way, so I apologize for the confusion. My problem is with the nature of the industry that perpetuates these stereotypes. And the race issue is definitely a real one, if you can't see it then I don't know what else to say to you. I don't have the time or energy to get into the issue any further than I did, so I think I will just agree to disagree with you then.
In my view I did present a well-reasoned discussion post with logical arguments to back up my claims, but if you want to dismiss them all as 'close-minded' simply because you don't agree with me, then you are right I don't see the point in discussing it further.
By the way, I do not need to write movies myself to recognize poor writing when I see it. Most professional movie critics are not professional movie writers, just saying.
I just do not interpret the situation the same way you do. If the movie had been made to exact cartoon detail (which it clearly was not, names were pronounced differently, effects were displayed differently,) then the entire cast would be Asian. People complain that the primary roles were given to white people, but the primary villain is not white, but that doesn't count because he's a villain? That's as much a sought after role as the good guy. I don't even get that logic. If YOU want to keep perpetuating that certain-colored races are the good guys and certain color races are the bad guys go right ahead, but in doing so you are holding us all back. I don't think the movie is racist, I think you are, for looking so hard to find reasons to fight and argue about race where none were intended.[/spoiler[
Okay.
I am going to try and ignore what I interpret as hostility in your post, because I acknowledge that
a) I used some strong wording in my previous posts that may have provoked hostility on your part, I realize in hindsight I should have phrased things more carefully
b) I may be misinterpreting your tone, as is easily done over the internet.
However I feel that you have misinterpreted what I have said.
To clarify:
I never said that certain races are "good guys" or "bad guys". I certainly don't believe this.
I am also not advocating that they should have cast the entire movie with East Asians to fit the cartoon. Like I said in my original post, I am not against introducing more diversity into the movies. I think the idea to incorporate more races into the movie was a good one, but that it was executed badly.
What I was talking about is that there has been a trend in movies and television to portray certain races as "good guys" and certain races as "bad guys". The pattern is that the main heroes in movies tend to be white, while ethnic minorities are usually given side roles or villain roles. You can easily find data supporting this doing a google search. In fact, you can easily see this by simply looking at the list of leading actors in popular movies and television. While there are exceptions here and there, the vast majority are white.
While villain roles can be very large and involved well-sought after, consistently having certain colours of people portrayed in these roles can encourage negative stereotyping about these people (such as how black people are often stereotyped as criminals)
If you don't believe that this stereotype exists and causes real harm to people, then I would encourage you to check out these sources. (Warning that the video has some swearing).
However, I do want to acknowledge that this stereotyping around black people is more complicated than simply how they get portrayed in movies and television. I am not saying that dark-skinned actors being portrayed in villain-roles automatically leads to this sort of thing, or that ethnic actors should never get to play villain roles.
Having dark-skinned actors cast as villains would not be a problem if there were also dark-skinned actors cast to play some of the heroes. None of the heroes in the live-action movie were cast with dark-skinned actors, despite the fact that two of the protagonists in the cartoon had been dark-skinned. This, to my mind falls into a disturbing pattern that I and many others have noticed looking at casting decisions for major movies - that is white-washing ethnic minority characters.
I am not against having white actors play heroes or dark-skinned actors play villains per se, I would just like to see other races get a chance to play heroes in movies as well. Because of the nature of the cartoon, I had thought the Last Airbender movie would have been a great opportunity to cast minority actors as the main protagonists.
That being said, I realize that I have overlooked that Noah Ringer, who played Aang, has some Native American heritage, so it wasn't like the main protagonists were entirely white-washed the way I asserted previously. However, I still feel the casting of Sokka and Katara was problematic, particularly as it seemed the rest of the Southern Water Tribe were cast with Native American extras. Why then were the two members of the tribe who happened to be most important to the movie conveniently white? I hope that you are at least able to see how that might be problematic.
To try and be very clear, I am not saying that casting white actors to play heroes is a problem. I am saying that casting white actors to play heroes, when those characters were originally non-white, AND when white actors are unfairly favoured to play heroic type characters already - that is a problem.
I am aware and acknowledged previously that it was probably not the intent of the producers to perpetuate any racist stereotypes, but that doesn't mean that they didn't inadvertently do so. There is a popular saying that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". I don't think we should ignore the flaws in this movie just because they weren't intended.
I'm a huge fan of the cartoon but I also really enjoyed the live action movie. There were a lot of creative differences but it was all amazing to me and I wish more people were more open to it so they would make more movies but meh, I don't see it happening.
What you call "creative differences" I call crappy writing and, if not necessarily racism, at least cultural insensitivity.
