Cast your mind back to the winter of 2009, a deceptively raucous time for Hollywood: Paranormal Activity had just breathed new life into both theatrical horror and found footage, Sherlock Holmes was dipping its toe into Robert Downey Jr.’s box-office bona fides (minus the shiny iron suit), and James Cameron’s Avatar dropped into theaters to the tune of more than $2 billion worldwide.
That was enough to see it maintain an enviable status as the highest-grossing movie of all time for nearly a decade, fending off multiple Harry Potters, a revitalized Star Wars trilogy, and literally every MCU movie until Avengers: Endgame just about squeaked past earlier this year. Even so, Avatar remains one of the biggest movies ever made. Which is kind of surprising, considering it’s an original property without many (at the time) big names on the marquee. Avatar was sold to audiences and the industry alike as the pinnacle of computer-generated imagery, seamless in its transition from live-action scenes to its motion-captured world of the Na’vi.
Ten years later, a lot of other films have staked a claim as the biggest technological achievements (the spectacle of Alfonso Cuarón’s Gravity and Andy Serkis’s ape protagonist Caesar in the Planet of the Apes reboot films come to mind), but with Avatar now streaming in all its glory on Disney+, the time has come to revisit Pandora. Does James Cameron’s simple but ambitious tale hold up, or were we lost in the hype all those years ago?
Tom Philip, GQ.com contributor: I watched Avatar for the first time in a long time over the holiday weekend. Can you each tell me about your first experiences with the James Cameron space epic?
James Grebey, GQ.com contributor: Just like pretty much everyone else on the planet (this thing was the world’s highest-grossing movie for a while), I saw Avatar in theaters, in 3D, because that was how you had to see it. I remember thinking it looked beautiful and the 3D was actually immersive, rather than just a cheap gimmick. However, I guess I’ll have to trust those memories because I’ve since rewatched Avatar on a tiny, cheap TV I bought for my college dorm at Walmart, and on an airplane. Martin Scorsese is freaking out about people watching The Irishman on their phones, but Cameron seems pretty chill about it.
Maybe that’s because—and here’s my possibly hot take—Avatar actually holds up, even without the dazzling special effects and technology. That endorsement comes with a big caveat, which I’ll get into later, but Gabe, would you agree?
Gabe Conte, GQ.com digital producer: For the most part, I remember being really impressed by Avatar when I first saw it. Just like you, James, I had a similar experience seeing it in theaters with the rest of the planet. I was at the exact right age for that movie to hit correctly. I was 13, so I was just old enough to start really appreciating the impressive technical aspects of it, but also not old enough to really understand how to be critical of it. I definitely walked out impressed, but I don’t think I ever thought about it again until it started to reappear years later in the discourse.
Tom: It’s designed to be effortlessly likable, even without the 3D bells and whistles. Beyond the aggressive marketing campaign, there’s a reason this thing made a moon-sized bundle of cash, and that’s James Cameron’s knack for reverse-engineering a successful movie from all the familiar beats he knows an audience is going to eat up. Is there any reason for Sam Worthington to be our voiceover narrator, despite the fact he is A) already our protagonist, and B) in an astoundingly straightforward film that would be easy to follow without it? No, but it’s there. Not only is Avatar watchable as a feat of next-level filmmaking, but it’s watchable when you’re dicking around on Twitter while it’s on in the background. That’s how you make a movie that pleases everyone.
The elephant in the room is the thing we were all sold on in the first place: the visuals. Maybe I’m a harsh critic, but this thing looks profoundly dated for something that not only came out fairly recently, but was also touted as a technological achievement unlike anything we’ve ever seen before in film. I’d hazard to say I’ve seen plenty of films that blow Avatar out of the water spectacle-wise since, but even accounting for the leaps and bounds CGI made year after year throughout the 2010s, a lot of the human-centric scenes feel washed-out and over-lit, like unedited B-roll from a J. J. Abrams Star Trek film.