The writing and characterization in the live-action movie is terrible. Pretty much everything that made the characters unique and likeable is taken away. Everything that made Katara a strong and well-rounded character is given to Aang. Her inspirational speeches, passion for helping others, etc. The stuff that isn't given to Aang, like her temper, is just removed completely. They don't show her fight with Pakku*, which was a major milestone for her character. But that's because her character is basically just a prop throughout the movie.
*I am aware her fight with Pakku was included in a deleted scene, but that is my point, it was deleted - in other words, deemed too unimportant for the main screening.
Katara is basically reduced to the stereotypical passive female role where literally all she does is stand around, look pretty, and deliver bland narration. Sokka is completely stiff and humourless, basically turning him into an entirely different character and not a very likeable one at that. Aang shows no playfullness or any of the mischievous trickster-like nature that made him such a unique hero. Indeed, his identity beyond being the Avatar/Chosen One is so unimportant that he doesn't even get around to introducing himself to Katara until a third of the way through the movie, AFTER they've already left the south pole.
Those aren't creative differences, that's just crappy writing.
As for the cultural insensitivity, I am aware that M. Night Shyamalan is of South Asian descent and he cast South Asian actors to play Fire Nation characters in part because he thought Dev Patel was a good fit for Zuko. I am not against the idea of introducing more cultural diversity.
However, when the original cartoon had dark-skinned protagonists from a culture clearly based on Inuit cultures, casting these characters with white actors shows extreme cultural insensitivity at the very least.
This is the complete opposite of introducing more cultural diversity. White actors are already the norm - they already get the lion's share of leading roles in Hollywood. Whites may be the majority in America, but the representation of white people in American movies and television is still hugely disproportional to the number of white people that actually make up the population. And the representation of minority characters when they do show up is often still problematic.
What purpose is served by taking the already rare ethnic minority protagonists that are out there and replacing them with white people? Not a purpose that caters to diversity, that much is certain.
Not to mention the problematic implications of simultaneously casting the antagonists with dark-skinned actors. Regardless of why Shyamalan might have done it, it still fits very disturbingly into racist trends of light-skinned heroes and dark-skinned villains.
Furthermore, as far as I remember the only East Asian actors that showed up in the live action movie where background extras, and I'm pretty sure they only showed up in one scene. And this is a movie based a cartoon that was inspired heavily by East Asian cultures, and in which many of the characters were depicted with East Asian features and given East Asian names? That is pathetic.
So no, I can't agree with you. As far as I'm concerned, I did give this movie a fair chance. I went to see it in theatres despite my misgivings about the casting and I honestly tried to find the good in it. But really, there is very little good there. Sokka's line from the Ember Island Players really does fit it perfectly: "The special effects were decent" and that is pretty much the only good thing about it.
tl;dr: You cannot convince me the live-action movie deserves a chance. I am glad it got canned, because it was terrible.
Most of your issues seems to be with race and I disagree with everything you said on that. I'm not even going into it, your interpretations of the situation seem warped to me.
As far as Aang not feeling his usual bubbly self, I agree that he was portrayed a little differently and that falls into the creative differences I mentioned, which you label "crappy writing" and that is your opinion, you're entitled to it, but I don't see you writing any movies, just saying. Also, about the deleted scene you mentioned and in regards to final cuts in general, that's usually above the writer's head so your venom might be directed in the wrong direction there.
You clearly have intense opinions about the film, as I'm sure a lot of other folks do. I just want to say that I don't care about anyone's heated opinions and frankly I don't wish to hear them. I'm open to discussions (after I've had coffee) but to anyone who wants to talk at me with a closed mind and no room for discussion please don't bother.
That is fine, I can agree to disagree with you.
I responded to your post the way I did because I felt it was a problem to say that the movies were beautiful and that people should give it a chance without acknowledging that there are real problems with it. It seemed to me that you didn't understand why people have problems with the movie, so I wanted to clarify why I and many other people dislike it so much.
My "venom" as you call it is not directed entirely or even mostly at the M. Night Shyamalan, though I can see in hindsight how my post came across that way, so I apologize for the confusion. My problem is with the nature of the industry that perpetuates these stereotypes. And the race issue is definitely a real one, if you can't see it then I don't know what else to say to you. I don't have the time or energy to get into the issue any further than I did, so I think I will just agree to disagree with you then.
In my view I did present a well-reasoned discussion post with logical arguments to back up my claims, but if you want to dismiss them all as 'close-minded' simply because you don't agree with me, then you are right I don't see the point in discussing it further.
By the way, I do not need to write movies myself to recognize poor writing when I see it. Most professional movie critics are not professional movie writers, just saying.
I just do not interpret the situation the same way you do. If the movie had been made to exact cartoon detail (which it clearly was not, names were pronounced differently, effects were displayed differently,) then the entire cast would be Asian. People complain that the primary roles were given to white people, but the primary villain is not white, but that doesn't count because he's a villain? That's as much a sought after role as the good guy. I don't even get that logic. If YOU want to keep perpetuating that certain-colored races are the good guys and certain color races are the bad guys go right ahead, but in doing so you are holding us all back. I don't think the movie is racist, I think you are, for looking so hard to find reasons to fight and argue about race where none were intended.
Okay.
I am going to try and ignore what I interpret as hostility in your post, because I acknowledge that
a) I used some strong wording in my previous posts that may have provoked hostility on your part, I realize in hindsight I should have phrased things more carefully
b) I may be misinterpreting your tone, as is easily done over the internet.
However I feel that you have misinterpreted what I have said.
To clarify:
I never said that certain races are "good guys" or "bad guys". I certainly don't believe this.
I am also not advocating that they should have cast the entire movie with East Asians to fit the cartoon. Like I said in my original post, I am not against introducing more diversity into the movies. I think the idea to incorporate more races into the movie was a good one, but that it was executed badly.
What I was talking about is that there has been a trend in movies and television to portray certain races as "good guys" and certain races as "bad guys". The pattern is that the main heroes in movies tend to be white, while ethnic minorities are usually given side roles or villain roles. You can easily find data supporting this doing a google search. In fact, you can easily see this by simply looking at the list of leading actors in popular movies and television. While there are exceptions here and there, the vast majority are white.
While villain roles can be very large and involved well-sought after, consistently having certain colours of people portrayed in these roles can encourage negative stereotyping about these people (such as how black people are often stereotyped as criminals)
If you don't believe that this stereotype exists and causes real harm to people, then I would encourage you to check out these sources. (Warning that the video has some swearing).
However, I do want to acknowledge that this stereotyping around black people is more complicated than simply how they get portrayed in movies and television. I am not saying that dark-skinned actors being portrayed in villain-roles automatically leads to this sort of thing, or that ethnic actors should never get to play villain roles.
Having dark-skinned actors cast as villains would not be a problem if there were also dark-skinned actors cast to play some of the heroes. None of the heroes in the live-action movie were cast with dark-skinned actors, despite the fact that two of the protagonists in the cartoon had been dark-skinned. This, to my mind falls into a disturbing pattern that I and many others have noticed looking at casting decisions for major movies - that is white-washing ethnic minority characters.
I am not against having white actors play heroes or dark-skinned actors play villains per se, I would just like to see other races get a chance to play heroes in movies as well. Because of the nature of the cartoon, I had thought the Last Airbender movie would have been a great opportunity to cast minority actors as the main protagonists.
That being said, I realize that I have overlooked that Noah Ringer, who played Aang, has some Native American heritage, so it wasn't like the main protagonists were entirely white-washed the way I asserted previously. However, I still feel the casting of Sokka and Katara was problematic, particularly as it seemed the rest of the Southern Water Tribe were cast with Native American extras. Why then were the two members of the tribe who happened to be most important to the movie conveniently white? I hope that you are at least able to see how that might be problematic.
To try and be very clear, I am not saying that casting white actors to play heroes is a problem. I am saying that casting white actors to play heroes, when those characters were originally non-white, AND when white actors are unfairly favoured to play heroic type characters already - that is a problem.
I am aware and acknowledged previously that it was probably not the intent of the producers to perpetuate any racist stereotypes, but that doesn't mean that they didn't inadvertently do so. There is a popular saying that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". I don't think we should ignore the flaws in this movie just because they weren't intended.
Well when you put it that way I suppose I am inclined to agree with you. emotion_hug
Here are my problems with the movie. It was so rushed that it was difficult to tell what the point was. Important parts were cut. It would have been better as a live action mini-series or the first season deserved two movies.
I hated how they cast the main characters. The main characters should have been more... true. The characters deserved to be portrayed by their true races. The series was inspired by the Asian culture. That makes me question why the main cast wasn't Asian.
Emotions were gone. Everything that made a character who they were was taken away. Katara was just some narrator like you said, Sokka wasn't funny and Zuko was too happy. Zuko was so emo for most of the series. The only character I enjoyed was Iroh.
M. Night was trying to be true to the actual culture but it was too annoying.
I disagree with anyone who says those are creative differences. I definitely agree with you. They aren't just creative differences. It's a lack of understanding the fan-base. At first I liked the movie because of all the effects and 'magic'. Then I went home and watched the cartoon. Quickly I understood all the reasons why the fans hated the movie. Then it came on netflix and decided to watch it again just to see if the differences were really that bad. Yup. "Uung " is not how you pronounce Aang. I couldn't do it. It was too annoying.
100