James: I’m probably being overly charitable if I posit that maybe that’s the point, because who cares about boring humans when there are glowing alien flowers and nine-foot-tall, nearly nude alien cat-people running around? You’re not wrong, though, that the much-lauded special effects don’t seem quite as impressive, but CGI always ages poorly. There’s a reason why the original Star Wars movies hold up while the prequels have the aesthetic of a PlayStation 2 cut scene.
In a way, though, I think time and moviemaking technology have progressed enough to take some of the shine and pressure off of Avatar, and that reveals it for what it really is—fine! People complain about how the plot is a ripoff of Dances with Wolves, Ferngully, or any number of other movies, but there’s a reason for that: Those plots work. James Cameron knows how to make a movie, lighting quips be damned, so of course it’s going to be satisfying when he takes tried-and-true tropes and adds his obsessive sci-fi world-building and moviemaking ambitions. Avatar’s secret is that it’s a very well-executed, very familiar story and not some groundbreaking piece of cinema. It’s an expensive B movie, and B movies rock. Despite this—or actually because of it—I can’t imagine being excited for Cameron’s five sequels. Gabe, as a casual Avatar viewer, are you?
Gabe: This is going to sound mean, but I’m actually borderline offended about the sequel situation with these movies. I understand that as one of the highest-grossing movies in the world, you have to make a sequel or two. However, every time I look at the launch plan for the rest of the series (Avatar 2 in 2020, Avatar 3 in 2021, and Avatar 4 in 2024), I’m just sort of…flummoxed? As a series, it feels like Avatar is a completely transparent look inside the modern-day Hollywood franchising machine. The first movie was massive, sure, but it’s also been critically panned over and over, and has lost a lot of its luster as time has gone on. It’s one of those things where I look at it and kind of just scratch my head and wonder, “Who asked for this?” Most of the time, when Avatar is referenced today, I feel like it’s with a fair amount of snark or irony.
With that being said, though, I am fascinated by how this next movie could potentially be received. You’d like to think that with all the time and money in the world, these movies could be great! Outside of Star Wars, there’s not really a massive amount of great or successful sci-fi/fantasy movies these days, let alone franchises. So there is a spot that Avatar could potentially fit into, but it seems like such a tricky task to pull off. I’m sure it’ll make a quadrillion dollars, though, regardless of the quality.
Tom: I’m also perversely interested in whether Avatar, as a franchise, has legs. Can this be the mega-blockbuster money machine that fills the void while Disney figures out its strategy, having dropped its final (for now) Star Wars and Avengers event movies? I gotta say, I’m on the fence.
James: I feel like the answer is no, if only because my entire defense of the movie has amounted to a dispassionate “it’s fine!” Still, it’s going to be interesting to go back to Pandora for more unobtanium, or whatever. Boy, here’s a thought: I hope there are actual people in the sequels and not just aliens that a lot of people online are horny for.
I guess I’ll wrap things up by saying you’re welcome for not hijacking this entire conversation to speak my real truth about Avatar, which is that it is an animated movie and should technically be called a cartoon. I’ll save that conversation for Avatar: The Quest for Eywa.
Tom: In conclusion, Pandora is a land of contrasts. No, but seriously, it’ll be interesting to see where Avatar stands by the time 2024 rolls around. I would like to close by objecting to this ever becoming a full-fledged franchise in the first place, resurrecting deceased cast members Sigourney Weaver and Stephen Lang in the process. Not only does it cheapen, like, half of the story of the first Avatar, but the series-ification makes the whole thing feel less….fun. This movie used to take up space in my mind as a silly, blue-hued aberration. A complete fluke. Now? The chips are down, and we’re going to get more and more of these things until we feel nothing whatsoever, and Avatar becomes just another launchpad for a multi-part sci-fi merchandise farm.
Disney+ and Apple TV+ are both playing an entirely new ball game.
